Moosa Richardson claims Abdullah Al-Bukhari said Abu Iyaad is “a plant” 5 YEARS AGO!

____ Contradiction Analysis Their tongues testify against themselves. How? It has been revealed by Moosa Richardson that the claim of “plant (infiltrator)” was allegedly made regarding Abu Iyaad by ʿAbdullāh al-Bukhārī over five years ago. https://t.me/MarkazAbuHurayrah/1727 This has produced a two-sided dilemma — both of which carry serious implications and expose the misguidance they’re upon. ⸻ 1] If the claim of ʿAbdullāh al-Bukhārī is true Meaning: Abu Iyaad is actually a “plant” (i.e. infiltrator/hypocrite) in the daʿwah, as he claimed. Then the implications are: 1] An allegation of infiltration existed within their ranks for five years. 2] Senior figures were aware of it and discussed it amongst themselves. 3] No clear public warning was issued to the wider Salafī community. 4] Zero public exposure occurred despite the alleged severity of the matter. 5] Thousands continued to attend his lessons, read his material, and benefit from his platforms while this remained confined to private circles. 6] Students were left unaware while those in positions of influence supposedly knew the reality. 7] Moosa Richardson exposed his wider Salafī community to harm by allowing them to continue listening to and benefiting from a man who his “senior scholar” clearly expressed was a “plant” within the daʿwah. 8] This vital and shocking ruling upon Abu Iyaad from a “scholar” was purposely withheld from the public. 9] This raises an alarming question: how can the Salafī community place its trust in those who claim to identify threats, expose deviation, and protect the people from harm, yet remain silent for years about what one of their own “senior scholars” ruled as hypocritical infiltration within the daʿwah? ⸻ 2] If Abu Iyaad is NOT a plant Meaning: the accusation is a great lie and slander. 1] Abu Iyaad has been accused of one of the most severe accusations that can be made against a Muslim. 2] A Muslim’s reputation has been attacked through an allegation of infiltration and deception and he must be defended. 3] Their “scholar”, ʿAbdullāh al-Bukhārī, is a vile and unjust accuser, unworthy of being regarded as a man of upright character, let alone a scholar of Ahl al-Sunnah. 4] Moosa Richardson, along with anyone else who remained silent while this “scholar” made such a vile accusation against a Muslim, failed to condemn his claim, nor publicly warn against him and the evil path he was treading. 5] Moosa Richardson exposed the Salafī community to corruption by allowing them to continue benefiting from, and looking up to, ʿAbdullāh al-Bukhārī, who allegedly uttered such a vile accusation against another Muslim, claiming hypocrisy and “plant” infiltration. ⸻ Final Outcome Whatever is correct, they have exposed themselves—as with many of their actions and claims—as liars and deceivers! Another clear example: https://t.me/MarkazAbuHurayrah/1726 We seek refuge in Allah from such disgraceful conduct. Source: https://t.me/MarkazAbuHurayrah/1728