[1. Introduction]

Assalamu alikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatu

A few days ago, a youth in Birmingham UK forwarded me a post written by another youth in Birmingham, Waheed Alam (also known as 'Abu Khadeejah'), which he entitled "Suroorees Return". What struck me about his post, were two unusual factors, (a) The literary style of his post, which has a banality which is a far cry from his usual polemical tirades which have become a trademark of his writings, and (b) His claim to be replying to a post Ali Al-Timimi wrote on Aljazirah over a month ago (Dec. 20, 1998) and (c) His insistence on seeing Ali himself reply.

Had Abu Khadeejah been replying via say, regular (snail) mail or even fax, a delay of a month could perhaps be considered justifiable. Yet in the world of cyberspace, response time to e-mail is usually judged in hours, let alone over a month. This raises a number of questions, specifically whether Abu Khadeejah actually wrote the post, given the fact that Abu Khadeejah and his "Salafi Publications" partner Amjad Rafiq, have in the past, demonstrated themselves to be muqallidoon, who when faced by questions they are incapable of answering, will then pass the questions to their ideologues in via fax, and then post the replies. Insha' Allah, more about this later. In the meantime, this will be a line-by-line discussion of what this ignorant child has written. Hence, my apologies for its length.

[2. Labelling people as “Sururis”]

> >---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 03:41:45 -0500
> >From: Waheed Alam
> >To: [email protected]
> >Subject: Suroorees Return
> >

The titling seems to indicate that Abu Khadeejah is inferring that Ali is a "Suroori", while Allah says, "walaa tanaabazoo bi l-alqaab." ("... nor insult one another by nicknames.") [49:11] Moreover, for years it is well known that Ali is critical of aspects of Muhammad Suroor's teachings (as he is of other groups and personalities). If asked regarding that, Ali will unhesitatingly explain as to why. The difference here however, is that this ignorant person and his ilk simply enjoy defaming anyone who disagrees with them by calling them names like 'Suroori', 'Qutubi', etc. Indeed their dawah is based solely on defamation and insulting others.

[3. The intent of Sheikh Ali at-Tamimi’s original email]

> >Asslaamu alaykum
> >
> >The following is a reply to brother Ali Timeemee's recent outburst on the
> >net - yet again trying to confuse sincere young Salafi brothers and sisters
> >who trying to gain beneficial knowledge about their Lord, their Deen, their > >Messenger and the way of the Salaf.

This demonstrates Abu Khadeejah's deception. Br. Ali's e-mail on Dec. 20 was on the topic of Sh. Ibn Baaz and Sh. Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq. The e-mail pointed out Sh. Ibn Baaz's tazkiyah of Sh. Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq's book entitled "as-Siraat." Sh. Ibn Baaz encouraged the printing and the distribution of the book. Thus will Abu Khadeejah follow Sh. Ibn Baaz's advice? Will he place its translation on his "Salafi Publications" web site? Or will he publicly admit what he privately told Ali in the spring of 96, that they [the brothers in the UK] were taught that "Sh. Ibn Baaz was weak in manhaj" and that Sh. Ibn Uthaimeen was "a plaything in the hands of the Surooris"? Instead of hiding behind the cloaks of these and other scholars will these youth not truly explain their manhaj regarding these matters (like the one regarding Sh. Ibn Baaz's praise of Sh. Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq's book) rather than teaching one thing in public while holding another view in private? Most likely Abu Khadeejah will skirt away from this issue as he has others.

[4. Who promotes conspiracy theories?]

>>I ask brother Ali to fear Allaah and
> >stop trying to agitate the people against their scholars with false > >paranoid ideas and conspiracy theories....
> >

What a joke! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! These ignorant individuals rely on the nonsensical book entitled "Qutubeeyah, Hiyal Fitnah" from which they have placed excerpts on their web page. This book mentions on page 137 (2nd edition) that the Qutubees supposedly have a "secret form" which they use to follow up on the activities of future leaders of the group. However, the author of this book admits that this form (which the author places a photocopy on pages 138-139) is publicly sold in book stores.

He then concludes that this form is therefore, "'alaneeya sirreeya," or "public-secret." Thus where is the paranoia in so-called "secret forms" that are sold publicly or in what Ali wrote in his e-mail? Also regarding conspiracy theories will the ignorant kid and his teachers tell us about their 50 page paper that they sent to the Saudi Ministry of Interior entitled "At-Tantheem as-Sirri al-Aalami bain al-Taakhteet wa t-Tatbeeq fil-Mamlaka al-Arabeeya as-Saudeeya: Haqaa'iq wa Wathaa'iq" (The Secret World Order between Planning and Implementation in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Realities and Documents)? So now who are the REAL followers of "conspiracy theories"?

