Yahya al-Hajuri

Why Is Shaykh Muqbil Excused and Yahya Al-Hajuri Al-Haddadi Is Not? The Answer
Posted by Abu.Iyaad on Monday, March, 17 2014 and filed under Articles

One of their main lines of argument on the issue of the first adhaan of Uthmaan (radiyallahu anhu) is centered around the use of the position of Shaykh Muqbil (rahimahullaah) regarding this adhaan that it was a bid'ah. This erroneous view of the Shaykh is used in a number of ways a) to protect al-Hajuri, b) to claim that those attacking al-Hajuri are really intending Shaykh Muqbil (a false claim). Here are some points to explain why Shaykh Muqbil is excused and Yahya al-Haddadi is not:

  1. It is not known from Shaykh Muqbil (rahimahullaah) that he spoke ill of the Companions (radiyallaahu anhum). Conversely, we find in the practice of Yahya al-Hajuri a sustained pattern of revilements indicating a general orientation. The Companions participated in the murder of Uthmaan (radiyallaahu anhu) he claimed. They were punished twice for two disobediences in the Battle of Badr he claimed. They were the first to speak with Irjaa' he claimed. They deserted and abandoned Uthmaan (radiyallaahu anhu), and so on. So from the outset, we cannot treat Imaam Muqbil (rahimahullaah) like al-Hajuri, they are two different things. In fact, al-Hajuri has transgressions against the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) (see here), he lists and compiles mistakes of the Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) just as he does with the Companions (radiyallaahu anhum).

  2. Shaykh Muqbil was in error and he held the view he did based upon his own consideration. A matter may remain obscure or insufficiently clarified (due to absence of sufficient debate) and within that context, a person can be excused for holding a view in an issue. The issue was not fully debated and the evidences had not been exhaustively evaluated and scrutinized such that there was clarity present in that time as there is now where al-Hajuri and his bid'ahs, his orientations and his evils have been scrutinized. As a result of all of that scrutiny it is very clear that this opinion is an erroneous opinion. Had Shaykh Muqbil been alive, and the subject came up for debate, scrutiny and analysis, he would have left this saying inshaa'Allaah because, unlike al-Hajuri, it is not known from Shaykh Muqbil to oppose the truth and because he venerated and respected the scholars and would have listened to their speech.

  3. It is established that Yahya al-Hajuri was guilty of knowledge based crimes in trying to prove this errant opinion. From them a false claim of consensus (based upon clipping statements of scholars) that the first adhaan is a bid'ah. The claimed consensus has been proven to be false, and is now clear to the Hajurites. Also from them is the cutting and clipping the speech of the Scholars as he has done with the narration of Ataa', clipping the words of Ibn Rajab (see proof), and also clipping the words of Shaykh al-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah. Inshaa'Allaah separate articles will be provided to document the examples alluded to. You will see direct first hand evidence of Yahya al-Hajuri's clear-cut deception in this regard. So we see activity here that does not allow the excuses we can make for Shaykh Muqbil (rahimahullaah).

  4. Al-Hajuri and his followers persist in this falsehood after the debate is exhausted and after they have nothing left in their hands. Even the report of Ibn Umar, which they were relying upon, its use has been invalidated (from a number of angles, even if we accept that the narrator Hishaam bin al-Ghaaz is thiqah, since even then the narration has a plausible explanation), and they had a lot of deception in that regard too which has been uncovered (much of which is yet to be presented on this site). Their claim to evidence then becomes falsified, because when they are left empty-handed, they resort to their saying "it was the position of Shaykh Muqbil" or resort to their argument through "ikhtilaaf", they say "because there is ikhtilaaf in this issue you can't show rejection to us" as they claim. So when they say this, it becomes clear to all people that they are people of desires, not people of evidence, and they are in fact muqallidah, they follow opinions whose incorrectness has become firmly established, and they make use of the argument of "ikhtilaaf" to justify their persistence upon falsehood, so out of the window goes the slogan of "daleel" and "absence of taqleed."

  5. Notice how the Hajurites speak about Shaykh Rabee because he disparaged their leader, Yahya al-Haddadi and look at what they say:

    Now - I know as a Sunni, Salafi, Athari, you will be wise to the point inshaa'Allaah. Why is it that this dumb Hajurite can say this regarding Shaykh Rabee for his befitting disparagement of Yahya al-Hajuri al-Haddadi, but he cannot say this speech for the erroneous opinion of Shaykh Muqbil (rahimahullaah) regarding the action of Uthmaan (radiyallaahu anhu)?! Just reflect upon that for the next minute. Reflect carefully, and make sure you understand it from all angles. If you haven't, let us spell it out for you: Defending al-Hajuri is more worthy and lofty for these Hajurites than defending Uthmaan (radiyallaahu anhu) [against the erroneous claim made about his action]. Their activities say it all. They will not admit it with the tongue of flesh (they will even deny it), though it is apparent from the tongue of disposition (their action) which speaks louder. This is why they are Ghulaat. They are blinded by their ghuluww to their own reality. This is why Shaykh Rabee indicated that their ghuluww has no equal. It is what innovation does to you. When you keep drinking it and don't stop, it intoxicates you and robs you of your mind and finally leaves you braindead. At this point, you fail to see the contradictions and hypocrisy in your actions.

From all of these considerations it is incorrect to compare between Shaykh Muqbil and Yahya al-Haddadi and his followers. The latter have no excuse since the matter has been debated exhaustively, the evidences have been fully evaluated, the sayings of the Major Scholars are clear and apparent, and the truth is prominent and clear. No one has an excuse by saying "But this scholar held this view as well..." because this indicates taqleed and persisting upon error after it has become clear.

Here are some statements to aid them in the process:

  • Shaykh Al-Fawzan [To Hajurites]: Your Intent Is to Declare Uthmaan an Innovator [In the Religion] - (see here)
  • Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen: The One Who Says Adhaan of Uthmaan Is Bid'ah Reviles the Messenger, the Caliphs and the Companions - (see here)
  • Shaykh Ibn Al-Uthaymeen: Foolish-Minded Astray Innovator Who Says Uthmaan's Adhaan of Jumu'ah Is Bid'ah - (see here)
  • Shaykh Ibn Al-Uthaymeen: He Is an Astray Innovator Who Says Uthmaan's Action Was Misguided - (see here)
  • Shaykh Al-Fawzan: The One Who Says Uthmaan Innovated (By Instituting the First Adhaan) Is a Mubtadi' (Innovator) - (see here)