The Habashis… A Religious or Political Group?
Abdullah al-Harari al-Habashi arrived at Lebanon whereby he was deceived by the people and they were ignorant that he had come from a country in which is detested by its people to the extent that they even nicknamed him “the sheikh of corruption.” (According to the testimony of some of Habashi’s relatives) this is due to his participation in the corruption of (Kulub) in the land of Harar with taking suggestions and support from the people of Addis Ababa, where there is cooperation with the enemies of Muslims, and more specifically with the Governor (Ondarji) who had smelted (Haile Selassie) there against the Islamic societies as well as bring to the closure of schools in the National Islamic Assembly of Qur’anic Memorisation at the city of Harar in 1367 AH -1940 AD. The school principle (Ibrahim Hassan) was sentenced for twenty-three years with exile, and indeed he was exiled to the province (Jawri) as a lonely fugitive prisoner until he eventually passed away a few years later.
The reason for this cooperation between Habashi and the authority against the people who run the Qur’anic memorisation schools was because of his accusation in that they ascribe themselves to the Wahhabi Ideology.
History still mentions him as the corrupter of (Kulub) which was causing the closure of schools teaching Qur’anic memorisation and preventing preachers and scholars with imprisonment and due to this the people there describe him as (the Great Corrupter) or as (the Sheikh of Corruption).
Since his arrival at Lebanon, he still continues to spread hatred and grudges as well as disseminate complete corruption just as he did in his own country. He is extremely stubborn and very adversarial so much that when he gathers his opponent for debate he either does so to reveal agitations of in front of his followers, which could potentially lead to the beating of the one debating or lead to his expulsion, or either withdraw quietly to his room and abandons his opponent for his followers to debate with instead. Also, when asked regarding the cause for Habashi’s withdrawal they answer that the Sheikh is exhausted and wants to rest. This had personally occurred with me and with some other brothers.
* Habashi has recently succeeded in producing large groups of braggarts and fanatics who only view one to be a Muslim if he so much announces his compliance and submission to their Sheikh’s doctrine and what it comprises of in terms of faith and its parts, that everything is restricted to God’ enforcement, and Jahmiyyah and I’tizaaliyyah (disqualifying and rejecting) God’s Attributes. They also transform God in what they call ‘legal tricks’ which includes curious and wondrous Fatwas.
* Almost no Muslim was saved from their beatings and abuse. The involvement with mosques surely became ‘a manifest victory’ for his followers and he had passed a ruling that those who call themselves ‘Wahhabis’ are in fact unbelievers and apostates from Islam. He also prevented the residents from his followers in Saudi Arabia from entering the ‘Wahhabi’ mosques and allowed them to eat onions and garlic shortly before the prayers in order that they can become excused, rather prohibited, from entering the mosques.
* Just ask the Imams of the mosques from any place in Lebanon: ‘which mosque was safe from their corruption, shouting, beatings and gun fires?’ Ask Adnan Yasin: ‘how many times did they attempt to kill him?’ Ask the preacher Hassan Qatirji: ‘what did he do to them to deserve them continuously pursuing him and make him taste their beatings and harm?’ Ask the preacher Jamaal al-Dhahabee, Abdul Hameed Shaanuhan and others: ‘why did they leave Lebanon? Isn’t it because of the beatings and the harm that opted them to do nothing but leave?’
Just listen to their announcement in which they use as a platform foundation for the sacrilege of others, even to the point that they described Sheikh Mohammed Ali al-Jawzu with the most defaming characteristics and made him to be someone of a licentious behaviour. As it happens, they also described me likewise, and had this been under an Islamic Rule they would have been charged with the False Accusation Penalty.
So where is the so-called ‘religious openness’ in which they allege to call to? Is it the openness with the accomplices who employ them for splitting the Muslims and spreading enmity and misanthropy amongst Muslims!
