Muslims Proudly Display Academic Standards YET AGAIN! Sometimes They Come Back…

 By Suede Nikita
Regular readers of this site may remember that some eight or so months ago, I wrote a series of articles centred around fraudulent book reviews by a couple of internet Salafis as a means of showing the general strategies and tricks employed by salafis and their familiars. From this we extracted the ‘Seven Deadly Sins of Salafism’:
1- Mis-translate these everything  at will – Allah will reward you, it’s for a good cause!
2- Decry anyone who disagrees as a modernist, heretic or better still a Mu’tazzilite or Shi’ite – but never under any circumstances admit your own Wahhabi affiliation. Say you are just representing ‘Islam’
3- Use Ahad hadith (single chain narrations) to persuade people that this is what the Prophet said (most of ISIS’ ‘fatwas’ from raping Yazidis to killing and burning random people are extracted from ahad hadith)
4- In case anyone questions your use of hadith, start tampering with chains and narrators, declaring them ‘weak’ and ‘unknown
5- Use modern ‘scholars’, specifically Albani and Co. to reject any hadith when it doesn’t suit you
6- Pretend things are Muttawatir (mass transmitted like the Quran) and Ijma (agreed upon) when they are not – if challenged give evidence without translating or mistranslate. If cornered, use Salafi sources (Ibn Taymiyya etc) to ‘prove’
7- Lie, its for a good cause! And pray to God (this direction: UP) that they can’t read Arabic.

You can find the original articles here:

I didn’t hold my breath for a reply, and indeed, despite their loud lamentations about the pressing need to save Muslims from ‘misguidance’, ‘modernism’ and ‘heresy’ (ironically, mostly spread in our time by Salafis), none was forthcoming. This is because, despite the lengthy nature of my articles, I could simply summarise them as follows: ‘Salafis know you can’t read Arabic so they just lie to you’. 

So imagine my surprise when I was recently made aware by students that the individuals in question, Wakar Akbar Cheema (a student of ‘knowledge’ who runs an apologetics website and acts as a liaison between Saudi Wahhabis and Deobandis in the Subcontinent) and Bassam Zawadi (I can’t work out what he does apart from trolling people on the internet, but I am told he is a defunct ‘debater’), had not only carried on as if their bald lies and empty rhetoric had not been publicly aired, but had in fact engaged in a new campaign of internet harassment of the authors of ‘Hanafi Principles of Testing Hadith‘, the book whose sham review I had debunked.

A little more digging revealed that they were in fact pretending that they had replied to my articles when confronted:




This was literally my face when I was sent this:

Image result for manga shocked 

Not least because:

  1. My name’s not ‘Aisha’, it’s N-I-K-I-T-A
  2. I’m not on and never have been on ‘Facebook’
  3. Thus he’s been cyber-stalking/chatting up some poor random girl called ‘Aisha’ (he says)

What’s even more hilarious is that his Facebook ‘response’ is included in my article above. So somehow Bassam/Cheeba has created a wormhole in the space-time continuum and refuted me before I wrote the article. And his refutation is like the word of God- it lasts forever and cannot be answered, so a word from Baseeba (I still think he and Cheeba are a unit or a hive mind from their actions) actually is an ‘response’ or an ‘answer’, even to an article that includes it. Now I’ll admit, that’s spectacularly impressive. But sadly, it’s not actually possible.

So yet again for the umpteenth time,  we have to ask Cheezadi: where is the response to the article? Please can you show it to us!


Meanwhile on Earth…to disguise this embarrassment from his sadly very vulnerable followers, Chaweeba has been playing the victim all over the internet and complaining that he is hard done by my poor manners (this is a standard trick of bad mannered people themselves when they wish to avoid a discussion, they claim they don’t want respond to rudeness):

Nikita not worth 2


So Baseeba is actually waiting for an apology from me? Or rather some poor girl called ‘Aisha’ (could this be the start of a beautiful friendship)? It seems Baseeba considers himself a bargain basement ‘Sherlock Holmes’ for tracking me down on the internet and ‘reaching out to me’. Quite apart from the ‘free-mixing’ (as Salafis would call it) with random girls on the internet under the pretext of ‘contacting’ me, at which point did it become clear that, y’know, it’s not me? And would not a response to the article as opposed to a misguided attempt at cyber-stalking have been more constructive? Fortunately, Shukurov, who has clearly read my article, doesn’t fall for it (it’s also funny that Cheewadi is complaining of bad manners while calling a Muslims Scholar by his first name repeatedly. If someone did that to Uthaymeen they would literally have a seizure):

Sheikh Quotes Bassam Inuslting Nikita

Here poor Chaseeba complains of being insulted:


It is always the case that people who are rude and insulting can’t in turn ‘take it’. Even sarcasm and calling these people liars becomes ‘abuse’ for them. What is funny is that in their previous article, they were referring to Sheikh Shukurov as ‘Atabek’ as well and when I pointed out that they would never refer to a Salafi scholar by his first name, i.e calling Albani ‘Nassiruddin’, Cheewaadi actually went back and edited his article to remove the embarrassment – but here he is doing it again! 

When I  dissected and preserved his article ‘point by point’ for all to see, Chewaadi failed to address a single point – but here he brazenly plays the victim and pretends the roles are reversed! What is really amusing is that Chaseema itself has acknowledged that it didn’t reply to the article –  and I actually included this in my last article linked above. So the effort going into lying is…inadequate. I also especially love how it keeps complaining about ‘manners’ and being ‘disrespected’, while showing bad manners and disrespect:

Nikita writes 'garbage'

Ahhh…he wants to respond in ‘private’ but attack in public. Strange.

I also like how he decided to contact ‘Aisha’s’ (conveniently the most common Muslim name – lots of excuses to fire off Private Messages to girls eh lads?) to ‘respond’ and ‘reach out’ without ever verifying if I was an ‘Aisha’. Or even better, forgetting about who I am and what I look like and simply responding to the points. Which Chaweema still hasn’t done. Because he can’t.

We have to be understanding of Chaseeba though, he thinks he’s been disrespected and abused but ‘reaches out to people’ by telling them he hasn’t bothered to read their emails and to ‘shoo’ like animals:

Bassam email

(Everything is good manners and ‘civil’ in Salafi land as long as you add ‘Salam’ it seems).

Thus he likes to pretend to his fans (if anyone is deserving of simple human pity, then surely it is they) that he will respond to his publicly academically diarrhoeal statements in private emails. But then when he is contacted, he doesn’t bother to read it. And once again wants to discuss it with someone who is not me – this time a boy! Maybe he has some kind of disability which makes him able to spew forth copious amounts of spam, but when he is confronted by actual references or information, he can no longer ‘spew’. Except to random girls on ‘Facebook’ or other guys. I think the name of this disability is called ‘not wanting to draw attention to ones inadequacies’. We all have a bit of it!

He also thinks this is good manners:


(It seems his ‘response’ to this is that it was obtained ‘illegally’ – we can expect that Chaweeba’s grasp of internet law is as good as his understanding of Sharia law – so feel free to sue me or site admin!). Hilariously he ‘apologised’ after eight months only after he was trolled on Shukurov’s ‘Facebook’ about his crypto-racism (sadly, many Saudis have xenophobic ideas nowadays) when himself complaining about ‘bad manners’. I’ve included the hilarious ‘Facebook’ thread link below.

You have to forgive me for the long preamble, but until we understand Cheeba@Zawadi’s mentality, strange definition of manners and language, as well as poor skill at lying (lying is bad, but if done well requires considerable skill and intelligence), we won’t be able to do justice to their latest ramblings.

So we can see that Cheeseeba simply cannot abide bad manners or poor English. Unless they come from him. Speaking of English, it seems that Wazeeba has a very strange dialect of it:

Ibn Hajar


We can see that those offended by poor English have a very strange idiom themselves…

Hajar 2

Thus, saying that Ibn Hajar is ‘not necessarily a heretic’ is not calling him a heretic according to the Cheezaadi dialect of English. One dreads to think of how Baseeba would defend himself in court:

‘Are you a supporter of ISIS Mr Zawadi?’

‘Not necessarily!’

Are you and Mr Cheeba lovers?

‘Not necesarily!’

We see that Mr Zaweeba has a very strange way of employing the English language – where a simple ‘no’ will suffice he substitutes ‘not necessarily’ (which means ‘I’m not answering the question on the grounds that it may incriminate me’). When they are accused of impugning the great scholars of the past as heretics, Chaweeba respond by saying ‘not necessarily’ (*but they are offended at other peoples English being ‘bad’). Thus, Baseeba will have no problem if I assert that they are ‘not necessarily’ Sunnis, because in their language that is an affirmation of their Sunnism.

This illustrates a very typical Salafi game: simply never state your position, ‘kufaar‘ politician style: they are especially keen to keep any discussion away from their embarrassing positions and ‘policies’, again just like a politician. I mean, he could just say: ‘I don’t think Ibn Hajar is a heretic’or ‘Asharis are not heretics’. That would clear things up nicely. Instead he is telling you that he didn’t necessarily blah or didn’t call him blah. Salafis are excellent at never stating their position about anything or demanding that you bring the proof of their position, conversely, they love telling everyone else what Sufis, Sunnis or Shia ‘believe’. We often find this kind of inversion amongst those with a fascist mindset that nonetheless wish to conceal it out of expediency (sorry, I should have said ‘Salafis don’t necessarily have a fascist mindset’ or ‘I’ve never called a Salafi a fascist’).

Salafis also have a bizarre idiom when it comes to things like ‘killing’ ‘takfir‘ or ‘anthropomorphism’, as we shall see shortly. Take for example, Basseema’s bizarre stance on anthropomorphism, which is like that of all Salafis, they will tell you till they are blue in the face that they are not ‘anthropomorphists’ – but when you finally (or rather if you finally) get their definition of ‘anthropomorphists’ out of them, they mean that they don’t say God is ‘human’ or has a body ‘like humans’ or ‘like creatures’. But to the rest of the Sunnia and Shia (and even Mu’tazzila) world, ‘anthropomorphist’ means anyone who asserts that God has a body of any kind – it being ‘unique’ is of no consequence, any more than Adam was unique and thus ‘Godlike’ when he was the only one of his kind.

