اما بعد
Allah has said in his book:
و اذا قلتم فاعدلوا و لو كان ذا القربى
And if you speak be just even if they are your close kin.
And he said:
اعدلوا هو اقرب للتقوى
Be just for this is nearer to piety
My brothers from Salafi Publications of Birmingham I greet you with the greeting of Islam, Assalamu Alaikum Wa Rahmatullah.
Without doubt Allah ta'ala has blessed all of us with this great favour of Islam and the Sunnah and we would not have been guided except by Allah's mercy. Holding unto the Sunnah is a sign that Allah ta'ala loves such a person and wants good for him. As the Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم said as narrated in Saheeh Al Bukhari:
من يرد الله به خيرا يفقهه في الدين
Wheoever Allah wants good for he makes him understand the religion.
One of the great principles of this religion is justice in all matters. For Allah ta'ala is just, the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم was just and the Companions رضي الله عنهمwere all just. And the religion will be carried by those who are just.
The Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم said:
يحمل هذا العلم من كل خلف عدوله ...
The one's who carry this knowledge afterward would be just.
Hence, I ask Allah to give yourself and myself Tawfeeq to be just. And this especially pertains to delivering and propogating the Da'wah to the Muslims and Non-Muslims. It is a must to be upright and also a must to be just if we wish for our Da'wah to be successful.
And being just is to measure every single matter according to the Qur'an, the Sunnah and the consensus of the early Muslims. And if we have not measured every matter according to its proofs we would have been deficient in doing so.
On this note, I read the post on Salafi Talk entitled:
"Why is Maktabah Salafiyyah Refuted by Shaikh Yahyah and others affiliated to Dammaaj "
And in it contained some statements which are displeasing and show a misunderstanding of some of the issues. I hope that our brothers from Salafi Publications take heed of this and correct these errors.
اقتباس:
If the Maktabah had agreed with the attacks against Shaikh Ubaid, the door of refutation against the Maktabah would not have been opened, and Allaah (the Most High) knows best.
This should not be taken unrestrictedly since the brothers do not refute everyone who do not agree with the position of Shaikh Yahya Al Hajoori on Shaikh 'Ubaid Al Jaabiri.
Secondly, may Allah preserve all of you, we must maintain justice in our speech. Some errors have been made by the Shaikh and it would have been appropiate to inform the brothers and sisters that these positions are not to be followed. For example:
1. Calling Birmingham Dar Ul Hijrah (The video is on youtube with Shaikh Falaah Isma'eel saying this)
2. His saying that one can work with the Jam'eeyah that is "closest to the Sunnah" upon neccesity
3. His warning against Dammaj and telling those around him to take Shaikh Yahya to the authorities.
4. His promotion of Saalih Al Bakree whose fitnah is known
5. His introduction to the book: "Bayaan Al Fawri
6. Him making it a requirement that Shaikh Yahya must repent on his speech on the University of Madeenah. When it is known that the Univeristy had Hizbees
FACT: The University is not like how it was during the time of Shaikh Ibn Baaz. And it is not like how it was even 10 years ago. Allahu Musta'aan.
And other things that I may not have mentioned. The least that could have been done was to say is that may Allah bless the Shaikh, however he is not infallible and therefore we cannot take his views in these issues and
اقتباس:
every statement is accepted or rejected except for that of the Messenger
That would be from justice because the issue is not I am with so and so or so and so but rather justice requires us to weigh things according to the book and the Sunnah.
اقتباس:
This position of the Maktabah to refrain from accepting the vague criticisms against Shaikh Ubaid is also the position of a large number of the 'ulamah, mashayikh and tullaab al-'Ilm that are well-known for their Salafiyyah and clarity upon the Manhaj
Refer to what I mentioned above. And these issues are not vague issues at all. Rather these issues are clear as day and night .
[
اقتباس:
COLOR="royalblue"]]The question arises: "Is it possible that all of these mashayikh are mistaken and Shaikh Yahyah is correct?" The answer is: "Yes it is possible." This is why many of these mashayikh actually looked into the criticisms presented against Shaikh Ubaid, and we likewise looked into this criticism - then these scholars (and following them, ourselves) came to the conclusion that the 'proofs' brought were not sufficient and/or were invalid and thus not legitimate reasons for such harsh criticisms of Shaikh Ubaid such that he be removed from the ranks of Salafiyyah, abandoned, labelled a hizbee, [B]be abused and belittled and called loathsome names[/COLOR][/B
]!
