Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab's lack of qualifications and the disasters that resulted from it!

[TazkiyyatunNafs]

So I was just checking a piece in defence of Ibn Abdul-Wahhab's stance on Tawassul. It was by posted by Abu Iyaad of spubs. Anyway, they were citing Ibn Aqeel al-Hanbali to defend Ibn Abdul-Wahhab's stance on it. I assume they posted from his words what would defend their stance the best. And when actually reading his words on it taken from al-Funoon he never mentioned it be Shirk. Rather what I understood from it is that he mentions that these matters are disliked and shouldn't be done. If that's the best they got in defence then the matter becomes only more clear..

โ€‹โ€‹โ€‹โ€‹โ€‹

[Abu Sulayman]

So I was just checking a piece in defence of Ibn Abdul-Wahhab's stance on Tawassul. It was by posted by Abu Iyaad of spubs. Anyway, they were citing Ibn Aqeel al-Hanbali to defend Ibn Abdul-Wahhab's stance on it. I assume they posted from his words what would defend their stance the best. And when actually reading his words on it taken from al-Funoon he never mentioned it be Shirk. Rather what I understood from it is that he mentions that these matters are disliked and shouldn't be done. If that's the best they got in defence then the matter becomes only more clear..

โ€‹โ€‹โ€‹โ€‹โ€‹

As far as I know most of al-Funun of Imam Ibn 'Aqil (d. 513 AH) has not reached us, because it was originally a very very long work and regarding many Islamic sciences. It was a masterpiece.
But Imam Ibn al-Jawzi (d. 597 AH) quotes from his al-Funun every now and then and the quote youโ€™re referring to has been also quoted by him.

It should be noted here that the quote is NOT regarding Tawassul, but rather regarding a number of forbidden and disliked actions and those who address the creation in the manner one should only address one's Lord.

Both Imam Ibn 'Aqil and Imam Ibn al-Jawzi would be "polytheists" according to the Najdi logic.

Please read this:

- Imam Ibn 'Aqil [al-Hanbali] (d. 513 AH) recommends seeking intercession with the Prophet ๏ทบ

Imam Ibn 'Aqil [al-Hanbali] (d. 513 AH) recommends seeking intercession with the Prophet ๏ทบ

He said in his al-Tadhkira (p. 117) that one should say the following in the context of the visitation:

ุงู„ู„ู‡ู… ุฅู†ูƒ ู‚ู„ุช ููŠ ูƒุชุงุจูƒ ู„ู†ุจูŠูƒ ุตู„ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู„ูŠู‡ ูˆุณู„ู…: {ูˆูŽู„ูŽูˆู’ ุฃูŽู†ู‘ูŽู‡ูู…ู’ ุฅูุฐู’ ุธูŽู„ูŽู…ููˆุง ุฃูŽู†ู’ููุณูŽู‡ูู…ู’ ุฌูŽุงุกููˆูƒูŽ ููŽุงุณู’ุชูŽุบู’ููŽุฑููˆุง ุงู„ู„ู‘ูŽู‡ูŽ ูˆูŽุงุณู’ุชูŽุบู’ููŽุฑูŽ ู„ูŽู‡ูู…ู ุงู„ุฑู‘ูŽุณููˆู„ู ู„ูŽูˆูŽุฌูŽุฏููˆุง ุงู„ู„ู‘ูŽู‡ูŽ ุชูŽูˆู‘ูŽุงุจู‹ุง ุฑูŽุญููŠู…ู‹ุง} [ุณูˆุฑุฉ ุงู„ู†ุณุงุก] ูˆุฅู†ูŠ ู‚ุฏ ุฃุชูŠุช ู†ุจูŠูƒ ุชุงุฆุจู‹ุง ู…ุณุชุบูุฑู‹ุง ูุฃุณุฃู„ูƒ ุฃู† ุชูˆุฌุจ ู„ูŠ ุงู„ู…ุบูุฑุฉ ูƒู…ุง ุฃูˆุฌุจุชู‡ุง ู„ู…ู† ุฃุชุงู‡ ููŠ ุญูŠุงุชู‡ุŒ ุงู„ู„ู‡ู… ุฅู†ูŠ ุฃุชูˆุฌู‡ ุฅู„ูŠูƒ ุจู†ุจูŠูƒ ุตู„ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู„ูŠู‡ ูˆุณู„ู… ู†ุจูŠ ุงู„ุฑุญู…ุฉุŒ ูŠุง ุฑุณูˆู„ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุฅู†ูŠ ุฃุชูˆุฌู‡ ุจูƒ ุฅู„ู‰ ุฑุจูŠ ู„ูŠุบูุฑ ู„ูŠ ุฐู†ูˆุจูŠุŒ ุงู„ู„ู‡ู… ุฅู†ูŠ ุฃุณุฃู„ูƒ ุจุญู‚ู‡ ุฃู† ุชุบูุฑ ู„ูŠ ุฐู†ูˆุจูŠ

