This is the third and final installment of this series which I have titled A Game for Fools.

I chose that title as a play on words, in response to Abdul Qaadirs offensive on Facebook which he titled Break Ups to Make Ups. I gathered that he took that from a 1972 song with the same title by The Stylistics, a soul group out of Philadelphia. The chorus was as follows: Break up, to make up, thats all we do/ first you love me, then you hate me/thats a game for fools. So I complimented his title with the end of the chorus. Of course, he may deny this, because in their world, you can show no inkling of even remotely knowing anything about the dunyaa, nor can you have any kind of poetic or metaphorical expressions, just straight Quraan and Sunnah! All the time! No breaks! No fun! I read the Quraan! All day! By myself! One pillow!

This last installment will inshaallaah deal with what I received from Abdul Qaadir since he has read the first one, and it will also attempt to offer some naseehah to him and others, as well as to put an end to this debacle once and for all, because enough time has already been wasted. I will spare you the headache of having to try to make sense of what he says, because it is painfully apparent in the first two installments of his incoherent writing, so I will just highlight the main points. If youve missed the first two installments, then you can view them here: http://www.scribd.com/sonofsaul I know perfectly well that a lot of people who have embraced them (Salafis), especially where we are located, dont really know the history of what has happened here in Camden NJ, much less my side, because they have only taken to one side of it, and that side has been presented to them as trustworthy. The other side, my side, has been presented to them as something you should avoid (using bidah and deviance as scare tactics), and a lot of people will be afraid to speak out if they are intimidated and bullied, even the ones who know the truth! This is for the discerning one who has the ability to think on their own, as well as the one who may want to know the other side, but was just afraid to ask. This is definitely not for the brainless and robotic people, who are swayed by catchy slogans and glittery speech. So now we will proceed with Abdul Qaadirs response, which is in a discussion between him and me on a private message on Facebook. He basically mentions about how he asked me to write down any issues I had with the Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab masjid, and he would be the mediator as to how we could remedy the situation. He also mentioned how he

was instrumental in forming a janaazah committee, and I was asked to be on it, even by Abul Hasan Maalik himself. I assume the purpose of this would be to get me back in good graces. He also alluded to me seeking and searching for a new home, and what I should have done was fall back and dig myself for these issues connected to the religion, and he referenced the story of the sahaabi Kab ibn Maalik as a way to demonstrate what he meant, that I should have just suffered the harms of the boycott, seemingly because I was wrong. He also accused me of not mentioning the fact that there were three masjids in Camden when I went to one of the halfway houses to plea on behalf of the Muslim residents there who were attempting to come to jumuah. He accused me of being real angry, and the gist of his conversation with me, or what he really wanted to know is if I was Salafi or not, and according to him, that will put a rest to any doubts, by me affirming or denying such. I had already responded to him in the dialogue on Facebook, and a lot of the things he mentioned were really irrelevant to begin with; and just as I disregarded them there, I will do so here as well.

As far as writing down any gripes that I had with that particular masjid, then there was no need to do so, because if I have a gripe with someone, I will approach them directly, they will never hear it all over the place as if it came from me or whoever I am affiliated with. Perhaps Abdul Qaadir may not remember, but I did just that when I came to the community meeting that was held when Dawud Adib was there as the Imaam. I was basically the only one in that meeting speaking up and addressing some of the issues that others, just like in the past when it came time to stand up, would somehow became mute. I cant remember if Abdul Qaadir was there at the meeting or not, but if he was, there was nothing being said from him. However, some of the people who were present would later indicate to me that what I said at that meeting is exactly how they felt. I did most of the talking, and by this time, during the short-lived Imamate of Dawud Adib, I was already on the outs, so I didnt really have a need to say anything, other than that it needed to be said! On another occasion, I would sit with Abul Hasan Maalik, and although this meeting was the third Nuremberg trial type of meeting I would have with them, I also expressed gripes that I had, and in particular with him. For example, I mentioned to him how he needs to be more accessible to the people, and how much it would mean if he came outside after jumuah and mixed with the people, and he said, We are students of knowledge, we dont have the time. I found this to be amazing that he doesnt have the time for the people hes in charge of?! After this meeting which dragged on for nearly 3 hours, and nothing got accomplished because they were only looking for me to say that I would not continue to give khutbahs, and I told them that I would not stop assisting Muslims, we didnt get anywhere. They alluded to one having to be a student of knowledge as requirement to give a khutbah, but what they mean by student of knowledge is whoever is approved within their circle, regardless if they meet what is required to give a khutbah, or even if they are a real student of

