Who are these people??

[al_Zayn]

Recently bumped into to some old firends and they have been attending a few discourses in Birmingham, and one of the Brothers had given me their institute's website:

http://www.aicp.org/about-us-mainmenu-2

The above site say they are Ash`aris and Followers of the Shafi'i Madh-hab, but they dont have a good opinion of Ibn Taymiyyah (Ra), though they mention a few negative points of Ibn Tamiyyah (Ra), i personally heard from a person affiliated with them regarding Ibn Taymiyyah (Ra) saying Ibn Taymiyyah had Kufr beliefs, i.e. implying he was Kafir. I was infuriated inside, but i dealt with the situation then.

I have a sneaky supsicion, though i maybe wrong (and may Allah forgive me if i am wrong) is that maybe these people are from the Ahbaash?

They do Milaad, but they cannot be brelwi because they are from the middle east and Shafi'is in Fiqh.

I would seriously ask the knowledgable Brothers to let me know. I am attending their Milad gathering next week on an invite and they will introduce their teachers to me. So i would rather know what i am / am not expecting.

for any help

[YousefAbusSafar]

They are those who are called "ahbash".

They are students of Shaykh 'Abdullah al Habashy who lived and taught in Syria.

AICP is in Philadelphia Pa and is known for distributing free books (sharh 'aqidah al tahawiyah) and many others.

They have a few opinions on a few issues that are controversial with most 'ulama', but more in the way of them being weak opinions that are unpopular, rather than having no sunni precedent at all (some unpopular fringe views).

Some people disagree with their level of harshness against salafi's but overall, agree or disagree, they do a lot of good in spreading tawhid and sunnah.

They are rifa'i in suluk as well as being ash'ari and shafi'i.

Good brothers, masha'allah.

[umar_italy]

AICP = Ahbash
They are one and the same thing.

They make takfir of Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah and are obsessed with "Wahhabis", and allegedly have given some disparaging comments about some Sahabah (but this I haven't confirmed personally).

[Al-Faruqi]

Ahbash are basically takfīrī Ṣūfīs.

Stay away from them.

[IbnShafiq]

AICP = Ahbash
They are one and the same thing.

They make takfir of Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah and are obsessed with "Wahhabis", and allegedly have given some disparaging comments about some Sahabah (but this I haven't confirmed personally).

One of them called Sayyiduna Mu'awiyya a fasiq to my face. I was shocked.

[al_Zayn]

for your responses.

I just did a forum search and found quite abit.


Im shocked because they are pulling in quite a crowd from the asian community, especially Hanafis, they teach al-Lubaab to Hanafis who barely know Ta`leemul Haq or know how to read Salah properly.

I can confirm that the person i was speaking to yesterday did tell me one of his firends (also a hanafi) who is affilliated with them did get a fatwa that dealing in Ribaa in a Kuffar country is permissible, and he was told to keep it hush hush.

May Allah protect us.


If anyone can list some of their major mistakes i.e. Calling Ameer Mu`awiyyah (Ra) a Fasiq etc with proofs from their books please, that would be grateful.

[Rifai]

As-salamu 'alaykum,


You should not believe all the rumors that you may hear or read. They may have some "odd" or not-so-popular opinions, but they are from Ahlus Sunnah. They are staunch Ash'aris, and as you know Shafi'i in Fiqh, Rifa'i in Suluk. While I am a Shafi'i and Rifa'i, may I add that I am in no way affiliated with the Ahbash.

As for Amir Mu'awiyah (ra), shaykh Abdullah wrote a book about him. Basically clarifying the opinion on his fighting Amir al-Mu'minin Ali (ra) based on the authentic ahadith and sayings of the Salaf. They agree that it was a transgression as per the hadith about sayyidina Ammar bin Yasir (ra) being killed by the transgressing party. Therefore it is said that he was a Baghi - as per the authentic hadith. However I have never come across them allowing the slandering of Amir Mu'awiyah (ra), let alone going into takfir.

wa 's-salam

[al_Zayn]

As-salamu 'alaykum,


You should not believe all the rumors that you may hear or read. They may have some "odd" or not-so-popular opinions, but they are from Ahlus Sunnah. They are staunch Ash'aris, and as you know Shafi'i in Fiqh, Rifa'i in Suluk. While I am a Shafi'i and Rifa'i, may I add that I am in no way affiliated with the Ahbash.