"O Allah, You have indeed stated in Your book to Your Prophet, sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam: { If they had only, when they were unjust to themselves, come unto thee and asked Allahโ€™s forgiveness, and the Messenger had asked forgiveness for them, they would have found Allah indeed Oft-returning, Most Merciful } [4:64] and I've come to your Prophet repenting [from my sins] and seeking forgiveness, so I ask you [my Lord] that you grant me forgiveness just like you granted it to the one who came to him (i.e. the Prophet, sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) during his life.
O Allah I approach you through your Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam -, the Prophet of Mercy. O Messenger of Allah I approach my Lord through you that He forgives my sins. O Allah, I'm asking you that you forgive my sins for his sake."
- end of quote -


If you look into the footnotes on the same site (scanned page), you'll see that the atheist-minded "Salafi" editor could not hold himself back from claiming that this is "greater polytheism", which is not just an attack against Imam Ibn 'Aqil, but rather against the divine law itself, because this wording is established from it!

The scholars of the Shafi'iyya have already been quoted more than enough (one could easily bring even more quotes from them!), so insha`Allah more classical Hanbali scholars will be quoted to show that this issue is established from all 4 Madhahib.

Iโ€˜ve made a thread on this issue here:

"Seeking intercession with the Prophet (s): Its ruling according to classical scholars"

And HERE is the table contents to find the relevant posts faster.

Note that one could post hundreds of classical scholars on this issue (all supporting it!), but due to time reasons I only could post this much until now.

[AmantuBillahi]

Btw did you know that there are Salafis that actually advise against studying at the Uni of Medina?

I'm familiar with Muhammad (Mufti) Muneer and I think he and his affiliates have a more laxe approach than other type of Salafis when it comes to making Tabdee on people and sitting/mixing with Ahlul-Bid3ah. That's why some Salafis accuse him of Tamyee.

I would personally consider him more of a hardliner Salafi. Mind you, I also classify Yasir Qadhi as a "Salafi" or "Salafi-inclined" despite being somewhat of an enemy from their perspective. Anyone who sympathizes with the methodology of Ibn Taymiyyah concerning Allah's Names & Attributes falls under the general umbrella of Salafi-Athari.

What makes me view Mufti Muneer as a hardliner is his identification with the Salafi label, methodology in Fiqh, reverance of the modern Salafi scholars, sympathy for Ibn Abdul Wahhab, etc. I guess the term is better suited for the Madaakhilah but it depends on how you look at it. In any case, he's definitely someone who claims to be Salafi regardless if the gatekeepers have thrown him off the Manhaj.

[TazkiyyatunNafs]

As far as I know most of al-Funun of Imam Ibn 'Aqil (d. 513 AH) has not reached us, because it was originally a very very long work and regarding many Islamic sciences. It was a masterpiece.
But Imam Ibn al-Jawzi (d. 597 AH) quotes from his al-Funun every now and then and the quote youโ€™re referring to has been also quoted by him.

It should be noted here that the quote is NOT regarding Tawassul, but rather regarding a number of forbidden and disliked actions and those who address the creation in the manner one should only address one's Lord.

Both Imam Ibn 'Aqil and Imam Ibn al-Jawzi would be "polytheists" according to the Najdi logic.

Please read this:

- Imam Ibn 'Aqil [al-Hanbali] (d. 513 AH) recommends seeking intercession with the Prophet ๏ทบ



Iโ€˜ve made thread on this issue here:

"Seeking intercession with the Prophet (s): Its ruling according to classical scholars"

And HERE is the table contents to find the relevant posts faster.

Note that one could post hundreds of classical scholars on this issue (all supporting it!), but due to time reasons I only could post this much until now.