knowledge. So writing down gripes is of no avail to people who wont listen to any reason. Also, the reference to they here is Abul Hasan and his cronies from Philadelphia: Abu Unays Jones, Abdur Razzaq (who I had known as Hamza before), Musaa, and Amin Manning. What was fascinating about this meeting is that at first it was originally supposed to be between Abul Hasan, myself, and another brother as a mediator, Abdul Maalik. I had arranged it on my terms this time, because this would be the third of three meetings, or rather inquisitions. However, when I arrived at the meeting, all of the aforementioned people from Philadelphia were present. That was the first underhanded move. Since I was already there, and I felt like I had nothing to hide, I decided to stay and get it over with. The next cowardly move was that I had requested not to be recorded, but Abul Hasan insisted that we record for documentation. I agreed on the condition that I get a copy before we parted. He agreed to that, but when the meeting was adjourned and I asked for a copy, he went back on his word and said that he had to send the recording overseas to the scholars. I was completely perplexed at his behavior, because he looked me right in my face and said it, as if we didnt make a prior agreement! I didnt come there to argue, so I left. I mention this event to show the deceitful behavior of these so called ones who are thiqqah. As far as the janaazah committee, which dissolved before it was even formed, I had agreed to be on it, hoping that it would be a means of reconciliation. However, I wasnt really in need of being on a committee, as all of the arrangements for Muslim burials in our locale, the bulk of them, came to me anyway. That was a result of another twisted view of these people, who will not give a Muslim his right of being buried if they dont know him, and even if they do know him, they think they have the authority to decide who is righteous enough to get buried by them and who isnt. They use as their proof the hadith about the Prophet refusing to pray over the man who had owed two dinaars. Where do they get the authority to think they can decide like the Prophet ? The Prophet still arranged for the man to be prayed over, he didnt just leave him without making sure his right was fulfilled. I have again, by default, been forced to step up to handle the responsibilities of burying the deceased in our area, even the ones they choose to avoid because of this distorted understanding, and many of them were from the Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab masjid. This would a big test for this understanding of theirs, because those armed robbers who dressed up like Muslim women and robbed a bank in Philadelphia on Saturday, May 3, 2008 were from their community. The brother who died in the altercation was spotted at the Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab masjid for jumuah prayer the day before the robbery. What is also strange is that a lot of the people who became so self-righteous in refusing to bury one of their own know what kind of criminal activity some of these guys are involved in, and yet they look the other way. So being on a janaazah committee would have proven futile, because potential arguments would have arisen regarding who we should and shouldnt bury, when in reality we bury all of the Muslims, whether they were righteous or wicked.

As far as me searching for and seeking a new home, or a place to be accepted, well I must admit that this is partially true, but it was only after all the harms I suffered with them. I mean, after three Nuremberg style trials (all of which I survived), and having my named smeared by people to others who didnt even know me, but somehow knew that I had a problem with Abul Hasan Maalik, and the countless people I would encounter who told me that they were told to watch out for me, but they didnt see what others were talking about, as well as the others who knew me but were bullied into turning their friends into enemies at the behest of someone else highlighting legitimate differences and magnifying issues with magical speech, then why would I continue to put up with that? We are supposed to be with those whom we trust, not with those who disown you over legitimate differences. The situation of the sahaabi Kab ibn Maalik does in NO way resemble this misplaced boycotting that I have received over the years. As I related to Abdul Qaadir in our email exchange, Kab in Maalik was boycotted for not joining the Battle of Tabuk; what they condemned me for, for refusing to conform to some exaggerated principles concerning personalities and testing people according to them, and throwing them off the manhaj (and treating them like they are innovators) because they dont comply is nowhere near that. That is the ONLY issue that they have had with me over the years, the real issue, is that I am not a yes man or a Richard rider. I was my own man before I met any of them, and I will continue to decide for myself who and what I accept! Abdul Qaadir mentioned that I went to a halfway house, and that I failed to mention that there were 3 masjids in Camden. He will have to name his source on this one, because that never happened. What did happen is that we went to one of the halfway houses, and we mentioned that since we were vouching for them, they had to attend jumuah at our masjid, and we would not be responsible for anyone who was not in the audience. I specifically told those gentlemen at that time that if I did not see them in the audience, I would not sign their slips to show that they attended. A lot of Muslims, or some of the Muslims coming home from jail, like to infringe on the rights that are given to them; some brothers like to go everywhere else except where they are assigned (this is called having air time), and the reason why the brothers who were in the halfway houses were having difficulty is because of others in the past abusing their privileges. Now if Abdul Qaadir means by me not mentioning their masjid as in not promoting their masjid, then he is absolutely right, because why would I do that if I am responsible for these brothers, as well as others who took the time to come with me and try to get the halfway house to let them out? That doesnt make any sense. What we did find out, however, is that is what they do at Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab. There was one brother who we signed for, he somehow ended up at their masjid, and he was looking for one of the brothers at our masjid, but the brother he spoke to told him that where he was, that was the place to be, and he didnt need to go anywhere else. The brother found it strange because he didnt recall see Hamza or me there, and Hamza was who he was looking for originally. So this brother eventually found us, and gave