As for Amir Mu'awiyah (ra), shaykh Abdullah wrote a book about him. Basically clarifying the opinion on his fighting Amir al-Mu'minin Ali (ra) based on the authentic ahadith and sayings of the Salaf. They agree that it was a transgression as per the hadith about sayyidina Ammar bin Yasir (ra) being killed by the transgressing party. Therefore it is said that he was a Baghi - as per the authentic hadith. However I have never come across them allowing the slandering of Amir Mu'awiyah (ra), let alone going into takfir.

wa 's-salam

For your response, Brother IbnShafiq mentioned that one of the Ahbaash called Sayyiduna Amir Mu`awiyyah (Ra) a Faasiq in his face, so he heard this first hand.

I myself first hand have heard them accuse Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah (Ra) of Kufr, not to mention that in their site they clearly disregard Sh. Ibn Taymiyyah (Ra). Infact when i was chatting with one of the other brothers of the Ahbaash he mentioned that Hafidh Ibn Kathir's (Ra) Tafseer is dodgy, trying to prove something by also saying he was a student of Ibn Taymiyyah (Ra), what utter nonesense.

Also my friend's friend who are both affilliated with the Ahbaash, was given a fatwa that Ribaa is permissible with the Kuffar and was told to keep it on the low, firstly they are both Hanafis, then why are they giving opinions that are the from the Ahnaaf? Secondly why hush hush?

And they have this belief that something has to be passed on to you, for example my friend (who is a tag along and not Ahbaash) was reading a Du`a book, and he informed his other Ahbaash friends and they were like, it needs to be passed on to you - and also he told me they give the notion that their tafseers is acceptable and their understanding is acceptable and they too disregard the Deobandis, Barelwis, Salafis etc.

But i have asked my friend to do some investigation for me, and i will get some asnwers Insha-Allah by the end of today.

[YousefAbusSafar]

I think the central issue here that's needs to be looked at is that, right or wrong, they have precedent for their opinions from sunni scholars.

These should not be divisive issues, but issues of ikhtilaf. Holding unpopular opinions is not synomous with holding heretical or even wrong opinions.

I disagree with the views of many scholars based off certainty in the view I know is stronger, but I respect the means by which they arrived at them and the fact that they are precedented.

As for the issue of riba in the hanafi madhhab, I was under the impression that their is ikhtilaf within the hanafi school about taking riba from non muslims in dar al harb. I'm not learned in fiqh, but I assume some hanafis would know about this here and perhaps could comment further.

As for telling them to keep it hush, that is not contrary to the way of the salaf as they may hold a certain valid opinion in a mas'alah ikhtilafiyah but due to it being an unpopular opinion that could lead to confusion they avoid publicising it to prevent greater evil.

Abu Hurairah was reported to have said that if I told you everything I heard from the messenger of Allah these people (hukkam) would cut my head off. The prophet also avoided restructuring the ka'bah on Ibrahim's (saws) foundations because the makkans were new to Islam and would have had an adverse reaction, so it was done during the time of 'Abdullah ibn Zubair (ra) instead. This is called maslahah mursalah in the maliki school.

As for takfir of Shaykh ibn Taymiyah (ra), while I wholeheartedly disagree, I would like to ask, were there scholars of Shaykh ibn Taymiyah's contemporaries who performed takfir of him based off of accusations of tashbih? I was under the impression that Shaykh Taqi al Din or Shaykh Taj al Din Subki (major Shafi'i 'ulama (ra)) were very strong in opposition to his beliefs.

Could someone clarify if they made takfir or tabdi', I honestly don't remember. Did any of his contemporaries do so if not them?

If they made these statements with no precedent, it would be clear error and not ikhtilaf of variety. I'd be surprised if they had no precedent from Shaykh ibn Taymiyah's contemporaries.

Some schools are more lenient with regard to certain things than others. Some scholars are mutashaddid and others mutawasit and others mutasahil with regard to dealing with regard to tabdi' and takfir.

As for what they say about Mu'awiyah, I heard about that on this forum in another thread. What was stated is that they have precedent for what they say from some of the salaf, so it is unpopular and controversial, but at best questionable rather than clearly wrong.

As for a person from the 'aammah amongst them saying it with stronger words, knowledge of a school of thought should not be based off of hearsay but based off of what it's scholars say. He said she said should not be regarded in generating suspicions about scholars and ustadhs.

Gossip is not a valid basis for suw' al dhann and should accordingly be entirely disregarded.

They are sunni, shafi'i, ash'ari, and rifa'i. They follow some less popular, albeit valid opinions on a variety of issues.

As for them being takfiri, I have yet to see that. Takfiri's making takfir on all and sundry without the iqamatal burhan. It's one thing to make takfir on the founders of a school of thought or formulators of certain ideas, but an entirely different thing to make takfir of the average laymen of that school as the layment may have ignorance as an excuse, being under the shahadah and not having seen or understood the dalil qat'is he is contradicting in the case of beliefs that may be viewed as kufr.

