Yahya al-Haddadi Accuses Uthmaan of "the Mother of All Innovations", "Opposing the Messenger" and Claims a Consensus On the First Aadhaan Being an innovation (and Misguidance)
Please refer to this page, this page and this page
Al-Hajuri assaulted the ameer al-mu'mineen, the caliph Uthmaan (radiallaahu anhu), accusing him of bid'ah and introducing into the religion, out of opposition to the Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and that he came with an innovation that is "the mother of all innovations" in relation to what has been innovated regarding the Jumu'ah, and in attacking Uthmaan (radiallaahu anhu) through the route of bid'ah he clipped the statements of the scholars (allowing him to make this accusation).
First, lets look at the speech of the Raafidee donkey known as Ibn al-Mutahhir al-Hillee whom Ibn Taymiyyah refuted in Minhaaj al-Sunnah. Ibn Taymiyyah says:
إنه - يعني عثمان - زاد الأذان الثاني يوم الجمعة وهو بدعة
[Ibn al-Mutahhir says] He (meaning Uthmaan) added the second adhaan on the day of Jumu'ah and it is a bid'ah. Minhaj al-Sunnah (6/290)
Note that these words of Ibn al-Mutahhir are much more respecting towards Uthmaan (radiallaahu anhu) compared to what you are about to read next. So here are some of statements of Yahya al-Hajuri in his book "Ahkaam al-Jumu'ah", (Dar Sharqayn, p. 170):
وإن قال كما قال جَميع علماء الأمة: إنه مُحْدَث - يعني أذان عثمان - كما أجْمَع على ذلك علماء الإسلام قلنا له: ألا ترى فِي الْحَديث أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يُحذرك من مُحدثات الأمور ويقول: إنها ضلالة
And if (a person) says as all of the scholars of the Ummah said: It is innovated [(muhdath) meaning the aadhaan of Uthmaan] as has been unanimously agreed upon by the Scholars of Islaam, then we say to him: Do you not see in the hadeeth that the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) warns you from the newly-invented matters, and he says that they are misguidance?
Here al-Hajuri claims a false ijmaa' (consensus) because what he means by "muhdath" is not that it was something new, as everybody knows that, he means a bid'ah (in the blameworthy sense) and he is claiming consenus on this matter which is false.
And he says (p. 175):
فقد خالف فعل عثمان رضي الله عنه نصًّا صريْحًا من فعل النَّبِي - صلى الله عليه وسلم - أنه لم يكن يفعل هذا الأذان
Uthmaan (radiallaahu anhu) has opposed an explicit text from the action of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) in that he did not used to do this aadhaan.
Here al-Hajuri accuses Uthmaan (radiallaahu anhu) of opposition (mukhaalafah) to an alleged "clear text."
And he says (p. 290):
وهذه البدعة إنما ولدت من تلك الأم, بدعة الأذان الأول
And this bid'ah was born out of that mother (of innovation), the bid'ah of the first aadhaan...
Here al-Hajuri treats the adhaan of Uthmaan to be the "mother of innovations" from which other innovations are born out of. Despite stating elsewhere that Uthmaan made ijtihaad, this type of language shows that al-Hajuri has resentment, and it is already known that the Haddaadiyyah, even in issues of ijtihaad, are prepared to make judgements of tabdee' (as is known from al-Hajuri), then you can understand the tone of language and the way al-Hajuri comes across here. He blames this action of Uthmaan for being the underlying reason for numerous other innovations into the deen of Allaah in relation to matters of worship.
And al-Hajuri did not suffice with this, rather he desires to make tabdee' of everyone in the Ummah who followed Uthmaan (radiallaahu anhu) - which includes the Companions (radiallaahu anhum) and the Taabi'een, and the Scholars thereafter right until this day of ours. He says (p. 315):
أما من تابعه - يعني عثمان - على ذلك الْخَطأ بعد بيان الْحُجة فهو فِي ذلك مبتدع، لا عذر له فِي مُخالفة سنة رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وصاحبيه
As for the one who followed him (meaning Uthmaan) in that error after the evidence has been established, then he is an innovator (mubtadi'),there is not excuse for him in following the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and his two companions [meaning, Abu Bakr and Umar].
There is consensus amongst the Companions in their acceptance of this action of Uthmaan (radiallaahu) and whatever arguments or narrations to use otherwise, do not withstand scrutiny - as will become clear as we progress through this series inshaa'Allaah.