[5. Use, misuse and abuse of the term “Salafi”]

> >Aboo Khadeejah as-Salafi (Birmingham)
> >

This is one of the characteristics of this group, where they love to fashion themselves with names like "as-Salafi" or "al-Athari." Yet has Sh. Ibn Baz, or Sh. Ibn Uthaimeen, or Sh. al-Albani ever appended the title "as-Salafi" or "al-Athari" to their names? Then why do these kids feel such a need to do so? Salafiyah is more than latching on to a label; it is a manhaj which extends to beliefs, worship, morals and behavior, in both the public and the private realm of individuals and societies. These youth however, have been deceived by Satan, since they continually refer to themselves as Salafis, Ahlul-Hadeeth, al-Firqa an-Najiya, at-Ta'ifa al-Mansura - they then begin to believe that they are just that, and do not realize the long distance they need to traverse in order to truly achieve that for which they strive.

In fact, it is directly due to their emblazoning themselves with the title "Salafi" while at the same time exhibiting despicable conduct, that large numbers of average Muslims have now associated Salafiyah with the actions of these youth, and Sufis have capitalized on this to then promote themselves as "the true bearers of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama'ah."

[6. Their failure to recognise some of the senior scholars of our time, due to partisanship]

>>Ali then said:

>>Another manifestation of the new world order in which we find ourselves and to which I and other brothers have commented on this forum for the past few years is the re-interpretation of concepts of the Islamic religion in order to support the new world order in the name of the Sunna and Salafiya. >The scholars we refer to are Shaykh al-Albaanee, Shaykh Ibn> >Baaz, Shaykh ibn Al-Uthaymeen, Shaykh Saaleh Fawzaan, Shaykh Rabee ibn > >Haadee, Shaykh Muqbil ibn Waadiee, Shaykh Ubayd al-Jaabiree and their likes

> >- These are not from the new world order but from the way of the 'old'
> >(qadeemi) order known as the salafus-Saalih.

As one can see, this is a nonsensical statement. One wonders as to why do these brothers jump from "Shaykh al-Albaanee, Shaykh Ibn Baaz, Shaykh ibn Al-Uthaymeen, Shaykh Saaleh Fawzaan" to "Shaykh Rabee ibn Haadee, Shaykh Muqbil ibn Waadiee, Shaykh Ubayd al-Jaabiree." Why is it that they skip over other major scholars in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia who are part of Hay'a Kibar al-'Ulima like Sh. Bakr Abu Zaid, Sh. Ibn Jibreen, and Sh. al-Qu'ood? Is it because these latter scholars hold views which are in opposition of this group and hence this group privately holds them to be astray? Moreover, what is the ignorant one's position and explanation regarding Muqbil's position toward the Saudi government where Muqbil prays to Allah for its downfall and praises Juhayman who took over the Haram in the first weeks of 1400?

[7. Sheikh al-Albaani’s praise and criticism]

>>As for Shaykh Muqbil and >>Shaykh Rabee, then Shakkh Al-Albaanee has mentioned that the ones who > >criticises them is a person following his desires (hawa)

This shows the ignorance of this person. Are Muqbil and Rabee prophets and hence infallible from error? And does this mean that Bakr Abu Zaid and Ibn Jibrin are people following desires? If so, then this would mean that Al-Albani himself is also following his desires as he criticizes what Rabi has written about Sayyid Qutub when Adnaa Aroor read him a section of that book.

Al-Albaani then goes on to praise Sayyid Qutub's tafseer and suggests that all Salafis should read a chapter from Milestones. Will the ignorant one follow Sh. al-Albaani's advice and place that chapter on his website or is this just another example of them claiming to follow the shuyookh but in reality only taking what follows their own perverted desires?

[8. Sheikh al-Albaani’s praise of al-Madkhali]

He then writes:

>>Saykh > >Al-Albaanee also described Shaykh Rabee as the imaam of jarh and tadeel
> >(the imaam of knowing the narrators and the one who disparages and praises > >them , Albaanee in fact has written the introduction to
his new edition of> >manhaj al-anbiyah (now available in english).

So what? What does this have to do with the topic at hand? Rabi asked Sh. Abdur-Rahmaan to write the introduction to the first edition of the book which appeared in the mid-80's.

Also just because al-Albaani views "Shaykh Rabee as the imaam of jarh and tadeel" this does not mean he is infallible. The true imaams of al-jarh wat-ta'deel like Imaams Ahmad, Ibn Ma'een, an-Nisaa'i, Ibn Hibban and others mutually corrected and refuted each others comments on certain narrators of the Prophet's hadeeth (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam). Where they then followers of their desires? What sheer ignorance.