* With regards to the Baatiniyyun (Esoterics), neither he nor his followers have spoken one word about them. Every time a book was published for Habashi I managed to peruse it and found that it had remained silent regarding the Esoterics as well his followers disseminating ads, announcements and publications in extolling and applauding them. So is it reasonable for these people to be more guided than likes of Sayyid, al-Albanee, Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Baz?
This rather begins to unravel Habashi’s reality from the last lecture in which he delivered at Tripoli whereby he began to incite calling for assistance from the members of Ahl al-Bayt and that there is no problem for a Muslim to call pleading ‘O Ali!’ ‘O Hussein!’ in this manner as practiced by the Shiites. The realities of coordination and cooperation between them and the Esoterics are now being revealed, especially when the Esoterics participated in confiscating the book ‘Itlaaq al-A’innah’ (To Give Free Reins) in which its author had refuted Habashi who had he accused Aisha of indecency/sin and attacking some of the Companions so as to become close with the Esoterics.
Habashi used to exploit the simple people and their love for the religion by turning their hearts in coarseness and in animosity against his opponents from the scholars and he turns the masses against them, thus this is what he does today in Lebanon. Then I conclude by saying that the preachers and scholars have to surrender to Haille Selassie along with their humiliation. Some of them had even fled to Egypt and Saudi Arabia and consequently settle down there.
This atmosphere had continued until he had begun resuming the corruption itself. As a repercussion, his corrupt doctrine of Shirk (associating others in worship with God), the propagation of the Jahmiyyah School in interpreting God’s Attributes, the false notions of faith and it parts, the belief that everything is enforced by God, sufism, esoterism, and rejecting as well as insulting the Companions in which they have insulted Mu’awiyyah and scolded at those who have held back from fighting the two groups of Muslims.
He accused Aisha of disobeying God’s command and then began to verbally attack his opponents al-Albanee and Ibn Baz with disbelief and accused Ibn Taymiyyah of disbelief, apostatising, heresy and ordered for his books to be burnt. He also accused Imam al-Dhahabee of being malignant, Sheikh Sayyid Sabiq of being a Zoroastrian and cursed Sayyid Qutb. Although however, he and his followers have praised Abdel Nasser for hanging Sayyid Qutb despite the fact that he refrained from answering the ruling of the Esoterics and Shiites. Rather the opposite holds true in that he turned away from them and commanded his followers to maintain friendship with them as well use them as a powerful, protective, covering shield in order to consolidate him and his followers in beating Muslims and preachers of God, even if it may be in the mosques.
Some of his odd and peculiar Fatwas became heard of. So for instance, it is permissible to steal from neighbours if they are Christians and that it is allowed to see the Prophet (may God grant him peace and blessings) amongst the people while one is awake. He even allowed consumption of usury and prevented the paying of Zakat. Further, he also alleged that the Companions are imitators and that had it not been for Allah helping the unbeliever in thinking he would not have been able to disbelieve, and lastly that whoever claims God actually speaks has disbelieved. Thus he began this corruption by issuing his deceptive fatwas of God in Islamic jurisprudence.
I regard it unlikely that Habashi was a Jew even though this was publicised about him. There is no direct evidence to prove this, albeit I do not hesitate in saying that the qualities he has raised within his followers – from: arrogance, hatred of others, inciting a dislike for Muslims from the Companions and the scholars, harming those who pray and beating them in the mosques (beginning with the Imam), and their inculcation of deceiving God – indeed these qualities are Jewish qualities where one does not require to burden himself with researching the origin of Habashi in whether or not he is a Jew. Certainly the result is that people know the characteristics of Jews.
Their arrogance, hatred and aversion was a clear sign for the common mass and their ignorance upon misguidance, even to the extent that they named every deviant in the religion with the word ‘Habashi’ or ‘Mutahabbish’
The Fatwa of the Esteemed Sheikh Ibn Baz Regarding Habashi:
I remember that the esteemed Sheikh Abdul Aziz Bin Baz had studied and looked into the conditions of Habashi and his group and consequently issued a fatwa (no. 2392/1 – date: 30/10/1406 AH) in which it states: ‘indeed the Habashi group is a misguided group and their alleged head Abdullah Habashi is known for his deviancy and misguidance. It is imperative to cut them off and deny their false doctrine as well warn the people from listening to them or even accepting what they say.