Chaseeba is also easily offended by sarcasm and ad hominem. We saw just how ‘assiduously’ he avoids these himself above but take this bizarre refutation of myself sent to me by the same student:

Nikita not worth exceprt


Image result for manga shocked


It is not allowed for scholars or teachers to be called ‘Nikita’ now?! That excludes literally much of Russia, Latvia, Ukraine and God knows where else…what’s really funny is that while whining about being attacked ‘personally’, he attacks someone’s knowledge based on their (real) name!

If you have time, you can witness most of the exchange this nonsense seems to have come from here: I don’t go on ‘Wastebook’ precisely because of the kinds of idiots infecting it:

It’s also very illustrative for readers to see a extreme salafist (‘Madkhalis’ as they are called amongst Salafis themselves) such as Chessama complain about ‘sectarians’. This is standard operating procedure for Salafis when they want to either infiltrate Sunnis or to garner sympathy. The most glaring thing in this case is that Bassam, a Saudi citizen and employee of its government seems to have resolutely failed to ever advise his own employer/government on its ‘sectarianism’, unless he thinks that having Wahhabism as an official state ideology lends itself to teaching a diverse set of Islamic theologies in schools of mosques? Perhaps he is trying to persuade Saudi to fund Sufi groups as well as Salafist ones to avoid ‘vile sectarianism’ as he calls it? (as the saviour of manners and the English language, Cheewaadi has forgotten what it means to call someone ‘vile’ in his beloved ‘English’). We hold our breath for this, but in the meantime, it is hilarious that taking Ibn Taymiyya to task for being a genocidal maniac and insisting people are killed for trivial infarctions such as saying intention to pray out loud or passing wind (yes!) should be killed is ‘sectarian’.

This Dear Reader is how Salafis are and will be destroying Islam, in both the West and East: they put the reputation and sanctity of their scholars and opinions above the faith and reputation of Muslims, and if anyone tries to absolve Islam from the extremism of Salafis fatwas and scholars, they cry ‘unity’ and ‘sectarianism’ (they don’t believe in the former and have blind faith in the latter), thereby emotionally blackmailing lay Muslims into prostituting their public image to defend the idiosyncrasies of Salafism by claiming that ‘the kufaar hate us’.

We can see this dreadfully suicidal tendency in Basseema itself: along with the wildly inaccurate comments I deal with here, I found a whole bunch of ‘papers’ (I don’t think anyone explained to him about academic papers either…) where he attempts to defend Salafism…by taking out the rest of Islam too. So when he is thrashed about Salafi’s icon Ibn Taymiyya being so violent that he wants to kill people for breaking wind in prayer (yes, it’s real, I almost broke wind when I found out!), he goes into a violent rage and starts attacking any and all targets, and ‘refutes’ ‘Modernist Hanafis’ (aka ‘Sunnis’) by showing that Hanafis allow people to be imprisoned for publicly refusing to pray:

Bassam on Missingf Prayer

I love how detailed this is! And is there really a need to put ‘by’ when you haven’t included anything other than a (poor) translation?

Obviously, killing and imprisonment is identical in Salafi’s eyes and so Hanafis or other Sunnis imprisoning people for not praying is the same as killing someone for farting. Okay…

Baseema is similarly incandescent with rage and unable to think straight when his favourite Ibn Taymiyya is accused, absolutely correctly as Cheewaadi admits, of believing in the ‘Satanic Verses‘ incident (where the Prophet is alleged to have committed Shirk (polytheism) – Allah forbid!) and demanding that this be the main position of Muslims, Baseewaadi ‘refutes’ this by claiming, utterly without any semblance of shame, that any scholar who didn’t say that he doesn’t believe it…must in fact believe it.

Bassam on Satanic Verses

We already saw how he errr…’employs’ the English language where ‘not necessarily’ means ‘I didn’t’ and ‘I haven’t’ means ‘I refuse to state my position on the grounds that it may make me look bad in front of the Sunnis I am trying to groom on the internet’, so I guess we should not be too surprised at this logic of any time you don’t deny that you are say, a rapist or any time you don’t claim that the Prophet committed Polytheism, you in fact accept it.

However, surely even someone as lost in space as Zaweeba must see the folly of telling Muslims and non-Muslims alike about all of the people who he (falsely) claims believed in the ‘Satanic Verses‘ incident to defend his favourite scholar Ibn Taymiyya as opposed to simply admitting that Ibn Taymiyya was (once again) horribly wrong (something he never does in the article – or anywhere else we can find). This is all the worse as Cheesaama’s hated target Shukurov already did a talk on ‘The Satanic Verses‘ several years ago (Chewaadi is too busy trolling him to actually look at his material) where he explains the other scholars who narrated it and whether ‘narration’ is ‘acceptance’ in Islamic scholarship – much more on that below though. Fortunately, Islamophobes have evidential standards it seems that are at least in excess of what Baseema considers licit, so his articles would hopefully not be of much benefit to them. You can amuse/depress yourself by reading the rest of his cyber – stalking’ of ‘modernist Hanafis’ (he means Shukurov, whose name he cannot bring himself to write any longer presumably) in his other ‘papers’ (I think he doesn’t realise that a ‘paper’ can be longer than, y’ know, one page or sheet. But we know Salafis like to take things literally). It is most frightening that Salafis actually consider a page or two of such bile to be deserving of being uploaded onto a site for academic papers and drafts, but then again, we have searched in vain for Basseba’s academic credentials previously.

Other hilarious examples of ‘Baseemish’ logic include the assertion that giving a fatwa that you don’t require the face and hands of a woman to be covered is the same as accepting that you in fact do endorse it and that any difference of opinion means all of the opinions are accepted, along with other hilarious abuses of the English language and general common sense found here: must say, the profusion of short and hilarious ‘papers’ here gave me an afternoon’s pleasure – please enjoy!).

I personally never understood this site admins profuse use of Shukurov’s work until I saw the kind of opposition and bile he seems to illicit from others. Then I immediately thought ‘could it be that these Hanafis are on to something?’ Although I did not perhaps appreciate Shukurov’s comments about Qadi Iyad and some other Maliki scholars, it made me take the Hanafis seriously for the first time outside of their books. Until then, the main ‘Hanafis’ who I came across were Deobandi and Brelwi sectarians, who as far as my knowledge goes, are very hard to tell apart from Salafis (despite their loud protestations). Indeed, Shukurov has been subjected to a veritable campaign of internet terror by Salafis and their familiars as well as anyone else- here is the kind of comment that keeps me away from Facebook:

Sheikh Called Donkey By Brelwis

And this was from some of the ‘Sufi scholars’. What makes this very sad is that Shukurov gets exactly what I got above: people make extravagant claims, and when you refute these they merely run away and start a new front elsewhere. When I took the time to demonstrate and demolish the multifarious errors in the sham review by Zaweeba, they merely ran away and some eight months later re-emerge and claim that they already replied, blah blah blah, bad manners, why reply to someone called Nikita, yadda yadda yadda.

They also have a hilarious propensity, which you would have observed in my last two articles, of attacking and crying ‘heretic!’ in public, but when you dismember their arguments, they then want to have a ‘private’ dialogue. But sadly for Chaweeba, the way of the world is public chastisements for public indiscretions.

This would merely be pathetic and kind of funny if these individuals did not have such a high tolerance for embarrassment, because they invariably open a new front and keep posting nonsense as if the previous buttock clenchingly shameful take-downs had never happened. So it would seem that in the past few years, Atabek Shukurov’s ordeal makes mine pale into insignificance, for despite now opening a new front, it appears CheebaZawadi/Legion and their followers have:

-Claimed that Shukurov lied on the issue of the age of Aisha – when he debunked their claims he received…no response.

-Claimed that Shukurov was wrong about the ‘Waseeya of Abu Hanifa’ (a foundational text in creed studied by everyone except Salafis) being authentic. When he made a lengthy video describing the authentic chain he received…no response.

-When they published a fake review of Shukurov’s book, it appears Shukurov wisely ignored them…but muggins was left with, you guessed it, no response.

You know, I must admit to a begrudging respect for Cheewaadi and his ilk: anyone, who even after a beating like that, can carry on undeterred really deserves respect. One often finds though that the reason for this is merely a hollow life: most of the worst internet trolls are Salafist Muslims and ISIS does much of its recruiting online. One even struggles to find such committed trolls amongst Islamophobes or militant atheists. I think the reason for this is that even those vile groups such as militant atheists and Islamophobes have limited time to spend online, their hate is bounded by their hobbies. I guess they can’t be on the internet trolling Muslims all day because they have to read comics or watch movies or listen to death metal or whatever they do. For Salafis however, virtually all hobbies are haraam or ‘bad’ or time wasting or whatever. This leaves them with only one outlet for their frustrations and egos – The Internet.

Now the scourges of logic and factual accuracy are back again, undaunted, claiming that Shukurov and Co. are heretics, modernists and other things ending in ‘-ists‘ as well as possibly cannibals and The Boogeyman.

We should also, before beginning this latest and lengthy debunking, which you can rest assured will go similarly unanswered, mention the likely reasons Chaweeba will furnish for not replying this time. These may include but not be limited to:

  • I have black hair. No one with black hair is worth replying to
  • I included pictures in my article
  • It’s too long, they can’t be bothered (*but they can be botherwed setting up whole websites trolling Shukurov)
  • It was already replied to…’Back to the Future’ style
  • Bad manners is only what other people do, so they don’t need to reply
  • They chatted up some random girls on Facebook and asked for their private emails, so that’s the same as an academic reply
  • My name contains ‘Suede’ and most suede is made from pigskin, therefore, they are not replying

I’m sure Cheseeba will not disappoint me and will come up with even more drug induced reasons than they did last time or the ones I can come up with.

Also, at the outset of the article, I would like to add ‘not necessarily’ to everything I say, which by Baseeba’s logic means I can just deny any mistakes I make no matter how egregious, up to an including takfir or anathematisation of senior scholars (Salafis always say that  ‘ordinary’ people have an ‘excuse’ if they are heretics so are not killed – but is Ibn Hajar an ‘ordinary’ person who doesn’t know the Salafi’s proofs and will still be excused for being a heretic? Let me guess: ‘not necessarily’, right!?).

Okay, I know, you’re thinking ‘get on with it you waffling mare’.

