You are on page 1of 16


== - _,| .=|
== - _,| .=|

.,,- _=- .,.|

.,,- _=- .,.|



By: Abu Asiya Ilyas al Kanadi


,,-, ~, = ,,


- .

- ` .

, .





, .


, .




, .

, .

, ` .'


, ,, , = _. .
{ `_ ^] \[Z YXWVU T z | ., [
_ ^ ] \[ZYX W V z | . [
{ ~ } | {zy x w v u 
z | .,-. [


, .=


.' ` .

,, , = _.



, .


, .

, .



, .



Bismillh was-Saltu was-Salmu 'Al Raslillh (sallallhu 'alayhi wa sallam):

Alhamdulillh, many of the salaf s (by now) have heard the recent criticism of our beloved
father, ash-Shaykh Rab' (hafidahullh), regarding Yahy al-Hjr (may Allh guide him), for his
extremism and for splitting the salaf s all over the world.

I was among those present that day, and heard the whole of the Shaykh's speech, and
without a doubt, those who claim that the Shaykh (hafidahullh) spoke without proof or without
true knowledge of the reality of the affairs are nothing but liars, as he said to our beloved brother
Ab Khadjah (hafidahullh).

After the Shaykh's speech on Yahy al-Hjr had spread far and wide (as was expected),
many of his blind followers have risen up to try to deter the salaf s attention from what the Shaykh
actually said, and have come with some strange principles and speech. One of the infamous blind
followers of Yahy al-Hjr is the one named Musa Millington. This individual has risen from
behind his computer screen to spread all kinds of falsehood on his Twitter account so I have
collected some of his speech and refuted it briefly.

The one whom Allh has blessed with an intellect will soon come to see the detrimental
path this man and those like him are treading. All in order to support their beloved Imm -the
astray innovator- Yahy al-Hjr

Doubt 1: The Source of the Audio Recording is al-Wahyain

Musa Millington claims that the source for the audio recording for the speech of Shaykh
Rab' on Yahy al-Hjr is 'al-Wahyain.' This is complete falsehood and an outright lie. Firstly, this
Juwayhil said this with no proof whatsoever, nor does he have any knowledge of where the actual
source is from, who recorded the gathering, nor does he even have any clue how 'al-Wahyain' got
the audio. This Mulabbis (deceiver) just wishes to discredit the proof that Shaykh Rab' is really
against Yahy and his ghult (extremist) students. What better way to do that than to get rid of the
entire evidence altogether. This is the norm of this individual throughout this entire fitnah. He will
make bold statements and expect that people will believe it and accept it from him. However, the
only ones that truly accept it from him are those like him.

Doubt 2: Daarusunnah (Shepherd's Bush, West London, UK) Added to Shaykh Rabs

The Mulabbis (Musa Millington) says that he suspects that DUS added whatever they
wished to Shaykh Rab's audio in their 5-paged PDF document. Since when is the suspicion of Musa
Millington worth anything? Firstly, this deceiver wishes to label all those who accepted Shaykh
Rab's criticism "blind followers," and then this Mulabbis comes with speech such as, "I suspect"
and expects people to believe it and follow it. Not only is he the blind follower, but he is hoping


others will blind follow him in his falsehood. If we would have brought this speech of Musa
Millington to Yahy al-Haddd and kept hidden the fact that he raises him to the level of Imm, he
probably would have said, "This speech is like the fart of an old woman" regarding it as well. This
deceiver's speech carries no weight, let alone his suspicions!

Doubt 3: Shaykh Rab' Supposedly Intended Extreme in "Disparagement"

Musa Millington claims that in the audio somewhere, Shaykh Rab' said that Yahy al-
Haddd is 'extreme in disparagement.' Would Musa Millington be kind enough to mention to us
exactly where Shaykh Rab' mentions this? And since he likes to speak of matters that did not even
occur, can he please narrate to us that which was not recorded in the three-minute audio as well,
and please show us where Shaykh Rab' said that Yahy is extreme in disparagement (jarh)?! Rather,
all he did was take the speech of Shaykh Rab' (hafidahullh) and found any way to make light of it
so that it can mean other than what the Shaykh said and intended.

Doubt 4: Salafi Publications and TROID are mentioned. Why?