[9. Accusation of Safar and Salmaan supporting the New World Order]

He then writes:

>>As for the refutation of > >this accusation by Ali of some salafis supporting the new world order, then > >refer to Madaarak an-Nadhr fis-Siyaasah by Shaykh Abdul-Maalik > >ar-Ramadhaanee with introduction and praises by Shaykh Al-Albaanee and > >Shaykh Abdul-Muhsin al-Abbaad. As for the true promoters of the new world > >order, then that is the likes of Syed Qutb, Muhammed Suroor, Salmaan
> >al-Awdah, Safar Hawaalee

This is again an ignorant statement which needs no comment. To whom are the kuffaar concerned with? Ar-Ramadhaanee or Sayyid Qutub, Safar and Salman? It is obvious that the ignorant kid has no idea what is the New World Order. This is to be expected of the followers of a group who are taught that to be aware of current affairs is equivalent to reading from the Torah.

[10. From the lies upon Safar and Salmaan]

Abu Khadeejah then says:

>>these ones who promote setting up of parliaments
> >and democratic elections, demonstrations in the streets, setting up of > >numerous hizbee groups and organisations that split the unity of the ummah, > >organising Marxist type revolutions and overthrows

Now he adds lies to his ignorance. Qul Hatoo Burhaankum in Kuntum Saadiqeen! Neither Sayyid Qutb, Muhammad Suroor, Salman or Safar ever called for:

- Parliaments and democratic elections
- Street demonstrations
- Numerous hizbee groups and organizations that split the unity of the ummah
- Organizing Marxist type revolutions and overthrows

Bring your proof, even though you can never find any proof.

[11. The position of the senior scholars regarding Safar and Salmaan]

He then writes:

> >see Madaarak an-Nadhr > >for Shaykh Albaanee's and Shaykh Abdul-Muhsin al-Abbaad's views on Safar > >and Salmaan. Also Shaykh Ibn Baaz and Shaykh Ibn al-Uthaymeen have given > >clear praise for Shaykh Rabee and his works and his manaj.

And at the same time al-Albani, Ibn Baz, and Ibn Uthaymeen have praised Safar and Salman. Why not mention it? These major scholars and other major scholars differed when the fitna occurred between the Saudi government and Safar and Salman. Some like al-Fawzan are extremely critical. Others like Ibn Uthaymeen and al-Albani are mildly critical albeit for different reasons. (Ibn Uthaymin due to his views regarding the Saudi government and al-Albani due to his views on their approach.) Others like Ibn Baz are in a more of a middle position. Others like Bakr Abu Zaid are publicly silent, yet privately supportive. And still others like Ibn Jibreen and Ibn Quood are openly supportive. These scholars however, are ALL in agreement that Safar and Salman are Salafis and callers to the truth and sought only good for the ummah. The scholars differ regarding the outcome of events and whether the Saudi government (with the exception of al-Albani) was justified in their clampdown of them. So be just and truthful and don't twist facts to support the Saudi throne. Which is an extremely strange position coming from a non-Arab, Asian kid who lives in the UK.

[12. Position of Sheikh Ibn Baaz regarding Safar and Salmaan’s imprisonment]

>>And it was Ibn > >Baaz who gave the fatwa for the detention of Safar and Salmaan to prevent > >their marxist style fitnah spreading !! (see
www.salafipublications.com for > >more information).

This is a double-barreled lie. Just another among your many. Where does this fatwa of Ibn Baz exist? And where does it refer to your lie of "their marxist style fitnah spreading"? The sum of the incident is that the Saudi government requested that the Hay'a Kibar al-Ulama' investigate into the affair of Safar and Salman. Hay'a KIbar alUlama' listened to some tapes and read certain selections of some of the writings of Safar. They then decided not to take a position but refer the matter back to the Saudi government. The Saudi government then brought in Safar and Salman and asked them to sign a document in which demanded of them not to say:

* The Islamic world is the target of a new Crusade
* It is incumbent to wage jihad against the Jews
* Politics is part of religion
* America's problems are a result of her being away from Allah
* Declaration that to participate in usury based banks is forbidden in the sharia
* Muslims must pay Zakat and should give charity
* Muslims must alleviate the suffering of other Muslims

Safar and Salman refused and were thus fired from their teaching positions and were banned from all activities or contact with anyone. Thereafter they were arrested and have remained in prison now for almost six years (Editor's Note: Obviously, they have since been released).

The amazing thing is that the members of the Royal family themselves see that what has befallen them since the crackdown upon the mashaykh is a form of Divine punishment. It has been reported by more than one source that King
Fahd's son, Abdul-Aziz, believes that what has befallen his father from stroke and mental infirmity, is a direct result of the du'a of the Muslims against him in the wake of his imprisoning Safar and Salman. Also, when Safar was imprisoned, Ibn Baz visited him and asked him if he needed anything. Safar replied he would not request anything but that his mother be brought to him. When Safar's mother came, she scolded Ibn Baz and told him to fear Allah. Upon which Ibn Baz broke down in tears.