That is on one end if we were to take that argument. But when Shaikh Yahya was called foolish and was warned against and the people were advised not to go to Dammaj and to take Shaikh Yahya to the authorities why is it that not even one defense of Shaikh Yahya was put forward by any of you?
It was also said that his speech was like that of a person in a market and that he has no foundation in knowledge.
Where was the defense of the Shaikh?
Again, we have to be just. I saw many defenses of Shaikh 'Ubaid but not one on Shaikh Yahya. And this was although Shaikh Yahya began the dialogue with Shaikh 'Ubaid in the most gentle of terms even though Shaikh 'Ubaid took a stance against him.
So again, be just.
اقتباس:
So these foolish youth, who wish only to fan the flames of dispute between the people of Sunnah, embarked upon discrediting the Maktabah through lies, exaggerations and fabrications - just as they had done with the Mashayikh previously - and that is why Shaikh Rabee' correctly described them as 'infiltrators' amongst the ranks of the Salafis.
If you are referring to the Shaikh calling these brothers in specific infiltrators then in that case we need the audio for such. Because from my knowledge this was referring to what was happening between Shaikh Yahya and Abdur Rahmaan Al 'Adeni. Meaning that those who were making the Fitnah between them were infiltrators. However, as the statement goes: "The people of Makkah are more familiar with its territory." Abdur Rahmaan Al 'Adeni was Shaikh Yahya's student and hence knows his condition better than any of us. And Allah knows best.
اقتباس:
And the Salafis almost as a whole in the UK, Canada and the USA have refused to accept the exaggerations and lies of the youth and their attacks upon the likes of Shaikh Ubaid al-Jaabiree, Shaikh Muhammad bin Haadee and Shaikh al-Bukhaaree. The very same accusations they made against Shaikh Ubaid, Shaikh Rabee' and Shaikh Muhammad bin Haadee, they proceeded to make against the Maktabah - then they spread the speech[/
I would like the brothers to show me where the brothers have 'accused' Shaikh Rabee' from either posts on this forum or e-mails. From my knowledge all they said is that Shaikh Rabee' is loved to us but the truth is more loved to us.
As for Muhammad Ibn Haadi and Abdullah Al Bukhari. They have recently warned against Dammaj and have even spoken ill against Shaikh Muqbil Ibn Haadi and have spoken with speech that is totally incorrect. Again, we must have justice. Where is our forbidding of an evil when we see it? All of us know the principle:
من علامات اهل الاهواء الوقيعة في اهل الاثر
From the signs of the people of desires is that they speak ill of the people of narrations.
Shaikh Muqbil is an Imam, he is a Mujaddid even if those who dislike such refuse to acknowledge this. So, do we not owe it to the Salafis to at least defend Imam Muqbil and Dar Ul Hadeeth from these statements? Again, where is the justice?
اقتباس:
Do you also now accept the refutations of Shaikh Yahyah against Shaikh Muhammad bin Haadee and Shaikh Abdullaah al-Bukhaaree and the criticisms that are now being made against even Shaikh Rabee?! If you do, then count us from being amongst them in their positions
.
Without doubt, as aforementioned, Muhammad Ibn Haadi and Abdullah Al Bukhari spoke ill of Shaikh Muqbil. This is indeed a strange concept and strange behaviour. So, when an Imam of Ahlus Sunnah is spoken against no scholar has the right to criticize them because they are praised by Shaikh Rabee'?
And as for Shaikh Rabee' the only thing I heard from Shaikh Yahya's tapes is that when students go to him some of them end up indulging in making Fitnah because of the position of the Shaikh pertaining to Abdur Rahmaan Al 'Adeni. As for making it seem that the Shaikh is disparaged by Shaikh Yahya then this is not the case.
Additionally, you all told me that you would not get into the Fitnah that happened in Yemen. Why are you bringing up the fact that Shaikh Yahya crticized Shaikh Rabee' when your position in the first place is to maintain silence?
Again be just my brothers.
اقتباس:
And if you do not accept the refutations of Shaikh Yahyah (and others aligned to Dammaaj) against these mashayikh, then you likewise cannot accept his criticisms against the Maktabah, simply due to the fact that the Maktabah is united in its manhaj with these Shaikhs as well as Shaikh Rabee' and others. Additionally Shaikh Rabee' himself praised these scholars and does not accept that any one of them be labelled with hizbiyyah or misguidance.