The subject of Cheezadi’s latest ‘trigger warning’ against Shukurov (who they can’t bear to mention by name any longer since it presumably cause them to have a seizure) is the issue of hadith and narrators rejected by Hanafis but accepted by ‘sunnis’ (and by this they mean Salafis, who are by no stretch of the imagination or lubrication with petro-dollars ‘Sunni’) – specifically those narrated by the Tabi (generation coming after the companions of the Prophet) Ikrima – the slave of the companion of the Prophet Ibn Abbas (RA).

Basically, there is a huge disagreement about Ikrima: many of the earlier scholars rejected him for being a violent Kharijite (the early sect of Islam that declared everyone who disagreed with them, including the sahabah, to be disbelievers) amongst other things. However, he was included as ‘reliable’ or ‘righteous’ by some later scholars including Bukhari. He also narrated some hadiths which are most expedient for Salafis, such as one about killing or rather burning apostates, and we all know that Salafis have a serious Freudian obsession with the issue of killing apostates (presumably because Salafis cause so many people to apostate so thus maybe they think killing them is ‘cleaning’ up their mess). Ikrima is also very important to them since single chain narrations provide many of the bizarre creedal and juristic positions of the various Salafi groups with support. So it is very important for them that no hadith be rejected by anyone (other than them) and that they exersize a monopoly over which hadith are accepted or authentic, which narrators are authentic and thus who is and is not a ‘modernist’ (it’s them in case you are wondering).

Most sensible proponents of Islam (so, not Salafis), avoid the issue of Ikrima, because it arms and is used by both Shia and non-Muslim antagonists of Islam. No such caution about airing potentially damaging things can be expected from Salafis though, who believe that if you ‘challenge’ people’s faith with difficult to believe things and morally difficult problems, you will see who the ‘real’ Muslims are. Basically, they are willing to make Islam look bad because they think that if you are worried about looking bad in front of the ‘kufaar‘ or Shia (these two groups are largely identical for Wahhabis), then you must have ‘weak faith’. Therefore they are constantly embarrassing Islam by proferring bizarre and laughable ‘arguments’ for all of the things Muslims are embarrassed about, nearly always rightly, since they are not part of Islam. So you will hear them defend the killing of apostates, stoning of adulterers and marrying nine year old’s as if their life depended on it, and getting kudos for not backing down in front of ‘modernists’. The fact that these positions may not be the correct ones in the first place would never occur to a puritan. The result is that Salafis get bragging rights, their opponents are labelled and anathematised and non-Muslims and reasonable Muslims are left appalled.

Therefore let’s examine the issue of Ikrima, since Baseeba has insisted on airing the dirty laundry others have put into Islam’s basket in public. Before we being, remember the NEW and REVISED ‘Seven Deadly Sins of Salafism’. We will be labelling each of their arguments with the relevant sin as we go – it’s like a Treasure Hunt! 

1- Mis-translate these everything  at will – Allah will reward you, it’s for a good cause!

2- Decry anyone who disagrees as a modernist, heretic or better still a Mu’tazzilite or Shi’ite – but never under any circumstances admit your Wahhabi affiliation. Say you are just representing ‘Islam’

3- Use Ahad hadith (single chain narrations) to persuade people that this is what the Prophet said (most of ISIS’ ‘fatwas’ from raping Yazidis to killing and burning random people are extracted from ahad hadith)

4- In case anyone questions your use of hadith, start tampering with chains and narrators, declaring them ‘weak’ and ‘unknown’

5- Use modern ‘scholars’, specifically Albani and Co. to reject any hadith when it doesn’t suit you

6- Pretend things are Muttawatir (mass transmitted like the Quran) and Ijma (agreed upon) when they are not – if challenged give evidence without translating or mistranslate. If cornered, use Salafi sources (Ibn Taymiyya etc) to ‘prove’

7- Lie, its for a good cause! And pray to God (this direction: UP) that they can’t read Arabic.

As the more savvy of you commented on the last debunking/skewering of Bassweeba, this could simply be simplified to ‘the other side can’t speak or read Arabic, so just make stuff up’, and you were right. To this we can add that few people have the time to check up the sources. What was really funny was we saw last time that Basseba doesn’t seem to be unable to read Arabic properly either. So I think that’s called ‘irony’.

I have included ‘screen captures’ of the articles by Cheewadi, since last time the articles were ‘redacted’ and changed after I addressed them. Since things have a habit of disappearing from the internet, I have included the originals – how nice of me to save you having to click a link too!


In his new attempt at hiding the truth, Basseema is trying to convince everyone that Ikrima ‘the liar’ is one of the ‘beloved’ and great ‘teachers’ of Abu Hanifa. Note how he puts this article under the section ‘refuting heresies‘. Here we see the vile modernism and disrespect of Salafis for Muslim scholars at its most potent – according to this non entity Zaweeba, all of the scholars of the past who rejected Ikrima the slave of Ibn Abbas, often in the most flagrant terms – scholars of the rank of Imam Malik and too many other Sunni authorities to mention (*but I will below) are all heretics.

Cheeba Site Heresies

Notice the other bizarre list of ‘heresies’ that are ‘answered’ on this page. However, it is sufficient here to know that according to Bassema, thinking that Abu Hanifa rejects Ikrima is a ‘heresy’ and needs refuting in public. So one assumes that Malik, Shafi and Ibn Sireen (amongst numerous others) calling Ikrima a liar must be kufr or disbelief for Chaweeba.

Cheema article 1Cheema artcile 2Cheema 3

Cheewaadi wants to prove Abu Hanifa’s ‘love’ of Ikrima, a member of the Khawarij, a sect that believes that Ali (RA) and most of the other companions of the Prophet are kaafirs or disbelievers – which is why people avoid talking about Ikrima and leave it alone, but of course, Baseeba, who cares not for the faith of Muslims nor the image of Islam, has to ‘go there’. In fact by forcing Abu Hanifa to accept Ikrmia as a reliable narrator they are opening a can of worms, because the next logical question in the minds of most will be ‘hang on, if guys who declare Sahabah of the level of Ali, Umar etc to be kaafir are reliable then who isn’t reliable!? And what is the difference between us and Shias‘?!) Cheezadi has written two articles in fact. If you can’t be bothered to read his article (and I advise that you do inflict it on yourself as a learning exercise), Baseeba brought four proofs; but Hanafis (*as opposed to Salafis like Chesaama) have already debunked this astonishingly banal effort:

So Dear Reader – which ‘Salafi Sin’ is this? I mean it is simply pathetic to resort to this kind of thing but I think it comes under ‘sin 7‘ – lying.
Even though the above article from Shukurov – who seems to have, like a bunch of innocent girls names ‘A’isha’, been dragged into the dispute between me and the Internet Troll Kings (I hope they aren’t trying to chat him up too?!), is more than sufficient to show Cheesama’s very poor attempt at legitimising Ikrima for Hanafis, I want to comment on some of the proofs and bring some additional ones.
This is from ‘Lisan al Mizan‘ by ‘not necessarily a heretic’ (according to Cheewadi) scholar Ibn Hajar al Asqallani volume 4
مجمع الملك فهد لطباعة المصحف الشريف
Funnily, Ibn Hajar is the one who confirms here that al-Harithi used to fabricate narrations, and fabricated chains etc. Then all of sudden he proves his point by a narration which is narrated by the same al-Harithiy:
From ‘al-Hady al-Sari‘ first volume: well, Zaweeba doesn’t need to worry about Ibn Hajar being inconsistent since he refuses to state his position on him without giving himself a politicians ‘get out clause’. The only difference is that the politicians who invented this style understand the nuances of the English language. In fact, as we will see, scholars narrate from people they themselves have declared weak all of the time. This is standard operating procedure for them – especially in the case of Abu Hanifa. So Salafists commit a double deception – they lie and tell people that scholars narrating from someone means they accept them as ‘authentic’ or ‘righteous’ and then use such narrations as ‘proof’ of this. Apart from being self – proving and circular, it simply is not true and impugns the giants of Islam as fools who had no historical methodology, placing them beneath Western historians who ‘narrate’ from people they nonetheless do not endorse. We may take a Nazi historian as a source amongst many and then examine his evidence – but this is by no means an ‘endorsement’. We will see this shortly. But its also quite possible the Ibn Hajar simply forgot and made a mistake (like his ‘heresy’), since all scholars are, y’know, human (we are not Shia after all, well, Bassema kind-of has the same methodology as Shia – see later).
From the book ‘al Jame’ fee al Jarh wa ta’deel’ volume 2 page 26
مجمع الملك فهد لطباعة المصحف الشريف
From ‘Tareekh Baghdad” volume 11 page 350. 
Enjoy reading about this ”Al-Ustadh al-Harithiy”. No one said he is reliable (*except Cheeba and fake Hanafis and Salafi-Shafis and Takfiri Malikis and all the other latter-day modernists eruptions masquerading (badly) as the ‘Sunni Madhabs‘).
If you feel left out that you can’t read Arabic please don’t worry – neither can Cheesaama (properly) as we saw last time.

Well, I don’t think we need to look into the issue more. But I’ll do it anyway. Because these people are an embarrassment not only to Islam but to truth and religion in toto. Of course they will be offended with their gentle sensibilities at being called liars, but what else can we call it? ‘Fantastical religious thought’? ‘Imaginative theology’?

Remember Dear Readers, learn this once and save yourself a lifetimes trolling by salafis: they always try to fool you by claiming that since a scholar is narrating from someone, this means he considers him ‘reliable’ of this is an endorsement of that narrators beliefs or narrations. To Western Educated people, this is as obviously false as some adducing a quote from Hitler to prove a point being then accused of being a Nazi. But of course, most Salafis care not for academia as we have seen. 

darb 121213333

Al-Qawaid fee uloom al-hadeeth” page 220” .

Abu Hanifa narrating from someone doesn’t prove that he is reliable…according to Abu Hanifa himself. We will examine why they would narrate from unreliable people below. For now let us note that they had a very modern and recognisable academic technique – collect sources even from deviants and antagonists.

