If the refutation of such a senior scholar as Shaykh Wasiullah Abbas was rejected against SPUBS due to the absence of principled evidence, then what position does Arafat al-Kadhdhāb hold with his lies and without principled evidence against a Sunni such as Abu Iyaad? Do these clowns think they can speak against Salafis without being asked for principled evidence? Are they daydreaming?

@SyedMajidHashm6 Didn’t they reject it because Sh. Wasiullah called AK an ignoramus?

@MBAsupplements Read the post again

@SyedMajidHashm6 Read the question again. It’s a simple yes or no

@MBAsupplements No we rejected it because Sh wasiullah did not provide principled evidence for his criticism. No one can come and speak against salafis without evidence, not even a scholar can do that.

@SyedMajidHashm6 But they had ample opportunity to present evidence to Sh. Bukhari….

@MBAsupplements Who? what ? From Shaykh wasiullah to now Shaykh Bukhari ? Leave it. Or DM me

@SyedMajidHashm6 Your original point was about “principled evidence”, yet when opportunity arose to give principled evidence to Sh. Bukhari, it was ignored. You used Sh. Wasiullah as an example. So I’m highlighting the double standards you guys portray.

@SyedMajidHashm6 Also your statement “No one can come and speak against salafis” is problematic, since you’re now throwing people off the manhaj without “principled evidence”.

@MBAsupplements Its your Wahm