What is put in bold is not a criteria. Because as you yourselves, may Allah preserve you,say: "The detailed disparagement comes over the general appraisal" Therefore if another scholar has a detailed disparagement on any scholar it is to be accepted because that scholar has knowledge which the other does not have. And this is known in the books of the science of Hadeeth.
Additionally, because all of you, may Allah bless you, take certain positions with the scholars it does not mean that you are immune to refutation. Rather, all of us are judged according to our statements and actions regardless of which scholar we take knowledge from. Hence, immunity from refutation is based upon your statements and actions not upon which scholars you are with or not with.
اقتباس:
This recent speech of the Shaikh shows his respect for Shaikh Ubaid al-Jaabiree and his agreement with him.
Shaikh Rabee', may Allaah preserve him, also stated concerning Shaikh Muhammad bin Haadee and Shaikh Abdullaah al-Bukhaaree:
"So they bring harm upon Muhammad Bin Haadee and other than him, and to Bukhaaree, and to Rabee and other than them. The people speak ill of them with falsehood, oppression and fabrication. Baarakallaahu feekum, they did not leave Ahmad Bin Hanbal, nor Ibn Taymiyyah, nor Ibn Abdul Wahhaab and other than them - and other than them amongst the Imaams of Islaam. They were not saved from being spoken against. How are you (people) ignorant of this so as to ask this question?
Baaarakallaahu Feekum, we advise those who speak ill of so and so, and so and so, and so and so, and so and so—that they fear Allaah!
Those who speak ill of Muhammad Bin Haadee and Bukhaaree claim salafiyyah, whilst, by Allaah! they wage war against Salafiyyah, its usool and its manhaj - and they hide themselves with Salafiyyah in order to be able to misguide the slaves of Allaah (tabaaraka wa ta'ala) and to hinder them from the straight path." (11th Jamaadal-Oola 1432H)
Regarding Abu Khadeejah, Abu Hakeem and Hasan as-Somaalee, Shaikh Rabee' was asked:
Again, because Shaikh Rabee' gives appraisal of some Mashayikh this is not a stamp of approval when there is detailed criticism against them. If another Shaikh bases his criticism upon knowledge and principles (especially when they speak ill of an Imam of the Sunnah)that criticism is taken even if Shaikh Rabee' is disapproves of the criticism.
Hence the criteria is the proof.
NOTE: We should not get hyped up saying that if the Shaikh says so and so it is a must to obey him. Rather we should follow the proofs. that are contained in his writings.
For example we accept his statement about Abu Hasan Al Ma'ribi because of the proofs he presents in his writings.
Also we accept his speech about Sayyid Qutb.
And also of Faalih Al Harbi.
And others because of the proofs he presents not because of his title
اقتباس:
[]"O Shaykh, as you are aware, there are no scholars in Britain, but is there anyone residing there that you advise us with, who can connect us to the people of knowledge?"
The Shaykh, may Allaah preserve him, mentioned: Our brother Hasan as-Somali, Abu Khadeejah and his companion (Abu Hakeem)." (On Friday, the 25th of June 2010, 14 Rajab 1431H)
Again, your actions and statements are that which attest to your status. Not the fact that so and so praised you. As Shaikh Rabee' mentioned to some brothers in Egypt who said that Shaikh Rabee' praised them :
Verily a man's actions is that which appraises him
اقتباس:
Shaikh Rabee' al-Madkhalee further stated:
"He (Shadeed Muhammad) is not fit for da'wah whilst he is in this condition. So if he repents and shows remorse and is upright upon the correct path and the thiqaat (trustworthy ones) from the likes of the brother Aboo Muhammad al-Maghribee and the maintainers of Salafi Publications testify to his recanting, his uprightness and his abstaining from love of fame and this seat (of authority), because his love for fame and this seat (of authority) has caused the mashaayikh to doubt in him.
So if he makes apparent the piety of his tawbah and the thiqaat (trustworthy ones) testify to this, as has preceded, and they see that he is capable of bringing benefit, then only at that point can he be co-operated with in benefitting the people with his knowledge, if he has knowledge. Along with all of that, it is inevitable that he must be restricted to the understanding of the Salaf with proofs from the Book and the Sunnah." (In a sitting, which took place on the 6th of Sha'baan, 1431H with the Imaam of al-Jarh wat-Ta'deel)
So please, O Salafi, do not be deceived by this small group of youth in the West who single out Ahlus-Sunnah with abuse and attack - may Allaah guide them to maturity, sincerity and honesty!