Yes he mentions a number of things, but I'm confused how it's not regarding Tawassul as well? The Arabic literally says: ูˆุงู„ุชูˆุณู„ ุจู‡ู… ุฅู„ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡. I've read your comment on the other thread and that is specifically about making Tawassul through the prophet ุตู„ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู„ูŠู‡ ูˆุณู„ู…. Does Imam Ibn Aqeel perhaps differentiate?

Edited to add: this quote was taken from al-Furoo

[TazkiyyatunNafs]

What makes me view Mufti Muneer as a hardliner is his identification with the Salafi label, methodology in Fiqh, reverance of the modern Salafi scholars, sympathy for Ibn Abdul Wahhab, etc. I guess the term is better suited for the Madaakhilah but it depends on how you look at it. In any case, he's definitely someone who claims to be Salafi regardless if the gatekeepers have thrown him off the Manhaj.

I understand and agree.

[Abu Sulayman]

Yes he mentions a number of things, but I'm confused how it's not regarding Tawassul as well? The Arabic literally says: ูˆุงู„ุชูˆุณู„ ุจู‡ู… ุฅู„ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡. I've read your comment on the other thread and that is specifically about making Tawassul through the prophet ุตู„ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู„ูŠู‡ ูˆุณู„ู…. Does Imam Ibn Aqeel perhaps differentiate?

Edited to add: this quote was taken from al-Furoo

Seems like we were not referring to the same quote.

I was referring to a quote from al-Funun, which was mentioned by Imam Ibn al-Jawzi (d. 597 AH) and which "Salafis" sometimes mistakenly use.

As for your quote, then itโ€™s also from al-Funun (but itโ€™s a different passage) and quoted by Imam Ibn Muflih (d. 763 AH) in al-Furu', who by the way supports Tawassul in the very same book.

From the context it seems he's referring to wrong ways of veneration as done by the Shi'a (because he mentions the word Mashhad) and not necessarily having a problem with Tawassul in itself.

HERE is also a response.

Whatever the case: What Imam Ibn 'Aqil (d. 513 AH) recommended in al-Tadhkira is clear and "Shirk akbar" according to the logic of the "Salafi", who added the footnotes.

MIAW's son is also very clear that they were killing the people of their time for this very seeking of intercession with the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - and even ADMITS that this was supported by classical scholars.

Their "logic" was: MIAW's call had not reached these classical scholars so one may "excuse" them for their "Shirk akbar", but it has reached the people of our time - who are on the very same thing as those classical scholars - and this gives us the right to slaughter them all!

Their mindset is catastrophic, because it implies that MIAW is a prophet and that one is obliged to follow him.
In fact it gives him a station above that of Prophets (peace be upon them), because not following the Prophets without fighting them does not make one's blood allowed to be spilled, while the Najdis allowed the blood of every one who didnโ€™t believe in MIAW in their time no matter what!

There is actually a quote (in al-Durar al-Saniyya if I remember correctly), which I have not posted until now, where a number of leading Najdis basically claim that one is obliged to follow MIAW and that otherwise one will be from the people of hellfire.
The disaster here is that this statement in itself may lead to the hellfire.

[TazkiyyatunNafs]

Seems like we were not referring to the same quote.
I was referring to a quote from al-Funun, which was mentioned by Imam Ibn al-Jawzi (d. 597 AH) and which "Salafis" sometimes mistakenly use.

As for your quote, then itโ€™s also from al-Funun (but itโ€™s a different passage) and quoted by Imam Ibn Muflih (d. 763 AH) in al-Furu', who by the way supports Tawassul in the very same book.

From the context it seems he's referring to wrong ways of veneration as done by the Shi'a (because he mentions the word Mashhad) and not necessarily having a problem with Tawassul in itself.

HERE is also a response.

Whatever the case: What Imam Ibn 'Aqil (d. 513 AH) recommended in al-Tadhkira is clear and "Shirk akbar" according to the logic of the "Salafi", who added the footnotes.

MIAW's son is also very clear that they were killing the people of their time for this very seeking of intercession with the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - and even ADMITS that this was supported by classical scholars.
Their "logic" was: MIAW's call had not reached these classical scholars so one may "excuse" them for their "Shirk akbar", but it has reached the people of our time - who are on the very same thing as those classical scholars - and this gives us the right to slaughter them all!

Their mindset is catastrophic, because it implies that MIAW is a prophet and that one is obliged to follow him.
In fact it gives him a station above that of Prophets (peace be upon them), because not following the Prophets without fighting them does not make one's blood allowed to be spilled, while the Najdis allowed the blood of every one who didnโ€™t believe in MIAW in their time no matter what!