Abu Hanfia narrating 1.jpg

مجمع الملك فهد لطباعة المصحف الشريف

مجمع الملك فهد لطباعة المصحف الشريف

مجمع الملك فهد لطباعة المصحف الشريف

Cheesama Bin Laden claimed that Abu Hanifa narrating from Ikrima ‘proves’ that he trusts him – poppycock: Abu Hanifa said ‘I have never seen any bigger liar than Jabir al-Ju’fi‘ second page (1ش) ‘Musnad Abu Hanifa‘ – this one by Abu Nu’aim, confirms that Abu Hanifa narrated from Jabir anyway.  
Look at the third page (1 e), from ‘Sharh Ilal‘ by Ibn Rajab. Here is a genuine top ranking scholar, who even most Salafis wil be afraid to publically insult (but as we saw, Cheesama isn’t most Salafis). He is teaching us about the two schools concerning narrating from weak and rejected narrators:
– The first group who narrated from weak narrators
– The second group who didn’t narrate from them
Then Ibn Rajab confirms that Abu Hanifa belongs to the first group because he narrated from Jabir al-Ju’fi, despite having confirmed that he is the ‘biggest liar’.
Further, Ibn Rajab confirms that even Abu Yusuf and Muhammad, the famous students of Abu Hanifa, narrated from weak narrators. 
This is hilarious, because right on cue, Baseema argues that Abu Hanifa’s students  (i.e Muhammad and Abu Yusuf) narrating from Ikrima is an endorsement of the man as ‘reliable’. 
This is simply a result of people such as Zaweeba having (limited) Arabic language competency which allows them to email their Salafi Sheikhs for help and do searches on the internet in Arabic. But when you haven’t studied the basics, you gaffes will be terrible. We see the exact same thing with Salafis and ‘Science’ arguments. IERA, having devastated many people’s faith with the misuse of these arguments has now ‘Done a Zaweeba’ and run away and denied and denounced its previous arguments. Apart from the damage having been done, it is obvious that there was not a single qualified or even undergraduate level person involved when these ‘arguments’ were made. Likewise, you don’t have to be a Hanafi to know that these guys are chatting rubbish. They simply do not know about the basic sciences around narrators and narration, because they have never taken the time to study. Even that would be fine if they had some innate talent or analytical skills. But…they don’t. 
مجمع الملك فهد لطباعة المصحف الشريفمجمع الملك فهد لطباعة المصحف الشريف
AH Students 3.jpg
As we saw, Chawadi said that even students of Abu Hanifa narrated from Ikrima, and so Ikrima is reliable even according to them.
I don’t think I need to talk about them. That’s because everyone apart from internet Salafi ignorami know that followers of Abu Hanifa (including the very direct ones such as Abu Yusuf and Sheibani) disagreed with Abu Hanifa in many issues. Actually they say 2/3 of Hanafi school is not according the opinions of Abu Hanifa. Abu Hanifa confirmed that Jabir Ju’fi is a liar, and yet here his disciple Muhammad narrated from Jabir Ju’fi in ‘Muwatta‘, but it doesn’t prove that Jabir is ‘good’ and ‘reliable’.
Further (4, 5) Imam Tahawi  (another ‘big deal’ scholar) narrated three hadiths in a row from Jabir. Again, to prove one issue he narrated many hadeeths in the same meaning including the narration of Jabir.
This is how Muslim scholars act. But Chewaadi doesn’t know that, which is why he is making an atrocious mess in public. The fact that Bukhari and others do narrate from Ikrima, despite him being a reviler of the Sahabah shows that their narrating from someone is a way of documenting evidence, much like historians of today (unless Cheseema wants to argue that by narrating from Ikrima Imam Bukhari or Ibn Hajar are saying that guys who declare Ali to be a ‘kaafir‘ are ‘good’ and ‘reliable’. More on this soon).
Here is another vile diatribe on the issue of Ikrima. (I am told that Bassam and Cheeba are different people but to me the degree of collusion indicates they are a hive mind or at least in a ‘civil partnership’. It is basically cut and paste from a ‘scholar’ who I nor anyone else has ever heard of and features no references for anything apart from this scholar (who himself is a mystery) so that is ‘Sin 4‘ and probably ‘Sin 5‘ too):

4- In case anyone questions your use of hadith, start tampering with chains and narrators, declaring them ‘weak’ and ‘unknown’

5- Use modern ‘scholars’, specifically Albani and Co. to reject or accept any hadith or narration you like

Bassam Ikrima art 1Bassam Ikrima 2
bassam Ikrima 3
I mean, this is even worse than the previous ‘effort’. We have such gems as could be picked to pieces by a non-Muslim with no knowledge of Islam or even religion: We are given stories pulled out of thin air sans references for chains being ‘weak’ and narrators being ‘unknown’.
In fact, people who have actually studied Islam properly are very careful about talking about ‘unknown’ narrators in chains. That is because this is something which is known to be in most of the chains for anything and is basically arming the Islamophobe wing of the Orientalists. Chaweeba committed this gaffe before and was sufficiently warned in a video by a scholar (yes, you guessed it, they ran away and did not reply), when he tried to allege that the well known book of Abu Hanifa ‘Al Waseeya‘ (‘Testament’ or ‘Will’) had ‘unknown’ people in the chain:
In fact, Salafists are not beyond even impugning the Quran: I was once confronted by an alarmed student when an IERA member told him that the Quran itself was ahad – the speaker in question presumably thought he was ‘defending’ ahad hadith by lowering the Quran to their level. Such astonishing stupidity beggars belief, but I am told by the same student who lent me these ‘Facebook’ posts that in a debates with an Islamophobes, Salafis have allowed him to allege that the Quran was only known to four people, quoting American Salafist Yasir Qadhi. I really hope this isn’t true…
One can adequately demonstrate the egregiousness of the untruths in this ‘article’ merely by the fact that Zaweeba alleges that chains with ‘unknown’ people are ‘weak’,  and then immediately thereafter says that there are two narrations from Ibn Abi Dhaib (don’t worry about the names readers) and we should not trust the authentic one because Dhahabi said ‘God knows best’ after it (which we are told means ‘I don’t know’, which it doesn’t) but we should trust the one where he said Ikrima was trustworthy or at least be ‘not sure’. But the evidence Baseema adduced contains an unknown narrator – Muhammad bin Ruzaiq al-Madiniy:
مجمع الملك فهد لطباعة المصحف الشريف
I mean…
Image result for manga shocked
At least, you know, leave a couple of paragraphs between talking about rejecting people for being ‘unknown’ before bringing as a proof…someone who is unknown.
Other sheer madness in this piece includes the claim that Imam Malik (RA) didn’t consider Ikrima unreliable and that Kharijism is just a minor foible. This alone is hilarious, but as I said last time, I am quite masochistic when it comes to people who lie on behalf of religion, so lets continue.
He tries another deadly sin of Salafis because he makes whatever narrators he wants ‘weak’ (sans reference). Today, Salafis would like to have Salt bin Dinar is classed as a weak. The reason that he is a Murjia (an early sect of Islam of whom even Abu Hanifa is alleged to be a member, so they are not considered weak for the Hanafis).
But why are we to reject Salt Ibn Dinar for being in a ‘sect’ (and not even such a bad one it seems) and to accept Ikrmia for being in another sect, one that calls Ali and Sahabah ‘kufaar‘ that should be killed? Baseeba tells us to ignore Ikrima’s deviant sect as beeing of no consequence:
Kharijiam not a problems
So people who declare Ali (RA) and Umar (RA) ‘kaafirs‘ are ‘reliable’ but Murjis are not?!
Image result for manga shocked
I had wanted to go trough he rest of the article by quoting and similarly showing the banality, however, it is just totally unreferenced and not even his own work. Further, I don’t even know whose work it is, so that I could go and embarrass the actual author. It is lifted from someone called ‘Salih bin Ali al ‘Umayrini’, who you can bet your nicest underwear is a Salafi and like all Salafis says things that no one ever said before on his own authority. Here he is:
So just take all information about the REAL Hanafi madhab from a genuine card carrying Saudi Salafi as opposed to the ‘modernist Hanafis’. If you think he’s a good source for Hanafism or any Sunni group then you probably, as one of my students put it above, think Heinrich Himmler is a good source to understand the real message of the Talmud.
The funny thing is that Basweema is using a modern Salafi scholar as a reference, and the scholar himself didn’t provide a reference. This may be like the last modernist scholar Chewaama brought, and he used a website as a reference. When we went on that website, we were sent to another website ad infinitum. So is this ‘academic’? You guessed it – ‘not necessarily’!
I will let you read it and then put the points in an academic fashion so that they will be systematic and not all over the place. If you can’t be bothered, the summary of the article is:
– People love and accept Ikrima
– Imam Malik relied on him, even though he said he didn’t, we should ignore that and look at what someone else said. Except he didn’t say that either. I’m losing track here.
– The same rubbish as the first waffle-fest, namely that if you narrate from someone, you think they are ‘reliable’, even though no one believes that in secular or Islamic sciences.
Khawarij are reliable narrators. But not Murjis (*or any other group Salafis don’t like)
– Chains saying Ikrima is bad are not authentic because of unknown narrators and weak narrators
– Some other rubbish. It will be included below.
You saw above the gaffes therein but I will write in detail about Ikrima,  unknown and weak narrators for educational purposes.
It is agreed upon that the highest ever level tabei is Sa’eed bin Musayyab, the son in law of Abu Huraira. Also, he is one of the top ‘seven fuqaha‘ (jurists or judges) of madeenah. When Imam Malik says ‘Ahl Madeena‘, he means these seven fuqaha. No doubt, having lectured Hanafis on what is and is not ‘Hanafi’ madhab, salafis and their familiars will likewise want to lecture me on Maliki madhab. But I am ready for that.
This is an authentic chain from ‘Ta’reekh‘ of Fasawi; volume 2 page 5

