The Fanatical, Sick Hizbiyyah of the Hajaawirah (Followers of al-Hajuri) Comes to Light
As a review of what has preceded, in Part 1, we established that despite saying that Uthmaan (radiallaahu anhu) made ijtihaad, he describes the action of Uthmaan (radiallaaahu anhu) as bid'ah (innovation), dalaalah (misguidance), mukhaalafah (opposition) and umm ul-bid'ah (mother of innovation). He also claimed a false ijmaa (consensus). In Part 2, we brought numerous citations from Sayyid bin al-Musayyib, Ibn al-Mundhir, Ibn Qudaamah, Ibn Taymiyyah (just by way of example) to falsify al-Hajuri's alleged consensus, and showed that it is actually the other way around, that the action of Uthmaan became accepted by all the Companions and was from "the Sunnah of the rightly-guided caliphs." This consensus was also mentioned by Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali and Ibn Hajar. In Part 3, we laid down the initial foundations for addressing two of the major doubts used by Yahya al-Hajuri and followers to subsequently justify their continuous attacks against the action of Uthmaan (radiallaahu anhu). And in Part 4 and Part 5 we cited from Shaykhs al-Fawzan, Ibn al-Uthaymeen, Ibn Baz, al-Ghudayaan and al-Afeefee on the subject and all of them defended Uthmaan's action and described it as Sunnah that was accepted.
As for the two major doubts alluded to in Part 3, they are:
One: Claiming that the use of the hadeeth of Irbaad bin Saariyah "you must follow my Sunnah and the Sunnah of the rightly-guided caliphs" is just a weak shubhah (doubt) used by those who defend the honour of Uthmaan (radiallaahu anhu) - when in fact it is the explanation of the Salafi scholars past and present, including Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Baz, al-Fawzan and others. Two: The use of a statement of Abdullah bin Umar (radiallaahu anhu) from whom it is related that he described the additional adhaan as "bid'ah" and this will be taken up in detail in further articlese.
In addition to these two doubts, there are other actions of their's as well, from them:
Three: Al-Hajuri's academic dishonesty in clipping and twisting the words of the Scholars who spoke on this matter to try to make it look as if their is consensus on this issue (that the additional adhaan is a bid'ah) - and there are very clear explicit examples of his academic fraud, very blatant, a few examples will be given. Four: Their use of statements and explanations of Scholars that do not benefit them but actually further convict them and an example of that is the explanation from Shaykh al-Albani (rahimahullaah). Five: Their use of the position of Shaykh Muqbil bin Haadee (rahimahullaah) in order to defend al-Hajuri's persistent and continued attacks upon the action of Uthmaan (radiallaahu anhu).
So in front of us are five issues. As for the first issue of the hadeeth of Irbaad bin Saariyah, "you must follow my Sunnah and the Sunnah of the rightly-guided caliphs" and this being a "doubt" used to defend the action of Uthmaan (radiallaahu anhu), then this has already been answered from the statements of the Shaykhs in Part 2 and this explanation has come from the great scholars such as Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Baz, al-Fawzaan and others. So we do not need to address that in detail. However, the remaining four isssues will be taken up in separate articles inshaa'Allaah, and through them, the sick, fanatical hizbiyyah of the followers of al-Hajuri will become clear in that their overriding objective is to fight and argue in order to justify the calamities of al-Hajuri, rather than to follow where the evidence leads and defend the honour of Uthmaan (radiallaahu anhu).