The following are crucial notes to observe, because they will inform you of the realities of Dajjaajilah (great liars) who defend al-Hajuri on this matter and they will also reveal to you the sickness in the hearts of these people:
1. As you can see clearly, al-Hajuri has accused Uthmaan (radiallaahu anhu) of blameworthy bid'ah in the religion, a bid'ah that opened the door and became the "mother" for other bid'ahs and he also accused Uthmaan (radiallaahu anhu) of opposing an explicit text from the Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). Not stopping there, he also makes tabdee' of everyone who followed Uthmaan (radiallaahu anhu) in this after "the proof" has been explained to him.
2. You have to pay attention as to how these people of desires (followers of al-Hajuri) behave at the starting point of when a great devation like this (slandering one of the best of Companions) is pointed out and how they subsequently behave, how they position themselves, how they start changing the goal-posts, deliberately start to confuse the issues, and try to make the people forget the original thing that started off the criticism in the first place, which is al-Hajuri attacking and assaulting Uthmaan (radiallaahu anhu) by accusing him with bid'ah in the deen of Allaah, which all people know is the utmost baatil (falsehood).
3. The behaviour of the Hajaawirah in this issue (in defending their cult leader, al-Hajuri) can be compared in certain respects to how the Jahmiyyah behave and try to deceive the people. To give a quick illustration. The hadeeth of Mu'awiyah and the slave-girl as it relates to the question of al-Uluww. The Jahmiyyah try to discredit this hadeeth by focusing the attention on a particular narrator and then try to strengthen other hadeeths (which are not established) in order to make it look as if there is idtiraab, whereas these other hadeeths are weak, and they try to pretend their narrators are acceptable. While they deliberately wrangle in this issue of one hadeeth and a couple of narrators and make great the issue, they make the people forget the much wider and larger issues which are: a) the belief that Allaah is above His creation is a matter of fitrah b) there are hundreds of proofs for Allaah being above the heavens c) there is consensus of the Companions, Tabi'een and Salaf of Allaah being above the heavens. So you understand what is going on here. They marginilize obvious clear, primary issues and then divert the attention by focusing on minute micro-details in which they speak with ignorance, falsehood and lies in any case, and the matter becomes one of focusing the battle on one matter of minute detail, despite the fact that on much greater and significant accounts, their falsehood is already exposed and known.
4. The same thing here on the issue of Uthmaan (radiallaahu anhu) by the Hajaawirah. Look at the main foundational issue, what is it? Yahya al-Hajuri throwing bid'ah at Uthmaan (radiallaahu anhu) and accusing him (in his action) of deliberately opposing a clear text from the Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and accusing him of "the mother of all innovations" and claiming a false ijmaa (consensu) whose falsehood is as apparent as the daylight sun. Now once you have uttered this calamity, you have to find justification for it, and then you have to start lying and distorting, and diverting the attention of the people away from the clear, open, known issues that on their own, falsify the initial claims made. Such as for example, the fact that this action of Uthmaan was accepted by the other Companions and that its basis lies in what the Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) affirmed of there being a "Sunnah of the rightly-guided caliphs" and the fact that all the Scholars of Islaam accepted this action and spoke of it as being a Sunnah. However, instead, the Hajaawirah pretend that they are not blind-followers and that the truth is with them and then they wage a war just to prove Uthmaan (radiallaahu anhu) did bid'ah, tell lies in the process, clip the statements of the Scholars (as done by al-Hajuri), and then they divert attention from broad matters to minute matters of detail where they wrangle and argue - such as what they have done with a narration from Abdullah bin Umar (radiallaahu anhu).
5. The finer details of what we have indicated here will be brought out as we progress through the rest of this series. However, the important thing to note is that you observe how the behaviour of innovators and people of desires evolves over time and how they lie and deceive and how they change the goal-posts and alter the issues of contention as time progresses, so that people forget the original issue and think it is just two groups of people arguing over nothing. Then many of the bystanders and observers who do not know what the original issue was about start saying these are just personal issues, and the argument is over nothing much! And this is partly due to the tactics used by these people of desires (al-Hajaawirah) in order to confuse and obfuscate the great and mighty issues on account of which they and their leader were criticised in the first place.
6. As for the use of the opinion of Shaykh Muqbil (rahimahullah) in this matter, then he was in error and had the Shaykh (rahimahullaah) been alive and had the matter been contested and had he observed what has been said by Shaykh Rabee' and other Scholars with regards to a particular narration of Abdullah bin 'Umar (to be discussed later), then the Shaykh would have acknowledged his error and would have returned to the truth as that is what is known from him. Further, because he had respect, veneration and love for the Scholars, he would have been inclined to accepting the truth from them once it was made clear. Hence, there is no comparison between al-Hajuri al-Haddaadi, and between a great Shaykh such as Muqbil bin Haadee.