They Contradict Imam al-Shafi’i in Belief and Creed:
*With regards to Habashi and his followers’ school of thought then it cannot be said to be of the Shafi’i School of Thought. This is owing to how they misconstrue God’s Attributes without any legislative discipline, rather in accordance with their desires: where is the evidence that this is from the Shafi’i Creed? Where did Imam al-Shafi’i explain the Most Exalted’s statement: ‘The Most Merciful has risen above the Throne’ to mean that God has seized/established His Throne? And did Imam Shafi’i embark upon anything in making allegorical interpretations like what these people have deemed as a necessity? Yet they accuse the one who contradicts this to be making a rival and similitude with God!
* Habashi alleges that the Archangel Gabriel is the one who has created the Qur’anic words and not God Himself. As a consequence of this, the Qur’an is therefore according to him not the Speech of God but rather an expression of God’s Speech, i.e. that Gabriel expressed what was running internally of God and that he had formed it into his own words. Yet, you find his followers repeating this statement and when asked about its interpretation they become confused and are not capable of making it comprehendible nor do they understanding it themselves. They even impose for it to be said that the Qur’an is an expression of God’s Speech and is not God’s Speech. They serve to argue their case with the Most Exalted’s statement: ‘this is the word [spoken by] a noble messenger’ (Izhaar al-Aqeedah al-Sunniyyah 59).
– Furthermore, he claimed that God has control over most things (Izhaar al-Aqeedah al-Sunniyyah 40) and raised the question amongst the people: ‘does God have control over Himself or not?’ So did Imam al-Shafi’i embark upon this similar line of thought with such devilish whispers and heresies?
* Habashi incites the turning of one’s attention to the graves of the dead and seeking assistance along with seeking the fulfilment of one’s needs from them. Not only that, he even allowed seeking refuge from other than Allah and the person seeking protection would say ‘I seek protection with such and such a person’ (Al-Daleel al-Qawem 173 Bughyat al-Talib 8 Sarreh al-Bayaan 57 & 62). On top that, apparently the Special Friends of God (Al-Awliyaa’) come out of their graves in order to fulfil the needs of those who seek assistance from them and afterwards they return to their graves (Audio Khalid Kani’aab/B/70). Moreover, they also seek blessings through stones (Sareeh al-Bayaan 58 Izhaar al-Aqeedah al-Sunniyyah 244). Thus this is the shirk that enters them into the domains of their creedal belief: but does this shirk concur with the pure and pristine creed of Imam al-Shafi’i?
* Habashi is a deviant Jabaree (belief that everything is enforced by God) in understanding the Pre-ordainment and Fate of things. He claims that God is the One who has helped the unbeliever in his disbelief and that had it not been for God then the unbeliever could not disbelieve (Al-Nahj al-Saleem 67). Indeed he has praised al-Razi for saying that the worshiper is ‘compelled in a chosen picture’ (Izhaar al-Aqeedah al-Sunniyyah 196).
* In proportion to the issue of Imaan (Faith and its parts) Habashi is a Murji’i who dismisses actions to be part of imaan (Al-Daleel al-Qaweem 7 Bughyat al-Talib 51) and so according to him the person remains a believer even if he was to abandon the prayer or anything else from the pillars of Islam in that regard. This contradicts the creed of Imam Shafi’i who strongly advocated that Imaan, Actions and the Creed are all one thing.