Musa Millington and his extremist companions on the satanic website that slanders Ahlul-
Sunnah all over the globe (Aloloom), found some way to include Salafi Publications and TROID in
their campaign of slanders and insults. May I ask, what on earth do Salafi Publications and TROID
have to do with what the Shaykh said, with what was recorded or with what was translated? Or does
it just burn them that once again these clowns have sided with falsehood and Salafi Publications
and the brothers at TROID have sided with the truth along with the scholars of Ahlul-Sunnah wal-
Jam'ah? Their jealousy of these brothers only becomes more and more apparent as the days pass!
May Allh guide them!

Doubt 5: The Speech of Shaykh Rab' is Based on Liars Who Come from Around the

Musa Millington, the one who speaks with no shame, claims that Shaykh Rab' spoke based
on what people report to him from around the world, and that this is not sufficient proof, nor is it a
criticism that carries any weight since it is not him who witnessed that which he is speaking about.

This little ignoramus must believe the world is asleep when he spreads foolishness like this!

Firstly, the major scholars of this time and those who have passed (rahimahumullh) attest
to the fact that Shaykh Rab' does not speak without proof. What a shameless excuse for a student
of knowledge you are! You took the time to find speech of Shaykh Rab' speaking regarding
(warning against) blind following him and tried applying it to a place where it does not belong, yet
you did not happen to come across speech wherein the Shaykh defends himself against those who
accuse him of harshness and speaking against everyone without proof.


When Shaykh Rab' refuted kufr, shirk, bid'ah, and philosophy in the books of Sayyid Qutb,
(the one who is responsible for much of the misguidance that exists in the world today) he (Shaykh
Rab') said that he tried his best to make every kind of excuse for him so as to not make an unjust
ruling upon his words. Then, when he was not able to find an excuse, he went ahead and spread his
refutations on him regardless of the opposition. So, you shameless individual who has indirectly
(while very much aware) accused the Shaykh of basing his disparagement (jarh) on people who
come to him from around the world, knew that before your 'Imm ath-Thaqalayn' was refuted, that
Shaykh Rab' does not speak except that he has proof. The fact that you have ignored it and have
chosen not to accept it does not mean that the proof does not exist!

There can be absolutely no excuse given for the blatant lie that this ignoramus shamelessly
spread. That is the claim that Shaykh Rab' spoke that day based on 'the complaints that come to
him from around the world' and that it has nothing to do with anything else. For one who openly
mentions and professes that he listened to the audio and was able to pick out all that was not in the
audio, but was found in the document the brothers at DUS put together, he was surely very terrible
at finding the apparent things that everyone else clearly heard. This is that Shaykh Rab'
mentioned many times that he spoke to Yahy al-Haddd and that sometimes this would
last up to two and a half hours. Also, that Yahy al-Haddd would make promises and not
keep them. So where on earth did you come from with this deranged observation, that Shaykh
Rab' spoke against Yahy al-Haddd based on narrations that would come to him from different
places around the world?

And let us say that he did have people narrate some things to him. How on earth was Musa
Millington capable of distinguishing from behind his little computer screen, the trustworthiness of
these people? How was he able to reject all of their statements simply because he did not want to
accept them?

Doubt 6: Reading a Book of Jarh wa Ta'dl is Sufficient to Speak!

Musa Millington claims that people who have never read a book on Jarh wa Ta'dl (The
Science of Disparagement and Praise of Narrators) are speaking regarding this matter. I wonder
how he was able to arrive at this information? From where did he attain this information on every
single person who spoke about this affair?

O Little Ignoramus! This statement of yours is exactly the speech of the one who read a
book of Jarh wa Ta'dl yet did not understand the science of hadth. And somehow, you thought
that reading without understanding is enough to be able to speak about this specific affair. If you
would have understood that reading was not sufficient, you would not have spoken with all of this
deranged speech. And why would the likes of Musa Millington not speak with deranged speech
such as this, when his goal is to defend an extreme innovator like Yahy al-Haddd?

Doubt 7: You are all Blind Followers!


Musa Millington and his extremist companions have gone on a campaign to gather speech
that revolves around blind following Shaykh Rab' in his refutation on Yahy al-Haddd.

Firstly, were we not supposed to believe that the refutation even occurred, since 'the source'
is (supposedly) 'al-Wahyain?'

Secondly, I thought we were not supposed to accept the speech altogether since Shaykh
Rab' only spoke based on things others have told him?

