Breaking News
Shrine of Hazrat Imam Abu Hanifa (Radi ALLAH Taala Unho) in Iraq.

Silencing the Fraud in the Dīn of Ibn Nūr al-Shantī the Miskīn Whilst Muḥammad Yasīr, the Teen is Nowhere to be Seen

Compiled, Translated and Annotated
Abū Ḥibbān & Abū Khuzaimah Anṣārī



Alhamdullilahi Rabbil A’lamīn, Waṣalatu Wasalam Ala Rasūlillahil Karīm,  Wa, Ba’d 

Publishers Foreword

Last Month, Yusuf Engineer asked the Dajjal Kazzab, Zulfiker Memon to respond to some false and absurd allegations of Muḥammad Yāsir al-Ḥanafī. These allegations were nothing but profanities, wishful thinking and an awful attempt to confuse the people with regards to the pristine and overwhelming history of the Salafīs and the Ahlul Ḥadīth.

The Dajjal Kazzab Zulfiker Memon was too busy with other “extra curriulcum activites”, he asked Yusuf Engineer to refer the matter to Abū Ḥibbān and Abū Khuzaimah Anṣārī which led to the 2 part answer on the website. [edited]

Low and behold, another new and totally unknown Ḥanafī apologist going by the alias Ibn Nūr al-Shantī, desperately scampered in the defence of Muḥammad Yāsir al-Ḥanafī who was no where to be found except that he may have flapped it.

What follows is a brief and quick response to the vivid imagination, deficient knowledge, distortions and total ignorance of the understanding of the scholars of their own madhab, of none other than the miskīn Ibn Nūr al-Shantī and the one who was nowhere to seen, Muḥammad Yāsir al-Ḥanafī by the brothers, Abū Ḥibbān and Abū Khuzaimah Ansārī.

Salafī Research Institute

3rd Muharram 1437H / Friday 16th October 2015ce

Birmingham, England.

Salafi Research Institute 2015

In the name of Allah The Most Beneficent and The Most Merciful. Praise and salutations be upon His final messenger, his noble companions and his pure family.

RED = Ibn Nūr al-Shantī’s words

BLACK = Our response

A dear friend, Shaykh Mohammad Yasir al-Hanafi recently shared a few of his many thoughts regarding the Salafi sect of the modern era on social media. In this post, he commented upon the false claims of this sect and demonstrated that although they attach themselves to the noble salaf in name, they are in no real terms attached to them. Rather, we say as we have been saying for some time now, that they should rightly be named pseudo-salafis. Within his post Shaykh Mohammad Yasir al-Hanafi made a point that the so called salafis of this age, who claim to be the saved sect known as Ahl al-Sunnah Wa’l Jama’ah, are in actual fact a modern reformist movement which cannot trace its origins beyond a hundred years. It was upon this point that two crass, insults to Islamic scholarship by the names, Abu Hibban and Abu Khuzaimah whose real names are Kamran Malik and Imran Masoom, began spewing putrid lies and confusions in reply to my noble friend. These two dimwits are well known to us. A simple internet search shows that they have already been the sorry victims of a Shaykh known as Dr. Abul Hasan Hussain Ahmed (hafizahullah) numerous times.2  In an attempt to defend their sect, they twisted and misrepresented many statements of the scholars of the past as well as presenting red-herrings to prove that their ilk existed at least more than a hundred years ago. They took the statements of the Imams regarding the pious salaf and those who adhered to their methodology, only to distort them to further their claims. Although they are not worthy of being responded to, for the sake of saving the general masses from the confusions they have presented, below I have clarified some issues and demonstrated; their lack of intellectual capacity, their misrepresentations, contradictions and even an example of them tampering with the words of the scholars of the past!

Well well well, it first must be said it seems like Muḥammad Yāsir al-Ḥanafī has flapped his wings all the way back to deoband and sent another new unknown “intellectually” capable representative and “noble friend” who is another new kid on the block, Ibn Nūr al-Shantī who is not only new but also has very friendly personality. We will look at his demonstrations and his intellectual capacity. Furthermore, using derogatory language will not really change the course of the discussion or the true reality, historical facts and digressive tactics. So this type of speech is nothing but a clear example of their desperation.

 The response is so poor which again is not surprising as the reader can gauge from the amateur title and this alone essentially seals the credibility this poor and desperate attempt to conjure up an answer, weak and feeble as it is. As such we have devised an equal and appropriate title in order for him to have a reality check.

Ibn Nūr al-Shantī being another one of the numerous deceptive alias they use and the people know all the previous alias they have been using, whereas we have always responded in the same way for years, constantly changing their names and alias which is yet another prime example and elucidation of their weakness and their inability to stand their ground, utterly shameful and embarrassing to say the least.

 Also a big JazākAllāh Khair for the first time admitting their association with the deobandi scholars and their abhorrent ‘Aqīdah, more on this to follow.         

Just a brief recap with added benefit about whether the Ahlul Ḥadīth/Salafīs are no more than a 100 years old.

Firstly, there is no basis amongst the scholars past and present to say that the Ahlul Ḥadīth or Salafīs are new movement which cannot be traced more than a hundred years back. Over a thousand years back Aḥmad Ibn Ḥanbal has said “According to us the people of ḥadīth are those who act upon ḥadīth” [Khatīb, al-Jām’e]. (do you want to even give you references for these well known quotes)

Over 700 years back Imām Ibn Taymīyyah has further expanded on this saying “Ahlul Ḥadīth are not merely those who narrated, recorded and reported ḥadīth but also those who learnt, understood and acted upon ḥadīth” [al-Majmū’]. In later times, Imām Suyūtī acknowledged that “There is no greater status for the Ahlul Ḥadīth seeing that they have no other Imām save Muḥammad()” [ar-Radd A’la Min Akhlad].

In fact, a revered Imam of the deobandīs Idrīs Khandhelwī said “All the Ṣahāba were Ahlul Ḥadīth” [Ijtihād wat Taqlīd]. So was he mistaken when he wrote this? Why did he not say they were all deobandī or Ḥanafī? Were the Ṣahāba or the Tabi’īn Ḥanafī and if not what were they in ‘Aqīdah and furu?

In light of the above the Ahlul Ḥadīth have been around for over 100 years.

Secondly, the pillars of the dīn are built upon ikhlās. Indeed no action is accepted without sincerity as is evidenced by all the past and present books of the muhadithīn. bearing this in mind, we advise our brothers to stop hurling insults and abuse as if they are truly seeking the truth their abuse and sinning will act as a barrier.