There is actually a quote (in al-Durar al-Saniyya if I remember correctly), which I have not posted until now, where a number of leading Najdis basically claim that one is obliged to follow MIAW and that otherwise one will be from the people of hellfire.
The disaster here is that this statement in itself may lead to the hellfire.

Yes, either way he didn't say it was Shirk so it's clear it goes against what the Najdi Da3wah preaches. Not some solid evidence to support their stance at all. And that while they dedicated a whole site to address and defend these issues. Whenever I read those things in the past I never thought about it like this. But subhaanAllah, seems like I can't support this Da3wah any longer.
โ€‹โ€‹โ€‹

[AmantuBillahi]

What is fundamentally true for virtually all of the Hanbalis/Atharis is that the Attributes are to be affirmed without making Ta'wil. Allah is to be described in the manner that He described Himself and by what has been authentically reported from the Prophet(saws). As for the details concerning the implications of the Attributes it differs to various extents depending on the circumstance. I don't deny that some of the Hanaabilah were Mufaawida (to a fault), but I also recognize the nuance in their terminologies. There was an example I quoted from an Azhari Hanbali scholar explaining the difference between the Hanbali and Ash'ari usage of "Bi la-Kayf". He also made a comment which confirmed that his negation of the "Ma'na" is literally conflated with his negation (ignorance) of the "Kayf".

Although I'm sure brother Abu Sulayman understood what I meant given our previous discussions, I just wanted to clarify that I'm referring to the diversity of opinions amongst the earlier Hanbalis and the correct interpretation of the scholars who succeeded them. I personally don't think that Ibn Taymiyyah was fundamentally at odds with the Hanbali Madhhab despite his variant use of theological terminology.

The concept of Tafwid within the Hanbali Madhhab is broad enough to potentially classify Ibn Taymiyyah as a Mufawwid himself. Tafwid al-Ma'na doesn't entail that the meanings are completely unknown or else the entire concept of Uluw and Istiwa bi-Dhatihi would be a self-contradiction. Through this angle if we are able to conflate between the Kayf and the Ma'na like the Hanbali Madhhab evidently does, then Ibn Taymiyyah should also be considered a Mufawwid on the basis that he consigns the knowledge of the Kayf to Allah which is technically the Ma'na. Even when it comes to Sifat Khabariyya Ibn Taymiyyah doesn't provide a Tahdid such as limb for Yad.

Anyways, I don't mean to derail the thread with all of this. May Allah guide us to the straight path and distinguish truth from falsehood.

[Muhammad Hasan]

Although I'm sure brother Abu Sulayman understood what I meant given our previous discussions, I just wanted to clarify that I'm referring to the diversity of opinions amongst the earlier Hanbalis and the correct interpretation of the scholars who succeeded them. I personally don't think that Ibn Taymiyyah was fundamentally at odds with the Hanbali Madhhab despite his variant use of theological terminology.

The concept of Tafwid within the Hanbali Madhhab is broad enough to potentially classify Ibn Taymiyyah as a Mufawwid himself. Tafwid al-Ma'na doesn't entail that the meanings are completely unknown or else the entire concept of Uluw and Istiwa bi-Dhatihi would be a self-contradiction. Through this angle if we are able to conflate between the Kayf and the Ma'na like the Hanbali Madhhab evidently does, then Ibn Taymiyyah should also be considered a Mufawwid on the basis that he consigns the knowledge of the Kayf to Allah which is technically the Ma'na. Even when it comes to Sifat Khabariyya Ibn Taymiyyah doesn't provide a Tahdid such as limb for Yad.

Anyways, I don't mean to derail the thread with all of this. May Allah guide us to the straight path and distinguish truth from falsehood.

So let's say I don't know the meaning of Yad (translated 'Hand') - which I don't.

What does Ibn Taymiyyah say its meaning is?

[AmantuBillahi]

So let's say I don't know the meaning of Yad (translated 'Hand') - which I don't.

What does Ibn Taymiyyah say its meaning is?

To be honest I don't think I'm familiar with a direct quote from Ibn Taymiyyah explaining this issue. Most Salafis give the answer that the meaning of Yad is known without explicitly defining it. Definitions such as 'limbs' or 'parts' are commonly rejected and this could be found in books like Sharh Aqeedah at-Tahawiyya.

The above would not contravene Hanbali Tafwid al-Ma'na because the Kayf or modality is not being described.