* Moreover, Habashi belittles the issue of ruling by resorting to man-made laws that contradict the Rule of God. He has described those who do not want to establish a state governed by Islam – ‘they only want to establish a secular state – because they are Muslim and believing people, rather helping them is permissible’ (Audio 318/1 al-Wajh al-Awwal). He also adds that ‘the Muslim who does not rule by God’s Legislation should only rule by positive laws that people are acquainted with amongst themselves as its essence is in accordance with the peoples’ desires which is prevalent in other states, and it is therefore not permissible to accuse them of disbelief’ (Bughyat alTalib 305). He also maintains that ‘whoever does not accomplish God’s Rule within himself then he does not perform anything of the obligatory rites imposed by God nor does he abstain from anything of the prohibited things. However, if he had said that “there is no god but God” during the course of his life, even if it be once, then he is a believing Muslim.’ He is also reported to have said ‘a sinful believer’ (Al-Daleel al-Qaweem 9-10, Bughyat al-Talib 51).
We say: are these words that come out from the mouth of a sincere advisor – a reformer who wants to reform the peoples’ religion? One who also defends those who rule with other than what God has revealed? Perhaps this is one of the reasons for today’s advanced support for this group which has appointed itself to defend the secularists, who have become, according to the group, closer to God than the likes of Mu’awiyyah, Ibn Taymiyyah, al-Albanee, Sayyid Qutb and Sayyid Sabiq.
Indeed restricting imaan to being the mere utterance of the two testimonies of Faith without actions is a clear contradiction of Imam al-Shafi’i’s School of Thought in which he used to strongly advocate that imaan is: the statement of the tongue, belief in the heart and actions of the limbs, and furthermore he does not allow the separation to be made from these three entities. Likewise, ruling by man-made laws is shirk as God the Exalted has stated: ‘He does not allow anyone to share His rule’. Despite that Habashi views ruling by other than God’s legislation is not tantamount to disbelief nor shirk, and the verse ‘and whoever does not rule by what God has revealed then they are unbelievers’ is specifically for the Jews (Al-Nahj al-Sawee 16), whereas the Muslim only disbelieves if he denies God’s rule. To this effect, he has judged Sayyid Qutb with disbelief because he had forbade the judges to pass rulings amongst the people with man-made civil laws that oppose the Shariah rulings.
* Habashi also prefers weak and fabricated Hadiths and remains silent about their deficiencies merely because it lends support to their school of thought. At the same time he classifies many authentic Hadiths to be weak, ones which do not concord with the people of argumentation and rhetoric. This, however, is the hallmark of the People of Innovation, those who do not dedicate themselves to the Sunnah. This is quite apparent in his book ‘Mawlid al-Nabee’ (The Birthday of the Prophet) in which there is much laughter at the reports, and the book ‘Sareeh al-Bayaan’ (Clear Statements) whereby he manifests his predilection for the Shiites to attain their satisfaction and love by presenting a great deal of cursing for some of the Companions, Mu’awiyyah of course being the forefront of them.
* Habashi also flatters the Twelvers by concentrating on the trials and tribulations that have occurred amongst the Companions and he does much to caution those who accuse disbelief for the person who curses the Companions and the two Sheikhs in particular. Also that the School of the People of Truth does not disbelieve nor does it pay any attention to those who contradict this view. This is a matter in which differences have occurred regarding it, however, why this desire now and in a time where others have begun to manifest their cursing and make clearly audible their insults towards the Companions of the Prophet (may God grant him peace and blessings), especially Abu Bakr and Umar? Following on from this, he increases the cursing of Mu’awiyyah and maintains that he is a dweller of the Hellfire. Mu’awiyyah also comes across as an oppressor in cursing reports regarding him, like for instance that he recommended his son Yazeed, while he was on his deathbed, to mutilate Abdullah b. al-Zubayr piece by piece if he gains victory over Abdullah b. al-Zubayr. Such reports appeal to the Shiites and gain much of their satisfaction. In addition, Mu’awiyyah was [apparently] selling idols in India.
* What’s more is that he believes God created the universe without any wisdom and likewise that he has sent Messengers without any wisdom. He also views that whoever links an action of God with wisdom then he has stated that God has created humankind with wisdom and thus is attributing motivation or even entertainment to God, in which case this would make God deficient, a description that cannot be allowed for Him. Further, whoever claims that the Hellfire is the cause for burning and that the knife is the cause for slaughtering then he is a mushrik (a person who associates others with God in worship) who makes a distinct rival with God.
