Between Yasir Qadhi's Shrewdness and Abu Eesa Niamatullah's Thuggish, Brutish Intellect

There is a difference between Yasir Qadhi (see this article in particular, and also here, here, here, and here) and Abu Eesa Niamatullah. Yasir Qadhi is smarter and shrewder in knowing how to play politics in the public da'wah scene in order to maintain (apparent) consistency. Abu Eesa Niamtullah is dumb and has with him a certain bruteness that strips him of any semblance of aql (intellect). You only need to prod him once and the "pathological hatred" he harbours (whilst accusing others of it) pours out like water out of a jug, and that which he accuses the Salafis of (of unjust rulings on people), pours out freely, without hindrance from his heart and soul with the ferociousness of a lion, yet the thought and intelligence of a domestic turkey (see the proof of that in Part 3). That's what has happened in short of a few days, and these are realities that Abu Eesa Niamatullah has revealed about himself in short of three pages worth of Facebook rants. This series of articles is an elaboration upon this reality, and whilst some may protest these descriptions we are using here, we are only describing what a man reveals of himself through his speech and action. Further, what are these words of ours compared to what you are going to read from Abu Eesa Niamatullah in the articles to follow? Yes, that's a question you should start asking now, so that you anticipate the shock before it comes. Go ahead, read Part 3 and try telling us we haven't spoken the truth...

Back to our point, Yasir Qadhi knows full well that making any type of claim of adherence to Salafiyyah will expose his hypocrisy openly and plainly. He knows this is a tricky, thorny path. This is because Salafiyyah has usool (foundations), it has lawaazim (binding necessities), it has outward manifestations by which a person's conduct can be evaluated to see if what he claims is in his heart and on his tongue is being manifested by his actions. This is why true Salafiyyah is resented by these people, and this resentment of their's is unleashed upon those who value this Salafiyyah in belief, speech and deed and try their utmost to uphold it, to the best of their ability. Thus, Yasir Qadhi, having spent a considerable stretch at the University of Madinah, knows only too well that in pursuing the (Ikhwani) agenda that he and his likes have devised for the West (propping themselves up as future leaders and scholars for the Ummah), it is fatal to ascribe to Salafiyyah and to the Salafi Shaykhs whilst pursuing this agenda. Because as soon as you ascribe to Salafiyyah and claim to be Salafi, then automatically you subject yourself to evaluation, scrutiny and your words, deeds, actions, da'wah, methodology and allegiances can be compared to a criterion and if you are a liar in your claim you will not escape being convicted, not even from the speech of the likes Shaykh Abd al-Muhsin al-Abbaad or Shaykh Ibn al-Uthaymeen, let alone the rest of the Salafi scholars of today.

On the other hand those displaying the brutishness of thugs and the intellects of beasts like Abu Eesa Niamatullah (see Part 3), they are not able to think that far ahead and as a result set themselves up for being exposed for their blatant hypocrisy, alongside their ignorance, oppression and injustice. When he took the opportunity to use what is happening in Egypt and Syria to make his brutish, slanderous outburst against those holding to the creed and methodology of the Salaf, he made the claim of being upon the way of the Salaf for the past 20 years. Here he subjected himself to an evaluation of his claim, something Yasir Qadhi knows is something to be avoided. That's why in a supporting message to Abu Eesa Niamatullah on the same day, Yasir Qadhi advised him, "Abu Eesa, leave their Salafiyya and join Orthodox Islam." This is from Yasir Qadhi's shrewdness, he is advising him, as if to say, "Don't ascribe to their Salafiyyah, just leave ascription to Salafiyyah altogether and join Orthodox Islam instead" and as if to indicate to Abu Eesa Niamatullah that which he (Qadhi) has already grasped, understood and become wise to, that ascribing to Salafiyyah is a liability.

If we put together all the foundations (as in principles relating to da'wah and manhaj) which Imaam al-Albani, Imaam Ibn Baz, Imaam Ibn al-Uthaymeen, Shaykh al-Fawzaan, Shaykh al-Ghudayan, Shaykh al-Luhaydaan, Shaykh Rabee', Shaykh Zayd al-Madkhali, Shaykh Ahmad al-Najmee, Shaykh Salih al-Suhaymee, Shaykh Abd al-Muhsin al-Abbaad, Shaykh Ubayd al-Jaabiree, Shaykh Muhammad bin Haadee and many others, and their positions against the various groups and parties - if we put all of together, we will find perfect agreement between all these Scholars in the foundational principles at least that in turn would provide a solid basis to evaluate the speech and action of people like Yasir Qadhi and Abu Eesa Niamatullah. Yes, there may be isolated statements made by some of these scholars for certain reasons or due to specific (historical) circumstances, however, in a broad general sense, there is such agreement between all of these Scholars in the principles, that this collective agreement in a common denominator would be sufficient to judge the claim of anyone who claims to be Salafi in his creed, methodology and da'wah and to render him a liar in his claim. Take for example the advice of Shaykh Abd al-Muhsin al-Abbaad or Shaykh Ibn al-Uthaymeen in issues pertaining to rulership, rebellion, demonstrations, protests and the likes (and many other issues too). Do those scholars consider this matter to be an asl (foundation) from the usool of Salafiyyah. Yes they do. So does the speech of Yasir Qadhi or Abu Eesa Niamatullah follow on from their speech? Certainly not. However, Yasir Qadhi preserves himself by expelling himself from Salafiyyah (because he has acquired such a following that reference to those scholars is not needed anymore) so the advices of those scholars are not binding upon him as they are not intellectually stimulating enough for him. But on the other hand Abu Eesa's hypocrisy becomes plainly clear in that although he ascribes to Salafiyyah, the Scholars whom he should be referring to in such grave and serious matters are in one valley, and he is on a different planet. So you get the point here, Yasir Qadhi is shrewd in his misguidance. Abu Eesa, not so. And that's the difference between carefully planning and crafting your writings and positions as Yasir Qadhi does and coming down like down a brutish thug, devoid of any intellectual content, as Abu Eesa Niamatullah has done in his Facebook rants, which we shall be evaluating.

So lets elaborate upon the point made in this article, and lets expose the lies, hypocrisy, oppression and injustice coming from Abu Eesa Niamatullah against those holding onto and venerating the creed, methodology and foundations of the Salafi da'wah. Lets compare the claim of Salafiyyah by Abu Eesa Niamatullah with what we know from the Imaams and Shaykhs of Salafiyyah of our times, Imaam al-Albani, Imaam Ibn Baz, Imaam Ibn Uthaymeen, Shaykh al-Fawzaan, Shayk al-Ghudayaan, Shaykh Rabee bin Haadee, Shaykh Abd al-Azeez Aal al-Shaykh, Shaykh Abd al-Muhsin al-Abbaad, Shaykh Ahmad al-Najmee and many others, and lets see the truthfulness of his claims. To follow in next article inshaa'Allaah.

Please proceed to Part 3 in this series.