However, the Salafis would still maintain that the meaning of Yad is known because the description in the revelation corresponds with our general understanding of the term on a conceptual level. We have hands that are body parts which we use to perform physical tasks. Allah also has an Attribute called Hands that are apart of His Divine Essence which He performs various tasks with as explained in the revelation. Although the howness or modality of Allah's Divine Hands are unknown, the idea of His Hands are relatable to us on a finite level due to the way he purposely created us.

[Muhammad Hasan]

To be honest I don't think I'm familiar with a direct quote from Ibn Taymiyyah explaining this issue. Most Salafis give the answer that the meaning of Yad is known without explicitly defining it. Definitions such as 'limbs' or 'parts' are commonly rejected and this could be found in books like Sharh Aqeedah at-Tahawiyya.

The above would not contravene Hanbali Tafwid al-Ma'na because the Kayf or modality is not being described.

However, the Salafis would still maintain that the meaning of Yad is known because the description in the revelation corresponds with our general understanding of the term on a conceptual level. We have hands that are body parts which we use to perform physical tasks. Allah also has an Attribute called Hands that are apart of His Divine Essence which He performs various tasks with as explained in the revelation. Although the howness or modality of Allah's Divine Hands are unknown, the idea of His Hands are relatable to us on a finite level due to the way he purposely created us.

(I will use the term Taymiyyan instead of 'Salafi' as I think it is a neutral term).

Tafwid al-Kayf admitting Tafwid al-Ma'na

There are indeed Atharis, including the academics amongst them, who interpret Tafweed al-Kayf as essentially the same thing as Tafweed al-Ma'na. These Taymiyyans are happy to negate place, dimension etc. I say if you cannot ascribe a clear meaning then that is Tafwid al-Ma'na.

I think the problem Ash'aris have with the Taymiyyans is that they fear when they say, "Tafwid al-Kayf" that the Taymiyyans are admitting possibility of form i.e. width, length, height or other dimension, and are saying that we know Allah has a Yad but not if it has delimitation i.e. a form (admitting that it may or may not) and if it does then what exact form that Yad is. I.e. that they imply Allah may have Miqdar (size) but do not say the exact Kayf of his size i.e. how big or small he is - if he has it.

E.g.

"I say I have a face and that a dog also has a face. Now suppose I say there is an alien with a face. Do we know how his face is? No but we know he has a face."

My first question to you is, would you say the alien in the above example is subject to Tafwid al-Kayf?

What would the Ash'ari, Maturidi and Mufawwid Athari such as Shaykh Yusuf bin Sadiq al-Hanbali (who calls Ibn Taymiyyah Shaykh ul-Islam and does not call him a Mujassim), require of a follower of Taymiyyan doctrine to say they are a Sunni Muslim?

In my opinion I agree with the opinion of those Athari who say Tafwid al-Kayf is a linguistical difference with Tafwid al-Ma'na, and that they are in essence the same thing. But I require someone who does Tafwid al-Kayf to negate limitation.

Otherwise, when someone says, "Allah has a Yad and it is not a limb" - well what does their negation of limb mean? It is essentially meaningless unless it is taken to be a negation of a protruding physicallity (with all such physicallity negated).

So there are four groups of Taymiyyans:

1. Those who affirm Tafwid al-Kayf as not actually different to Tafwid al-Ma'na, who negate dimensionality for Allah. (e.g. Allah having Miqdar is Muhal/Mustahil).
2. Those who affirm Tafwid al-Kayf as not actually different to Tafwid al-Ma'na, but believe dimensionality is neither affirmed nor negated - that it is a possibility. (Allah having Miqdar is Mumkin).
3. Those who say Tafwid al-Kayf is different to Tafwid al-Ma'na, but believe dimensionality is neither affirmed nor negated - that it is a possibility. (Allah having Miqdar is Mumkin).
4. Those who say Tafwid al-Kayf is different to Tafwid al-Ma'na, and believe dimensionality is actually necessary for Allah (Allah having Miqdar is Wajib).

