A further decisive refutation on Andrew Sanders al Fakehead Pt.1

24Mar10

Today we are gonna take some time out to expose this fakehead in great detail. He is a man who contradicts himself heavily.

 

Andrew Sanders on Shaikh Muhammad Ibn Abdal-Wahhaab

Not along ago Andrew Sanders was on a mission to defend Muhammad Ibn Abdal-Wahhaab from the onslaught by Abu Ja’far. Today he is back to attacking him again.

A little history lesson: Andrew sanders sent out many emails attacking Abu Ja’far and defending Muhammad Ibn Abdal-Wahhaab. All these emails I have in my possession Alhamdulilaah. The problem now is that ever since he became a ‘Hanbali’, he has used this title to further push a deviant agenda.

Andrew Sanders sent out an email dated: 10 November 2007 01:16:44 entitled : The Lie of Abu Jafar al-Hanbali pt. 1

In this email Andrew al-Fakehead stated: “This letter is the unfortunate exposure of the liar known as Abū Jafar al-Hanbalī.” He states in this email that he accused of Abu Ja’far of “Intentionally lying, causing people to fight and setting up his students for defeat.” The purpose of his email was to defend Muhammad Ibn Abdal-Wahhaab from the accusations made by Abu Ja’far.  MashaAllaah we were overjoyed that the brother took his time out to study the facts. He himself used to email me asking me for help on refuting him and getting hold of Hanbali literature and I helped him sincerely. He would email me asking me if anyone has the ability to teach Umdat al-Fiqh. At time he would ask me to put him in touch with decent books. The book Lumat al-Itiqaad that he translated was a gift to him from myself.

Now let’s see more contradictions coming from this Fakehead:

In an email dated: 28 December 2008 16:31:20 Andrew Sanders stated “Another overwhelming evidence is the fact that the Prophet salallahu alayhi wasallam showed fairness to the Tamīmī tribe even though the Khawārij were to appear from them. A Sahīh hadith found in the Musnad of Imam Ahmed reads as follows, in which the Prophet peace and blessings be upon him has been reported to have said:

‘Say nothing but good of the Bani Tamim, for they indeed are the severest of people in attacking the Dajjal.’ Also a similar hadith can be found in Sahih al-Bukhari vol. 3, No. 179

Since, Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab was from the Banu Tamim, i cannot result to backbiting his flesh as the bigots do, as this results in the disobedience of the Prophet peace and blessings be upon him. This goes for any other Salafi scholar.

All because i refuse to backbite them, does that make me  a Wahaabi? No.

I refuse to backbite them, i refuse to have bad considerations towards them. because of this i have been threatened with violence by people who used to be somewhat smiley and all brotherly towards me. Now it is all frowns, and backbiting and threatening behaviour. Who’s changed me or them?

This is what he himself stated in his own words. All of a sudden now he decides to renew his attack on Shaikh Muhammad Ibn Abdal-Wahhaab and begins to backbite the Shaikh. Can this fakehead not act on his own words? These attacks are nothing but a misunderstanding on his part. We thought he would by now have the sense to see this but obviously not!

Now we need to destroy Andrew Sanders claims against the Salafi Dawah.

 

The Salafis Declare those who make Tawassul to be Kuffar

Andrew Sanders claims that the Salafis declare anyone making Tawassul to be Kuffaar. Clearly he doesn’t understand the difference between shirk and Tawassul. Wanna know what Shaikh Muhammad Ibn Abdal-Wahhaab said regarding Tawassul?

Read this: There is no harm in making Tawassul through the righteous’ and Ahmad’s statement: ‘Tawassul is only allowed through the Prophet – Sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-sallam’, while they all say: ‘Istighatha (seeking aid) from the creation is not allowed’, then the difference (between the two is very clear, and it is irrelevant to what we are concerned with. For some scholars to allow Tawassul through the righteous, or for some to restrict it to the Prophet – Sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-sallam, while majority of the scholars forbidding and disliking it; these issues are from fiqhi issues. Even though the correct opinion in our view is the majority opinion that it is disliked, we still do not censure one who practises it (Tawassul), for there is no censuring in issues of ijtihad.