Thirdly, As for calling us dimwits etc then we can call you far worse but this would not benefit anyone, especially those who are following your attempted response to us and our response thereafter.

Furthermore, if you would like to hear from us the ‘deception’ the ḥanafī and Deobandī scholars have committed in the dīn and it’s texts then please let us know we will write a short treatise on it especially for Oh young brothers??

You apply mention the refutation of the “Shaikh,” seriously is there any shame left brothers, just because the “Shaikh” does not post under this pseudonym there is no denial these same individuals go around posting under all sorts of names and and now aptly praise each other, very shameful.

Oh by the way are you referring to this “shaikh,” the self styled shaikh and his brothers go around posting under pseudonyms and praise him!!!! What class and men.

If you so called “shaikh” had any decent knowledge he would have by now refuted, and, is it the case that his “shaikh” becomes “shakiness”. A lack thereof clearly demonstrates his true reality and depth of knowledge.  

Part One

[Their feeble “refutation” was posted as two parts on their website]

They began by making a personal, uncouth remark regarding us, saying:

“The perpetrator of these remarks were carried out by neonate, new kids on the block with new found levels of testosterone, namely Mohammad Yasir Al Hanafi”

Strange it is that men in their late thirties should feel threatened by youngsters, even more so that they worry their own diminishing testosterone levels are struggling to keep up. Perhaps by the end of this rebuttal they will be booking in for hormone replacement therapy in order to conjure a reply to us. By virtue of such an introduction one can already assert that their “refutation” will not carry much substance.

They then advise the brethren of their ilk not to engage with us as they also fear their incompetence in keeping up with us, a compliment we will accept graciously:

Alhamdullilāh, since you have accepted you are ‘youngsters’ then know your position and manzilah in the circles of ilm. The reality is that you are youngsters in more ways than one not least that your manzilah in ilm is extremely weak and your statements very generalised, loose and weak.

Everyone knows what new kid on the block refers too and it has nothing to do with age, if we must mention it for clarification, mundane as it seems – it refers to new people on the scene which also fits Ibn Nūr al-Shantī. Also we will see how you apply your own words oh young one, “Perhaps by the end of this rebuttal they will be booking in for hormone replacement therapy in order to conjure a reply to us.” Or did you mean Muḥammad Yāsir al-Ḥanafī has already gone and undergoing his treatment!!! In Deoband!!! Tut tut dreadful, anyhow was he incapable of responding? This feeble response is a testimony of his lack of knowledge and the need for you to run to his aid.

Inshallāh we will show this further on. So Oh young ones!! know your station and security will be for you if you remain silent for ‘the one who remains silent has indeed reached salvation’.

Thumma Alhamdullilah we have never feared in keeping up with you and anyone who seeks with justice shall see that we have refuted and responded to your elders for around 20 years and have had very little by way of worthy response, if at all and that which has been authored by your “shaikh” and Amīr is disgraceful and a travesty on the sacred sciences as you shall come to know inshaAllāh. Once again please speak to your elders before you open the hornets nest with us as your elders know us well by what we have written in the past, wa lillah hil hamd.

“The brothers should understand that attempting a refutation against the aforementioned individuals, the Deobandis and Hanafis will result in a subsequent response from them which may be difficult for those brothers to rebut and thereby causing embarrassment on behalf of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah. It is indeed easy quoting what Ashraf Ali Thanvi said etc but when accusations are levied against us these brothers are nowhere to be seen.”

Besides portraying the ahnaf as villains and falsely proclaiming to be adherents of Ahl al-Sunnah Wa’l Jama’ah, they admit that their clan members are good for nothing other than hurling taunts and misquoting the noble elders of Deoband when they themselves live in glasshouses. What a shame it is that they did not take their own advice, a lesson they are about to learn.

OUTRIGHT LIE! we have never admitted that “clan members are good for nothing other than hurling taunts and misquoting the noble elders of Deoband”. please show us where you have taken this as our quote from us? If you cannot show us this you have either lied upon us, misquoted us or at the least are not capable of writing anything worthy of note from the bāb of ‘ilm, let alone to refute us.

we wait for your repentance for this lie.

A quote is then given of a Sheikh Muhammad Fakhir attempting to refute Ash’ari’s. This quote is then fallaciously utilised in order to support the claim that the salafi sect was around two-hundred and seventy-two years ago. There is no mention of salafi in the quote, not even as a word never mind in reference to an entire sect of people. Abu Hibban and Abu Khuzaimah simply claim that this man was a “bona fide salafi” and by that expect a person to believe that the salafi sect is over 100 years old. They then link a bogus document compiled by them claiming that the founding ulama of Deoband were supporters of the East India Company. This document is not worth the pixels it is presented upon, simply by the fact that the struggles of the ulama of Deoband, for the liberation of India against the British are well known. Perhaps they should address why the founding father of the pseudo-salafi movement in the Indian Subcontinent, Nawab Siddiq Hassan Khan of Bohpal was under employment by the British.3

Indeed, this is dodging the main points and glossing over a pivotal point, Ibn Nūr al-Shantī statement is riddled with oceans of confusion when he attempts to say the quote is fallacious, not only did he fail to understand the point but goes on another wild goose chase and making some horrific claims.

Firstly, he should have bothered to check the biography of Shaikh Muḥammad Fākhir (1164H) and he would have learnt that he was a bona fide Salafī and now we have to show these young scholars and Ḥanafī apologists the basic of the basics just because they are so intellectually capable.

That’s some homework for you and let us see your actual levels of scholarship that you so desperately wanted to demonstrate but yet failed miserably.



[Nuzhatul Khawāṭir Wa Bahjatul Masām’e Wal Nawāẓir (6/349 no.641), 2nd Edition, 1431H / 2010ce, Da’irat al-Ma’ārif il-Uthmānīyyah, Hȳderābād Daccan, India]

as-Salafī !!!

as-Salafī !!!

as-Salafī !!!

last time we checked, Mawlāna Abdul Haȳ al-Ḥasanī was a Ḥanafī and he very clearly said that Shaikh Muḥammad Fākhir was a SALAFĪ,  ok one more time, just in case you missed it,


What is even more astonishing and another outstanding example of Ibn Nūr al-Shantī’s scholarship is that, the author of Nuzhatul Khawāṭir, Mawlāna Abdul Haȳ al-Ḥasanī died in 1341H / 1923ce which is just under 100 years and thus he must have authored Nuzhatul Khawāṭir prior to that.