us the number of the brother who basically told him not to come to our masjid-again, using semantics, but not being direct about warning against us-and it was a number I recognized. So when I went to ask this brother about it, of course he denied it. When we began to question this brother a little more in detail, he alluded to the fact that he was being told this, and he said that he took his orders from up top, meaning his Imaam (Abul Hasan Maalik). This is exactly the cowardly behavior that is exhibited every time one of these guys is approached, and it is one of the reasons why I have concluded that its useless to talk to these guys. It is interesting to note that during this conversation, the brother who we were questioning was on the phone with Abul Hasan Maalik; Abul Hasan called him, as he was inside the masjid, so he was well aware that we were outside discussing the situation. You would think that he would come out and diffuse the situation, as more people were gathering around, and it was starting to seem like a showdown. (as we would later be accused of) Instead, he came to the window and told the brother This is not the time or the place! wagging his finger in a no no no kind of motion, and in an instant, the brother turned on his heels in a remote controlled type of way and went inside! Everyone in this locale knows that this is whats going on, that everybody and their mother is cautioned against coming to our masjid, whether it is directly or indirectly, but just as we asked before, we will ask again here now: Give us some substantial proof as to why you continue to caution people against coming to a house of Allaah to pray? Abdul Qaadir may say that it is not coming from him directly, but he knows this is what is being promoted. From what Ive learned, the only type of people who did that during the time of the Prophet were the unbelievers and the hypocrites, so people should really be careful when they do that, while in some weird kind of way thinking they are emulating the Salaf. Now concerning the last part of Abdul Qaadirs dialogue about asking me if I am Salafi. I already covered in the first part about calling yourself Salafi, and it is not a practice of the Salaf or the Khalaf. To answer this question is meaningless, because if I say that Im not, then it is clear (with the network) that I am on misguidance, and if I answer that I am, because I have been excommunicated with them, then I will never be cleared anyway, because once they throw you off, then you can never come back, unless you jump through hoops, and I have already made clear that I am a man, and my own man at that, and thus I am not given to trying to be accepted into a group for validation of my Islaam! The truth of the matter is that I am NOT Salafi, but I still follow the Salaf. What does that mean? I used to think that some of this repugnant behavior of Salafis was attributed to just a group of rinky-dink, amateurish, and immature people in a certain region, but during my journey while I was excommunicated, my research led me to a lot of information, and Allaah has facilitated for me to be a seeker of truth, and what I found is a lot of academic dishonesty and distortions, as well as suppression of information. I found that this being Salafi with the title is just that, a title, a mere claim, but it has no real isnad. I found out that Salafis only selectively connect themselves to the blessed time period of the Salafus Saalih, primarily in the science of hadith and in the issue of bidah. The real isnad of

the Salafi movement is with Jamaluddin Afghaan (d 1314AH/1897CE), who was influenced by the grandsons of Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab, who were in exile in Egypt. Jamaluddin Afghaani would in turn influence Muhammad Abduh (d. 1323AH/1905CE). The term Salafi originated with Abduh. Notice that this is way after the time of the Salaf, a whole millennium, and besides the couple of references Salafis use that are sparse concerning using the term, no one has ever saw it necessary to do so, of the multitudes of scholars that have passed, and some of them are among the greatest of this ummah. Muhammad Abduh would influence Muhammad Rashid Ridaa (d. 1354AH/1935 CE), who would first use the term Dawatus Salafiyyah in 1343AH. [In my Dawud Adib drill] Who did Ridaa influence? Shaykh Al-Albaani (d. 1420AH/199CE), who was influenced by the magazine that Ridaa published called Al-Minaar. Who said that they didnt know Salafiyyah in Saudi Arabia until Shaykh Al-Albaani brought it to them? Dawud Adib! Who is Dawud Adib? One of the pioneers of the Salafi dawah in America! That is one isnad. The other one is through Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab (d. 1206AH/1792CE). It is really disheartening that Salafis refuse to accept the true history of how modern day Saudi Arabia was established, and it began with Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab declaring that the majority of the Muslims were upon shirk. In all of his translated works, it says: In those days, the people of Najd were badly indulged in polytheistic deeds and un-Islamic practices. They were completely overwhelmed with polytheism Mind you, this claim is being made about the land of tawheed, in which the Prophet said: Shaytaan has lost all hope in anyone praying to idols in the Arabian Peninsula, but there are small sins amongst them.[Muslim, Tirmidhi] What is presented as being overwhelmed with polytheism was in actuality tawwasul, istighaatha, and tabarruk. These issues are beyond the scope of this treatise, but for arguments sake, in the above categories, there may have been people who went overboard, even to the point of committing a major sin, but no one from the Imaams of Ahlus Sunnah declared these actions to be major shirk and declaring the Muslims blood to be halaal as Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab did, and thus killing the people who declared

. Also, no one preceded him in this action, and how is it that from the time of the Salaf,
which ended roughly 300AH, up until the time of Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab, who began propagating his dawah around 1153AH (a difference of more than 800 years), that all of the great and illustrious Imaams of this ummah, somehow didnt pick that up? This is in major violation of the sanctity of the shahaadah, as is indicated in the hadith of the Prophet , who said: Refrain from attack on the people who say: There is no god but Allaah, and do not call them unbelievers due to a sin. Whoever should call the people who believe that there is no god but Allaah an unbeliever, then the one who said that is closer to kufr.*Tabaraani, Mujam al-Kabir+ Also, Imaam Tahaawi mentions in his Bayaan as Sunnah, or more popularly known as Aqidah at Tahawiyyah (point #61): A person does not step out of belief except by disavowing what brought him into it. Imaam Ahmad also mentions: No believer becomes an

unbeliever due to a given sin, major or minor, unless he abandons the prayer. [Al-Itiqaad+ There are plenty of proofs to give, but this should suffice. Even if a Muslim disavows the shahaadah by apostating, it is the ijmaa of the ulamaa that this type of person is to be jailed for 3 days and asked to repent, and if he doesnt, then he is to be killed. That is how serious the confirmation is with respect to leaving the fold of Islaam, it has to be established beyond a shadow of a doubt. How did Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab establish that with all of the people ? This understanding of Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhabs, about the Muslims rejecting faith by committing shirk, came from Muhammad Sanaani (d. 1182AH/1768CE) in his book Tathirul Itiqaad An Adranil Ilhaad. So the isnad begins from there, and it would be passed down from the time when Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab made the pact with Muhammad ibn Saud (d.1179AH/1765CE) by marrying his daughter to Ibn Sauds son. From that sprang what we have today as scholarship in Saudi Arabia, because they have kept it in the family. Everyone who is appointed as the Mufti is connected to the Aalush Shaykh family either directly, or whoever they appoint that was under their tutelage. The Aalush Shaykh family are all descendants of Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab and Ibn Saud. We have already put the dates of all of these scholars, and it is clear that this scholarship does not reach directly back to the time of the Salaf, because Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab broke off from Muslim orthodoxy. So in the context of what I presented above, to answer Abdul Qaadirs question, I AM NOT SALAFI! Knowing the nature and mindset of these people, this last phrase of me declaring that I am not Salafi is probably the ONLY thing they will extract from this treatise, and attempt to use it as a smoking gun of my deviance. However, I have clearly laid out WHY I am not Salafi, and it is for a reason, and it includes more that what I have included here, but for the sake of brevity I cant relate it all. However, I am Salafi in the sense of trying to be connected to the Salaf by way of the madhhabs, because they are the only ones who have an unbroken chain (sanad) that reaches back to that blessed time period. Although I havent officially declared a madhhab, I have been leaning towards the Hanbali madhhab, but many of the people who are dear to me and whom I respect and trust are Shaafii, so unless I find training upon the Hanbali fiqh, I will have to adopt the Shaafii madhhab. It is the consensus (ijmaa) of the ummah that all four of the Imaams of the four madhaahib are absolute mujtahids (mujtahidun mutlaqun), and according to the ulamaa, the people are in either in two categories: the one who does taqlid and the one who does ijtihaad. Ijitihaad of scholars is of some 7 levels, the highest being the level of all of the four Imaams. Of course, others have reached this level, but none of them, even the ones who were considered superior in knowledge to the four Imaams, had their schools codified and developed to the point that they exist today with a continuous chain. When I was with the Salafis, following one of the four madhhabs is considered blind following or taking the opinions of men over the hadith. Although they dont say its haraam to follow a madhhab, they

also dont encourage people to follow agreed upon, qualified scholarship with respect to fiqh issues that have been passed down throughout the history of Islaam. They will often quote what some of the Imaams themselves have said, such as Imam Ahmad saying: Do not follow me blindly and do not follow Maalik or al-Shafiee or al-Awzaai or ath-Thawri blindly. Learn from where they learned. This is true, but you have to look at the context in which they were saying it. They were saying this to their students who recorded statements like this from them, not laymen. Another distorted concept is trying to portray taqleed as blind following, when the more appropriate meaning would be imitation or copying, and with respect to the four Imaams, imitating them in the fiqh that they derived from the Quraan and Sunnah, and trusting their judgment because of the level of ijtihaad that they were on, as we have mentioned previously. Taqleed also carries a meaning of putting a gird on the neck of a horse or a donkey, and guiding the animal in the direction that you want it to go. The pure Quraan & Sunnah can be metaphorically compared to a wild animal, in the sense that it could be complex or hard to deal with, especially if you think that you can just take from it on your own. Just as no one in their right mind would think of approaching a wild animal and putting a gird around its neck and guide its direction unless they knew what they were doing because they were trained, similarly, no one should think that they can go right to the Quraan and Sunnah, as the slogan is popular these days, and not have training as to how to approach it. We have already established in the first part of this treatise that being Salafi is through the isnad, and not through the title. We have already established the sanad of this modern day scholarship, and it will be upon Abdul Qaadir or others to bring the continuous chain of Jamaaluddin Afghaani, Muhammad Abduh, or Muhammad Rashida Ridaa, or even the sanad of Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab himself. While we await that, then this will bring us to the conclusion of this series, and we wish to end off with some naseehah. My dear respected brother in Islaam Abdul Qaadir,

I know you have read the first part of this series, and I hope that these other two parts reach you as well, so that you will know of a surety of my clarification as well as my position. Over the years, I have witnessed pseudo boycotting from you and others, at the behest and orchestration of Abul Hasan Maalik. I say pseudo because none of you brothers outright treated me like a deviant, but you have smeared my name and tried to discredit me in the eyes of the people, or you would say that I am cool, but you have a problem with the Quba School & Islamic Center. Whatever the case, it is just more semantics, because if I represent that masjid, then how can you be cool with me and have a problem with the people of the masjid that I represent? Of course now, it will be clear that you will have a real problem with me after this last treatise here, and as you mentioned in our private exchange, that it was long overdue for you to part friendship with me (and that is on my part as well, I should have done this long ago), because you had tried to defend me and keep my name in good standing with the others, when

they had already made their positions clear. As I have pointed out here within this series, the only REAL reason that any of you have ever had a problem with me is because I have refused to tow the line, and you know the origin of the issue between Abul Hasan and me is because of a meeting I had with Abu Usaamah ath Thahabi. In that meeting, Abu Usaamah was also of this thinking, that he would or would not deal with me based on my dealings with people, particularly Abul Hasan. Abu Usaamah mentioned to me in his home when he was the Imam of Germantown some issues of the dialogue between Abul Hasan and himself, and although I did not tow the line with him either, i.e., let him dictate to me who I would or wouldnt deal with, he did mention some things that, once I reflected on them, were very true, and he had no vested interest in telling me what he said, except from what he observed. The one thing that he said as to why he wouldnt deal with me if I dealt with Abul Hasan is that he felt that whatever Abul Hasan was a part of, he wouldnt build it, but destroy it. Although I disregarded what he said about him not dealing with me, or as he said from a distance if I dealt with Abul Hasan, because I wasnt going to avoid Abul Hasan just because of what he said. However, what he said about the destroying and not building anything has proven to be true. This was between 1999-2000 when he said this, and this is now 2011, and not only has Abul Hasan not built anything, he has definitely destroyed a lot, especially the images of other duaat like himself, and he has destroyed himself a little with the current kidtwist fitnah that is going on with him. I related this to you in a private conversation about what had transpired between Abu Usaamah and me, but as you know, I did NOT disclose to you that I would not deal with Abul Hasan. However, you went and related to Abul Hasan what I told you in confidentiality, and he took it as I was against him, and he contacted me via email. He wrote in all caps (that is considered screaming in computer language) about what you related to him. When I first was asked about it, I lied, and it was from the understanding of the hadith of the Prophet who said: "A liar is not the one who tries to bring about a reconciliation between the people and speaks good to avert dispute or to convey good.''[Bukhari]. When I responded to him, I did tell him about what I observed, going back to the time when we all were at the Quba School, and how we destroyed that place following behind him. I went on to give him constructive criticism in that response, but I did not indicate to him in any way that I would boycott him. He in turn took my response, which was a private exchange between him and me, and spread it all around to people who had nothing to do with anything, as well as people who didnt even know me, but somehow knew that I had something in my chest against Abul Hasan, as that is the claim that he made. I wasnt as computer savvy back then, so I didnt save it, or else I would have reproduced some of that dialogue here. Ever since then he has had a problem with me, and it only escalated when we would have a disagreement again, concerning Abul Hasan al Maribi, of whom Abul Hasan said himself was the biggest fitnah or our ummah of recent times. The only fitnah with that man is that he argued with Shaykh Rabee, and he is a scholar from Saudi Arabia who is known more for expelling people from the manhaj than anything else! His demeanor exemplifies where some of these students who have made him ( relied upon) get their treatment of other people from, especially when they seek guidance about personalities. Shaykh Rabee used to consider Abul Hasan al Maribi a genius, then they had a debate which, quiet as kept, Shaykh Rabee got served, then afterwards he declared this man an innovator, and whoever didnt declare him an innovator was an innovator. This mirrors how

Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab viewed Muslims, and his older brother Imaam Sulaiman ibn Abdul Wahhab reprimanded him about declaring Muslims as unbelievers, and whoever doesnt agree, then he is an unbeliever. The same concept, so it is no surprise that we hear it from a Saudi scholar, only using it for tabdee instead of takfir. When other scholars didnt take the same route, most notably Saleem Hilaali and Ali Hasan al Halabi, then they became innovators too! I had read what they had written concerning it, and that is why I didnt tow the line. After the dialogue between Abul Hasan Maalik and me about this issue is when he issued his verdict concerning him not dealing with us in Camden if I was involved, as I mentioned in part 2. You yourself would go on to be a victim of this misplaced thinking, and after you experienced it, it led you to apologize to me about some of the stuff you were saying concerning me that reached me through various sources, but I never verified it because it would take too much energy to track down everything that everybody was saying. You knew and believed I was wronged, and that is what led you to apologize to me. I am of the opinion that once you got a taste, it led you to feel the same way I felt, except you decided to remain among them, and not look for another place to be accepted, as you claimed I did. However, while you remain and continue to remain among that mentality, it has caused you to be displaced, because you feel exactly they way I do concerning Abul Hasan and his network, as is indicated by you under the moniker Abujamil on AHYA.org:
These guys are comical! Has attention been paid to where this charity was given at? Thats right Camden, NJ. Abu Yusuf is valuable to them because he is one of the few brothers with the ability to translate so he gets put forward to do Abul Hasans dirty work. Abul Hasan has a dedicated group of followers in the Philly-camden area. Some were even saying he was shaykh Muqbil's top student in Yemen.lol. Abu Yusuf is from NY and was just "off of it" not too long ago. He was just teaching in NY (may Allaah bless him) so now that he gets a spot to teach and a wife in Philly(part of the perks of getting in with the homies) he's involving himself with this nonsense. His intentions may have been good initially but he needs to beware of those guys he's involving himself with.(Just a little Husnu Adhdhunn for the brother whether Im right or wrong). As for Anwar Wright he is a well known wifebeater from what Im hearing. His ex wife is in Atlantic City, NJ and supposedly he was very mentally and physically abusive. I heard she got off the plane from Saudi Arabia with 2 black eyes. He even tried to start a fight at a lecture in Atlantic City but it was swept under the rug and gave the khutbah in Camden the next week! Im not defending Germantowns administration its just that the clicks fitnah is non-stop. For years: Abul hasan Maalik Dawud Adeeb Hasan Somali They need to fear Allaah and give a good example for the younger brothers. You write a book on hizbiyyah and are at the center of some. We need to stick to the Quran and sunnah and use the masaajid to pray and not feed into these guys' agendas.

Now I know you will vehemently deny this is you, but it sure sounds like you! Please, spare me the wallaahis and such, because brothers of this mindset will say wallaahi and lie in your face without a flinch! The only difference about how you and I both feel is that I will express it to them, and I wont be wishy-washy and continue to be around people that I am not comfortable with, knowing that any given Friday they will disown you for going against the ijmaa of the loop! If this is you, then according the principles they have developed concerning their

manhaj, then you should be forced to free yourself from this, write a bayaan, and give it to the students for approval. If you have trouble doing that, they will write it for you! And people should be cautious of you, and you shouldnt be given any platform, until you become clear in manhaj! You may choose to subscribe to that methodology, but I am free and clear of it, and thus not bound by the false principles that change according to the personality, as well as the double standards. I am grateful to Allaah that he allowed me to see the extent of it, and not just what emanates from those students, but the whole Saudi scholarship as well. However, I have no enmity towards you or any others, or even that scholarship for that matter, but I have made myself clear about me being Salafi, after defining it in the true sense. I hope the same for you as well, as you are already there by being displaced in the place where you are supposed to find comfort, where the sincerity of the brotherhood could easily be compromised if you decide to think for yourself. You are off to a start, now it is time for you to get a little heart and break all the way free, and not be afraid of being ostracized. Trust me when I tell you, in this case the grass is greener on the other side! If you decide to stick with that and that works for you, then fine; I humbly request that you and the others just leave me and my community alone, because the validity of my Islaam does not lie in whether the Salafis accept me in their group or not, nor does my salvation depend on it. If you and others from that masjid continue to make it your business to caution against me personally, or the Quba School in general, then know that if you continue to do so without any substantial proof, it will only fall under the categories of gheebah, nameemah, buhtaan, or tajreeh, and I will wait to take my right on the Day of Judgment. Until then, besides the rights that are due to you, I am perfectly comfortable with the Quraanic position that I take concerning you and others, who have found it perfectly acceptable to ruin brotherhood: And be patient over what they say and avoid them with gracious avoidance. *Quraan 73:10+ I ask Allaah to pardon me for anything that I have said in this series that is incorrect, and the mistakes are attributed to me. This is what I had to present, and I end with: And the last of their call will be, "Praise to Allah, Lord of the worlds!" *Quraan 10:10+

P.S. As additional naseehah, I would like to direct you to some of the material that has helped me along in my search, and perhaps it may help you to break free: Rifqan Ahlus Sunnah bi Ahlis Sunnah by Shaykh Abdul Muhsin al Abbaad The Rise and Fall of the Salafi Dawah in the United States (10 parts) by Umar Lee Signs You Might Be In A Cult, by Tariq Nelson The Crime of Hizbiyyah Against the Salafi Dawah, by Abul Hasan Maalik ibn Adam The Broken Chain: Reflections Upon the Neglect of a Tradition by Aftab Ahmad Malik The Divine Texts by Imam Mustafa ibn Ahmad ash-Shatti, translated by Abu Jafar al Hanbali

The Divine Lighting by Imam Sulaiman ibn Abdul Wahhab, translated by Abu Jafar al Hanbali The Attributes of God, by Ibn Jawzi, translated by Ustadh Abdullah bin Hamid Ali Lumat ul-Itiqaad, The Creed of Ahl us-Sunnah Wal-Jamaaah, by Imam Muwaffaq ud-Deen Ibn Qudamah, translated by Abu Muhammad Ibrahim (Andrew Sanders) Why I am Not Salafi (ebook), by Abu Jafar al-Hanbali Culture of the Cults(section titled Difficulties in Identifying a Cult), by Mark Dunlop (online article) Wahhabism: A Critical Essay, by Hamid Algar Surrendering Islam: The Subversion of Muslim Politics Throughout History Until the Present Day, by David Livingstone and Sahib Mustaqim Bleher Terrorism and the Illuminati: A Three Thousand Year History, by David Livingstone Saudi Arabia, Wahhabism & The Salafi Sect: Understanding the Great Conspiracy, compiled by the Ulamaa of Darul Ahnaaf Al Aqidah al Tahawiyya, 6 CD set with commentary by Dr. Abul Hasan Hussain Ahmed