However, our censure of one who calls upon the creation, is greater than the censure of one who calls upon Allaah Ta’ala (alone); for he travels to the grave beseeching, next to al-Sheikh ‘Abd al-Qadir or others, seeking the alleviation of calamites, aiding the grief-stricken, attaining the desirables; where is this all from one who calls upon Allaah, purifying His religion for Him, not calling upon anyone besides Allaah, except that he says in his supplication: I ask you by Your Prophet, messengers, or the righteous servants, or travels to Ma’ruf’s grave or others’ to supplicate there, yet only supplicates to Allaah, purifying the religion for Him, how is this relevant to what concerns us here? (Fatawa wa masa’il al-Shaikh Muhammad b. ‘Abd al-Wahhab page 41)

As it is clear that Shaikh Muhammad Ibn Abdal-Wahhaab did not condemn Tawassul nor did he declare them to be kuffaar as Andrew claims. Where you gonna hide Andrew?

These blind Fakeheads keep using the statements of the Shaikh from his work Nawaqid al-Islaam and apply this to Tawassul. However. the Shaikh was not referring to Tawassul but shirk as he said The Second (nullifier of Islaam): Whoever places intermediaries between himself and Allaah, calling unto them and asking intercession from them, and seeking reliance in them, has committed disbelief according to the unanimous agreement (Ijmaa’).

This fakehead also translated the Book Lumat al-Itiqaad and used this as a means of adding his own Baatil speech to justify the Ashari Aqidah and also Bid’ah Hasanah. Heres the funny bit: Andrew added his own words at the end of the book on the discussion of Bid’ah. He said: The hadeeth of ‘Umar [radiyAllahu anhu] “ni’imatul bida’atu hadhihi” Those who opine that the hadeeth “every bid’ah is misguidance” – kulla bid’ah dalaalah – is in its most absolute sense argue that ‘Umar’s [radiyAllahu anhu] statement “ni’imatul bida’atu hadhihi” – i.e. This is an excellent innovation – refers to a linguistic innovation and is not really an innovation due to the fact it has roots in the Sharee’ah.  Our answer to this: Firstly, this argument negates the “every” because if “kullu” – every – is meant in its most absolute sense then the Prophet sal Allahu ‘alayhi wasallam would have also been speaking about such “linguistic bid’ahs”. Secondly, this very same argument of “linguistic bid’ah” can be used to permit Milaad un-Nabi as this also has its origins in the Sharee’ah and thus returns to it. This argument of “linguistic bid’ah” is therefore fallacious, nothing more than a semantic somersault in which the feet land on the very same surface they sprung from.

He clearly referred to the argument of the ‘Linguistic Bid’ah’ as being fallacious. Upon reading this I emailed him stating: From those that have said it refers to the linguistic sense is al-Haafidh Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali in his Jami al-Ulum wal Hikam. He statedAnd as for what has occurred from some of the Salaf in their declaring some bid’ahs to be good then this is regards to bid’ah in it’s linguistic meaning not it’s sharee’ah meaning, and from these is the saying of ‘Umar radiallaahu ‘anhu when he gathered the people for the standing of Ramadhaan behind one Imaamto which he replied “would like to request you for the reference to the linguistic bid’ah mentioned by Imaam Ibn Rajaab in shaa’Allah, I will look it up in the ‘Arabic”

Note: He made an attack on the argument of the Linguistic Bid’ah without knowing the reality behind it and those who were of the same opinion such as Imaam Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali.

This fakehead has friends that are from the Sufi background. He once asked me to be careful when quoting Arabic in English and saidthe sufis may clock this cos many of them are into arabic language sciences”.

His whole manhaj is flawed, He says one thing on day and changed his mind the other. He attacks Abu Ja’far one day then apologises to him, He defends Muhammad Ibn Abdal-Wahhaab one day and attacks him another.

We seek refuge in Allaah from such deviancy.

[TAKE NOTE: We have possessions of these emails of Andrew Sanders, if you want them as evidence then please request Insha’Allaah]

Advertisements


5 Responses to “A further decisive refutation on Andrew Sanders al Fakehead Pt.1”

  1. Whos The Fakhead Now?

    Was I Defending Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab?

    Faisal the Fakhead said

    “Not along ago Andrew Sanders was on a mission to defend Muhammad Ibn Abdal-Wahhaab from the onslaught by Abu Ja’far. Today he is back to attacking him again.A little history lesson: Andrew sanders sent out many emails attacking Abu Ja’far and defending Muhammad Ibn Abdal-Wahhaab. All these emails I have in my possession Alhamdulilaah. ..In this email Andrew al-Fakehead stated: “This letter is the unfortunate exposure of the liar known as Abū Jafar al-Hanbalī.” He states in this email that he accused of Abu Ja’far of “Intentionally lying, causing people to fight and setting up his students for defeat.” The purpose of his email was to defend Muhammad Ibn Abdal-Wahhaab from the accusations made by Abu Ja’far”.