This leads to the point that let alone the Salafīs and Ahlul Ḥadīth being 100 hundred years old, an author who died almost a hundred years old mentions an Imām of the Salafīs, namely Shaikh Muḥammad Fākhir who was born in 1120H and died in 1164H.

So we ask the young new kid on the block, Ibn Nūr al-Shantī, when are you going to join your comrade, Muḥammad Yasīr al-Ḥanafī for hormone replacement therapy, surely you remember what you said, “Perhaps by the end of this rebuttal they will be booking in for hormone replacement therapy in order to conjure a reply to us.”  Let us know we will pay for the therapy!!!

This said, the statement of this great Salafī Imām in his book on ‘Aqīdah is a refutation of the Ashā’irah and at the same instance shows the existence of the Salafīs and Ahlul Ḥadīth two hundred and seventy-two (272) years ago, which again proves our initial point. We pray this is has quenched your search for ilm Mr. Ibn Nūr al-Shantī.

Two quotes are given of Allamah Sam’ani and Allamah Ibn al-Athir stating that people held the titles of salafi by way of attributing themselves to the salaf. This still does not prove the claim that this sect as a collective movement and the things that they teach is more than a hundred years old.

They then say;

“Rather Allamah Safarini has explained that the later scholars who adopted the way of the companions, Tabieen and Taba Tabieen are known as the Salaf (Lawameh al-Anwar (1120).”

First of all, it seems Abu Hibban and his chum have no idea how to reference; either that or they took the above quote from a secondary source because it is so poorly cited.

Nonetheless, the quote was located and we found that this is a complete distortion of what Allamah Safarini said! What he actually said was;

“What is intended by the term “madhab of the salaf” is what the noble sahabah (may Allah be pleased with them) were upon, as well as the tabi’een, those who followed them and the Imams of the deen who witnessed them and recognised their greatness and virtue in the religion and from whom people took speech before them [those who came after the Imams] from.” Scan below

Further on they say;

“Imam Ibn Taimiyyah (728H) and Hafidh ibn Rajab (795H) have included Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (241H), Imam Shafi’ee (204H), Ishaq Ibn Rahawaihah (221H) and Imam Abu Ubaid (224H) to be from amongst the Salaf.”

Here they very clearly acknowledged that the first 3 generations of people were referred to as the salaf and then further on they gave references to Lawam’i of Allamah Saffarini! If Allamah Saffarini was stating here that those from the first 3 generations were regarded as the salaf then what of their claim earlier that Allamah Saffarini said that those who follow the 3 generations are the salaf? Correct your alteration of Allamah Saffarini’s text and you’ll correct your contradiction. Bear in mind that earlier they used somebody refuting the Ash’aris as evidence for the age of this Salafi sect, further on we’ll demonstrate what Imam Saffarini said regarding the Ash’aris.

A list of books is then given in which Abu Hibban and his stooge Abu Khuzaimah claim that they and their co-cultists have taken their religion from.  Claiming to be an adherent of the way of Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal (rahimahullah), this can be enumerated in many directions and insha’Allah will be done so by many more writers soon. Simply claiming to adhere to a set of books from the salaf does not then prove that his sect originated from that time, this is a red-herring that the swindler has put forward.

An attack is then placed upon Shaykh Mohammad Yasir al-Hanafi on why he. as well as the elders of Deoband, adhered to the methodology of Imam Abu Hanifah in fiqh yet follow Imam Abul Hasan al-Ashari (rahimahullah) and Imam Abu Mansur al-Maturidi (rahimahullah) in aqidah. He questions;

“…we ask you, what is wrong with the Aqidah of Imam Abu Hanifah?”

May Allah help these poor men; they don’t even have that much understanding. Luckily for them Shaykh Mohammad Yasir al-Hanafi has already clarified this long before we were aware of this feeble attempt at a refutation:

“Most of you will probably have heard the pseudo-salafis saying to you: “Akhī! Why don’t you follow Imām Abu Hanīfah (rahimahullah) in Aqīdah? You only follow him in Fiqh. In Aqīdah you are Ashā’irah.”

This sort of rhetoric, I’ve heard several times and to be honest, it’s getting rather boring.

In my series, “Is Allāh above the Throne?”, I’ve proven that Asha’irah/Māturidiyyah were the people who protected the Aqīdah of the Ahl Al-Sunnah, including the Creed of Imām Abu Hanifah, Imām Abu Yusuf and Imām Muhammad (rahimahumallah)

There was a typo in the reference it should have been (1/20), exactly the same way your disastrous spelling of Salafī Research Institute (see later), neither is there any distortion yet since you have nothing academic to say but to refer to typo errors, which shows your actual level of scholarly research and your apology skills, just a joke to be quite frank but what can one expect from such “scholars.” Furthermore, explain to us from where are you obtaining the creed of Abū Ḥanīfah and which books? This is so that we can respond to you fully when you question whether Allah is above the Throne or not?

Just like Allāh had taken the work of the Qurrā in Qira’āt, e.g Imām ‘Asim Al-kūfi etc, and we attribute ourselves to them in Qira’āt, in hadith Allāh has taken the work of the Muhaddithūn. Similarly in creed, Allāh has used these noble people to protect the aqidah of Ahl al-Sunnah.

Please evidence with asanīd your claim by establishing that the Ash’arī creed and interpretation of it was exactly like Abū Ḥanīfahs? We await your scholarly research on this Oh young One.

There is NO CONTRADICTION between the creed of Imām Abu Hanifah (rahimahullah) and the Ashā’irah.

Sorry but that is just a blatant lie. According to Mawlāna Anwar Shāh Kashmirī Deobandī this is certainly not the case, see below.

If Ash’arī ‘interpreted’ the creed then how can you be certain there is ‘no contradiction’ as we assume you did not have an ‘interpretation’ from Imām Abū Ḥanīfah himself in the first place? Or Did Imām Abū Ḥanīfah have his own interpretation in which case what was the need for Ash’arīs interpretation?

The reason we attribute ourselves to Ashā’irah is because, compared to the deviated sects that occurred in the time of Imām Abu’l Hasan Al-Ash’arī (who came AFTER Imām Abu Hanifah), we take his interpretations, which is the interpretation of Ahl Al-Sunnah. It doesn’t mean our creed is now contrary to Imām Abu Hanifah’s! It is merely because Imām Al-Ash’arī did that work which was needed at his time, just as Imām Abu Hanifah compiled Fiqh, which was the need in his time.