We would regard those followers of Ibn Taymiyyah of group 1 to be Sunni Muslims, e.g. this guy. They are sometimes the academic types who have studied Ibn Taymiyyah's works and have also studied al-Ghazali etc. works. They are supporters of Ibn Taymiyyah and defend Tafwid al-Kayfiyyah, and quote Ibn Taymiyyah frequently and mention creed from works like Sharh Aqeedah Tahawiyyah of Ibn al-Izz al-Hanafi. They maintain what started as Hanbali terminology (e.g. differentiating Tawhid al-Rubbobiyyah etc.) And yet they deny place, direction etc. They consider the Ash'ari wrong with regards to many things, but principally not Ilm al-Kalam (as Ibn Taymiyyah engages in it), or negating corporeality. They tend also to be very interested in Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibnul Qayyim's philosophical views.

Those of group 2 and 3 think the Ash'ari etc. are being Irrational because they think there is nothing wrong with Allah possibly having dimension and they do not conceive anything contradicting reason. The statement, "It is not necessary for something to have dimension" to them comes back on the Ash'ari etc. as they say "well why do you make it necessary for Allah to not have dimension then?" i.e. they assume that the ruling for anything existant is that dimension is possible.

I feel that the Taymiyyans of group 4 who believe Allah is a physical dimensioned being, think that the Ash'ari etc. who are saying he can't, are negating him because in their mind the only things that can exist are physical dimensioned beings.



The followers of group 1 are Sunnis then who we can accept as non-Mainstream Athari. Their thought is similar to the thought of some (but not all) early Hanabilah. This is how some of the Athari and a few of the Ash'ari justify the doctrines of Ibn Taymiyyah as not being Tajsim.

The followers of group 2 and 3 are Muslims but by entertaining the possibility of corporeality they enter into innovation. It is difficult to say whether they are clear cut Mujassimah - but they are opening the door to that so should be regarded with them.

The followers of group 4 are disbelievers.

By the way, not all the Taymiyyans of group 1 consider the Ash'ari themselves as being Sunni - what I am talking about is a one-way conception by the Ash'ari/Maturidi/Mufawwid Athari as to the Taymiyyans of group 1. Otherwise there are Taymiyyans of group 1 who hate the Ash'ari and say they are Jahmiyyah, thinking they hold the same beliefs or definitions as Aristotle and ironicaly quote from the likes of Bin Baz etc.

So my second question to you is, which of the four groups mentioned above would you put yourself in (if you were to put yourself in one of them)?

[TheHaqq]

I used to follow MiaW, but after looking into it and questioning everything he said, I came to the comclusion that Ibn Taymiyyah would free himself from such a person and his dawah

[Linkdeutscher]

I used to follow MiaW, but after looking into it and questioning everything he said, I came to the comclusion that Ibn Taymiyyah would free himself from such a person and his dawah

MiAW always had a sketchy aura to him. Good thing is I never actually praised or ascribed myself to him in any way. And most modern Salafis don't even follow his principles correctly according to my understanding. May Allah have mercy on him.

[Abu Sulayman]

MiAW always had a sketchy aura to him. Good thing is I never actually praised or ascribed myself to him in any way. And most modern Salafis don't even follow his principles correctly according to my understanding. May Allah have mercy on him.

The aura that he has is that of a false prophet.
Most "Salafis" do follow at least SOME of his principles and this is bad enough. This is why whenever they hear "Shirk akbar", they directly think of other Muslims, wallahul musta'an.

May Allah ta'ala have mercy upon the Umma of our Master Muhammad - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - and punish whosoever oppresses and kills them.

[Abu Sulayman]

I used to follow MiaW, but after looking into it and questioning everything he said, I came to the comclusion that Ibn Taymiyyah would free himself from such a person and his dawah

Alhamdulillah.

We should really not mention this person with any of the classical scholars (whether it's al-Hafidh Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) or other than him). MIAW (d. 1206 AH) was not a scholar in any way or form.
Can a person who does not know basic sciences of the Arabic language ever be a scholar?
And we say to the evil Najdi Sulayman bin Sahman (d. 1349 AH) who claimed that "not being able to answer these questions (!) [regarding the science of rhetoric in the Arabic language] does not indicate his lack of proficiency in the religious sciences like Hadith, Tafsir and Fiqh":
By Allah, it does indicates this and even more! He can't be even regarded as a serious student of knowledge let alone a leading scholar!

Would a scholar call the lands of the Muslims - especially the Hijaz, Yemen and the Levant (which are all praised by the Messenger of Allah, sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) - as lands of polytheism and accuse the Muslim population of worshiping idols? Would a Muslim - let alone a scholar! - act as if the proof has not been established upon those who have heard about the Messenger of Allah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - and that it is only established after them hearing about his (IAW's) own call?!?