Baarakallaahu feekum
Tayyib in the case of Shadeed (may Allah guide him) his issues of deviation are clear from his tapes. Especially the tape: "The Paradigm Shift", which I really hope he repents for because it contains some things that are extremely displeasing.
Again, although the Shaikh gave you an appraisal it does not mean that you are immune to a detailed disparagement which is based upon proof.
So again, may Allah ta'ala bless all of you, let us maintain justice in our speech and stick to the principles regardless of which individual these principles apply to. And I hope that my brothers in Salafi Publications do what is correct concerning that specific post on Salafitalk.com. And that they say the truth even if it is bitter.
Also, I would like to inform the brothers of a sickness I have seen. Everyone run to and fro, hither and tither to get appraisal from scholars for the work they are doing. Ikhwaan we must make our work sincere for Allah. Once it is that we try our utmost best to practice the Sunnah and seek direction from the scholars in issues we do not have knowledge about then insha allah we would be upon good.
But what I have seen is: Shaikh Rabee' praises so and so and Shaikh Wasiyullah praises so and so and Shaikh so and so praises so and so. Ikhwaan, to be unknown and doing our work sincerely for Allah, seeking the guidance of the scholars in difficult issues, is better than seeking to put appraisals for ourselves to try to show that we are pious and good.
As Allah said:
الم تر الي الذين يزكون انفسهم بل الله يزكي من يشاء و لا يظلمون فتيلا
Do you see the ones who seek to appraise themselves. Rather it is Allah who appraises whoever he wills and not a Fateel would be oppressed.
Let us try to keep sincere and be just
And Allah ta'ala knows best.
From your brother,
Musa Millington At Trinidadi. [/CENTER
Alhamdulillaah we also have good news that inshaa-Allaah As Shaykh Sa'eed Bin Da'aas hafeedahullaah is responding to this latest foolishness from spubs may Allaah ta'aalaa guide them
And we have this sickness particularly in the West, that some individuals who call themselves "du'aat" often use a supposed connection or tazkiyyah from a scholar as a free pass to say or do whatever without fear of being refuted. As shaikh Yahyaa hafeedahullaah has said many times, we are not like the soofees, who have ghuloo for their shuyookh, and do haraam actions because their shaikh told them to, wal'iyaadhubillaah. Rather we attach ourselves to the haqq above the individuals. Often we see these people who claim they are with the 'ulamaa like shaikh Rabee', but are actually not truly upon their manhaj in practice.
We have also seen some people here on one end blindly following individuals who are clearly incorrect, despite the numerous proofs against this. On the other end of the spectrum we have people fatwaa shopping to suit their desires and finding ways to follow their desires and make it look legitimate to the people. And these people make baatil look like haqq and haqq look like baatil. We ask Allaah for safety in falling into desires.
May Allaah reward you brother, as I heard Imaam al Waadi'ee raheemahullaah advising the brothers at spubs many years ago on a tape that shaikh Muhammad al 'Anjaree hafeedahullaah of Kuwait, was asking Imaam al Wadiee these questions, with shaykh Yahyaa present- and spubs have sold this Q&A session- and Imaam al Waadi'ee recited the same aayah:
الم تر الي الذين يزكون انفسهم بل الله يزكي من يشاء و لا يظلمون فتيلا
Do you see the ones who seek to appraise themselves. Rather it is Allah who appraises whoever he wills and not a Fateel would be oppressed.
So look how people publicly parade these tazkiyaat and they may we worthless in front of Allaah azza wa jall because of the reality of the situation. Look at how the munaafiqeen tried to have even the messenger of Allaah sallallaahu'alayhi wasallam approve of them on different occasions only to advance their treachery towards him and the deen of Allaah... like in the situation of the establishment of masjid ad-diraar, how they were trying to have him pray there and Allaah ordered him not to! Allaahu akbar.
And then in modern times people using the mashaayikh for their personal and dunyaawee gains. Either to achieve some status or amazement among the people, or wealth or some other affair. We have witnessed brothers passing around a letter of tazkiyyah from shaikh Rabee' to justify them begging the people to donate for a masjid... And we know how the hizbee known as Aboo Muslimah from New Jersey USA went to imaam al-Waadi'ee in California when he was ill to try to receive a tazkiyyah which was later exposed... and as shaikh Rabee' said even if Imaam Ahmad were to praise these people it would not be accepted... and ahl al bid'ah do this all the time. How many people who used to be students of a scholar use their old praise to promote themselves but are actually far from what the scholar was upon? The list goes on and on. So we ask Allaah for His true tazkiyyah.