Hence, in creed ALL FOUR schools are the same, they are all Ahl al-Sunnah, whether they are Ashā’irah, Maturidiyyah or true Athariyya.”4

You are hiding behind the generality of the term of Ahlus Sunnah and in actuality have no substance to your claim. Please be specific. Maybe you are ignorant of the differences in creed between these three sects?

We mentioned earlier that we would show what Imam Saffarini’s views were upon the Ash’ari and Maturidi schools. Let us present to you exactly what he said from the very book, Lawami al-Anwar, that the two amateurs quoted (or misquoted) above. One may then wonder whether they’ve actually even read this book:

“Ahl al-Sunnah Wa’l Jama’ah are three groups: The Athariyya (textualists) and their Imam is Ahmad bin Hanbal (may Allah be pleased with him), the Ash’aris and their Imam is Abul Hasan al-Ash’ari (Allah have mercy upon him), the Maturidis and their Imam is Abu Mansur al-Maturidi.”

Please tell us who are the Atharīyyah that Saffarini is mentioning? Your own quote shows that the Salafī/Atharī/Ahlul Ḥadīth were all around well over a years ago? Or do you now dispute with that which you have quoted?

They make an attack on the ulama of Deoband and their affiliations to the Sufi tariqahs, he says;

“Also can you explain which book of the Salaf or their teaching did the Deobandi’s acquire the Sufi tariqah, Chistiyyah or the Naqshbandiyyah from?”

This is not a matter that needs to be proven from the salaf,

Yes, it does. Is it not part of the Sharia’h and are the turuq not seen as part of the deen? why is it that your elders from deoband have claimed that the turuqs can be traced back to the 4 rightly guided Khulāfa yet you claim they need not proving from the Salaf? 

 the turuq are methodologies of tasawwuf which were developed later and used as a means to the science of tasawwuf, the both of them should read volumes 10-11 of Ibn Taymiyyah’s Majmu al-Fatawa where he has discussed this issue and others like it.

You are misleading in your quote. Does Imām Ibn Taymīyyah say that the turuq are based on Sunnah? Or has he in fact not authored works against the Ṣūfīyyah and their turuq let alone being from one himself as you allege?

This issue will be discussed in detail in Shaykh Mohammad Yasir’s series on tasawwuf which is due to be released on the Hanafi Fiqh Channel. Nonetheless, since you’ve asked where the ulama of Deoband took these tariqahs from, please ask the following Imams also:

  • Imam al-Muwaffaq Ibn Qudamah – a follower of the Qadiri Tariqah5
  • Imam Abd’al Ghani al-Maqdisi – a follower of the Qadiri Tariqah6
  • Imam Ibn Taymiyyah – a follower of the Qadiri Tariqah and others7
  • Imam al-Dhahabi – a follower of the Suhrawardi Tariqah8
  • Imam al-Shawkani – a follower of the Naqshbandi Tariqah9

Once again you have done a very good cut and paste job and this is not part of scholarly research. You have mentioned these scholars and have not quoted any chain or transmission report to show the basis of the claim. As an example, it is very widely known that Imam Ibn Taymiyyah explained the Ṣūfī being the Ṣiddīq one who strived to excel in Zuhd and worship as discussed in his Majmū’ al-Fatāwa wherein he discussed the Ahlus Ṣuffa.

Unfortunately, new wannabe scholars on the block like yourself misused used his words and have attempted to attach him to a Ṣūfī Tarīqah. You can refer to his numerous Fatāwa and Rasā’il about tasawwuf, Ṣūfism and his Kalām on the likes of Mansūr al-Halāj to see where he placed Ṣūfism that was around in his era.

 You have failed to mention evidence of what you rely on to say he was a Qadrī but the likes of yourself usually rely on the points that have been made by the likes of George Makdisi as recorded in the American Journal Of Arabic Studies [for some reason you did not reference this properly, why?] that,

Imām Ibn Taymīyyahs teachers are traced back to Mūwafaq ud-Dīn Ibn al-Qūdāmah who was a student of Abdul Qādir Jilānī and that Imām Ibn Taymīyyah praised Abdul Qādir Jilānī and benefitted from his works. Surely even you can agree that this does not of itself make Imām Ibn Taymīyyah a follower of the Qādrī Tarīqah? Please provide direct evidence with sanad to show that Imām Ibn Taymāyyah said that he was a Qādrī and then we can investigate this issue further. This example just shows the level of your scholarly research.

Imām Ibn Taymīyyah was very clear on the Ṣūfīs and George Makdisi himself writes about him quoting from Imām Ibn Taymīyyah’s al-Fatāwa, Kitab ‘Ilm al-Sulūk, that he said:

“That corruption in beliefs and actions that befell these people (the Sufis) necessitated that many groups totally rejected the original path of the Sufis until those who erred were of two types: one type that affirms its being right and also wrong and another type that negates its being right and wrong, positions on which there are the people of theology and fiqh. The only correct position is affirming that which is, in this matter and others, in agreement with the Book and the Sunnah, and rejecting that which is, in this matter and others, contrary to the Book and the Sunnah.” [translation taken from deobandī website]

Therefore, it is abundantly clear for Imām Ibn Taymīyyah’s benchmark was that which was in agreement with the book and Sunnah and he criticised the later Ṣūfīs and their innovations.

  • Nawab Siddiq Hasan Khan al-Qinnawji (Bhopali) [founder of the ahle-hadith/salafi sect of the Indian Subcontinent] – a follower of the Naqshbandi Tariqah. He himself states that he and his forefathers were all Naqshbandi sufis as well as having authorisations in other tariqahs also. In the same passage, he too attests to the fact that Imam al-Shawkani was a Naqshbandi sufi (he had great admiration for him).10 Scan below:

Many more examples can be given but for the sake of brevity we end it here. Please give us your verdicts on these a’immah for following the sufi tariqahs, especially the founder of your sect.

Then in response to Shaykh Mohammad Yasir al-Hanafi stating that the salafiyya do not have any proper madaris in the UK except for a few crash courses, he says:

“The Salafis and Ahlul Hadith have been teaching in their respective madrassahs for years well before Bury and Dewsbury appeared on the scene. Madrassah’s were and are well established throughout the United Kingdom with names like Madrassah Salafiyyah. We would surely know as we studied in them in the early 80’s and the teaching was regular and consistent from the mid 70’s…The level and methods of teaching were evident and widespread where students would deliver lectures and sermons as training in the annual conferences.”

