In The Name of Allaah, The Most Merciful, The Bestower of Mercy
Ali Halabi’s False Utilisation of Al-Allaamah Abdul-Muhsin’s (may Allaah preserve him) Treatise Titled: Rifqan Ahlus Sunnah Bi-Ahlis Sunnah
On page 38 onwards [in the Arabic PDF in this link: http://www.sahab.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=122127 ] the discussion about the book Rifqan Ahlus Sunnah Bi-Ahlis Sunnah begins.
Shaikh Abdul Muhsin (may Allaah preserve him) wrote Rifqan Ahlus Sunnah Bi-Ahlis Sunnah to warn against the fitnah of unjustified boycotting and declaring others innovators without a valid reason. The book was a refutation against the Haddaadees-the followers of Faaleh Al-Harbi-because Faaleh pre-occupied himself with the fitnah of unjustified boycotting and declared some people from Ahlus Sunnah innovators without a valid reason.
Shaikh Abdul Muhsin clearly stated that from the innovations in this era, is putting people to the test by way of personalities, and that this fitnah occurred amongst a very small group of people, who disparaged their brothers from Ahlus Sunnah and declared them innovators. This resulted in unjustified boycotting, disassociation and prevented Ahlus Sunnah from benefitting from those who have been boycotted and declared innovators without a valid reason. The Shaikh stated that the head of this fitnah of unjustified boycotting was a student of his at the Islamic University and that he graduated between the year 1395AH—1396AH. The Shaikh also mentioned that this former student of his is not known to be pre-occupied with knowledge, such as giving lessons and writing books etc. [For further details see: Kitaab Wa-Rasaa-il Abdul-Muhsin Bin Hamad Al-Abbaad Al-Badr (Daar At-Tawheed: Vol: 6 page: 320-325)]
The Deceit of the Innovators [Maribi and Halabi]
However, Maribi, his followers and those affected by him utilised this treatise of Shaikh Abdul Muhsin as a protection through which they sought to cover up the affair of everyone that claimed to be from Ahlus Sunnah. They utilised this treatise to cover up the affairs of such false claimants, even if such people either held principles that were in opposition to the Methodology of the Salafus Saaleh or they had a number of deviations in Manhaj. They also utilised the Shaikh’s treatise as a cover up to reject every disparagement, warning and boycotting, even if there were sound evidences showing that the person upon whom those judgements were passed against was deserving of it. Therefore, what Maribi, Halabi and others intended from this treatise of Shaikh Abdul-Muhsin is not what Shaikh Abdul-Muhsin intended. Reader, consider the following:
If Shaikh Abdul-Muhsin intended what Maribi, Halabi and others intended from this treatise, then Shaikh Abdul Muhsin would not have taken a stern stance against Adnaan Ar’oor; because the Shaikh did warn against Adnaan, and advised that one is neither to sit with him nor attend his gatherings; whereas Maribi and Halabi consider Adnaan to be from Ahlus Sunnah. So if this treatise of the Shaikh was written for the reason that Halabi and Maribi made it to be, then why did the Shaikh not employ leniency towards Adnaan Ar’oor. Therefore, Halabi, Maribi and their likes are forced to affirm one of these two affairs:
Either they say that Shaikh Abdul-Muhsin opposed his own appealed for leniency towards Ahlus Sunnah, because he commanded that Adnaan be boycotted;  ”Or that the Shaikh’s treatise was a warning against unjustified boycotting and declaring others innovators without a valid reason.” Reader, there is no doubt that the treatise of the Shaikh was a warning against the second point, because if that were not the case he would not have issued that severe warning against Adnaan Ar’oor and advised that he is to be boycotted.