Said Bin Musayib

Saeed says to his slave; ‘Don’t lie on behalf of me as Ikrima lied on behalf of Ibn Abbas‘.
Salafis say ”Lie” here doesn’t mean ‘lie’ but ‘mistake’. We already saw how they can abuse languages you do understand let alone those you don’t. In that case Ikrima doesn’t mean ‘Ikrima’ but means ‘Prophet Muhammad’. That would be a joke, but we already saw that they are more than willing to not only attribute mistakes or lies to the Prophet but even disbelief and polytheism.
Here is another authentic chain, in the red box; Yahya bin Sa’eed said; ‘Ikrima was a liar’.
In the brown box, the story of Ali son of Ibn Abbas keeping Ikrima tied up because he used to lie on behalf of Ibn Abbas, narrated through two chains, which gives strength and authenticity to the story.
Blue box: Qasim bin Muhammad one of seven fuqaha of Madina confirms that Ikrima is liar.
Last box, also authentic chain, Imam Malik himself confirms that Saeed bin Musayyab said that Ikrima lied on behalf of Ibn Abbas.
Yayah Ibn Saeed
Yet another authentic chain where Sa’eed is confirming that Ikrima used to lie on behalf of Ibn Abbas, in the red box.
Another ‘golden chain’ Rabe’ from Shafei: Malik used to dislike Ikrima and used to say; I think that no one should accept the narrations of Ikrima. Shafei said; ‘we avoid the narrations of Ikrima‘.
Ibn Abu Dhi’b said; ‘I met Ikrima, and he wasn’t trustable‘ (in the brown box)
Green box; ‘Ikrima was brainless guy (had a small brain)
Sa'eed Again
مجمع الملك فهد لطباعة المصحف الشريف
Ibn Sireen confirming that Ikrima was a liar – red and brown boxes. It is authentic according to our principles, because Salt bin Dinar is classed as ‘weak’ only because he was Murjia. They tried to show some other reasons, which are wrong. We know that in general,  Muhadiths love Nasibis and hate Murjia though.
Green box; Yahya bin Saeed again confirming that Ikrima was a liar.
مجمع الملك فهد لطباعة المصحف الشريف


We saw that the top fuqaha of Madeenah who saw Ikrima in the flesh, such as Saeed and Qasim two of the seven Fuqaha of Madeena, and Imam Malik confirmed that Ikrima is liar.
Ibn Jawzi
Ibn Jawzi mentioned Ikrima in his collection of ”Weak and Rejected” narrators volume 3 page 182
In the red box Ibn Jawzi listed the Tabein who confirmed that Ikrima is liar;  Mujahid, Muhammad bin Sireen, Yahya bin Sa’eed, Malik bin Anas.
In the following page it confirms that Ikrima used to beg the royal family for money.
مجمع الملك فهد لطباعة المصحف الشريف
Ikrima died on 105 hijri (723 AC) when he was 80 years old. He claimed that he spent 40 years studying (which is also a lie anyway) and we know that he was a slave till Ibn Abbas died, and even afterwards for a while
Ibn Abbas died at 68 hijri, (687 AC), based on that, Ikrima was a ‘celebrity’ for about 36 years, which means he was begging for money from the princes and kings from 687 AC till 723 AC. 
Now who were these ‘kings’? They are all Umayyads:
Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan 685–705
al-Walid I ibn Abd al-Malik 705–715
Sulayman ibn Abd al-Malik 715–717
Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz 717–720
Yazid II ibn Abd al-Malik
I don’t have time to talk about all of the crimes these kings have committed.
Abdulmalik bin Marwan appointed Hajjaj (660 AC – 714 AC) as his head of police and army. Hajjaj stayed in his position until he died on 714 AC, which means all of the time when Ikrima was going and asking them for money, Hajjaj was there. We all know that Hajjaj killed many of the genuine scholars. Each single real scholar has been attacked by Umayyad’s generally and by Hajjaj specifically. Abu Hanifa was jailed by the Umayyad’s for example. Ibrahim Nakhai (the teacher of Abu Hanifa)  cried and made sajda (prostration) when Hajjaj died. So everyone was depressed and scared, but Ikrima has no issue at all but more than that gets a lot of money and gifts from Umayyads. Why? 
Hajjaj killed 120,000 people outside of battle including a big list of Sahaba and top Tabein such as:
– Abdullah bin Zubair – sahabi
– Abdullah bin Zaid al-Ansari – Badri sahabi. He was one of the top Ansar followed The Prophet before the migration. Hajjaj killed two of the sons of this Sahabi with him too.
– Poisoned ibn Umar, but wasn’t able to kill him. Actually Hajjaj was sorry that he didn’t kill Ibn Umar
– Saeed bin Jubair  – top Tabei scholar
– Imam Muhammad bin Sa’d bin Abu Waqqas – Tabei
– Abdullah bin Safwan – Tabei scholar
– Abdullah bin Mutea – Tabei scholar
– Atiyah Awfiy – Tabei scholar, Hajjaj forced him to insult Ali
– Mahan al-Hanafi – hanged by Hajjaj
– Musadda’ abu Yahya – Hajjaj forced him to insult Ali, when he refused, Hajjaj killed him.
Let’s not be like Zaweeba – we should look at the other side of the story too: Ibn Hajar said; it [asking the Ummayads for money or support] is not a good reason to reject someone as a narrator because many reliable narrators used to get paid by royals, such as Zuhri.
Abu Hanifa on the other hand said; ”Don’t take knowledge from the ones who are attached to the royal family. I don’t say they lie, but they don’t always say the truth in the full form and they smoothe it for the royals”. So I don’t think Ibn Hajar’s defence will be applicable for Hanafis like Shukurov (but it will be for Malikis, because of Imam Zuhri).
Ibn Hajar said when he was defending Ikrima as a valid narrator; ‘Yes, Ikrima was innovator but the narration of innovator is accepted as long as he doesn’t propagate his innovation!‘ 
But in this case, it seems Ibn Hajar (the one who Cheeba doesn’t want to say is a heretic or not) knows perfectly well that he is wrong.
Here is an authentic chain where Ibn Hajar says; ”Ikrimah went to the west (Morocco and Western Africa) and Kharijites from the West have learned it from Ikrima”- Ibn Hajar himself confirms that Ikrima spread the Kharijite school to West Africa:
Ibn Hajar admits Ikrima spread.jpg
So, we know that Ibn Hajar is apparently doing his best to defend him even if he knew that his excuse is wrong. Or that Ibn Hajar is just human and made a mistake – everyone makes mistakes except Salafis, who you will notice are never wrong about anything, have ‘replied’ without replying and are always ‘victims’ of bad manners and sectarianism, even when they are being bad mannered and sectarian.
Amusingly, now that I have pointed out Ibn Hajar’s inconsistency or mistake, Cheewadi – wadi will instantly start smashing his bangles and lamenting that we have offended Ibn Hajar (*even though he called him a heretic and when exposed refused to clarify). On top of that, as he did last time,  he is using a modernist scholar, sans references to overturn the great scholars and fatwas of the past. So the lamentations of Salafis that others are ignoring the ‘Imams’ are just crocodile tears to lure unsuspecting Muslims. They have good form, their Imam of hadith, Nassiruddin Albani, was fond of finding errors with Bukhari’s chains and rejecting his hadith. If ‘modernists’ did this, Chaweeba would probably strap on a suicide vest and take out a whole city block (figuratively speaking of course) in his indignation. But it’s fine for Albani and Baseeba of course. Only they know the classical methodology and managed to correct Bukhari – the other guys in the intervening 1200 years were all stupid. At least Shukurov and Co reject hadith from Bukhari and give a reason. Albani, well, he just does it on his own authority, much as Baseeba wants you to accept a load of stuff about something as controversial as Ikrima insulting the companions of the Prophet being ‘reliable’ as a narrator from a source as authentic as a Saudi Salafi hand picked by him. Would it not be more consistent for Chewaadi to just declare himself an Imam? In fact, these guys and their followers do strongly resemble a cult.
The main reason that some Muhaditheen defend Ikrima vigorously is that for example, he was used by Imam Bukhari. Imam Bukhari, who never met Ikrima personally, says; ‘all of our scholars use Ikrima‘.
It is very strange that Imam Bukhari’s main expertise is the biography of narrators and yet he does blind taqleed in it by saying ‘I follow our scholars’. But fiqh is not his expertise and he criticizes top mujtahid scholars such as Abu Hanifa on occasion in harsh terms. So it isn’t as ‘cut and dry’ as Imam Bukhari simply accepting someone – many of the people whom he accepts we may well find unacceptable (such as Ikrima) and those which he rejects we may find desirable – such as Abu Hanifa.
Thus some later scholars, such as those which Salafis would pretend to make a song and dance about respecting in public, such as Imam Bukhari and the ‘not necessarily’ heretic Ibn Hajar did accept Ikrima. This raises some issues for Salafis – how can a man who is celebrating the death of senior companions of the Prophet such as Ali be ‘reliable’ or ‘pious’ – but not for Bukhari of Ibn Hajar themselves, who seem to have merely been like good historians and collected all the sources they could find, somewhat indiscriminately, as is the job of a good archivist. Bukhari never said that all his narrations were to be taken as wrote or used to decide creed or law – this is an invention of Salafis, who fancy that they find justification for their puritanism, deviancy and anthropomorphism amongst certain hadith.
Dear Readers, you saw above Chesseema claiming that not accepting Ikrima was an issue of ‘heresy’. I ask you – how low is the  Salafi’s threshold for ‘heresy’? Instead of admitting disagreement (though there is none on Ikrima really), they claim that anyone who dares to reject him is a heretic? Total mindless insanity. And we know what salafis do to ‘heretics’, don’t we?
It is because of Salafis that the issue of the Khawarij, to which we must now turn, has become such a problem and publicised for Shia and Islamophobes to use against us. People who have studied under Islamic scholarship (*so not Chaseema) do not dwell on nor highlight the Khawarij because it is a big problem to have narrators who are from such a violent, deviant and hateful sect. Such students and teachers merely entertain a good thought about Bukhari and Co. because they cannot be held to account for the acts and beliefs of the people who narrate historical information, much as we do not hold people accountable for narrating things from Genghis khan – it doesn’t mean it’s false or those historians are ‘bad’.
If you can’t be bothered with what has gone before on this issue of Ikrima, I can only leave you with this wonderful illustration of the stupidity of insisting on hadith from Ikrima and decrying all who disagree as heretics: Khawarij themselves do not accept hadith as a proof (in fact they are strangely very similar to Mu’tazzila or Quranists).
The reason is very obvious: most of the Sahabah are non-Muslims according to the Kharijites and hence their narrations aka ‘hadith‘, are rejected.
Hilariously, Khawarij such as Ikrmia are the original ‘hadith rejecters’.
مجمع الملك فهد لطباعة المصحف الشريف
Here is an excerpt from the famous book ‘Maqalat‘ of Imam Ash’ari (the putative founder of Ashari creed – most necessarily heretical according to Cheebazadi). In this book he describes, quite impartially the various sects of Islam in his day and before (it is available in English too). In this page beliefs of Kharijites which are agreed upon among them are described;
‘All agreed that Ali is kafir and then disagreed whether he committed only kufr (disbelief) or shirk (polytheism) also [but regardless of that Ali goes to hell forever according to these horrible people]. All agreed that anyone one commits a major sin becomes kafir, except one group called the ‘Najdat’. All agreed that the one who commits a major sin stays in the hell for ever, again except Najdat’.
مجمع الملك فهد لطباعة المصحف الشريف
This vile hatred for Ali (and other companions of the Prophet), which is found in Salafi archfiend Ibn Taymiyya as well (though he could not dare to be as outspoken as his beloved Ikrima:, is one of the worst things to agree upon, but sadly Salafis and Shia have agreed on reviling the companions of the Prophet (when it suits them).
Ikrima believed in Ali (RA) going to hell forever, that’s probably why he accused Ali of wanting to burn some people for apostasy, so now we know why some Hanbalis, Salafis and modern Muslims make a song and dance over Ikrima.
But Ikrima is not just any old Khawarij – he is from the ‘Safari‘ subgroup. Sadly, this does not mean an appreciation for African wildlife: the ‘extra’ beliefs of Safaris over and above the already unacceptable ones of the Khawarij are: 
مجمع الملك فهد لطباعة المصحف الشريف
First red box; Anyone who disagrees with them (safaris) are mushriks, they have to be treated as the mushriks who fought against the Prophet pbuh – i.e killed (according to them).
Now it explains the mindset of modern Muslims such as Baseema, as they also class anyone who disagrees with them as heretics that have to be killed for apostasy (*the last bit is silent). That’s because what they follow is ‘Islam’ and there is not any ‘Islam’ outside of that.
Second point; Ikrima was confirmed to be not only a Safari and also an Ibadi