Thirdly, what proof has Musa Millington established that anyone who has spread this
speech, blind-followed Shaykh Rab'?

All he has done is witness that some have accepted the Shaykh's speech, but has he proven
that they have blind-followed? The simple fact that people spread the jarh of Shaykh Rab' is not
sufficient to prove someone is a blind follower. However, this is the path he and his extremist
companions traverse upon anyway. In order to silence anyone who says anything about their
beloved 'Imm ath-Thaqalayn', they must quickly (without any proper verification of anything) rid
of them (as trustworthy individuals) and rid of their Salafiyyah. This is the sign of The
Hadddiyyah, if they only but knew!

Accepting the jarh of a well-known imm in the affair of Jarh wa at-Ta'dl without any
proof given by him (even though Shaykh Rab' did give proof ) is not blind following and the
only ones to say this were the people of innovation of old whom Musa Millington and his extremist
companions have echoed!

I will now establish the proof from those whose speech actually carries weight. Those whose
speech is sought after and respected, unlike your speech, which is hard upon the eyes when read
and difficult upon the ears when heard!

Acceptance of the General Jarh by Ibn Kathr (rahimahullh)

al-Hfidh Ibn Kathr said:

As for the speech of these imms who are ascribed to this affair, then it is befitting for the
Muslim to take their speech without the reasons for it being mentioned. This is
because he realizes their knowledge, their experience, and their proficiency in this affair,
and he describes them with justice and righteousness and experience and sincere advice,
not to mention, when they declare a man da'f (weak), or declare him matrk (abandoned)
or declare him kadhhb (liar) or the likes of that. So the skilled muhaddith (scholar of
hadth) is not moved against them due to their truthfulness, their trustworthiness and their
sincerity. Due to this, ash-Shfi' said in many of his statements about certain ahdth: 'It is


not confirmed by the people of knowledge.' And he would reject it and not use it as a proof
for precisely that reason."

Note: The point being made here is that Imm ash-Shfi' would reject certain ahdith on the basis
that it was not confirmed by the trustworthy scholars, meaning, he would base his proof for
rejecting a narration on the trustworthiness of these scholars.

Additionally, this is in no way an attempt to prove that a general criticism is accepted over a praise
in every single situation. However, it is only to dispel the false impression that Musa Millington
tried to give in that it is considered blind following to accept the jarh of a well-known scholar in the
field of Jarh wa at-Ta'dl!

Ibn Hajr (rahimahullh) On the Acceptance of the General Jarh (Without Details)

Ibn Hajar said:

If the one who has been criticized does not have any ta'dl (praise) to his credit, then the
general criticism against him is accepted without having to clarify the reason for it, as long
as the criticism emanates from someone who knows this person well.

Note: After reading this narration from Ibn Hajr (rahimahullh), the blind follower of Yahy al-
Haddd may believe there is a proof for him in this since it is known that Yahy al-Haddd was
praised before. For this reason, I would like to repeat that this is in no way an attempt to prove that
a general criticism is accepted over a praise in every single situation. However, it is only to dispel
the false impression that Musa Millington tried to give in that it is considered blind following to
accept the jarh of a well-known scholar in the field of Jarh wa at-Ta'dl!

The Similarity Between the Speech of Musa Millington and the People of Innovation in the
Time of the Salaf

Shaykh Muqbil Ibn Hd al-Wdi' - Accepting the Jarh of the Scholars is Not Taqld


Shaykh Muqbil (rahimahullh) in the beginning of the audio above mentions the speech of
Imm as-San'n (rahimahullh) regarding some of the people of innovation who used to say to
some of the salaf:

Ikhtisr 'Ulmil-Hadth, p.79.
Nuzhat an-Nadhr p.73.


"...You forbid blind following, yet you blind follow Yahy Ibn Ma'n (rahimahullh) so if Yahy
says about a man, 'He is trustworthy,' you'll say, 'Trustworthy,' and if Bukhr says about a hadth,
'This hadth is authentic, you'll say, 'It is authentic.' So you are blind followers."

He (Shaykh Muqbil) said that as-San'n said that this is not blind following and that this is
only accepting the report of the trustworthy.

Now, who do we have repeating these audacious statements, as if he read them from the
books of these innovators of old? None other than the shameless Musa Millington!

Also, when Shaykh Muqbil (rahimahullh) was asked about those who say 'accepting the
jarh of the scholar is blind following' he mentioned (in the video below between 0:57 - 1:10), "This
is old speech from some of the people of innovation..."