* Habashi even permits the consumption of usury, which is an explicit contradiction of the Shafi’i School of Thought that denounces those who say such a statement, as recorded in Imam al-Shafi’i’s book (Al-Umm 358/8). Moreover, he deems it permissible for the person praying to wear clothes that contain impurity, even if it be urine or faeces (Bughyat al-Talib 99-100). Not only that, he also considers permissible to play gambling with non-Muslims and looting their wealth if they happen to be neighbours (Sareeh al-Bayaan 133).
Among other things, Habashi embarks upon the science of rhetoric, something that Imam al-Shafi’i has denounced for anyone to become preoccupied with – so Habashi’s embarking of the philosophers’ heritage is closer to Hafs al-Fard who was a contemporary of Imam al-Shafi’i where the former was put down by the latter and accused him of heresy in tandem with warning against him. This is due to Hafs’ engagement in the science of rhetoric and interpreting God’s Attributes – yet Habashi and his followers occupy themselves with the science of rhetoric and interpret God’s Attributes. They accomplish likewise the journey of Hafs al-Fard who under the cover of the Shafi’i School of Thought, their judgement according to Imam al-Shafi’i would be similar to the judgement made of Hafs al-Fard accordingly.
– Indeed Imam al-Shafi’i has witnessed those who misconstrue God’s Attributes (the Mu’attilah) in which he said to Rabee’ ‘do not busy yourself with rhetoric for certainly I have studied at the hands of the rhetoric masters who deny God’s Attributes (Siyar A’laam al-Nubalaa 28/10). He is also said to have stated: ‘my verdict of the rhetoric specialists is that they be beaten with palm branches stripped of their leaves and be carried on camels and then be made to go around the clans and tribes until it be announced “this is the reward of whoever gives up the Book and the Sunnah in return for the knowledge of rhetoric’ (Siyar A’laam al-Nubalaa 29/10, Sawn al-Mantiq 65, al-Hilyah 116/9 & Manaaqib al-Shafi’i 462/1). Much more has been reported from him in this same fashion of his dispraise for the people of argumentation and rhetoric. It may be added that even Abu Hanifa has described them with the following: ‘their hearts are coarse and stiff, its very kernel does not care about contradicting the Book and the Sunnah, nor do they possess any form of piety and God-consciousness’ (Siyar A’laam al-Nubalaa 399/6 & Miftaah Dar al-Sa’aadah 135/2). From the signs that allude to their lack of piety and God-consciousness is: Habashi’s use of representing words in God’s right, claiming that his purpose is to warn people from it like the saying ‘and it is disbelief for a person to state: O penis of God, O life of God’s moustaches, O sister of your Lord, free me from you and your Lord’ (Al-Nahj al-Saleem 57, Al-Daleel al-Qaweem 145 & Bughyat al-Talib 41).
– In this manner, Habashi calls the science of rhetoric ‘the science of Islamic rhetoric’ claiming that this is something different from the science of rhetoric that has been dispraised by the Imams: al-Shafi’i, Ahmad, Abu Hanifa and Malik. This is deceiving the people so that they accept it and make some sort of justification for it after the noble scholars have completely warned against it and censured those who pursue it. He only did so in order tell the people: ‘do not assume that the scholars have warned against this learning of controversy that I have brought you with, rather this is ‘Sunni’ controversy and they intended something contrary to this. This is despite the fact that the science of rhetoric and Greek Aristotelian Controversy does not by a far cry have any connection with the Sunnah. It is a truism that the scholars have dispraised it even to the point that the scholar Abu Hamid al-Ghazzali wrote a treatise before his death warning against it entitled ‘Restraining the Common Mass from the Science of Rhetoric’. All these things have negative effects on the Sunnis in Lebanon, the Sunnah has been turned into innovation and the innovation has turned in the Sunnah, and the Muslims have been divided.