We found no official records of any established madrasah by the name “Madrassah Salafiyyah” and what classes they have been running since the 70’s. We looked for your “YouTube videos” that you spoke of and found nothing except Green Lane Masjids usual suspects. Where can we find the evidences that these are official and regular lessons? Even more so where is the proof that these classes have been running since the 70’s? Send us a nice prospectus if you get the chance. These lectures and sermons you speak of seem to be very much the “crash course halaqas” that Shaykh Mohammad Yasir mentioned. Your Friday khutba’s and evening maktab classes don’t count as official madaris on par with the various Darul Ulooms up and down the country. You claim there are well established Salafi madrassahs throughout the UK yet you only named one which is not even on record. The Darul Ulooms up and down the UK teach their students the sahih sitta with the chains of narration all the way back to the Imams. What is the proof that this Madrassah Salafiyya taught the sahih sitta. We challenge you to come forward and provide your chains just as Shaykh Mohammad Yasir and his fellow Deobandi graduates have.

And where were you hoping to find these ‘official records’? Are you sure you did not pop down to your local council house and check instead the register of births and marriages? This of course would not surprise us at the least seeing the level of your scholarly research.

We Alhamdullilāh can collect lists of names and witnesses of people who attended Madrasah Salafīyyah since the 70’s but simply do not have the ‘spare time’ like you to waste on trying to establish this point for you. It’s not a matter from the pillars of the dīn or fiqh so you can carry on ‘researching ‘ it and then produce your findings which we can then look at.

Furthermore, since when has this even been an issue, but when nothing ilmi is found an ignorant point such as this is presented. How will you having more madāris make any difference. Little do you remember or realize even if such as the case as you argue then how come a very small few number of us that have no ilm according to you, that you have yet to answer us till this day and our dawah is getting stronger.

A vast number of Deobandīs are becoming Salafīs everyday and you know it when the reverse is far and few, if that!!!! So we wonder what affect your madāris are having

Part 2

The two salafi stooges, Abu Hibban and Abu Khuzaimah begin their nonsensical tirade with the following words:

“In response to our dedication and efforts the hanafis deobandis of Bury and Dewsbury decided to setup Tablighi organisations against the Salafi Dawah.”

No tablighi organisation was set up solely as a response to the salafi dawah. The efforts of tabligh have been present in the UK as early as the 70’s and that is documented unlike their earlier claim!11 

They then make a very strange claim without any evidence, they say:

“It is a historical fact that the people of truth are always less in number”

What you say is a very strange claim is actually very well documented, Aare there not a vast number ḥadīth in the ṣihā and other than them which talk of the 73 sects and one being the saved one? Are there not many āyahs which state that the majority do not remember, understand and believe? Were the companions not a minority in nearly all their struggles including the battle of Badr? In reality it is you who has decided to be blinded and take our words out of context.

In fact, Abdullāh Ibn Mas’ūd (may Allaah be pleased with him) said to ‘Amr ibn Maymūn:

 “The Jamā’h is that which is in accordance with the truth, even if you are on your own.” [Narrated by Ibn ‘Asākir 2/322/13, Sharḥ Usūl al-‘Eitiqād Ahlus Sunnah of Imām al-Lālikā’ī no:160]

By quoting the above we do not mean that the masses are innovators or upon kufr. Rather what is intended is that those upon the truth in any given time are always attached to the book, Sunnah and Salaf of the ummah, regardless of there number. Then this is what Imām Ibn Taymīyyah was referring to in the quote you have given of him below.

This is another fallacious claim that the pseudo-salafis like to present in order to justify and explain away to their followers as to why they are always few in number in every place. They make this claim that the people of truth are few just to satisfy themselves. However there are various ahadith to prove that the people of truth, the victorious group are always in the majority. Let the pseudo-salafis of this age ponder over the following statement of their hallmark of haq, Ibn Taymiyyah:

“The saved-sect is described as being Ahl al-Sunnah Wa’l Jama’ah. They are the overwhelming multitude and the great majority (al-jumhur al-akbar wa’l sawad al-a’zam). The remaining sects are followers of aberrant opinions, schism, innovations and [deviant] desires. None even comes near to the number of the saved sect, let alone its calibre. Rather, each such sect is extremely small (bal qad takunu’l firqatu minha fi ghayati’l-qillah)” [Majmu al-Fatawa, 3/345-346]

If by your quote you mean that Imām Ibn Taymīyyah is saying, for example, that out of a hundred men from various sects of Islām one claims that Allah is above the throne and 99 claim he somewhere other then that and by default the 99 are the Sawād al-A’zam [the great majority and saved sect] then this is misguided and a lie upon Imām ibn Taymīyyah.

Please refer to numerous writings of Imām Ibn Taymīyyah not least including his Iqtiḍa, al-Qā’idatul Jalīlah and that which has been mentioned in his Fatāwa. What Imām Ibn Taymīyyah is clearly NOT DOING, but which you are trying to establish through him is that the vast majority of the UMMAH regardless of creed and belief are the saved sect or Ahlus Sunnah Wal jamā’ah.

Scans below:

Furthering on with their nonsense, they say:

“In light of this one may ponder how the Salafi Dawah is gaining strength if they lack the Madaris as Mr Yasir claims. A further point to note is to ponder how is it that Hanafis are embracing the Salafi Dawah and not the reverse?”

The salafi dawah is gaining strength due to the lies and propaganda that you spread! Distorting issues and presenting them to the lay people to beguile them and capture them into your web of lies. You dupe them by asking questions such as “Are you Muhammadi or Hanafi?” and their likes. Many pseudo-salafis are now returning back to the traditional methods of Islam after the nakedness of the lies the pseudo-salafis tell has been exposed, the inconsistencies in their methodologies and the twisted beliefs that they hold. In fact, it must be the authors in question to whom this is in reply to who are shivering in their “cotton khuffs” at the major turnaround that is taking place.

They then pick up on Shaykh Mohammad Yasir’s comment that they have no link to the salaf. This is brushed aside by them claiming that this has already been dealt with. In reality they have not addressed what Shaykh Mohammad Yasir said and resort to their usual use of red-herrings to escape. Shaykh Mohammad Yasir was indicating towards their lack of asaneed back to the salaf. How can one claim to be upon the methodology of the salaf yet not have any physical connection to them? What is the guarantee that what these pseudo-salafis claim to be upon, has been conveyed to them authentically? Simply claiming to adhere to a set of books does not ensure that they are understood correctly and it certainly does not ensure any real connection to the authors, a very devious way of avoiding a very strong challenge.