Spubs claim that they have not changed from the time Imaam al Waadi'ee raheemahullaah praised them, based on what he knew, and even shaikh Yahyaa himself praised them when he visited them 12 years ago. But in reality they have changed, and we see recently many times spubs have contradicted themselves, and their own statements and writings can be used as a proofs against themselves. As the brother Aboo Ibraaheem pointed out in his treatise exposing them, in several issues they have changed and used to be upon clarity and jaaddah but have become lost. To mention a few of these contradictions and changes that have taken place:
1
. Spubs distributed the clarifications of the 'ulamaa regarding the principles of jarh wat-ta'deel, and claim for themselves that they follow these principles, and take the jarh mufassar over the ta'deel mubham. But in actuality this was not done in this fitnah, and in fact they now are waiting for a particular scholar to speak or a consensus to be established, as in the issue of Ubaid al Jaabiree's serious mukhaalafaat, before accepting the detailed jarh against him. We know that a detailed jarh needs a detailed radd of each point in the jarh, but so far all they can bring are mujmalaat and mubham responses. Spubs themselves used to refute people on this path years ago with the various fitan, yet now they have fallen into it for themselves. So we still need detailed proofs why shaikh Yahyaa's jarh is not to be accepted against al-'Adanee and al-Jaabiree, not these vague and general statements, even if they come from other scholars, may Allaah preserve them (refer: http://spubs.com/sps/sp.cfm?subsecID...articlePages=1)
The Jarh Mufassar to be taken over ta'deel mubham, but in this case they take mubham for no good reason? This is a change from what they were upon.
2
. Spubs claim that they honor and defend Imaam al Waadi'ee, rahmatullaahi 'alayh, but when he was attacked unjustly like what came from al-Bukhaaree and Muhammad ibn Haadee, may Allaah rectify them to the truth, spubs is silent and chose instead to defend them with more mubham statements. Why when Imaam al Albaanee raheemahullaah was attacked my those khawaarij like Safar and Salman and accused of irjaa', they published pages after pages refuting them, but when Imaam al Waadi'ee is accused of khurooj and takfeer there is pindrop silence from these so called defenders of the 'ulamaa? And we should not accept shaikh Yahyaa's refutation of al-Bukhaaree and Muhammad ibn Haadee? They claim aloloom slanders the scholars yet when imaam al-Waadi'ee is slandered they remain silent and instead defend those who slandered him? And it is slander- even spubs themselves know what Imaam al Waadi'ee died upon and that he recanted some mistakes before he returned to Allaah azza wa jall, and that he warned against the khawaarij generally and specifically, and he said it is not permissible to distribute those prior statements from him- refer to spubs' own translation, transcription and publishing his tape "What I witnessed in Saudi Arabia" (refer: http://spubs.com/sps/sp.cfm?subsecID...articlePages=1) So they once defended him, now they don't. Another change.
3.
. They claim not to follow the deviated path of Faalih al Harbee in warning against salafiyeen without detailed proofs, refusing to accept his false tabdee' of the ulamaa in our time, but they are silent when Ubaid Al-Jaabiree similarly warned against shaikh Yahyaa and Dammaaj, the fortress of salafiyyah in our time, without any proofs, rather speaking with oppression. (http://spubs.com/sps/sp.cfm?subsecID...articlePages=1) They say the proofs aren't sufficient against Ubaid al Jaabiree for them to take a position against him, but then why are the statements with no proofs that al-Jaabiree leveled against Shaikh Yahyaa and Dammaaj sufficient, at least for them not to defend Dammaaj and some of them speak against it themselves? Yet another change!
4
. They claim that they took the advice of shaikh Rabee' hafeedahullaah, which was actually the advice he had specifically regarding the situation of Abdur-Rahmaan al 'Adanee, and claim they are not becoming involved in fitnah, yet their statements and actions prove otherwise. Either they openly warn against Dammaaj, like McDowell did, or secretly, or by tacit approval (by remaining silent about the attacks from al-Jaabiree and McDowell's evil speech). So what happened to the advice of shaikh Rabee'? If they claim they are with shaykh Rabee', then they should also be with him in defending Dammaaj, but why then we don't see this from them? Yet another change? Why don't they spread shaikh Rabee's advice for people to go to Dammaaj and his praises of shaikh Yahyaa? Why censor shaikh Rabee's defences of Dammaaj and even shaikh Rabee's statements against Ubaid al Jaabiree warnings on Dammaaj? Why censor some of what shaikh Rabee' says and let through other speech from him?