Note: We have been witnessing the continuous attempt of the one named Musa Millington to
prove that the general criticism (without proofs given) is considered blind following. However, one
important thing that I would like to point out from the audio of Shaykh Muqbil (rahimahullh) is
that when he mentioned the speech of the innovators, he mentioned only the ruling the scholars
would make without any evidences being provided, and this is exactly what Musa Millington and
his beloved companions have being crying about ever since Shaykh Rab' spoke about Yahy al-

It is as if they want us to believe that Shaykh Rab' (hafidahullh) spent his entire life
warning and advising those who went astray, was patient with them for years and gathered large
amounts of proofs against them and then only chose to speak based on narrations from different
places around the world with regards to the affair of Yahy al-Hjr (may Allh guide him).

A General Principle Regarding Criticism and Praise

Principle: The praise for a narrator/individual by someone from outside of their land, when those
within his land have criticized him, only increases him in weakness!

al-Allmah 'Abdur-Rahmn Ibn Yahy al-Mu'allim (rahimahullh) said:

The narrator who is severely spoken ill of by the people of hadth in his land, the praise of
those outside his land does not increase him except in weakness. Because this shows
that he used to intentionally try to confuse the people [regarding his affair], and he
beautifies himself to some of the people outside of his land and meets them with narrations
which are fair seeming so they get the impression that this is always his condition, so they
praise him, but the people of his land know his reality!

at-Tankl (2/13) of al-Mu'allim.


Point 1: What are the stances of the majority of the Yemeni mashayikh regarding Yahy al-

Point 2: Those outside of Damj such as you O Musa Millington (who has openly
professed that he does not know Yahy al-Haddd personally nor has he ever met him), have only
increased him in his weakness as al-'Allmah 'Abdur-Rahmn Ibn Yahy al-Mu'allim
(rahimahullh) stated.

Point 3: If you are going to try to claim that those who have come from the west and have
joined this Haddaadi (Yahy al-Hjr) within the last few years are more knowledgeable of his
reality than the remainder of the salaf mashayikh in Yemen, then you have completely lost your

Also, if you are going to try to make us believe that individuals such as Ab Fjir al-Kaddhb
has any sort of trustworthiness and that his speech regarding Yahy al-Haddd will be accepted
over the likes of Shaykh al-Wassb, Shaykh al-'Adani, Shaykh al-Bura', may Allh preserve them
all, and others in Yemen, then you are mistaken once again!

Point 4: If you are going to try to attempt to use this speech to disregard the speech of Shaykh Rab'
(hafidahullh) against Yahy al-Hadddi with the speech of al-Mu'allim (rahimahullh) then your
plot is weaker than a spider's web Y Mulabbis! Shaykh Rab' clearly and openly mentioned that he
spoke to him directly and he mentioned details regarding it and how he promises and breaks these
promises. What sort of man (Yahy) believes that the haq is with him and then promises to leave
off that which he believes to be the haq? Nobody except a kaddhb does this!

"They blindly follow the scholar's jarh without asking him for proof."

Precious Speech of al-Imm ash-Shawkn Regarding Accepting the Jarh and Ta'dl of an
'Aalim Is Not Considered Taqld At All

_, , = ~_

_| ,.| .-,- - ..| .,|
-| =,| ,,

_=, ,=-| _| -||.- ...


,| .

--, = ., ,,_ ., '_ , , ,

.' = ,, .' ,

. -

,- ,'

, - ,,, , , .

. .,

, ', , ,,

' ,,
, - ', . ,,, : , , .,, - ,

, . ,
,-,- , , -'

_ ,-

' _ :, ., ,,

-'' , _,' , ., ''

~, :, .',

- .', .

,,- , ',, ,,, , , ' .

_, , _,, _

Imm ash-Shawkn (rahimahullh) said:

The Sixth Study From the Studies of the Second Question:

His statement: "And is taqld in the matter of al-Jarh wa at-Ta'dl sound (i.e. applicable,

I say: It is desirable for the questioner to know, may Allh pardon him, that taqld is to
accept the opinion (ra'i) of someone else, as opposed to his riwyah (narration), without
requesting the proof. And the ta'dl (appraisal) of the mu'addil for a narrator is not a
(mere) opinion concerning anything. Rather, it is a narrative of the condition of the one
whom he makes ta'dl of or makes jarh of. This is because he narrates to us whatever is
known to him about the condition of the narrator. And this, without doubt, is from the
(angle of) narration, and not (mere) opinion, hence blind following (taqld) has no
point of entry into this matter.

