How was your meeting with Abdullah al-Habashi?

The questioner : The brothers in Australia have heard that Abdullah al-Habashi met with you, and you previously mentioned this to the brothers. They want a brief overview. Let us keep it short, a simple glimpse of your meeting with Abdullah al-Habashi and your assessment of him, in five or ten minutes... The notes were recorded on the previous tape...

The Shaykh : Yes, he has notes. First, I say that it was his meeting with me, not my meeting with him.

The questioner : We apologize for the expression.

The Shaykh : No, there is no need, but it is a correction to clarify the reality in its truth. I did not know the man when he surprised me with his visit. At that time, I was delivering a weekly lesson at the home of some of my brothers. When he came to me, accompanied by two students of Hanafi jurisprudence, and there is no backbiting in naming them for the sake of history: one was Shu'ayb al-Arna'ut and the other was 'Abd al-Qadir al-Arna'ut. At that time, they were among the enemies of the Salafi da'wah, which we continued to call to throughout Syria, and especially in Damascus, for many long years. So I was surprised by the arrival ofThe Shaykh : Abdullah al-Habashi and these twoThe student : He sat and listened, and by the wisdom of Allah, my topic at that time was related to 'aqidah and the names and attributes, and especially the attribute of Allah the Exalted and Majestic rising above His creation. So he sat listening, not moving a muscle. After finishing, one of the aforementioned men presented me with a paper stating thatThe Shaykh : he invites you to a debate. I am now unsure whether he mentioned two topics or just one. The two topics are in my statements in my lectures, gatherings, and writings regarding the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): whereThe Shaykh : he says that there is a good innovation, and the second issue is the discussion of denying tawassul (seeking nearness to Allah through a means) through other than Allah the Exalted and Majestic, by means of persons, individuals, and statuses, and the like. When I read it, I was amazed at this strange, unusual request from a person with whom I had never met before. So I began speaking withThe Shaykh : I said, "O Shaykh, you are now requesting a meeting. Perhaps I failed to mention that the foolishness of the question is that it says the meeting is in the Great Umayyad Mosque, after the Friday prayer, in the sight of the people." I said to him, "You have never met with me before, nor discussed with me, nor known my opinion on these two issues or others. So how do you want us to meet directly in the Great Mosque, in the sight of a large crowd? This may stir up fitnah (trial, discord or temptation) among the people, and some may become biased in your favor and others in mine, and fitnah may occur. Is it not prescribed and reasonable that we meet and discuss what you want? If we differ and find no alternative but to meet in such a scene, then at that time such a proposal can be made. But this proposal, in my opinion, is religiously and rationally premature." He agreed, which made me feel that this was not from him, and that this proposal was not truly from him, because he is a stranger to the country. How could he be so bold? I am a son of the country, first of all. But these men who were with him are the ones who suggested this to him to ignite the fuse of fitnah, as it is said. In any case, the man agreed, and we actually began to set the conditions for the debate. As we were setting these conditions, first, that it be in writing, and that every letter be signed byThe questioner : and the respondent. Of course, he agreed. After finishing, I proposed that the discussion be on some of the principles to which some of the branches are related, such as the two issues mentioned earlier. He also agreed. So in the end, one of the two men who were with him, and I think it was Shu'ayb, said, "Is there any objection to my being present?" I said, "From my side, I have no objection, except askThe Shaykh : Of course.The Shaykh : if he has no objection. One of our brothers, known for his intelligence, raised his finger and said to me, "Is it possible for me to be present?" I said, "Of course, I have no objection, ifThe Shaykh : he has no objection. He agreed.The Shaykh : The sameThe student : man said, "What is your opinion? My circumstances do not help me. I need a substitute." He pointed to my brother named Munir Abu 'Abd Allah (may Allah have mercy on him), who passed away, because he is truly stronger in knowledge than him. I said, "I also have no objection." And so we agreed, and the sessions began to be held at my home there in Damascus, in an area called al-Diwaniyyah.The Shaykh : He attended one session, two, three; I no longer remember the number. And indeed, the question was written and signed, and the answer likewise, and so on. Then he broke from the established system. He used to frequent the al-Zahiriyyah Library, of which I consider myself a proud son. After we agreed, I no longer saw him. Then I saw him on the day following the night he did not attend, and there he was in the library. I said, "I hope it is well, if Allah wills. Perhaps the obstacle was that you did not come to us yesterday!" He said, "I will come to you today for the lesson." He was taking my lesson program for a specific night. I said to him, "This is not how we agreed. We agreed to continue setting the rules and then branching out from them. You did not heed my words." And indeed, he attended the lesson. After the lesson, he began to discuss. One of the principles I wanted to establish to refute one of their falsehoods is that they argue with ijma' (scholarly consensus). So I began with him the discussion of the definition of ijma', which is truly a proof. We reached the point of saying that ijma' is the consensus of the scholars of the Ummah of Muhammad (peace be upon him) in a certain era, and not the consensus of the Ummah...