مجمع الملك فهد لطباعة المصحف الشريفHere are the beliefs of Ibadis.  First; they believe about Uthman what many Shia believe about Abu Bakr and Umar second (i.e that they are kaafir). Also that the ”confused” person in the following verse is Ali and the companions who are calling him to the guidance are Kharijites from the battle of Nahrawan (a battle between Ali and the Khawarij, where they were soundly thrashed)

6;71 ([We would then be] like one whom the devils enticed [to wander] upon the earth confused, [while] he has companions inviting him to guidance, [calling], ‘Come to us.’ “Say, “Indeed, the guidance of Allah is the [only] guidance; and we have been commanded to submit to the Lord of the worlds. 

They also say that the person whose words please you in the verse 2;204, is Ali;

‘And of the people is he whose speech pleases you in worldly life, and he calls Allah to witness as to what is in his heart, yet he is the fiercest of opponents’.

Thirdly; the one who sells himself to please God is Abdurahman bin Muljim (the Kharijite who killed Ali).

2;207 And of the people is he who sells himself, seeking means to the approval of Allah. And Allah is kind to [His] servants.

[astute readers will notice that the Kharijites Quranic ‘exegesis’ is self contradictory and idiotic: the Quran in one place ‘condemns’ Ali and then asks them to nonetheless guide him – perhaps this conflict this would be ‘solved’ by the Khawarij by using ‘abrogation’ like their Salafi descendants today. It also conflicts with their theology which says that Ali is destined for Hell – so why kill people and fight battles to ‘guide’ him?]

I’m sorry, but this is simply unacceptable. Pretending that someone with such astonishing beliefs was universally accepted or that rejecting him is ‘heresy’ is utterly ridiculous. All we can say is that such individuals were included for historical purposes in collections like ‘Sahih Bukhari‘ – not that they are ‘Imams’ or ‘pious’ or ‘reliable’.

Salafis, when cornered sometimes make the astonishingly stupid argument that Khawarij are considered reliable, despite their violence and hatred towards Sahabah because they consider lying to be disbelief (which is true, just as all ‘major’ sins are disbelief for them). I think most readers, including the village idiot, will probably feel their intelligence insulted by this argument, not least because it goes against what Salafis and Deobandis as well as Brelwis have been claiming for years, that all the narrators are ‘thiqa‘ (righteous). Well, you can’t condemn Ali and Uthman to Hell and be a genocidal maniac and be ‘righteous’ (*unless Salafis do think that?!). In fact, if you can be a major sinner and a heretic and still narrate as long as you don’t lie, Salafis will have to show that they are being egalitarian and accepting hadith from all the different sects that say lying is disbelief (foremost amongst them, the Mu’Tazzila) and are defending them the way they defend the Khawarij.


Basweema has seen the conundrum and tired to claim that ‘Hanafis’ (notice how he is trying to avoid saying his own position) accept narrations from the deviant groups (they do). But previously, he was trying to tell us that Ikrima was indispensable and accepted by Abu Hanifa. He also tried to blackmail you by saying, well, if you reject Ikrima, you will have to reject many other narrators too.


We should just overlook the heresies of such people? Or do we adopt a careful approach and look at the hadith with a systematic creedal and juristic eye like the Malikis and Hanafis instead of willy nilly like Salafis?

Salafis and Deobanadis have two choices: they either admit that many hadith are narrated by people such as Ikrima, guilty of heinous crimes and most certainly not ‘Imams’ or righteous, and are so to be tested by hadith principles (such as those of Imam Malik) or they have to do their usual game of ‘gotta accept them all’ vis a vis ahad (single chain) narrations and admit that they blindly accept narrations about God, the Prophet and killing people from open sinners and deviant sects.

You can’t have your cake and eat it. Or, perhaps in terms Bassaama will understand, you can’t have your slave girl and sell her, as they say in ISIS (And yes, it is always a girl).

Now we know why modern Muslims are defending Ikrima so vociferously, perhaps because modern Salafi Islam is is very often an extreme sect of Hanbalism where the main ”Sheikh ul-Islam” is Ibn Taimia who also insulted Ali and his wife Fatima as much as he could (considering that he was a coward).

We also now see that certain groups of muhaddiths support Nasibis and Kharijites in a sometimes partisan way, so we have to bear this in mind.

As we saw above from the excerpt by the guy that Zaweeba seems to consider a greater threat than the Antichrist or Liberalism (judging by the amount of internet trolling they dedicate to him), Atabek Shukurov, the game of trying to de-legitimise narrations that one wishes to reject (and such narrations in the case of Salafis are many) by claiming that narrators in the chain are ‘majhool‘ or ‘unknown’ is insanely dangerous and irresponsible – because most of the famous books of Islam and famous hadith have this problem. Case in point is the text of Bukhari which we have with us now – can anyone give me it’s chain and biographies of all of its narrators, at least until it was widely published? More importantly, where is the chain between Baseema and Imam Bukhari – twelve hundred years of narrators missing!
Here is the chain between Ibn Hajar, one of if not the main scholars and popularisers of ‘Sahih Bukhari‘ and Imam Bukhari himself: the people between him and Imam Bukhari are not confirmed to be authentic. In their biography you get only general ‘praising’ things such as; ‘he was great scholar’ etc – not a detailed or even adequate biography, likewise, no hint of who or why they/we say he is a ‘great scholar’ etc. These general ‘praisings’ are not classed as ‘authenticating’ in hadith science (or any science).
Also, between Ibn Hajar until our time all of the narrators are unknown or weak. More than that most of it is just by ijazah where there is no real reading. This is also applicable between Bukhari and Ibn Hajar –  lot of it is just ijazah:
أحمد بن عَلِيّ العسقلاني
 أَبُو إِسْحَاق إِبْرَاهِيم بن أَحْمد التّنوخي البعلي الْمَعْرُوف
 أَبُو الْعَبَّاس الصَّالِحِي الحَجَّار الْمَعْرُوف بِابْن الشِّحْنَة
 أَبُو عبد الله الْحُسَيْن بن الْمُبَارك الزَّبيدِيّ
 أَبُو الْوَقْت عبد الأول بن عِيسَى بن شُعَيْب السِّجْزِي 
 أَبُو الْحسن عبد الرَّحْمَن بن المظفر الداودي البوشنجيّ
عبد الله بن أَحْمد بن حمُّوية الْحَمُّوِيّ السَّرخسيّ
 أبو عبد الله مُحَمَّد بن يُوسُف الْفِربرِيّ،
 الإمام محمد بن إسماعيل البخاري الجعفي
This kind of egregious stupidity by Salafis has armed the enemies of Islam from time immemorial – we saw above that their ‘strategy’ for defending the violent and blasphemous fatwas of Ibn Taymiyya, their favourite, was to rope in as many scholars of Islam as they could into the same enormities. This strategy is as idiotic as defending the idea of rape by saying it’s fine because all of the ‘hype guys’ used to do it: it works only on weak minded and morally bankrupt cultists. For everyone else, trying to ‘save’ Ibn Taymiyya by (falsely) claiming the same about other Islamic luminaries will only cause doubts and even apostasy.
Anyone who has studied the rudiments of hadith sciences (*so not Chewaadi) knows that there is a widespread issue of unknown narrators but such narrators are often (though not always) accepted on the authority of the last person in the chain, or under the proviso that if a reliable scholar is accepting them we can take it on his authority as opposed to that of the unknown or un-biographied narrator. Ironically, this was made abundantly clear in Shukurov’s book ‘Hanafi Principles of Testing Hadith‘, which Cheewadi has hilariously seemingly not read, since he ‘refutes’ claims never made in the book (for example, his arguments on Ikrima are in the main nowhere to be found in the book) and fails to notice what actually is in the book, such as a well reasoned answer to the enemies of Islam on the issue of unknown narrators. 
The other glaringly obvious reason not to make a song and dance about unknown narrators (besides the fact that they are widespread, especially in Salafi’s favourite books) that even dilettante students are aware of (*so once again, this excludes Baseema), is that there are many famous and senior narrators who have been classed as ‘unknown’ by the fallible efforts of Muhaditheenincluding some senior Sahabah.
A well known example is Midlaj Bin Amr al Sulami (RA), a Badri Sahabah (veteran of the famous battle of Badr), agreed by all Sunnis as destined for Paradise: but here are three top scholars of hadeeth – Ibn Abu Hatim, Imam Dhahabi and Ibn Jawzi – who together don’t know that he is a Sahabi and class him as an ‘unknown narrator’:

 Unknown narrators 3

مجمع الملك فهد لطباعة المصحف الشريفمجمع الملك فهد لطباعة المصحف الشريف

Mas’ood bin Rabe’ is another well known Badri sahabi, but classed as ‘weak’ by top Muhaddiths; Imam Dhahabi, Ibn Abu Hatim, and Ibn Jawzi. All of them said: ‘Unknown Bedoin‘. Of course, this does not mean that the muhaditheen are disrespecting or belittling the sahabah – companions of the Prophet Muhammad, but simply that the science of investigating chains and narrators is inexact, and making a song and dance about unknown narrators in the way we saw Cheesama Bin Laden do is supremely unhelpful and undermining the whole enterprise of hadith sciences.
Some contemporary scholars (Salafis and their friends) wanted to defend the muhaddiths and said; ‘Yes, they knew that these are Badri sahaba but they said ”unknown” which means we don’t know if they were bedoins or not!’. So first of all, = modernism, but this is an obvious lie anyway, as we see above there is the confirmation of the Sahabah being ‘Bedouin’ but yet unknown – which means they actually meant to say ‘weak’ and ‘unknown’.
Also, if ‘unknown’ means we don’t know if he was a Bedouin or not, in that case the language of Salafists is so flexible and heuristic that atheists saying ‘there is no God’ presumably means ”Muhammad is the messenger of God”.
There are much more sahaba (including Badri ones) who are classed as ‘weak’ and ‘unknown’ by top muhaddiths. Actually Muhaddiths not knowing the names of Badri sahaba  (who were only 315 men) is a bit disappointing to be honest (I could give more of these ‘weak’ sahaba, but these two should be fine), considering that all of these ‘unknown’ Badri sahaba attended the rest of the most important events too – such as Uhud, and Ridhwan (keep in your mind that muhaddiths and Ahl Sunnah believe that all sahaba of Ridhwan go to Paradise exactly as all of Badri sahaba do). But at the end of the day, these guys were human and shared the human propensity for errors and omissions
But yet for Salafis – how miserable is the following:
– Badri sahaba are ‘unknown’ and ‘weak’
– Slave of Umayyads – the killers of sahaba – are ‘strong’ and ‘well known’, such as Ikrima.
As I said, if you want to open this can of worms, which militant Shia brothers are all too happy to do and with whom Baseeba shares more than a passing similarity, the you need strong knowledge and intellect to explain and understand the issues, you don’t just employ Arabic ‘Google’ searches and scrounge off Salafi forums to deploy terms like ‘weak narrators’, ‘unknown narrators’ and ‘broken chains’ to try and score points on people you wish to troll on the internet while not understanding the hornet’s nest you are stirring up.
In Cheewadi’s defence, it must be understood that he has no formal or informal training in the issues, he proudly admits that he simply ‘cut and past’ a reference-less section from modernist salafist scholars. If other modernists (ones Baseema doesn’t like) behave in a similar manner, he would need to be straitjacketed such would be his indignation. But you have to forgive them – when your sole academic skill is the ability to read a language – in their case they ‘astound’ their Western fans with their err, ‘grasp’ of Arabic and their Middle Eastern followers with their err, ‘proficiency’ in English – no one stops to question if you are actually capable of understanding what you are reading. For non-Arabic readers, it is like trying to verify if someone who can read Hanji or Manadrin is lying, mistranslating or even understanding the sources – you are stuck no matter how intelligent you are by the language barrier. Fortunately you guys and girls have me!
But as we saw from the outset and in all of the issues where we have been exposed to Salafi methodology, academic standards and honesty are as much of an anathema to these people as the Sunnism they pretend to follow.

34 thoughts on “Muslims Proudly Display Academic Standards YET AGAIN! Sometimes They Come Back…

  1. “but when you finally (or rather if you finally) get their definition of ‘anthropomorphists’ out of them, they mean that they don’t say God is ‘human’ or has a body ‘like humans’ or ‘like creatures’. But to the rest of the Sunnia and Shia (and even Mu’tazzila) world, ‘anthropomorphist’ means anyone who asserts that God has a body of any kind”

    If so, the Salafi definition is closer to the etymological meaning of the word, since “anthropomorphic” literally means “which has human form”. All English-speaking non-Muslims and English dictionaries I know would also understand “anthropomorphic” in this sense. So this is yet another unfortunate source of misunderstandings, which could have been avoided if Muslims today had stuck to the original Arabic term instead of resorting to approximative translations, which almost always create more confusion. Traduttore, traditore.

    I would agree that the Salafist idea of God is not “anthropomorphic” in this sense, it is rather “robot”-morphic. Salafis feel compelled to speak about God’s “body” but not about his “personality” the way the Trinitarian doctrine does for example. Ibn Taymiyyah’s idea of God swinging on ropes is much more reminiscent of some materialist philosophers’ idea of a mechanical God, periodically maintaining his created world according to immutable mechanical laws, than of any Christian doctrine of Incarnation.

    • The passage you quoted made me think the same thing, actually. The most accurate, more comprehensive translation of the Arabic term (مجسم/تجسيم) “tajseem/mujassim,” in my amateur opinion, would be “corporealism/corporealist.” The much beloved Salafi caveat “not like ours” does go some way towards negating the “anthro-” bit of anthropomorphism.

      Kufr either way, of course…

  2. Now this is what I call a


    Bravo to the people who wrote this article. Its nice to see some sane, intellectual people who are sincere in their approach in rescuing Islam from the Salafis and their ilk

  3. A really illuminating piece. I’m pretty sure the likes of Zawabi and Cheeba are active on reddit. My own small, innocuous piece was trolled incredibly hard the other day by folks of a decidedly similar bent. In fact, they even linked to that egregious ‘review’ of Shukurov’s book on hadith:

    Also, is it possible to make the screen grabs links? The script is rather small and blurs when I try to expand them.

  4. brother zawadis reply:

    Bassam Zawadi
    Bassam Zawadi Wow…… the utter desperation of modernist “Hanafis” to defend their stance on Ikrimah – the slave of Ibn Abbas. And the fact that Ramadan hasn’t shamed them to stop at their personal insults and slander and mockery is even sadder! Here’s the sad article…/muslims-proudly-display-acad…/

    They keep condemning Ikrimah for being a kharijite, while even according to their own book “Hanafi Principles of Testing Hadith”, on page 198 they recognize that there is a disagreement regarding Kharijites. That is because the Kharijites are known to have believed that lying is kufr and hence it’s expected that they wouldn’t have lied. The dominant position of the Hanafi school is that Ahlul Bid’ah who weren’t known liars could be accepted (see Abdulmajeed al-Turkmani, Diraasaat fi-Usool al-Hadeeth ‘ala Manhaj al-Hanafiyyah, (Maktabat as-“Sa’aada, Karachi, 1st edition, 2009), pp. 163-173

    So why are they blasting a view they are forced to recognize as at least “valid”?

    They say that Abu Hanifah narrating from Ikrimah is not proof that he viewed Ikrimah to be reliable. What these people fail to address is the fact that Abu Hanifah did not only merely narrate from Ikrimah, but rather BELIEVED in a hadeeth he narrated from Ikrimah and USED THAT hadeeth to propagate his views. Please refer here…/Imam_Abu_Hanifah_d._148_A.H…, page 3, footnote no.2.

    A remark was made about Kitab al-Wasiyyah, but even Orientalists with no Salafi axe to grind adopted the “Salafi position” regarding that book and so you don’t have to be “Salafi” to see the obvious.

    It’s simply UNBELIEVABLE just how shallow the author’s response is to the points made by Salih bin Ali al-Umayrini, which I paraphrased over here…/The_Hanafi_Stance_Regarding…

    I challenge every single honest and sincere person to refer to that article and then see the author’s response to it and say whether the author made any serious attempt at all to interact with the arguments (instead of resorting to ad hominem and committing the genetic fallacy). I challenge the reader to literally check every rebuttal in the article I linked to with the points of the author and you would notice that the author is far from offering a comprehensive rebuttal to all the points.
    But do you want to know what the saddest part of all this really is? Do you really want to know? The saddest part is that they are trying so hard to discredit Ikrimah because they think that way they could discredit the hadd ruling on the apostate as a result. But there are two huge problems which would upset this attempt.

    Problem no. 1……. IKRIMAH ISN’T THE ONLY NARRATOR who narrated the hadith of the hadd on apostates…/

    Problem no. 2……..Abu Hanifah and all the major Hanafi jurists accepted the hadd ruling of the apostate!!!!…/The_Hanafi_Stance_Regarding…

    So what does this all mean? Does this mean that Abu Hanifah and the Hanafi paragons, including Imam al-Maturidi himself are a bunch of Salafis??? Imam al-Maturidi himself in his Kitab at-Tawheed (which ironically the modernist “Hanafis” want to translate into English and are begging for people to help them fund the project) accepted the hadith of Ikrimah…

    وقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم من بدل دينه فاقتلوه ثم بين الله دينه فقال فمن يكفر بالطاغوت ويؤمن بالله

    Soo….. al-Maturidi must have been a “kharijite loving bloodthirsty Salafi” then, huh? Hey modernist “Hanafis”…… I seriously hope you are not planning to commit academic fraud and not translate that bit!

    Sooo……. What does all this mean? This all means that Abu Hanifah, his major students, al-Maturidi and all the major Hanafi paragons who followed later did not give two hoots about these arguments the modernist “Hanafis” are launching against Ikrimah. If that is not enough reason to reject the claims of these modernists, then I don’t know what is to be honest.

    It’s quite sad how they ignore the fact that the vast majority of the scholars accepted Ikrimah as reliable, that they have to appeal to weak isnads to justify their claim that Ikrimiah wasn’t unreliable and how they ignore the fact that the dominant position in the Hanafi madhab is that Kharijism isn’t a valid reason to reject the credibility of a narrator. But the real icing on the cake remains the FACT that Abu Hanifah and the rest of the Hanafis didn’t mind USING (not only narrating) and BELIEVING in ahaadeeth narrated by Ikrimah.

    It’s amazing how these modernists would appeal to unreliable isnad supported narrations to bash Ikrimah, but suddenly care about critically examining isnads when it’s not in their favor. Talk about lack of consistency and academic honesty???!