Once again you have misunderstood what was being said and are so blinkered in your own madhab that you have forgotten your own principals. You talk of ‘lack of asanīd’ so we ask that the bulk of your so called fatāwa in your fiqh books ascribed to Imām Abū Ḥanīfah do you have an isnād for them? The answer is no, so you have fallen on your own sword. As for our methodology having no isnād back to the salaf then you have just made this assertion and not provided evidence for this baseless claim. Please provide evidence.

A claim is then made;

“Meanwhile we the Salafis can bring forward our proofs which emphasises that our Manhaj and Aqidah has not been diluted but rather it is a mirror reflection of the Companions, Tabieens and Taba-Tabieens.”

We’ll take you up on that and we question you, why out of all of the issues that we have put forth in our videos starting from the “True Creed of The Salaf” series where it has been shown that Ibn Taymiyyah held anthropomorphic beliefs such as saying Allah is seated upon His Throne,

Do you mean the oft quoted report from Taqī al-Ḥiesnī from Alī Ḥasan …….? If so even you will know that this is a major fabrication on Imām Ibn Taymīyyah.  Clarify your allegation against Imām Ibn Taymīyyah so we can respond accordingly. Scholarly research and writing should not be done in such haste as you have done throughout without any referencing. 

In fact, Imām Ibn Taymīyyah in discussing the saying of Imām Mujāhid about the sitting on the Throne states:



“Like the Ḥadīth which mentions the Messenger (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) sitting upon the Throne. This has been narrated and ascribed to the Prophet by some people with many different chains of narration however they are all fabricated. This has only been authentically relayed from Mujāhid and others from the scholars of the past.” [Daru at-Ta’āruḍi al-‘Aql Wan-Naql [5/237] of Imām Ibn Taymīyyah, 2nd Edition, checking Dr, Muḥammad Rashād Sālīm, 1991ce / 1411H, Jām’e al-Imām Muḥammad Ibn Sa’ūd, Rīyādh, KSA)

Imām Ibn Taymīyyah continues,


“It is incumbent to differentiate between what has authentically been reported from the words of the Prophet (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) and what has been authentically relayed from other than him…” [Daru at-Ta’āruḍi al-‘Aql Wan-Naql [5/238]

Then what is stated above is what Imām Ibn Taymīyyah believed. As for the sitting then Imām Ibn Taymīyyah and the creed of the Salaf is clear that we take Allāhs attributes and actions without making any similarity or explaining its kayfīyyah. So why are you assuming sitting here is like the sitting of creation? In actual fact it is you who has the anthropomorphic mentality and not Imām Ibn Taymīyyah.

that Allah moves etc, the taymiyyun (which the pseudo-salafis of today are) claiming that Allah’s attributes are to be taken literally;

The Ḥanafī scholar Shaikh Mullā Alī Qārī clearly says the one who denies the Istiwa of Allāh Haqīqatan is a Mu’ṭail ie a Jahmī one who denies the Ṣifāt of Allāh and then goes on to mention this is in full agreement and conforms exactly to what Imām Abū Ḥanīfah said (see scan below)

[Mirqāt al-Mafātīḥ Ṣharh Mishkāt al-Masābīh [8/216-217], Edition 1st, 1422H / 2001ce, verification of Shaikh Jamāl ‘E’ytā’ī, Dār al-Kutub al-‘Ilmīyyah, Beirūt, Lebanon]




Mawlāna Anwar Shāh Kashmīrī also states very clearly in his explanation of Tirmidhī that they are to be taken on their apparent meaning and that it is Haqīqī, see his explanation under the ḥadīth of Nuzūl in Tirmidhī. He states, see the scan of the pages




“in summary, the essence [of the matter] is that the descent (nuzūl) of the Creator to the lowest heaven is a true and real nuzūl (haqīqah), that is to be carried upon its dhāhir (apparentness), and [the knowledge of] its tafsīl and takyīf is to be relegated to the Creator, lofty be His manifest evidence, and this is the madhab of the four Imāms and the Righteous Salaf as has been quoted by al-Hāfidh [Ibn Hajr] in Fatḥ al-Bārī.” [al-‘Urf ash-Shadhī Sharḥ Sunan at-Tirmidhī [1/414-417] of Mawlāna Anwar Shāh Kashmīrī, Edn. 1st, 1425H / 2004H, verification Shaikh Maḥmūd Shākir, Dār Iḥyā at-Turāth al-Arabī, Beirūt, Lebanon]

Will you now say Mawlāna Anwar Shāh Kashmīrī was an anthropomorphic and that he is like the “the taymiyyun (which the pseudo-salafis of today are) claiming that Allah’s attributes are to be taken literally, that allah moves etc”; He also says the nuzūl is Haqīqī totally contrary to what these new kids are claiming. One advice would be to at least get your positions in order or is it a case that your totally confused as per usual and misleading and beguiling the general Ḥanafī brethren!!!

Please respond to this point.

He also critiques the ASH’ARĪ creed in relation to Ṣifāt and announces that ibn Taymiyyah was upon the correct way. What will you respond to him

As a side point, note well, Ibn Nūr al-Shantī’s “shaikh” Abul Ḥasan Ḥussain Aḥmed’s paternal grandfathers brother, Shaikh Assadar Alī [d.2005ce] who he learnt from and gained an ijāzah from, took ijāzah and fawā’id from Mawlāna Anwār Shāh Kashmīrī. Thus Abul Ḥasan Ḥussain Aḥmed has a strong connection with Mawlāna Anwar Shāh Kashmīrī yet here find things quite the opposite. Ibn Nūr al-Shantī hope you noted that well!!!

These people are filled with so much hatred and animosity for the Salafīs and Ahlul Ḥadīth that they can not even add the name Muḥammad to Shaikh al-Albānī’s name and they always do this deliberately and they do not even have the common decency to add the word Shaikh to his name. The readers will note, disrespecting and using derogatory terms are the norm for these people and Alhamdulillāh we will always refer to their grandfather as Shaikh Assadar Alī and May Allāh have mercy upon him, Amīn.

regarding which 50 quotes from the salaf and khalaf were given to prove the contrary, all the way down to a “scholar” of the ahle-hadith sect by the name of Inayatullah al-Athari claiming that Isa (alayhisalaam) was born with a father (nauzubillah)!12  Also their chief scholar, Nawab Siddiq Hasan Khan praising Ibn Arabi and quoting him saying that Rasulullah (sallalahu alayhi wa sallam) hugged Ibn Hazm and became united into one entity with him, then later claiming that this is nothing strange!13  Or how about him innovating a type of salah known as “salah kun faya kun”?14  Bear in mind that he has claimed in his introduction that all the practices in his book are proven from the Qur’an and sunnah, please do defend your Imam and show us how this is so.There is much for you to answer, let us concede for arguments sake that the salafi sect is older than 100 years, why pick on this minute issue and not address the more pressing issues which we have already challenged you upon?