5
They have refuted those who call to elections and democarcy yet when Ubaid al Jaabiree advised ahl as sunnah to enter into this bid'i affair in 'Iraaq they were either silent or denied it altogether. (Refer: http://www.spubs.com/sps/sad/mp3.cfm?scn=dl&LeID=43 and http://www.salafitalk.com/threads/88). Just as they refuted jam'iyyah ahle hadeeth for taking incorrect fataawaa with regards to politics, doesn't this baatil fatwaa also need to be clarified, along with his other deviant fataawaa which have been refuted, like going to a soothsayer, Birmingham is Daar al Hijrah, etc.? Or have spubs changed yet again to accomodate Ubaid al Jaaabiree's incorrect fataawaa by now remaining silent about these affairs for him unlike in the past?
6
. They claim they respect and honor shaikh Yahyaa, and some of them used to claim that shaikh Yahyaa is their shaikh on audio cassettes, yet now they speak of him with blatant disrespect, claiming that he has been swindled by "fanatical lying youth." Rather, his responses to al-Jaabiree, spubs, and others is based on the reality of the affair and is plain for him and everyone else to see. To suggest he can be hoodwinked into refuting people without proofs is another atrocious slander and wicked attempt to discredit shaikh Yahyaa, hafeedahullaah. So they used to consider him their shaikh, but now he is someone who has been fooled into attacking the maktabah? Another change?
7
. They claim they do not follow and that they warn against the false principles of al-ma'ribee and al-halabee, but in this fitnah they have stuck to these baatil principles, and refer to the book Al-Ibaanah by Shaikh Muhammad al Imaam, which has many of these same baatil principles in it. So they warned against al-Halabee's book of falsehood, but now promote al-Ibaanah? Another change
8
. They claim that the da'wah is not about numbers yet repeatedly indicate how many people attend their seminars, and use this as a yardstick as a sign of success:
August 17, 2008
Conference gathers thousands! Al-hamdulillaah
Filed under:
General at 7:10 am (no comments)
The conference so far has been a huge success with an attendance of a few thousand.
The feedback has been excellent from those attending.
Paltalk numbers have exceeded over 350 at times with two rooms open to accomodate the capacity.
Shaikh Falaah bin Ismaa’eel has been received with great joy by those attending and the eloquent translation has added to the beauty of the lectures.
Both Arabic and English books/CDs have been bought in their thousands.
The atmosphere has been friendly and brotherly.
Come join us today | either by attending or on Paltalk.
Your donations are welcome
.
Refer to : http://salaf.com/2008/08/17/conferen...lhamdulillaah/
Also refer to their statement: "The Salafi centres in the West regularly arrange links with Shaikh Ubaid, Shaikh Rabee and Shaikh Muhammad bin Haadee in a singular conference, with attendances numbers in the several hundreds, if not in the thousands. So these Scholars and those who follow their way and manhaj and are not harmed in the least"
So does this mean that because hundreds or thousands of people have attended, the truth and its people are benefitted by this because they are not harmed in the least? And if so, then the conferences of ikhwaan al muslimeen must be upon the haqq even moreso because they may have scores more attend theirs... And conversely if only a few attended the conferences, would the truth and its people have been harmed by this? Allaahul musta'aan, this is not the da'wah salafiyyah at all! So what happened to the da'wah not being about numbers? The da'wah and its principles have not changed, but people do.
9
Their position on photography and videotaping. They used to staunchly warn against this and even refuted the deviant Bilal Phillips for promoting himself using his picture on his website. They refuted Bilal Phillips understanding of Imam al'Uthaimeen (raheemahullaah's) fatwaa that allowed photos, and showed that it is not appropriate for the caller to tawheed to boast photos of himself- to the point that Bilal Phillips eventually removed the picture. (Refer to 2nd reply to Bilal Phillips) Spubs also refuted jam'iyyah ahle hadeeth and others for their infatuation with pictures. Then seven years later or so, that spubs themselves are making and distributing pictures and videos of themselves... and then when they are advised about it from the brothers, now they claim ikhtilaaf etc, can be used for da'wah purposes, etc. And this is not only an issue of fiqh- it involves aqeedah, da'wah and tawheed, and these are usool they based their previous rudood upon. So this is yet another change!
And more changes have taken place, and maybe some of the borthers here can expound upon some of them. We ask Allaah to return them to the truth and jaaddah upon salafiyyah, ameen.
taken from:
http://aloloom.net/vb/showthread.php?p=35834#post35834