And some of the latecomers have actually brought (this matter), with the intent of
causing doubt about those claiming ijtihd, claiming that they have not actually left
taqld, from this angle. And you know well that this doubt-mongering (tashkk) is
falsehood, and which has arisen from the absence of distinction between ra'i
(opinion) and riwyah (narration).

Point 1: O Musa Millington, will you not fear your Lord and retract from your
atrocious fabrications against this pure manhaj that you have adopted from the
whisperings of the likes of Halab and Ma'rib?! Where have you come from with such speech!?

In a small treatise called "al-'Adhb an-Namr f Jawb Mas'il 'Aalim Bild 'Asr", found within al-Fath ar-Rabbn of ash-
Shawkn (1/218-219).


Below I will present some statements that were mentioned by this shameless individual that are in
opposition to the salafi manhaj, in which he tried to deny in a previous article of his.

Here are some of his statements:

"We say to them: Ab Hanfah is an Imm, Shafi' is an Imm, Mlik is an Imm so why do you not
make taqld to them in Fiqh?"

So we tell them: And likewise with Shaykh Rab'. Because the jarh requires clear evidences for the
jarh. And Shaykh Rab' is someone who can make errors in this science as Imm Ab Hanfah,
Mlik and Shafi' have made errors in Fiqh.

Hence the issue is the evidence that is presented not the person that presents the evidence.

[End of Musa Millington's Speech]

It is as if this compound ignoramus has summarized for us the exact falsehood that Imm
ash-Shawkn (rahimahullh) explained to us above!

This ignoramus has typed up a reply to my original posts on Twitter regarding this affair
claiming that he did not liken Jarh wa at-Ta'dl to fiqh. I have mentioned his statements above,
because I was well aware (due to his habit of deceiving the people) that this ignoramus would try to
cover this up by running away from the exact issue at hand.

Question 1: If you are not comparing fiqh to Jarh wa at-Ta'dl and are only trying to
make a point that a jarh requires proof, why is it that you mentioned the four Imms of the
well-known madhabs?

Question 2: If you are not comparing fiqh to Jarh wa at-Ta'dl and are only trying to
make a point that a jarh requires proof, why is it that you compared the errors (in fiqh) of those
four Imms to Shaykh Rab' being capable of erring in his jarh?

Question 3: If you are not comparing fiqh to Jarh wa at-Ta'dl and are only trying to
make a point that a jarh requires proof, why is it that you made a similarity between the error in
a fiqh opinion and an error in a ruling of criticism from a scholar?

Question 4: If you are not comparing fiqh to Jarh wa at-Ta'dl and are only trying to
make a point that a jarh requires proof, why have you not differentiated between the error in a
fiqh opinion and the error in Jarh wa at-Ta'dl?

Question 5: If you are not comparing fiqh to Jarh wa at-Ta'dl and are only trying to
make a point that a jarh requires proof, why have you presented the affair as a matter of blind


following since there is no such thing as blind following in a matter of Jarh wa at-Ta'dl as long as
the person making the jarh or ta'dl is a well-known Imm in the field of Jarh wa at-Ta'dl along
with the other principles of Jarh wa at-Ta'dl?

Question 6: If you are not comparing fiqh to Jarh wa at-Ta'dl and are only trying to
make a point that a jarh requires proof, why did you say that the only thing that matters is the
proofs that are being presented and not the one presenting the proofs? This is well known in fiqh,
however in Jarh wa at-Ta'dl, the one who is making the jarh or the ta'dl must fulfill conditions for
his statements to be accepted.

In addition, we know that his statement on an individual benefits in that it can alter the
ruling on a hadth altogether, so how can you possibly negate the status of a person altogether in
Jarh wa at-Ta'dl?

Rather, you only do that when you compare fiqh and Jarh wa at-Ta'dl, just like Halab did!

Point 2: You ignoramus! You have only laid down the principles of Halab by comparing
jarh with fiqh in the sense that we do not accept the narration of a trustworthy narrator the same
way we do not accept a fiqh opinion.

In both fields, there is a requirement of proof. To establish the permissibility or
impermissibility of something, a scholar who is capable (Mujtahid) must look into the sources of
knowledge and the statements of the people of the past and strive to get to the correct ruling.

Can we say, because Imm Shfi' is well known, trustworthy and strove for this religion,
that we are going to accept his opinion that we should make a qunt for every fajr salh? No,
because this is the statement of a man being taken over the two revelations! This is why we cannot
accept the opinions of scholars without proof when it comes to fiqh.

Now coming to Jarh wa at-Ta'dl. Jarh wa at-Ta'dl is not dealt with in the same manner as
fiqh is dealt with. In the science of Jarh wa at-Ta'dl, the status of the one making the jarh and the
one making the ta'dl carries some weight and can sometimes be the reason his narration is
accepted or rejected. However, this does not apply to the opinion of a scholar in fiqh since the
scholar of fiqh is not speaking regarding what he saw or heard or what other trustworthy people
have witnessed. Rather, he is striving to prove that which is legislated and that which is not. There
are many principles for this science (Jarh wa at-Ta'dl) and each of these principles along with their
exceptions are to be applied in different situations.

Now, we ask Musa Millington a very important question. Is Shaykh Rab' trustworthy in
your books and in the books of your extremist companions? Or is it only the 'Nsih al-
Amn' that you accept from? The one (Yahy al-Haddd) who hears of a thing in another country
and speaks about it as soon as he hears it without verification?


Now, if you think we are going to abandon the criticisms of the likes of Shaykh Rab' whom
the Imms before him would accept wholeheartedly without any doubt because they trusted him
and knew him, then you and what you have remaining of your intellect have parted ways!

May Allh guide you and those extremists who are slandering Ahlul-Sunnah night and day back to
the correct path or break their breaks for the splitting they have caused all over the world!

Is It A Condition that the Reason for an Un-Detailed Disparagement Be Clarified?

The opinion of the majority is that if the jarh comes from a trustworthy scholar, it is accepted and it
is not binding/a condition for the reason of his disparagement to be clarified.

ash-Shaykh al-'Allmah Muhammad Ibn Slih al-'Uthaymn

Ash-Shaykh Ibn 'Uthaymn (rahimahullh) was asked: A caller accuses
another diyyah (of
an issue); so if he is confronted regarding this accusation of his, he answers that a person
well-known for his knowledge and trustworthiness had informed him [of the accusation]. If
it is asked of him to verify/prove the accusation, he says: 'Verifying [news] is required in the
case where the narrator is a fsiq.'

What is your opinion?

Answer: This is correct. If a trustworthy man informed you (of news), there is no need to
verify it. Allh says: O you who believe! If a rebellious evil person comes to you with
news, verify it.
However, a man may be trustworthy, and has desires, so his
trustworthiness is rendered weak in this regard.

ash-Shaykh al-'Allmah Ahmad Ibn Yahy an-Najm

Ash-Shaykh al-'Allmah Ahmad Ibn Yahy an-Najm (rahimahullh) said:

'Verification is obligatory when it comes to the narration of the fsiq, and as for the
narration of the trustworthy person, then it is to be taken. So how much more so if the
narrators were a group? And from the best of people in society? And from its most eminent
and most excellent in knowledge and trustworthiness? It is then incumbent to accept the
narration; and whomsoever rejects it, has indeed rejected it due to a desire within

Translators Note: What is meant here by "accuses" is that some individuals accuse a specific individual of some sort of
falsehood or a particular opposition to the Qur'n and the Sunnah according to the understanding of the Salaf.
Srah al-Hujurt (49):6
Siynatu Salafi min Waswati Wa Talbeest 'Ali al Halabi pg. 281-282


himself. So, he is blamed and deemed a hizbi (bigoted partisan) as a result of this
rejection. He should be counted among them and considered one of them. And
with Allh lies all success.'

When Ab al-Hasan al-Ma'rib claimed that ash-Shaykh an-Najm relies upon the words of ash-
Shaykh Rab' in his refutation against him, ash-Shaykh an-Najm responded:

'I gave credence to the single statement of his upon the basis that he is trustworthy; and it
is not possible for him (ash-Shaykh Rab') to claim something against you (al-Ma'rib)
which you have neither said nor written. We are not upon the manhaj of the people of
falsehood such that we reject the news of the trustworthy and accept the news of the
liars and the unknown.'

So, we say to Musa Millington and his likes, just as ash-Shaykh al-'Allmah Ahmad bin Yahy an-
Najm, said to Ab al-Hasan al-Ma'rib, when he accused him of blind following Shaykh Rab'. We
are not upon the manhaj of the people of falsehood, such that we reject the news of the
trustworthy (Shaykh Rab') regarding your beloved Imm ath-Thaqalayn (Yahy al-Haddd) and
accept the news of the liars and the unknown (you and your extremist companions).

Shaykh Ahmad Ibn 'Umar Bzml

Questioner: If one of the well-known scholars refutes a person and labels him an
innovator, what is obligatory upon the beginner student of knowledge with regards to this
person who has been refuted? Does he believe [the refutation] and declare the person to be
an innovator or not?

Shaykh Ahmad Bzml:

Yes. If a scholar, who is aware of the reasons for praising and refuting, criticizes an
individual, then it is upon the student of knowledge to accept the truth from this scholar. It
is not permissible for him to oppose and reject the speech of the scholar who knows the
reasons of praising and refuting, such as Shaykh Rab Ibn Hd al-Madkhal, Shaykh Zayd
al-Madkhal, and Shaykh 'Ubayd al-Jbir. We have been tried with some students, who,
when criticism from a major scholar reaches them, say: "By Allh, I want to verify it
myself," meaning, I like to see it for myself. I have not heard this speech from him."

Ash-Shaykh al-Allmah Rab Ibn Hd al-Madkhal

Ash-Shaykh al-'Allmah Rab Ibn Hd al-Madkhal (hafidahullh) was asked:

al-Fatw al-Jaliyyah, 2/33, no. 5.
al-Fatw al-Jaliyyah, 2/225.


Is the excessive usage of at-tathabut from the manhaj of the Hizbiyyn, those who do not wish to
defend the Sunnah and expose the people of innovation; and those who want to censor the speech
regarding Jarh and Ta'deel?

So, he answered, may Allh, the Most High, preserve him:

These are the people of falsehood who want to invalidate the reports and the rulings of the
trustworthy and the scholars with the likes of this principle. With respect to which can be
truthfully said about them, that it is a word of truth by which falsehood is intended (by

Their affair is similar to the affair of the Khawrij, who used to reiterate: "The hukum
(legislation) is for none but Allh." So, Al, may Allh be pleased with him, heard them and
said: Indeed, it is a statement of truth by which falsehood is intended.

At-Tathabut (verification) is required, but regarding what? The news of the trustworthy?!!
At-Tathabut (verifying) is necessary when it comes to the narration of the fsiqn, as occurs
in the text of the Qur'n: O you who believe! If a rebellious evil person comes to you
with news, verify it.

And in another mode of recitation , '

So, at-tathabut is with regards to the narrations of the fsiqn (sinners), but as for the
trustworthy, then what is obligatory is to accept their reports. And sometimes, a
trustworthy person may forget a thing (or two), and he may err, however, we do not take
this as a general principle (without exception) in all things.

And even if a scholar were to author a book now, in which he related the statements of
ahlul-dall (the people of falsehood) and criticized them, they would say: at-tathabut is
necessary. These are the people of falsehood, and they are at war with the people of Sunnah.

I conclude by advising my brothers and sisters all over the world, who have been witnessing
the harm of these individuals wherever they may be, to abandon them and to ignore their remarks.
These individuals have been tested and tried with regards to their religion and manhaj due to their

Srah al-Hujurt (49):6
Translator's Note: What the Shaykh intends by this, is that even if we may have instances where a trustworthy
individual may forget something or if he errs in transmitting information, we do not (because of this) make it a principle
that every trustworthy individual's statement is verified, therefore not differentiating between the report of the trustworthy
and the sinner.
Radd Shubuht al-M.i'n wa ath-Thab 'An as-Sunnah, no. 4.


blind love and allegiance to a single man and are desperately trying to do whatever they can to save
his reputation.

If anything I said was correct then it was from Allh and if I erred in anything then it was
from myself and the accursed shaytn. We ask Allh to guide this poor individual who does not
recognize or realize his own worth, let alone the worth of the scholars, that he and his extremist
companions are slandering day and night.

We ask Allh to guide them back to the truth or to break their backs and sever the very limbs they
use to defame and slander the people of sunnah wherever they may be!




, v


=| =