You may not like or agree with the opinions Shaykh 'Abdullah al Habashi and his students, but you have to respect the means by which they arrived at them. Kulli mujtahid musab (every mujtahid is correct). If he is right he gets 2 rewards and if he is wrong he gets 1 reward, wa lillahil hamd. As for the muqallid he is not blamed for following qualified scholarship.

Islam is bigger than Dar al 'Ulum Deoband, whilst I have the utmost respect and reverance for it's founders and opinions, viewing them to be more accurate in most issues than any other school (Haji Imdadullah Muhajir Makki, Maulana Muhammad Qasim Ninotwi, Maulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi (Allah bless their souls and grant them the best of both worlds).

Even when a person is on the correct opinion in a mas'alah ikhtilafiyah and they have seen compelling evidence for it correctness, they still must respect that other schools have their evidence and haven't seen what they have seen or looked at it the same way for any number of textual or rational reasons and agree to disagree, being united by both being muslims of the sunnah and jama'ah.

Ma'as salamah.

[abul_hussain]

As for what they say about Mu'awiyah, I heard about that on this forum in another thread. What was stated is that they have precedent for what they say from some of the salaf, so it is unpopular and controversial, but at best questionable rather than clearly wrong.

They are sunni, shafi'i, ash'ari, and rifa'i. They follow some less popular, albeit valid opinions on a variety of issues.

You may not like or agree with the opinions Shaykh 'Abdullah al Habashi and his students, but you have to respect the means by which they arrived at them. Kulli mujtahid musab (every mujtahid is correct). If he is right he gets 2 rewards and if he is wrong he gets 1 reward, wa lillahil hamd. As for the muqallid he is not blamed for following qualified scholarship.

Even if he is self declared Mujtahid, Abdullah al-Habashi has no right whatsoever to criticize any of the Sahaba of our Prophet if he does so then as what Imam Abu Zurah al-Razi said :

http://www.sonnaonline.com/Hadith.as...D=645174&book=

الْكِفَايَةُ فِي عِلْمِ الرِّوَايَةِ لِلْخَطِيبِ الْبَغْدَادِيِّ >> بَابُ مَا جَاءَ فِي تَعْدِيلِ اللَّهِ وَرَسُولِهِ لِلصَّحَابَةِ , وَأَنَّهُ لَا >>
الطرف :" إِذَا رَأَيْتَ الرَّجُلَ يَنْتَقِصُ أَحَدًا مِنْ أَصْحَابِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى ...

104 أَخْبَرَنَا أَبُو مَنْصُورٍ مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عِيسَى الْهَمَذَانِيُّ , ثنا صَالِحُ بْنُ أَحْمَدَ الْحَافِظُ , قَالَ : سَمِعْتُ أَبَا جَعْفَرٍ أَحْمَدَ بْنَ عُبَيْدٍ يَقُولُ : سَمِعْتُ أَحْمَدَ بْنَ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ سُلَيْمَانَ التُّسْتَرِيَّ , يَقُولُ : سَمِعْتُ أَبَا زُرْعَةَ , يَقُولُ : " إِذَا رَأَيْتَ الرَّجُلَ يَنْتَقِصُ أَحَدًا مِنْ أَصْحَابِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَّ فَاعْلَمْ أَنَّهُ زِنْدِيقٌ , وَذَلِكَ أَنَّ الرَّسُولَ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَّ عِنْدَنَا حَقٌّ , وَالْقُرْآنَ حَقٌّ , وَإِنَّمَا أَدَّى إِلَيْنَا هَذَا الْقُرْآنَ وَالسُّنَنَ أَصْحَابُ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَّ , وَإِنَّمَا يُرِيدُونَ أَنْ يُجَرِّحُوا شُهُودَنَا لِيُبْطِلُوا الْكِتَابَ وَالسُّنَّةَ , وَالْجَرْحُ بِهِمْ أَوْلَى وَهُمْ زَنَادِقَةٌ " *

Imam Abu Zurah ar-Razi said: If you see a man criticizing any of the companions of RasulAllah, then you should know that he is a heretic (zindiq), because RasulAllah is true, the Qur'an is true, and what he brought is true. All of that was transmitted to us by the Sahabah, so whoever criticizes them is intending to prove that the Qur’an and Sunnah are false. So he is the one who most deserves to be criticized and the ruling that he is a heretic who has gone astray and is a liar and evildoer is more apt. (al-Kifaya fi İlm Ar-Riwaya of Khateeb Baghdadi) ;

Sayyiduna Muawiya was one of the scribes of RasulAllah He is also known for Hilm wal ilm. so, does Abdullah Habashi and his group think they are more smarter than any Sahabi ?