    All in all, their attempts are quite desperate. I am actually beginning to feel sorry for them. They actually thought they had a real chance of using the Hanafi madhab as a cover for them, but their hopes were eventually shattered.

      • Zawadi’s reply seems to be somewhat factual. So,mmmclmru, please clarify the points he raised as we are unable to find out the flaws in his reasoning(although from past experience we can safely assume that zawadi is wrong this time also).

      • Like I said, I don’t know how anyone who has read the article can in good conscience call this a reply. Literally everything he said was predicted and responded to in the original. What ‘points’ did he raise so that we can clarify them?
        For example, the article showed in detail the banality of saying that the khawarij are accepted because ‘they don’t lie’…but he made that argument anyway.
        And did he explain how a guy who calla Ali and Uthmaan ‘Kaafir’ is an ‘Imam’ and ‘reliable’? Or what, he can just ignore that?
        Also, did you ask him to clarify the dozens of other points he ignored from the article (*not that he addressed ANY).
        It seems that the tried and tested Salafi tactic of saying ANYTHING at all and claiming you ‘responded’ has worked again.

      • mmmclmru, Will you please clarify the point he(Zawadi) raised about Abu Hanifa citing AND BELIEVING in narrations from Ikrimah? Also, he quoted from Imam Maturidi that he also believed in Ikrimah’s narration of the”Man Baddala Dinahu” tradition…so please explain.

      • Its already in the article fanboy: Abu Hanifa narrates from ANYONE, including liars, as he himself says.
        And the only place where you even HAVE Abu Hanifa quoting from Ikrima, which would still not prove him to be ‘reliable’, is in a ‘Musnad’ written three hundred years after Abu Hanifa by a guy who everyone rates as a ‘liar’ and ‘unreliable’.

        Article and discussion was not about Maturidi’s stance on apostasy (who didn’t quote from Ikrima anyway) nor Abu Hanifa’s stance on apostasy nor apostasy at all (which you guys are obsessed with) but the garbage about Abu Hanifa accepting Ikrima as a ‘reliable’ ‘Imam’, and about forty other points which you are deliberately trying to ignore for a discussion about apostasy.

        Ignore the article and start a new discussion. Salafi 101 tactics: ‘Why do you call Ali kaafir?!’ ‘Forget that! I want to know why you don’t kill apostates!’


        Of course you would know that if you had actually read the article instead of functioning as a sock puppet for Cheewaadi.

        So please get him to reply back to all of those points in the article that you are trying to avoid and also how come people who insult Ali and Uthmaan and call them kaafir are ‘reliable’ and ‘imams’.

        Also, this is one of the most pathetic comebacks ever.

        Still, worked on you didn’t it!

    • Here you go, sailor:

      Quotes *in Arabic* from Imam Dhahabi stating that Imam Malik and Imam Muslim **refused** narration from Ikrimah:

      “Imam Ahmad, Ibn Sireen, Saeed ibn Musayyab and many others confirm that he [Ikrimah] is Khawaarij. (Mizan al-Itidal Vol 4). Imam Malik refused to narrate from him as did Imam Muslim.”

      Here’s an image link to the actual Arabic:

      More importantly, here’s the archive of Mizan al-Itidal by Imam Dhababi where the image link was taken (page 93):

      Btw, never mind the uncritical nature of your response, it also verges on being a tautology.

      • Thanks!

        Its very simple:

        These guys should clarify: do they think Khjawarij who takfir Ali are reliable, scholars or ‘Imams’?

        Yes or no?

        If they say he is not Khawarij, then prove it.
        If they say that the only condition to narrate hadith is to be ‘not a liar’ then prove it.

  5. I think one reason these people are very popular is because they offer refutations of accusations by orientalists and evangelicals. I mean the amount of Anti Islamic websites out their number in the millions and coming across them is quite easy. A lot of impressionable youth either leave the religion altogether or search for anything they can find on the web for help, and since these sites are some of the very few available people flock to them.

    Here is an example (they haven’t finished refuting them all yet):

    This is an older list, and the list has only been expanded ten fold, and this isn’t counting the scientific and Historical errors people constantly accuse the Quran of contradictions (this is just ignoring Hadith by the way).

    Some of the Accusations are very easy to refute (the accusations of grammatical errors are quite funny, seeing as Arabic as we know it was grounded and standardized around the Quran). But some do require experts in the fields of both Islamic and Archaeological/Biological. YouTube is filled with accusations, I mean I found 10 videos on the related section of a video I was watching “refuting” the Quran.

    Until groups like Zaytuna College and Avicenna Academy start tackling these accusations, people will flock to Basaam and co.

    • “A lot of impressionable youth either leave the religion altogether or search for anything they can find on the web for help, and since these sites are some of the very few available people flock to them.”

      I have to disagree. It’s these very sites that are turning young, thinking Muslims away from Islam. The rote dogma, logical inconsistencies, the fallacious reasoning (e.g. exhausting appeals to authority and tradition) and the wild accusations of modernism and heresy are a complete disservice to Islam. The doctrinal labyrinths that these very Salafi-oriented sites and sources have created are the types of mazes that offer no exit only exhaustion.

      • While I agree with on the fact that a puristic approach of many Muslim these days does have a negative effect on people, I believe people leaving Islam also has to do with the fact that Muslims are the lowest of the low at this point, in almost every aspect. And of course lest we forget the intellectual stagnation certain groups have dragged Islam into, by banning philosophy and science from all discourses. There is also the matter of a tidal wave of websites attacking Islam on multiple fronts, on an intellectual level. Missionaries of the Secular and Christian kind create thousands of websites declaring the Quran is in error, causing a crisis within the youth, and some of the only websites providing answers are the well funded Salafi ones. Curiously they employ philosophy (see Hamza Tzotzis and Bilal Philips) when they need to defend the religion, much to the chagrin of their teachers and devotees.

        I totally agree with you on Salafism though, people see a false dichotomy, its either Salafism or bust. Some just leave Islam altogether once they see a Salafi website, some choose to have some kind of false triumphalism, seeing themselves as better than everybody else despite the fact for the vast majority of history Hanafis and Malikis, as well as Shafai madhabs were the main front of scientific progress and expansion of Islam, while Hanbalism remained a small minority in Arabia. It was the Asharis and the Maturidis who fought the Christian theologians and Atheistic philosophers. It was they who secured the deen from intellectual doubt. Now their contributions are all but forgotten.

        Usually this triumphalism lasts 5-15 years and the person usually apostates, a Salafi burnout of sorts. With no real spiritual solution, and contradictory doctrines that have always been on the fringe before until petrol dollars were invested in it being jammed down everybody’s throats, people are leaving.

        What I am trying to say is that one reason people leave Islam is that the Salafi’s seem to be the only ones with the answers as the are the only ones refuting accusations of Historical and Scientific errors being in the Quran. The hadiths are a different matter, some of their answers to unscientific and contradictory hadiths are pretty funny, although to be fair some of them are well argued, many of them you can not defend no matter how hard you try.

        I think organizations like Zaytuna College and Avicenna academy need to gather and collect all these accusations against the Quran,whether they be contradictory verses or historical and scientific errors and refute them, maybe put it in a book, or a PDF and try to distribute it. I think this way you at least win some hearts and minds, that way people can know that it’s not just Salafis with he answers to troubling questions.

        When I first had doubts about Islam I relied heavily on Salafi websites to refute the so called scientific and historical errors within the Quran, and started following the Salafi way as I thought they were the only ones with the answers. I know bettter now, but sometimes I still have to go back when people throw accusations of errors at the Quran.

      • You’ve made some great points. I think on an existential level the two current paradigms most affecting younger Muslims are the scientific one and deconstruction (the latter being more insidious as it’s not as readily evident. I would argue though that Foucault has been THE most dominant philosopher across all the liberal arts in the last 20-30 years). Of course, the likes of Dawkins, Harris and the so-called New Atheists have managed to become as dogmatic as the faiths they attempt to lambast. As a result, there is often a very uncritical allegiance and approach to science from the average person. For example, Darwin didn’t coin the term, “Survival of the fittest, brah!” It was Herbert Spencer, a Social Darwinist and bunk philosopher. Even Philosophy departments today are a shell of what they used to be 30-40 years ago as there is a seismic shift toward a behavioral/biological one. Certainly, metaphysics is treated like some senile old lady rambling in the living room corner.

        However, there are considerable works out there that challenge the notions of ‘scientism’ and deconstruction. Huston Smith’s “Beyond The Post-Modern Mind” is an epic read as is Sandra Harding’s “The Racial Economy of Science” (Smith help found the Philosophy department at MIT among other incredibly notable accomplishments. I had the good fortune of meeting once as well). I also think, as Muslims, it’s vital that we look at all faiths to find support and analyses. This is no way entails having to become syncretic either. My understanding of Islam and of God Almighty has only grown from studying the likes of Eckhart, Kierkegaard and even, dare I say, Christian apologists such as C.S. Lewis not to mention philosophers from the other major religious traditions including some of the native traditions of America.

  6. @thecrookedmuslim

    Your contributions are a breath of fresh air, thanks for sharing your thoughts!

    I hope to learn more from you and your website Insha’Allah

  7. Shaykhah-sama Nikita,

    Assalaamu `alaykum. I have an English-speaking (only) friend who wants to study Maliki fiqh. Any suggestions? Do you teach?

    JazakIllahu khayr in advance.

  8. Pingback: Ikrima as ‘Imam’ of Modern Hanafis – Part 2 – Shaykh Atabek Shukurov an Nasafi

  9. Pingback: Salafis Insist You Accept Genocidal Maniacs as ‘Pious Muslims’…and then Say They Aren’t Violent?! | Asharis: Assemble

  10. Pingback: Rejecting Maturidi for Bukhari – Shaykh Atabek Shukurov an Nasafi

  11. Salaam sister NIkita.. unfortunately some of the images you have linked to from wordpress sites are not showing up. Is there anyway you can fix that so we can see the images please? 🙂


  12. Pingback: Rejecting Maturidi for Bukhari – Classical Islam for the Modern World

  13. Pingback: Ikrima as ‘Imam’ of Modern Hanafis – Part 2 – Classical Islam for the Modern World

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s