Another questioner : The Ummah of the era...

The Shaykh : Yes, the scholars of the era, because by this we refute the claim that says, "My brother, the Muslims agreed on, for example, adding to the adhan (the call to prayer) before and after." This is not ijma', and so on. So in the session, he raised this topic and said, "You said such and such." I said to him, "I did not say such and such," and the discussion began in a way that was not satisfactory, neither rationally nor religiously. I said to him, "O Shaykh, we agreed on writing. Why? So that it cannot be said, 'No, I did not say this.' Our writing speaks the truth. And what is the writing that I wrote as an answer to this question?" He said, "It is not with me." I said, "If so, why did you come without it, and why did we meet?" And the bottom line is that we did not get a result from this session, because the man came to discuss based on what was in his mind, and not based on what we agreed upon. And this is all that happened to me in my meeting with him, in only two sessions. Then he began to publish a response in the magazine al-Tamaddun al-Islami, and I began to respond to him. Among that was a treatise, perhaps you have seen it, "The Thorough Follow-up Response." Have you seen it or not?

The questioner : We heard of it.

The Shaykh : This was first published in the magazine al-Tamaddun al-Islami as consecutive articles, and then we compiled it into a treatise. And I had begun two or three years ago to review it and add new benefits to it. Then, glory be to Allah, the many scholarly distractions turned me away, because I intended to republish it, especially after finding that he has some students who have no knowledge, and they merely pick up everything he says.The Shaykh : And it seems that his activity in Lebanon is extensive.

Another questioner : In Australia, it is even more extensive... His son is there.

The questioner : In Jabal al-Nuzha... and one of his students is in charge of it. The first issue they were studying...

The Shaykh : Takfir (declaring someone a disbeliever). I seek refuge in Allah. Yes, this is one of his innovations and misguidances. So, in conclusion, based on this question, we say that his followers are misled by him. And therefore, I advise using patience, calmness, and forbearance in discussing with the followers with wisdom and good admonition. What I fear most is that the man is not sincere, and that he is planted from one side or another, which Allah knows best. Because we know from Islamic history that the leaders are either people of desires, whether unintentionally or intentionally, while the followers are misled. And many of them, when the truth becomes clear to them, return to it and hold onto it. And therefore, I do not see boycotting them or turning away from them, but rather being patient with them and arguing with them in the best manner. This is for one who has knowledge and a broad chest, so that he can convey the good word to them. And I do not know how the situation is with you there?

The questioner : In fact, they lie a lot, and it is not only their Shaykh who doubts them, but even the leaders who send them also do the same. That is, he goes to discuss with you and says, "By Allah, I went to invite them to repentance..."The Shaykh : He repented through my hands, and these are the things they said about me personally, even though they left my place in the worst possible state. And I swear by Allah that some of them commit open sinfulness against 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him). I swear by Allah that this is not true, and that if he had discovered it, he would have left them immediately, right then and there. And a week later, there was a debate in Sydney, and he was reading for their shaykh.