Moreover, even if one were to argue that Ibn Baz was the cause of their imprisonment, then one must also take into account Ibn Baz's statements directly following their imprisonment, that they were from Ahl-Sunnah and that imprisonment is not an indication of deviation, but rather the government thought it in its interest to imprison them and that others like Prophet Yusuf, Imam Ahmad and Shaikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiya were likewise imprisoned. Please respond to that, O Abu Khadeejah.

> >>Ali then said:> >> While originally a phenomenon that for the most part was a local issue > > in response to the activities of certain scholars in Saudi Arabia, it, > > thereafter, grew to a world wide destructive movement which its > > cancerous teachings were seen from the west coast of the United States > > to the islands of Indonesia. >

The proof of that is the existence of ignorant people like the self-styled Salafi, Abu Khadeejah in the UK. Who then says:

> >My response: The activities of 'certain scholars..' - of course what Ali > >means here is the likes of Safar and Salmaan who were spreading the fitnah > >of revolution, democrasy, demonstrations etc., publicly criticising the > >rulers and other affairs - for which Ibn Baaz gave the fatwa of their > >detention -

These lies have been responded to above.

[13. Sheikh Ibn Baaz’s criticism of Muqbil’s book]

>>Shaykh Saleh Fawzaan criticised them, as did Al-Albaanee > >(Jordan), Muqbil (Yemen), Abdul-Muhsin al-Abbaad (Madeenah) and Rabee
> >(Madeenah) - And they were criticised for their
misinterpretation of the > >principles of the Salafi dawah - Shaykh Al-Albaanee described them as > >Ikhwaanees, Shaykh Abdul-Muhsin as ignorant youth (shabaab) - See Madaarak > >an-Nadhr fis-Siyaasah. The destructive movement is the
movement that > >opposes the way of the Salafus-Saaleh not the one that agrees with them.?

[14. Sheikh Ibn Baaz and Ibn Uthaimeen – Voting in elections]

Abu Khadeejah then says:

>>So > >destruction is upon the ones that call for open
demonstrations in the > >Muslim lands and other lands (which the Prophet and the Sahaabah never > >did), and call for taking part in open democratic elections (which the > >Prophet and the Sahaabah never did), and call for marxist style revolutions > >against the Muslim rulers (which the Sahaabah never did), and call for > >setting up of groups (jama'aat) and societies (jami'yaat) and movements > >(harakaat) each one of them claiming that it is upon the truth and is
> >calling for unity whilst in reality they are causing more discord and more > >disunity as bad as (and if not worse) than the sectarianism of the madhhabs > >and soofee tareeqahs (which the Prophet and the Sahaabah never did), > >splitting tawheed into a fourth distinct category (which the Salaf or the > >middle-era never did)

What ignorance he shows here, as he is inadvertently making du'a of destruction against Ibn Baz and Ibn Uthaymeen, both of whom have permitted Muslims to vote were there is a greater benefit. Indeed, Ibn Uthaymeen sees voting in open
democratic elections as being obligatory at times!

[15. Accusation against Ali at-Tamimi of seeking to renew Islaamic Fiqh for the 20th century]

The ignorant one then says:

> >and calling for a new fiqh and madhhab in the west > >and elsewhere for the 20 th century (and as Maalik said: the latter part of
> >this Ummah will not be corrected except that which corrected its earliest
> >part) ..... and one could continue!!

If Abu Khadeejah is referring to Br. Ali's lecture on "minority fiqh," then this is an issue which the major scholars have discussed and which falls under the topic of what is called, "fiqh an-nawaazil." The existence of millions of Muslims (whether immigrants, their children, as well as converts) living in a permanent status in the West is something unheard of in all Islamic history and hence is not addressed in the classical books of fiqh. As Ali showed, there exist two extreme trends: (a) the modernists who try to change Islam to fit the West and (b) the opinion of Nuh Ha Mim Keller and others who argue that the writings of the traditional madhahib suffice. Br. Ali argues that many contemporary issues need an ijtihaad which balances the fiqh
of the Salaf and the realities of Muslims living in the West. Thus where is the deviation from the way of the Salaf in this? Or is the way of the Salaf that one lives in the West (like the vast majority of these youth) on the "dole" handouts and "council homes" provided by the British government subjecting their wives and children to various forms of welfare and then not seeking work under a false pretext of "not wanting to engage in a job which entails some form of haraam"?

Parts 2 and 3 coming soon...