What an ignorant statement, this has been addressed by the publishers in the introduction and thus the reason for the response. We do not need to answer anything of yours because it well known on the internet world that you people are arch liars and you demonstrate this yourselves but constantly changing your pseudonyms and to this today you are not men enough to write anything thing with your kunyahs attributed to your real name, this is the men that you are.

All of your stuff has been answered in the aforementioned websites and, we wait for your answer to them or even better let see if you run to your “shaikh’ who has till day not answered the most vehement refutation on the 2 sects mentioned above. In fact we know that he will never have the guts to answer anything fro the 2 websites above as he is scared.

We the Salafīs have no madāris and we have not been taught but at the same time you can not answer or detailed arguments to you, this is very shameful.

Would you like us to mention the hundreds of statements of the deobandī ḥanafī scholars and their abhorrent ‘Aqīdah filled with shirk and kufr for example,

Mawlāna Aḥsan Ghilānī writes, “We do not deny or reject seeking help from the souls of the Auliyā, hence so if a believer inflicted with troubles seeks help from good souls then what verse of the Qurān or Hadīth refutes this.” (Hāshīyah Suwāneh Qāsimī 1/332)

and Mawlāna Gangohī said, “With regards to Sayyid Sahib, Allāh was incarnate in him (i.e. he was in annihilation with Allāh).!!!” (Arwah at-Thalātha (pg.185) and Sayyīd Sāhib is non other than the infamous Shaikh Imdādullāh Muhājir Makkī

and the statement a student of Mawlāna Rashīd Aḥmad Gangohī said, “I saw in a dream the Messenger of Allāh (Sallalahu Alayhee Wasallam) took me to the bridge of Ṣirāṭ and I saw the Messenger of Allāh (Sallalahu Alayhee Wasallam) was falling over the bridge so I saved him.” (Balāgahtul Khairan pg.15) of Mawlāna Ḥussain Alī of Bicharan from the district of Mianwali, Punjāb Pākistān)

And here is more just in case you have time on our hands which we think you do because your vivid imagination and wishful thinking, read the following,

And how about the following, what your deobandī scholar Mawlāna Muḥammad Amīn Safdar Okārwi said, the Qaḍi’s that were violent against Imām Aḥmad ie ordered his lashes were Mu’tazilī in ‘Aqīdah and Ḥanafī in furu. See scan



[Tajallīyāt Safdar [2/68], Edn ? arranged by Mawlāna N’aīm Aḥmad, Maktabah Imdādīyyah, Multān, Pākistān]

So what are you on about, you have Mu’tazilī’s in your chains who were mulḥids and heretics infact Kāfirs!!! You are definitely going to need 2 doses of hormone replacement therapy now!!!

Take a look now at this interesting trap that they threw themselves into. In a desperate attempt to attack the ulama of Deoband via our adherence to the Hanafi fiqh, they attack an individual who is found in certain chains of transmitting legal rulings, they say:

“Only one needs to read the books of rijal and history to understand the Salaf within the deobandis and hanafis. For instance we can study the example of Abu Mute’a al-Balkhi and his beliefs (Refer to Lisan ul-Mizan Vol. 2, Mizan ul-E’tidaal Vol. 1 and Kitab al-Kunna Vol. 2 of ad-Daulabi).

“Yes Abu Mutee al- Balkhi is a questionable individual but the dim-witted salafis fail to realise that this individual is present in the chain of a narration they like to utilise to further their twisted aqidah; the alleged statement of Imam Abu Hanifah in which he apparently subscribes to the view that Allah is literally above His Throne! They use this in their lessons and attacks on those who do not hold the same twisted beliefs that they do and they print this on their propaganda leaflets. Shaykh Mohammad Yasir al-Hanafi has already clarified this issue and demonstrated that the self-taught muhaddith Nasir al-Din al-Albani, among his many contradictions, has classified Abu Mutee al-Balkhi weak in one place when it suited him but then has authenticated him in another place when it suited him!15 Point fingers at the ahnaf for utilising his narrations in fiqh but can you explain why you accept him in aqidah? We look forward to your answer.

We do not accept Balkhī as a narrator but the fact remains that you are trying your utmost to run away from him and his quote in relation to Abū Ḥanīfah making hukm of kufr on the one who does not say Allah is above the Throne. It is amazing that you have abandoned not only Balkhī but also Fiqh al-Akbar which until recently was hailed as one of Abū Ḥanīfahs ‘Aqīdah works and you can refer to your “shaikhs” work.

You have even opposed your own major scholars of ḥadīth. Please explain why your Mawlāna Anwar Shāh Kashmirī states in his explanation of Tirmidhī that the ‘Aqīdah of is found in Fiqh al-Akbar and that Abū Muṭ’i al-Balkhī according to him is truthful. SubhanAllāh it is thus established that Mawlāna Anwar Shāh Kashmīrī held this saying of Allāh being above his Throne. We disagree with some of the language and the usage of his terminology in his explanation of this ḥadīth but this quote is sufficient to break your back and abandon your founding fathers inshaAllāh.

What is so baffling that Ibn Nūr al-Shantī from his scholarship and research has great difficulty in understanding basic points, is not Abū Muṭ’i al-Balkhī trustworthy and truthful according to you, if not then please mention your clear position on him and no vague terms like questionable. Secondly he was cited as an evidence against you and lastly as mentioned above Abū Muṭ’i al-Balkhī was declared truthful according to your Ḥanafī Mawlāna Anwar Shāh Kashmīrī.

There is more, the Imām of the Ḥanafīs in ‘Aqīdah, Abū Mansūr al-Māturīdī clearly says that Fiqh al-Akbar is authentically attributed to Imām Abū Ḥanīfah which subsequently contains the famous statement, whoever says I do not if Allāh is above the Heavens or on the Earth he is a Kāfir. Thus, this is authentically established from Imām Abū Ḥanīfah as per the Imām of ‘Aqīdah of the Hanafīs, Abū Mansūr al-Māturīdī. See scan below.