    What this fakhead missed out is my saying “The arguments were concerning the text Kitāb ut-Tawhīd. A small disclaimer before i begin. It is not my intention to defend Muhammd Ibn ‘Abdul Wahāb or the book Kitāb ut-Tawhīd. In fact i find this book very problematic myself, and one only has to read the points in chapter fifty where Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahāb implies that Prophet Adam did shirk, which flys in the face of orthodox creed outlined in Imām Abū Hanīfah’s al-Fiqh ul-Akbar, which states the Prophets are free from small and major sins, they never did shirk! Even modern day Salafī scholars write into the footnotes of chapter fifty that the hadīth that Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahāb used to come to this conclusion was weak! However, my faultfindings with Salafīsm is not the issue here.”

    This can be seen here http://baraka.wordpress.com/2006/09/05/imam-nawawi-was-an-ashari/

    I also possess emails where Faisal the Fakhead tried to argue this out with me. Now why would he try and suggest I was purposefully defending Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab?? This point alone demonstrates what a Fakhead liar Fake Faisal is. He purposely lied on me by partially quoting me. This clown has been refuted here so lets roll on to the next silliness from this idiot.

    Did I contradict myself???

    Al-Fakhead Faisal said:

    “Now let’s see more contradictions coming from this Fakehead:

    In an email dated: 28 December 2008 16:31:20 Andrew Sanders stated “Another overwhelming evidence is the fact that the Prophet salallahu alayhi wasallam showed fairness to the Tamīmī tribe even though the Khawārij were to appear from them. A Sahīh hadith found in the Musnad of Imam Ahmed reads as follows, in which the Prophet peace and blessings be upon him has been reported to have said:‘Say nothing but good of the Bani Tamim, for they indeed are the severest of people in attacking the Dajjal.’ Also a similar hadith can be found in Sahih al-Bukhari vol. 3, No. 179Since, Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab was from the Banu Tamim, i cannot result to backbiting his flesh as the bigots do, as this results in the disobedience of the Prophet peace and blessings be upon him. This goes for any other Salafi scholar.All because i refuse to backbite them, does that make me a Wahaabi? No.I refuse to backbite them, i refuse to have bad considerations towards them. because of this i have been threatened with violence by people who used to be somewhat smiley and all brotherly towards me. Now it is all frowns, and backbiting and threatening behaviour. Who’s changed me or them?“
    This is what he himself stated in his own words. All of a sudden now he decides to renew his attack on Shaikh Muhammad Ibn Abdal-Wahhaab and begins to backbite the Shaikh.”

    Ok fair enough, he has quoted my words, but look at his final statement about me backbiting the “Shaykh”. Where in my translation of Lum’at ul-I’tiqaad have I done so? I have exposed a fraudulent methodology but show me where I have called Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab any degrading names? And let this fool step up and say “yeh but you called him a Kharijite”!!! The fact of the matter he is. That’s not backbiting him, that’s stating a fact and its an obligation to warn Muslims against his creed. I do not attack his person labeling him “al-Fakehead” like Faisal al-Fakhead. I refrain from such attacks below the belt. [except for Faisal because hes a Fakhead for real]. So after all that glamour cut and paste, yet again Faisal al-Fakhead is left without a point.

    Do Salafis declare people of Tawassul as Kuffar???

    While al-Fakhead Faisal swans of into some dubious unknown statements of Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab, we all know that Salafis opine that going to the grave of the Messenger of Allah sal Allahu alayhi wasallam and addressing him by saying Yaa Rasulullah is shirk. This is documented in many of their works. They deem it as calling upon other than Allah. Every common Muslim knows this, so Faisal al-Fakhead can continue as much as he likes lying through his nose to trick people into thinking that his cult is all teddy bears and flowers, when the simple truth is it is not. Even my “enemy” Abu Ja’far al-Hanbali has documented overwhelming evidence concerning this, evidence which I have double checked, and yes Salafis know me, they know that I will criticize Abu Ja’far when I feel he is wrong. The book I am awaiting is divine thunderbolts, which in my opinion will truly expose the Khawaarij for who they are. Time is at hand.