This is indeed a sufficient reason for these new kids on the block to know their manzilah and it also abrogates everything this young one because it seems he has no idea what he is talking about. Now the onus lies with you, make your bayan on this issue.





[Kitāb Sharḥ al-Fiqh al-Akbar [pg.2,17 (respectively)] 3rd Edition 1400H / 1980ce, Da’irat al-Ma’ārif il-Uthmānīyyah, Hȳderābād Daccan, India]

Dear readers, this constant foul mouthed language and calling us dimwits etcetra will not change the facts and reality but if it makes the young ones feel more mature, masculine and macho then all we can say is to join your comrade for hormone replacement therapy, we are sure he must be feeling lonely and tired after flapping his wings all the way back to deoband.

Not only can we respond appropriately but we know how to deal with the likes of these unknown new kids on the block, Ibn Nūr al-Shantī, who besides being totally unknown has nothing to show his worth and if he wants to know ours then let him ask his “shaikh” about his discussions with us spanning years back.

We have inshaAllāh responded to the points without digressing however at times even the ignorant ones warrant some sort of response and stern words.

After much further specious statements with no validity or reality, they come onto a closing remark that I would like to pick up on;

“This is the very deoband which was established in a Hindu city where their respective goddess would be worshipped and venerated. It is also the very deoband which was formed through the donations of Hindus and the British East India Company.”

If Deoband is to be criticised due to it formerly being a Hindu city where idol worship took place, shouldn’t Makkah al-Mukarramah also be criticised by them since no less than 360 idols were worshipped there during the days of ignorance? No evidence is provided to prove that Deoband was a Hindu city but even if it was, it is a matter of pride that our forefathers were capable of taking it from a Hindu city of idol worship into a bastion and fortress of Islamic practice and teaching. I sense some strong scents of jealousy from the envious ones that I write in response to. As for the claim that Deoband was funded by Hindus and the East India Company, once again no evidence is provided yet there is evidence which I have provided above that their sect was indeed funded by the very East India Company that they speak of.

No point refuting your scholarly research and qiyās above. Is this the same Deoband where it is claimed the Prophet regularly visits? Let us know if you would like the evidence for this statement?

Also what an ignorant point which shows that when you have anger and animosity you forget the basics. If you remember the basics of Islām you will remember that Ādam Alayhis Salām built the house of Allāh first and then subsequent Prophets, when there was no idol worship which is a stark contrast to deoband and furthermore, there are still hindus living in Deoband so what bastion and fortress!!!! How ignorant are you oh young one?

You are probably so engrossed in your misguidance that the very same article your scathingly referenced as not worth the pixels, then if you had bothered to read that you would have found evidence. As for the state of Bhopal the real historians with an open and insightful mind would know the real state of affairs. For example let us give you one example and that is the referring and reporting of the Wahābi activities of Nawāb Ṣiddīq Ḥasan Khān to the British government, which is well documented, even in English.

Now, if you are ignorant and your scholarly research is extremely deficient and poor then it is better for you to retire before you get ahead of yourself because nothing comes to mind except sheer shoddiness. If you are ignorant then do not speak and if this is your best research, the deobandī ḥanafīs need to refute you for tainting them with your hilarious, hysterical and comical research.

First tell us if you are ignorant of the facts and realities and that you do not know what you are talking about, once you have admitted this we shall be more than happy to provide you with ample proofs. As it stands we will not be wasting our time with the basics of the basics.  

A closing advice to Abu Hibban and his stooge Abu Khuzaimah before they tuck their tails between their legs and run all the way back to their cells; spend more time researching and providing evidences for your baseless claims rather than exhausting the only 3 brain cells that you have between the two of you in order to mould your childish wisecracks. You call yourselves “Salafi Rsearch Intitute”, thank you for demonstrating the true extent of the “research” that you can do, we found it very amusing. We may be the “new kids on the block” but for a pair of men in their late thirties, you certainly sound like a pair of delinquent teens.

The reality is you have lied and twisted throughout your scholarly research and should refrain from doing so. We are being very amicable in our approach to you as we have hope that you will turn to the truth and leave the path you are upon of falsehood and innovation. Should we be harsh and tough in our response and just overwhelm you with evidences then we fear this will go above your head and not benefit you in the slightest. Hence, we have kept our response very short and simple.

At least spell Research and Institute correctly and remember when you were attempting to refute us that we did not how to reference, we bet you feel real clever now right?

We ask Allah to guide us and keep us upon the creed of the salaf. Amīn.

The lowliest slave of The Most Merciful [Who rose over his Throne Haqiqatan]

Ibn Nur al-Shanti al-Hanafi

By the two weak slaves of of Allah, The Mighty and Majestic

Abū Ḥibbān and Abū Khuzaimah Anṣārī

2nd Muharram 1437H.

Thursday 15th October 2015ce



Check Also


Rejoicing when Innovators die and Praising the Ruler for his Action – Imam Ubadah bin Nusayyin (d.118H)

by  Abu Khuzaymah Ansari This statement shows the Manhaj of the Salaf regarding the innovators …


Raful al-La’imah Aanil Ai’mah – Lifting the Blame From the Imams Series – Part 22 – In Defence of Imam Qatadah b. Di’amah – Repudiating the Allegation of Qadr

Compiled & Translated  Abu Khuzaimah Ansari   I compiled a biography of >>> Qatadah b. Di’amah …


  1. This Abul Hasan is one of the most shameless liars I’ve ever witnessed. The things I’ve seen him write about himself are bordering on the shirk of Fir’awn. He is a bonafide dajjal.

    I’ve been following him since he started posting on sunniforum and exposed him but he took to ma’rifa and gained a following.

    With all due respect I am not an athari but this guys evil surpasses sectarian differences.

    None of the sunnis seem to have a clue what a liar he is and he is so bad that he somehow flipped all the articles against him to be replaced with him attacking his accusers.

    His so called ijaza list is so ridiculous it’s almost shocking.

    I’ve never seen a muslim with more audacity such that on his blogs he calls himself the curiously amazing scholar abul hasan hussein ahmed.

    He is a common enemy not just against athari’s but all muslims.

    I wish some people (regardless of sect) could come together with all they know about him to expose him.

    A while ago I saw a letter written by Hisham Kabbani refuting some of his slanders but I couldn’t get him to write back. He’d be a good person to discuss this with amongst, as well, the athari shuyukh who have any info to expose him.

    They way he tried to flip the script upside makes me wonder if he is even muslim or a munafiq, God knows, maybe even a masonic shark.

Leave a Reply