    ANOTHER LIE FROM FAISAL AL-FAKHEAD

    He said “This fakehead also translated the Book Lumat al-Itiqaad and used this as a means of adding his own Baatil speech to justify the Ashari Aqidah and also Bid’ah Hasanah. Heres the funny bit: Andrew added his own words at the end of the book on the discussion of Bid’ah. He said: The hadeeth of ‘Umar [radiyAllahu anhu] “ni’imatul bida’atu hadhihi” Those who opine that the hadeeth “every bid’ah is misguidance” – kulla bid’ah dalaalah – is in its most absolute sense argue that ‘Umar’s [radiyAllahu anhu] statement “ni’imatul bida’atu hadhihi” – i.e. This is an excellent innovation – refers to a linguistic innovation and is not really an innovation due to the fact it has roots in the Sharee’ah. Our answer to this: Firstly, this argument negates the “every” because if “kullu” – every – is meant in its most absolute sense then the Prophet sal Allahu ‘alayhi wasallam would have also been speaking about such “linguistic bid’ahs”. Secondly, this very same argument of “linguistic bid’ah” can be used to permit Milaad un-Nabi as this also has its origins in the Sharee’ah and thus returns to it. This argument of “linguistic bid’ah” is therefore fallacious, nothing more than a semantic somersault in which the feet land on the very same surface they sprung from.He clearly referred to the argument of the ‘Linguistic Bid’ah’ as being fallacious. Upon reading this I emailed him stating: From those that have said it refers to the linguistic sense is al-Haafidh Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali in his Jami al-Ulum wal Hikam. He stated“And as for what has occurred from some of the Salaf in their declaring some bid’ahs to be good then this is regards to bid’ah in it’s linguistic meaning not it’s sharee’ah meaning, and from these is the saying of ‘Umar radiallaahu ‘anhu when he gathered the people for the standing of Ramadhaan behind one Imaam” to which he replied “would like to request you for the reference to the linguistic bid’ah mentioned by Imaam Ibn Rajaab in shaa’Allah, I will look it up in the ‘Arabic”Note: He made an attack on the argument of the Linguistic Bid’ah without knowing the reality behind it and those who were of the same opinion such as Imaam Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali.”

    I knew the reality of linguistic bid’ah very well, I was just testing Faisal al-Fakhead’s knowledge see if he could even provide me the reference, but he never answered because I would have took him in the next direction. In fact what he fails to tell you is that I have a quote from Imaam Shafi’ that I have taken from Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali’s Jami’ and can be seen on p. 139 on my translation of Lum’at ul-I’tiqaad: Imaam Shaafi’s (رحمه الله) understanding of the hadeeth “Every innovation is misguidance [Kulla Bid’ah dalaalah] is enough to demonstrate this point. He said:

    “There are two types of Innovation [bid’ah]: the praiseworthy and the blameworthy. Whatever is accordance with the Sunnah is praiseworthy and whatever vies with it is blameworthy…The new matters are of two: Whatever differs with the book of Allah, the Sunnah, the Athaar, or the Ijmaa’a, then that is an innovation of misguidance [bid’at ul-Dalaalah] and whatever new matter from amongst that which is good and does not differ with anything from that [Qur’an, Sunnah, Athaar, Ijmaa’a] then it is a new matter that is not blameworthy”

    Salafis tend to reject this point that Imaam Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali rightfully mentioned in his Jami’ al-‘Ulum wal-Hikaam, commentary to hadeeth no. 28.

    The fact of the matter all along I was quoting from the understanding of Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali’s understanding of bid’ah. Yet the Salafis defintion of bid’ah differs greatly from Imaam Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali’s understanding. The Salafi understanding of the linguistic bid’ah is not the understanding of the Imaams. What Faisal al-Fakhead has done here Is attempt to make it look like I contradicted Imaam Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali’s understanding. The fact of the matter Salafis deny the above statement of Imaam Ash-Shaafi’ whereas Imaam Ibn Rajaab al-Hanbali accepts it. So who is going up against Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali? Me or the kabeer ul-fakheads Fasial?

    Emails:

    Really I do not care for what he brings, its probably going to be more lies and partial quotations to deceive people into thinking one thing. He was already caught out last year trying to stir up trouble between me and Abdul Qaadir from Dawaat e-Islami. After a debate with Abdul Qaadir, Faisal came running to me asking for aid and claiming that this brother called Ibn Qudaamah a Khaarijite. However after an investigation and asking brothers that was present, including ‘Abdul Qaadir himself it turns out that ‘Abdul Qaadir said that Ibn Qayyaum was a Kharijite. Fakhead Faisal was simply caught out once again trying to cause fitnah and twisting words in attempt to deceive me in order that I would aim for brother ‘Abdul Qaadir. Mu’aadh was correct was he said that Faisal al-Fakhead was trying to manipulate me. That’s what he is people. Those who know him well know this.

  2. 2 Waheed Zaman

    pls justify why when a brother reverts to islam and decides to change his name to Muhammad Abdur Rasheed you still call him by his kuffar name?
    hamza imagine me calling you by your non-islamic name constantly???
    so please refrain from such a low unislamic act.
    jazakhAllah kahir

    • 3 Ibn Saif-Allaah

      Asalaam alaikum,

      First of all akhi the Prophet sallallaahu alayhi wasallam said:
      The salaams are before the question, so if someone begins talking to you asking a question before giving salaams, then do no answer him.” Collected by Ibn an-Najjaar. As-Suyootee listed it is al-Jaami’ as-Saghir.

      So InshaAllaah atleast have the manner of a The Prophet Sallallaahu alayhi Wasallam yourself before advising others.

      Secondly: The brother calls himself Andrew and he doesnt mind being called Andrew Infact he has a facebook account by that name aswell. Also The Companion Ikrimah (May Allaah be pleased withb him) was also known as Ibn Abi Jahl even though this name was a degrading name to his father yet he did not mind. (refer to the Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shaybah). Oh and his email add is brotherandrew@hotmail.co.uk.

      Hope this is ok.

      Faisal

  3. Faisal, you know me as Abdur Rasheed…
    You are not on my Andrew Sanders account thank Allah
    You are simply calling me Andrew or worser yet Andy in attempt to hurt
    all my blogs say Abu Muhammad. The greater Muslim community knows me as Muhammad. You yourself call me Muhmmad ‘Abdur Rasheed and I have msn messenger conversations saved between me and you to show you this ….
    Who knows me by Andrew Sanders?
    The Muslim communnity who you are speaking to?
    Alot of them are scratchign their heads right now thinking who you are adressing
    this is not the only occasion you have tried to pull a low blow with my personal info
    in fact I get it now, you are trying to suggest I am a Kaafir hiding behind muslim names
    I see you

  4. 5 Abu Abdullah

    Asalaamu alaikum

    And hold fast, all of you together to the Rope of Allah, and be not divided among yourselves (3:103)

    As Muslims if we differ amongst ourselves we refer to Allah and his messenger.
    Referring to Allah and his Messenger means referring to the Quran and the Sunnah for evidence.

    There is little evidence in these discussions (the posts and the responses) but you are all viscously feeding of the flesh of each other and scholars who have passed away a long time ago (may A(swt)) grant them jannah AND FORGIVE THEM FOR ANY MISTAKES THEY MADE.
    You are all calling each other munafiq in reality (Do you have ilm-ul ghayb)?
    You are calling specific individuals khwarij (Do you have the knowledge of A(swt)?)

    Please discuss islamic evidences in an atmosphere of BROTHERHOOD so we may be guided. Allah has told us to treat the non-muslims kindly even though we may hate them? But you are brothers in Al-Islam- can you not treat each other with respect and kindness.

    As far as the subject is concerned- brother Abu Muhammed I would ask you to please carry out thorough research before attributing opinions to the great imams as im afraid you are mistaken re Imam Shafai. I could read the above quote and have the complete opposite understanding to yours. But on top of this the narration is weak. HOWEVER MOST IMPORTANTLY IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT ANY OF THE SCHOLARS THOUGHT ON THE TOPIC UNLESS THEY BACKED THEIR OPTINION WITH EVIDENCE AND THE ABOVE QUOTE HAS NO EVIDENCE EXCEPT REFERENCE TO UMAR AL-KHATTAB HOWEVER IMAM SHAFAI’S USUL STATE THAT “THE SAYING OF AN INDIVIDUAL SAHABI IS NOT EVIDENCE” SO HE WOULD BE CONTRADICTING HIMSELF TO ADOPT AN OPINION ON THE BASIS OF WHAT UMAR AL KHATAB SAID!

    I’m afraid the above discussion lacks rigour and thought.

    May Allah guid us (including me) to the truth and may Allah fill your hearts with love for each other.

    Wsallam


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: