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

Ads by Muslim Ad Network

AmantuBillahi replied

29-06-20, 12:44 AM
aMuslimForLife

I don't want to derail this thread into a debate regarding Hanbali/Athari Aqeedah. What some people claim to be the "traditional Hanbali scholars" did not necessarily see eye-to-eye with one another. We can also explain the rise of Tafwid and the "Asharization" of the school just before Ibn Taymiyyah to the political dominance of Ash'arism and the role of the Nizamiyya. I believe Ibn Taymiyyah had a profound impact on the direction of the Hanbali school even if it was somewhat indirectly.

Here's an example of what I would term a follower/sympathizer of Ibn Taymiyyah:

Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post

• Ibn Kathir’s Regard for the Aqidatu-Wasitiya of ibn Taymiyya

Ibn Kathir mentions:

فتناظرا في ذلك وشكر الناس من فضائل الشيخ كمال الدين بن الزملكاني وجودة ذهنه وحسن بحثه حيث قاوم ابن تيمية في البحث وتكلم معه ثم انفصل الحال على قبول العقيدة وعاد الشيخ إلى منزله معظما مكرما

“Then they (Ibn Taymiyyah and Kamal ud din bin Zamalkani) engaged in a debate and people commended the merits of Shaykh Kamaal Al-Deen ibn Az-Zamalkaani, his wittiness, and careful researching as he debated Ibn Taymiyyah and talked with him. Finally, he accepted Al-‘Aqidah (Al-Wasitiyyah) and Ibn Taymiyyah went home honored and revered.”

[Source: Al-Bidaya wan Nihaya 14/52]

Ibn Kathir constantly praises, commemorates, and gives high regard for the content within al-Wasitiya authored by his master Ibn Taymiyya. How is the Wasitiya viewed by the Ash’aris of his time and the pseudo Ash’aris of today? It is almost an ijm’a by Ash’aris that the contents that are relayed in the Wasitiya represent heresy, kufr, the misguidance tajsim (describing Allah with bodily features), tashbih (anthropomorphism), and basically a book of complete heresy and misguidance. Heck, that is the very reason the medieval Ash’ari scholars debated ibn Taymiyya about the Wasitiya in the first place. Because they found it problematic. Yet Ibn Kathir does not…

As a slight side bar note, Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali mentions in his Dhayl that after the three majalis (meetings) on the Aqida of Ibn Taymiyyah:

وقع الإتفاق بعد ذلك على أن هذه عقيدة سنية سلفية

They [all the scholars present in the majlis] agreed after commencing the discource, that this [the contents of the Wasitiya and thus the creed of Ibn Taymiyyah] is the SUNNI, SALAFI creed.

[Source: Dhayl Tabaqat al-Hanabilah of Ibn Rajab al-hanbalee 4/396]

Allahu Akbar. Hafidh Ibn Rajab is not the only one who relays this. This is relayed by both salafi and Ash’ari commentators as well. Ibn Kathir, adh-Dhahabi, and many others cited that the ending of the Islamic court tribunal held in front of the Sultan ended with the emancipation of Ibn Taymiyyah being the proponent of Islamic orthodoxy (salafism) and rendering the prosecution among the Ash’ari heretics AS the heretics they were always known to be. Not only that, but it was an emancipation of the very contents of al-Wasitiya itself, that it correctly relays the creed of the sunni Muslim orthodoxy, the creed of the salaf”

https://theboriqeenotes.com/2018/08/...-ashari-kalam/

Ibn Kathir's Tafsir does not include any of the Kalam positions of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah. However, this does not somehow mean that he was a blameworthy Mufaawid or followed a different strand from his teacher.

Last edited by AmantuBillahi; 29-06-20, 12:48 AM.
Leave a comment:
AmantuBillahi replied

28-06-20, 09:28 PM
Originally posted by aMuslimForLife View Post

I don't think there were any generic followers of Ibn Taymiyyah pre-MIAW. MIAW revived the creed of Ibn Taymiyyah. One of my problems with the creed of Ibn Taymiyyah, is that I don't think his creed was a standard creed taught in traditional Hanbali circles. I think when Ibn Taymiyyah died, his creed died with him, only to be revived by MIAW. Ibn Taymiyyah's creed may have been taught in a higher creedal curriculum, for Hanbali scholars who specialized in Hanbali Aqida within the madhab, as part of comparative Hanbali creeds which would have included any divergent creeds from the main Hanbali creed such as Ibn Jawzi, Ibn Aqil, Abu Yala, and others.

Ibn Taymiyyah's creed is complex and isn't the creed of the Salafus Saleh. Imam Mustafa ibn Ahmad Al Shatti al Hanbali said, "They (Najdi movement) claim advanced juridical reasoning and use Shaykh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah alone as an advocate for themselves. The very Imam exited from the Hanbali school in a number of areas in which he is isolated, and that would be tantamount to claiming advanced juridical reasoning (mujtihad Mutlaq). (1) The only problem is he never systematised these points as a separate legal school, as the four legal schols were written down, established and systematically discussed." (2) (The Divine Texts - Al Nuqul al Shariyyah fi al Raddial al Wahabiyyah by Mustafa Ibn Ahmad al Shatti al Hanbali)

(1) Shaykh Abu Jafar al Hanbali comments, "There were some 11 or more issues in which Imam Ibn Taymiyyah contradicted the school and breached consensus. These include:

1) The knowability of the Essence of Allah in this life;
2) the knowability of the names and attributes of Allah in this and Hereafter;
3) the infallibility of the prophets;
4) the abiding nature of the Great Fire;
5) the qualities of absolute ijithad;
6) three divorces in one sitting;
7) the intercession of the prophets, pious and saints;
8) visiting the graves and setting out on travel to them;
9) whether or not previous revelations were corrupted in nature or interpretation;
10) whether the world created from nothing or was eternally existent;
11) the state of the dead.

These and other issues are known by his contemporaries to have been breaches by Imam Ibn Taymiyyah."

(2) Shaykh Abu Jafar al Hanbali comments, "The author makes a number of points worth considering.

1) Imam Ibn Taymiyyah exited from the Hanbali school in some issues, which puts him outside the foundational principles under which he is restricted due to his not being an absolute mujitahid.
2) His doing this would be tantamount to setting up or claiming absolute ijithad.
3) If he had set up a separate school, he left no laid own principles of such a school.
4) There were no students who were licensed and continued to pass it down unbroken.
When this is the case, how could those who came after him, who were not even qualified, lay claim to something that is not systemized or left to posterity?"

According Abu Jafar Al Hanbali, who has studied traditionally with Hanbali scholars, there is no unbroken chain of transmitters of Ibn Taymiyyah's work. This leaves his works unusable, from the perspective of traditional Sunni Islam, because in traditional Sunni Islam everything is based on Isnad.

I do not entirely disagree with the points listed above. Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah was a unique Hanbali/Athari scholar who was well-versed in Falsafa and utilized Ilm al-Kalam. His usage of Kalam in theologial matters is enough to render some of material incomptable with the traditional Hanbali Usool. I never once claimed that Ibn Taymiyyah was a typical Hanbali or that his books were included in the systematic program for studying Hanbali theology. What I have always been asserting is that Ibn Taymiyyah's primary theology is consistent with the true creed of the Salaf and the rightly guided Atharis/Habalis.

What I meant by Ibn Taymiyyah's generic followers were Muslims - be they independent or otherwise - who generally sympathize with Ibn Taymiyya's viewpoint on Asma wa-Sifat. It is possible that these people identified themselves as Hanbalis, Atharis, Sunnis, Ahlul Hadith or followers of the creed of the Salaf.

Don't get me wrong I understand the point that you're trying to make. Ibn Taymiyyah didn't form his own Madhhab and he wasn't neatly categorized in a "traditional group". However, this does not take away from his popularity and recognition from the general Muslims to the scholars of the Madhahib. Ibn Taymiyyah's funeral was reported to be one of the biggest since the time of Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal; and the scholars from the various schools didn't honour him the title of "Shaykh al-islam" out of pity.

What seems to be the problem on this website is that you brothers have created a dichotomy wherein nothing except your subjectively defined categories are acceptable. If I were to claim to be a Hanbali in Aqeedah, you would reject this because according to you I'm not "mainstream" or "traditional". If I were to claim to be an Athari, you would respond by saying the Madhhab of the Salaf was Tafwid al-Ma'na. Even if I were to claim to be a follower of Ibn Taymiyyah, you would require me to not only be familiar with his Kalam position, but also to believe and defend them. So what category do you ascribe to the basic Salafi/Athari in modern times? Are they just a bunch of Jaahils in your eyes?

This is not what is necessarily intended by claiming to be a follower of Ibn Taymiyyah in modern times. Anyone who sympathizes with Ibn Taymiyyah's basic methodology for understanding Allah's Names & Attributes and ascribes that it to the Salaf as-Salih is "follower" of Ibn Taymiyyah. To be clear what I'm referring to is taking the narrations regarding Allah's Attributes upon their apparrent meanings (Dhahir), without distorting them (Tahrif), equating them with the creation (Tamthil), without negating them (Ta'til) or resembling them to the creation (Tashbih). Through this standard many people would be categorized as followers or sympathizers of Ibn Taymiyyah even if they were ignorant or disagreed with "Athari Kalam". One could even reject Ibn Taymiyyah's Kalam altogher and criticze anyone who promotes it on the basis that it exceeds the Usool of the Ahl al-Hadith. Such a person could affirm Allah's existence Above the Throne; His Istawa after te 6th day; Coming down on the Day of Judgement; Descending every last 3rd of the night, etc., and then respond to anyone inquring further details with "Bi la kayf" (without entertaining how).

Last edited by AmantuBillahi; 28-06-20, 09:33 PM.
Leave a comment:
Abu Sulayman replied

28-06-20, 05:48 PM
Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post

@Abu sulayman

In a recent video the author quoted some of the phrases attributed to MIAW above and claimed that Yasir Qadhi has slandered him. What is your response to the mainstream Salafis who interpret MIAW in light of these statements and argue that Shirk was completely widespread during his era?

The first thing that one should have in mind is that MIAW lies a lot and I think this has been proven by what has been posted beyond any doubt.

Then: If MIAW would have stated that the people in the desert of Najd were ignorant, then we may have accepted this from him (even though they were not ignorant to the degree he claimed), but this man was claiming this even against the people of the Haramayn and this with the knowledge that the Haramayn al-sharifayn were filled with scholars at that time. In fact he was claiming that the scholars themselves did not know Tawhid nor Islam!

This MIAW (d. 1206 AH) is quoted to have said the following under the section "Shaykh Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab's stating of the disbelief of Ibn Suhaym" ("تصريح الشيخ ابن عبد الوهاب بكفر ابن سحيم"; so the name of the section already entails making Takfir upon a scholar):

ومعلوم: أن أهل أرضنا، وأرض الحجاز، الذي ينكر البعث منهم أكثر ممن يقر به، والذي يعرف الدين أقل ممن لا يعرفه

It is known regarding the people of our land (i.e. Najd) and the people of Hijaz, that those who reject the resurrection [after death] from them are more than those who affirm it, and that those who know the religion [from among them] are less than those who don't know it...
- end of quote (from al-Durar al-Saniyya 10/43) -

This is an open lie! I How can one even take such claims serious?

Originally posted by aMuslimForLife View Post

I don't think there were any generic followers of Ibn Taymiyyah pre-MIAW. \

Even though I agree with your comment above in general, but I just wanted to comment regard the point mentioned here.
There were actually people known as "Taymiyyun" (i.e followers of Imam Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH))), but they used to be only students of knowledge and their number was low and they did not reach the advanced levels of knowledge in the Hanbali Madhhab. As for the major Hanbali scholars that we know of today, then none of them were followers of Ibn Taymiyya. Rather they respected him as a scholar inside the Madhhab and did not turn his statements into the judge of right and wrong and did not adhere to his abnormal views.

What is interesting to know is that Imam Ibn Rajab (d. 795 AH) used to be from the Taymiyyun (because of his teacher most likely), but when he advanced in knowledge he became a mainstream Hanbali and took a neutral stance. This is mentioned by Imam Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalani (d. 852 AH).

Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 28-06-20, 05:53 PM.
Leave a comment:
Abu Sulayman replied

28-06-20, 04:49 PM
Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post

In all fairness this forum doesn't seem to have a Wahhabi representative to make an actual case in favour of Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab. However, the overall silence of the Salafi community in the West to Yasir Qadhi's heavy allegations against their 'spiritual founder' speaks volumes in my books.

From the few who publicly challenged his claims were:

https://www.abukhadeejah.com/a-brief...-died-1206-ah/

The quotes that I have brought in Arabic are more than enough to answer the claims of this Abu Khadeejah guy. Note that I haven't even finished the practical results yet.

It should be noted here that even the worst Khawarij will deny to make Takfir upon Muslims, rather they will claim that "we only make Takfir upon Kuffar". So this is no point and I'll ignore that.
I would however like to respond specifically to the second quote where IAW denies the statements of the Hanbali Shaykh Ibn Suhaym regarding him to be true and show another time that he's a liar and not to be trusted in any way.

Proving that the scholars were truthful regarding Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH) and that IAW himself was the liar!

Under the 26th point of the results of Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab's ignorance and extreme ideas on a theoretical level I mentioned the following quote (which is the quote that the above Madkhali also mentioned, but he did not translate all points that IAW denied and claimed to be a "great slander" against him):

ثم لا يخفى عليكم أنه بلغني أن رسالة سليمان بن سحيم قد وصلت إليكم، وأنه قبلها وصدقها بعض المنتمين للعلم في جهتكم، والله يعلم أن الرجل افترى علي أمورا لم أقلها، ولم يأت أكثرها على بالي.
فمنها قوله: إني مبطل كتب المذاهب الأربعة; وإني أقول: إن الناس من ستمئة سنة ليسوا على شيء، وإني أدعي الاجتهاد; وإني خارج عن التقليد; وإني أقول: إن اختلاف العلماء نقمة، وإني أكفر من توسل بالصالحين; وإني أكفر البوصيري لقوله: يا أكرم الخلق; وإني أقول: لو أقدر على هدم قبة رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم لهدمتها، ولو أقدر على الكعبة لأخذت ميزابها، وجعلت لها ميزابا من خشب، وإني أحرم زيارة قبر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم، وإني أنكر زيارة قبر الوالدين وغيرهما، وإني أكفر من حلف بغير الله، وإني أكفر ابن الفارض، وابن عربي; وإني أحرق دلائل الخيرات، وروض الرياحين، وأسميه روض الشياطين.
جوابي عن هذه المسائل أن أقول: سبحانك هذا بهتان عظيم; وقبله من بهت محمدا صلى الله عليه وسلم أنه يسب عيسى ابن مريم، ويسب الصالحين، فتشابهت قلوبهم بافتراء الكذب، وقول الزور..ا
- end of quote (from al-Durar al-Saniyya 1/33-34) -

So here we see that IAW mentions a number of things that the Hanbali Shaykh Ibn Suhaym (d. 1181 AH) ascribed to him [or his followers], which he denies to be true and regards as "a great slander" in his letter to the people of al-Qassim.

The points that were ascribed to him were the following:
1) That he invalidated the books of the 4 Madhahib
2) That the claimed that the people have been upon nothing for 600 years
3) That he claimed Ijtihad, had abandoned Taqlid (of the Madhahib) and said that the difference of opinion of the scholars were a curse (and not a mercy)
4) That he made Takfir upon those who perform Tawassul with the righteous
5) That he made Takfir upon al-Busiri (the great poet) because of his statement "O most honorable of the creation..."
6) That he - if he would have the ability to - would have destroy the dome of the Messenger of Allah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - and replaced the waterspout of the Ka'ba with one from wood
7) That he disallowed the visitation of the grave of the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - and that of ones parents and other than them
8) That he made Takfir upon the one swearing by other than Allah
9) That he made Takfir upon Ibn al-Faridh and Ibn 'Arabi
10) That he burned the works Dala`il al-Khayrat and Rawdh al-Rayahin and that he called it as "Rawdh al-Shayatin"

IAW then claims that ALL of this is a "great slander". So let's see one by one:

1) His invalidation of the books of the 4 Madhahib:

In one of his letters IAW writes to the son of the Hanbali Shaykh 'Abdullah bin 'Isa (d. 1175 AH) - who uses the books of Fiqh (i.e. of the 4 Madhahib) as proof against him - by telling him that "that which you call as Fiqh is that which Allah has named as polytheism and taking them as Lords..."

اتَّخَذُوا أَحْبَارَهُمْ وَرُهْبَانَهُمْ أَرْبَاباً مِنْ دُونِ اللَّهِ} الآية [سورة التوبة آية: 31] ، فسرها رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم والأئمة بعده بهذا الذي تسمونه الفقه، وهو الذي سماه الله شركا واتخاذهم أربابا، لا أعلم بين المفسرين في ذلك اختلافا
- end of quote (from al-Durar al-Saniyya 1/52) -

He has many such catastrophic statements regarding Islamic Fiqh and in the same vain he also claimed that most of al-Iqna' and al-Muntaha (both highly reliable Hanbali Fiqh books!) is in opposition to the way of Imam Ahmad and his explicit statements (quoted in the op)!

So he indeed invalidated the books of the Madhahib!

2) IAW and his followers believing that the people have been upon nothing for 600 years:

When IAW's followers invaded Makka al-Mukarrama 'Abdullah bin Muhammad bin 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1244 AH) (i.e. son of IAW!) wrote a letter "clarifying what they demand from the people and WHY THEY ARE FIGHTING THEM" ("رسالة الشيخ عبد الله آل الشيخ عندما دخلوا مكة، وبيان ما يطلبون من الناس ويقاتلونهم عليه") (see al-Durar al-Saniyya 1/222) and in this letter he mentions one of the scholars of Makka and that "he was asking regarding the issue of intercession, BECAUSE OF WHICH THE SWORD WAS DRAWN" ("ويسأل عن مسألة الشفاعة التي جرد السيف بسببها") (1/226) and how he was answered until he says:

فإن قال قائل منفر عن قبول الحق والإذعان له : يلزم من تقريركم، وقطعكم في أن من قال يا رسول الله، أسألك الشفاعة : أنه مشرك مهدر الدم ؛ أن يقال بكفر غالب الأمة ، ولا سيما المتأخرين، لتصريح علمائهم المعتبرين : أن ذلك مندوب، وشنوا الغارة على من خالف في ذلك ! قلت : لا يلزم، لأن لازم المذهب ليس بمذهب، كما هو مقرر، ومثل ذلك : لا يلزم أن نكون مجسمة، وإن قلنا بجهة العلو، كما ورد الحديث بذلك .ونحن نقول فيمن مات : تلك أمة قد خلت ؛ ولا نكفر إلا من بلغته دعوتنا للحق، ووضحت له المحجة، وقامت عليه الحجة، وأصر مستكبراً معانداً، كغالب من نقاتلهم اليوم، يصرون على ذلك الإشراك، ويمتنعون من فعل الواجبات، ويتظاهرون بأفعال الكبائر، المحرمات ؛ وغير الغالب : إنما نقاتله لمناصرته من هذه حاله، ورضاه به، ولتكثير سواد من ذكر، والتأليب معه، فله حينئذ حكمه في قتاله

If someone - trying to cause [a feeling of] opposition against accepting the truth and submission to it - says:
Your statement and certain assertion that the one who says "O Messenger of Allah, I ask for your intercession" is a polytheist whose blood is to be spilled, necessitates that one affirms the disbelief of the majority of the [Islamic] nation (Umma), especially the later ones [from among them], because their relied upon scholars have said that this is allowed and attacked the one who opposed in this [issue].
I say: This is not necessitated, because that which a statement necessitates is not the statement itself (Lazim al-Madhhab laysa bi Madhhab) as it is established and this is just like it‘s not necessary for us to be Mujassima just because we affirm the direction of highness (for Allah ta'ala) as the narration came regarding it.
We say regarding the one who has [already] died: { These were a nation that have passed away } [2:134] and we do not declare anyone to be a disbeliever except the one whom our call to truth has reached and the argument has become obvious to him and the proof has been established upon him and [thereafter] he [still] arrogantly and stubbornly insists [upon doing this] like the majority we fight today:
They insist on this committing of polytheism (Ishrak) and stay away from fulfilling the obligations and commit major sins and [other] sins.
As for the non-majority: We fight them for supporting the one whose state is like that and are pleased with them and make the group of those mentioned [before] larger and are allied to them, then the ruling of fighting against them applies to them also.
- end of quote (from al-Durar al-Saniyya 1/234-235) -

So what we understand from the above is that IAW's group believed that the scholars before them were upon "Shirk akbar" (greater polytheism) (!!!) (because of the issue of asking intercession from the Prophet, sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam!*), but since their call had not reached them they didn't regarded them as disbelievers (as if these major scholars were waiting for IAW to teach them about Tawhid!), but as for the people of their own time, then they were "polytheists and disbelievers who deserve to be faught!". If this is not a cultist behaviour and shameless Kharijism, then what is it?

*You can go and check the chapter of Hajj under the section regarding the visitation of the blessed grave of our beloved Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - in the major Fiqh books of the 4 Madhahib and see for yourself what they have stated! One example per Madhhab:
- From the Hanafi Fiqh book al-Ikhtiyar li Ta'lil al-Mukhtar [by Imam al-Mawsilli (d. 683 AH)]: "Intercession intercession, o Messenger of Allah"
- From the Shafi'i Fiqh book al-Majmu' [by Imam al-Nawawi (d. 676 AH)]: "and he should make him a mean for himself and seek intercession through him unto his Lord subhanahu wa ta’ala"
- From the Maliki Fiqh book al-Qawanin al-Fiqhiyya [by Imam Ibn Juzayy (d. 741 AH)]: "and [he should] seek his intercession unto Allah"
- From the Hanbali Fiqh book al-Mughni [by Imam Ibn Qudama (d. 620 AH)]: "So I’ve come to you, asking [my Lord] for forgiveness for my sin and seeking intercession with you unto my Lord"

Look at the time these scholars passed away and calculate how many years they lived before IAW! So he was indeed believing that the Umma was upon nothing for centuries upon centuries!
It should be noted here that the seeking of intercession was practiced since the time of the Salaf al-salih and Imam Malik (d. 179 AH) explicitly recommended doing it as al-Qadhi 'Iyadh (d. 544 AH) authentically narrated from a number of his teachers. So the Umma was "upon nothing" from the very beginning according to IAW's call in reality!

3) IAW acting like a Mujtahid, denying Taqlid and regarding the difference of the scholars as a curse

Since IAW brought up issues and rulings, which no one before him has ever mentioned or issued, it necessitates him to claim Ijtihad and to deny Taqlid. The only other option is that he's claiming to receive revelation, which is outright apostasy. Whatever the case: He's a liar no matter which option he chooses!

And here we see how IAW argues how the difference of the scholars is not a mercy, but rather a curse:

وأما قول الإمام أحمد: الذي يفتي الناس يتقلد أمراً عظيماً ... إلخ، فهذا المفتي ينقل من أقوال العلماء ما هو عليه لا له....
فقول الإمام أحمد يرد على من قال: الاختلاف رحمة، لا يتجه إلا على القول بأن الاختلاف نقمة لا رحمة!!، فحينئذ يخاف على المفتي، ويتقلد أمراً عظيماً؛ هذا وجه التعظيم والتحذير في كلام أحمد، ويشهد له قوله: ينبغي لمن أفتى أن يكون عالماً بقول من تقدمه، وإلا فلا يفتي; يريد أن العلم بأقوال العلماء سبب للإصابة، ومعرفة الحق في نفس الأمر، وليس المقصود أنه يأخذ بكل قول ويفتي به، فيكون اختلافهم رحمة كما زعمه هذا....
ولو كان الاختلاف ممدوحاً ورحمة لم يكن لهذا الخوف معنى
- end of quote (from al-Durar al-Saniyya 4/97) -

So here we see that he was clearly lying in the letter to the people of al-Qassim mentioned in the beginning!

4) IAW's Takfir upon those who perform Tawassul with the righteous

Tawassul is a broad term and what is intended is more than just using the wording (!) of asking Allah ta'ala by the rank of a righteous person.

Imam Taqi al-Din al-Subki (d. 756 AH) said in his Shifa` al-Saqam on p. 357:

اعلم : أنه يَجُوزُ ، وَيَحسنُ التَّوسلُ ، والاستغاثة ، والتَّشفُع بالنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم إلى ربه سبحانه وتعالى ، وَجوازُ ذلك وَحُسنهُ ؛ من الأمور المعلُومةِ لِكُلِّ ذي دين ، المعروفة من فِعلِ الأنبياء والمرسلين ، وسِيَرِ السلف الصالحين ، والعلماء والعوام من المسلمين ، ولم يُنكِر أَحدٌ ذلك من أهل الأديان ، ولا سُمعَ به في زمن من الأزمان ، حتى جاء ابن تيمية ؛ فَتكلَّم في ذلك بكلام يُلَبِّسُ فيه على الضعفاء الأغمار ، وابتدع ما لم يُسبق إليه في سائر الأعصار ، ولهذا طعن في الحكاية التي تَقدّم ذكرها عن مَالكٍ رحم الله تعالى ، فإنَّ فيها قول مَالكٍ رحم الله تعالى للمنصور : « استشفع به » . ونحن قد بَيّنا صِحّتها ، ولذلك أدخلنا الاستغاثة في هذا الكتاب ، لما تَعرَّضَ إليها مع الزيارة ، وحسبُكَ أنَّ إنكار ابن تيمية للاستغاثة والتوسل قَولٌ لم يقله عالمٌ قبله ، وصار به بين أهل الإسلام مُثْلهٌ

Know, that it is permissable and good to perform Tawassul, Istighathah (seeking aid) and Tashaffu’ (seeking intercession) through the Prophet – sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam – unto his Lord subhanahu wa ta’ala. The permissibility and desirability of this is from the matters that are well known among all those who have religion, and well known from the actions of the Prophets and Messengers, and the way of the righteous Salaf, the scholars, and the layman among the Muslims.
No one has denied this from the people of religion, nor has anyone heard about [denying] this in any time until Ibn Taymiyyah came: So he spoke regarding this with words that deceive the weak inexperienced ones and he innovated that which no one from the eras before held.
This is the reason why he attacked the story which has been already mentioned from [Imam] Malik – may Allah have mercy upon him – for it contains the statement of [Imam] Malik to al-Mansur: “Seek intercession through him”. And we’ve already made its health/correctness clear.
And this is why we’ve also mentioned Istighathah in this book, because of the attack against it together with [the attack against] the visiting [of the grave of the Prophet – sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam -] and it should be enough for you [to know] that the denunciation of Ibn Taymiyyah against [performing] Istighathah and Tawassul is a statement that no scholar before him had said and he created dissent among the people of Islam by it.
- end of quote -

Then on p. 358:

وأقول : إنَّ التَّوسُل بالنبي صل الله عليه وسلم جَائزٌ في كل حَالٍ ، قبل خَلْقِه ، وبعد خَلْقِهِ ، في مُدَّةِ حياته في الدنيا ، وبعد موته في مُدّة البرزخ ، وبعد البعث في عرصات القيامة والجنة ، وهو على ثلاثة أنواع

I say: Tawassul through the Prophet – sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam – is permissible in every situation, [both] before his creation and after it, in the time of his life in this world, as well as after his death in the period of the Barzakh, and after the resurrection on the day of reckoning and paradise and it’s of three types.
- end of quote -

النوع الأول : أن يتوسَّل به ، بمعنى : أنَّ طالب الحاجة يسألُ الله تعالى به ، أو بجاهه ، أو ببركته ، فيجوز ذلك في الأحوال الثلاثة ، وقد وَرد في كُلٍّ منها خَبرٌ صحيح

The first type [of Tawassul]: That a person performs Tawassul through him, meaning that the one that seeks the fulfillment of his need asks Allah ta’ala by him or by his rank or his blessings. This is permissible in all three situations and regarding all of them there are authentic reports.
- end of quote -

On p. 372:

النوع الثاني : التوسل به ، بمعنى طلب الدعاء منه ، وذلك في أحوال

The second type [of Tawassul]: Performing Tawassul throuh him, meaning that one asks him (the Prophet, sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) for supplication (Du’a`) and it’s in the [following] situations.
- end of quote -

On p. 383:

النوع الثالث من التوسل : ان يُطلبَ منه ذلك الأمر المقصود ، بمعنى أنه صلى الله عليه وسلم قادرٌ على التَّسبُّب فيه ؛ بسؤاله ربه وشفاعته إليه ، فيعود إلى « النوع الثاني » في المعنى ، وإن كانت العبارة مختلفة

The third type of Tawassul: That one requests the wanted thing from him (the Prophet), with the meaning that he – sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam – is able to be an intermediary mean in this by asking his Lord and by his intercession unto Him. So it goes back to the second type [of Tawassul] (and that is to ask for supplication) in meaning, even if the expression [used] is different.
- end of quote -

(You can read the full article here: Imam Taqi Al-Din Al-Subki on Tawassul, Istighatha and Tashaffu’)

The first type of Tawassul is not Shirk according to IAW. As for the second and third type, then both of it is "polytheism that throws one out of the religion" according to IAW and this is famous from his way. So he was lying again.

5) IAW's attack against al-Busiri's (d. 696 AH) poem and accusing him of "Shirk akbar"

Al-Busiri was the author of the famous Qasida al-Burda and the Imam of those who praised the Messenger of Allah (sallallalhu 'alayhi wa sallam) in poetry. Let's see what IAW and his followers think of him.

From al-Durar al-Saniyya 1/50:

وأما قوله: قال: شرف الدين البوصيري، فذكر هذا اللقب هنا ظاهر في مراغمة عباد الله الموحدين المؤمنين، الذين أنكروا قوله في منظومته المشهورة:
يا أكرم الخلق ما لي من ألوذ به ... سواك ...الأبيات
وقد عرف وعهد هذا وأمثاله عن الرجل، ونقل عنه ما هو أبلغ وأشد من هذا
- end of quote -

Look how even the very passage "O most honorable of the creation..." is mentioned!

Here we see how the very passage in question is mentioned again and how it's claimed that it's "Shirk akbar" (from al-Durar al-Saniyya 2/111):

واعلم رحمك الله أن أشياء من أنواع الشرك الأكبر وقع فيه بعض المصنفين على جهالة، لم يفطن له، من ذلك، قوله في البردة:
يا أكرم الخلق ما لي من ألوذ به ... سواك عند حلول الحادث العمم
وفي الهمزية جنس هذا وغيره أشياء كثيرة; وهذا من الدعاء، الذي هو من العبادة التي لا تصلح إلا لله وحده; وإن جادلك بعض المشركين بجلالة هذا القائل، وعلمه وصلاحه، وقال بجهله: كيف هذا؟ فقل له: أعلم منه وأجل، أصحاب موسى، الذين اختارهم الله وفضلهم على العالمين، حين قالوا: {يَا مُوسَى اجْعَلْ لَنَا إِلَهاً كَمَا لَهُمْ آلِهَةٌ} [سورة الأعراف آية: 138] ، فإذا خفي هذا على بني إسرائيل، مع جلالتهم وعلمهم وفضلهم; فما ظنك بغيرهم؟
- end of quote -

And here from IAW's Kitab al-Tawhid:

الثالثة: قوله صلى الله عليه وسلم: (أجعلتني لله نداً؟) فكيف بمن قال:
يا أكرم الخلق ما لي من ألوذ به سواك . . . . والبيتين بعده!!
- end of quote -

And here from his Khariji progeny (from al-Durar al-Saniyya 11/299):

من عبد الرحمن بن حسن، وابنه عبد اللطيف، إلى عبد الخالق الحفظي، سلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته.
وبعد: فقد بلغنا من نحو سنتين، اشتغالكم ببردة البوصيري، وفيها من الشرك الأكبر ما لا يخفى، من ذلك قوله:
يا أكرم الخلق ما لي من ألوذ به *** سواك عند حلول الحادث العمم
- end of quote -

Result: He's a liar! One who lies again and again and again!

6) His intention to destroy the dome of the Messenger of Allah, sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam

Does that even deserve an response? It's a famous thing that he intended this and his followers to this very day have Fatawa and statements supporting exactly this! In fact when his supporters first invaded Madina al-munawwara they did try to destroy it, but failed!
So may Allah punish every lying Khariji!

As for the issue of replacing the waterspout of the Ka'ba, then I don't know what his position was on this. It may be possible that this was the position of some of his followers, who were more ignorant than himself.

7) IAW disallowing travelling in order to visit the blessed Prophetic grave

Again: Does this even deserve any response? This is famous from his way and till this day ALL his followers believe in this!

8) Takfir upon the one swearing by other than Allah ta'ala?

It may be possible that this is not his position, but rather the position of some of his ignorant followers, who are even more idiotic than him.

9) IAW's Takfir of Ibn al-Faridh (d. 632 AH) and Ibn 'Arabi (d. 638 AH)

It should be noted that these two scholars were problematic personalities - just like for example Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) was a problematic personality - and that some scholars defended them and stated that they didn't intend what is ascribed to them from disbelief and other attacked them or even made Takfir upon them.
IAW however denies to have made Takfir upon them, while he at the same time had openly made Takfir upon them in his works as already shown under the 4th point of the results of Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab's ignorance and extreme ideas on a theoretical level:

ولهذا آل هذا القول ببعضهم إلى إنكار الرب تبارك وتعالى، كما هو مذهب ابن عربي، وابن الفارض، وفئام من الناس، لا يحصيهم إلا الله
- end of quote (from al-Durar al-Saniyya 1/113) -

وأما أنواعه، فمنها: الشرك في الربوبية، وهو نوعان: شرك التعطيل كشرك فرعون، وشرك الذي حاج إبراهيم في ربه، ومنه شرك طائفة ابن عربي...ا
- end of quote (from al-Durar al-Saniyya 2/307) -

فمن أهل العلم من أساء به الظن، بهذه الألفاظ وأمثالها، ومنهم من تأول ألفاظه، وحملها على غير ظاهرها، وأحسن فيه الظن. ومن أهل العلم والدين من أجرى ما صدر منه على ظاهره، وقال: هذه الأشعار ونحوها، تتضمن مذهب أهل الاتحاد من القائلين بوحدة الوجود والحلول، كقصيدته المسماة: نظم السلوك، ومثل كثير من شعر ابن إسرائيل، وابن عربي، وابن سبعين، والتلمساني، وما يوافقها من النثر الموافق لمعناها.
فهذه الأشعار من فهمها، علم أنها كفر وإلحاد، وأنها مناقضة للعقل والدين...ا
- end of quote (from al-Durar al-Saniyya 3/21) -

والكلام الآن فيما عليه أهل وحدة الوجود ابن عربي، وابن الفارض، والتلمساني، وإخوانهم، لأنه الذي تضمنه السؤال; فنقول: مذهب هذه الطائفة الملعونة أن الرب تعالى وتقدس هو عين الوجود، ويصرحون في كتبهم: أن وجود الرب هو عين وجود السماوات، والأرض، والجبال، والبحار، وجميع الموجودات هي عين الرب، عندهم! فليس عندهم رب وعبد! ولا خالق ومخلوق!!ا
- end of quote (from al-Durar al-Saniyya 3/347-348) -

ولا يقول: إن قول أهل السنة والجماعة كقول ابن عربي وأصحابه -أهل وحدة الوجود - إلا من يقول: إن قول موسى عليه السلام وقول فرعون اللعين سواء; وما عليه أبو جهل وإخوانه نظير ما عليه الرسول وأصحابه، سبحانك هذا بهتان عظيم
- end of quote (from al-Durar al-Saniyya 3/355) -

وهذا اشتهر عنه أنه على دين ابن عربي، الذي ذكر العلماء أنه أكفر من فرعون...ا
- end of quote (from al-Durar al-Saniyya 10/25) -

وقد ذكر أهل العلم: أن ابن عربي من أئمة أهل مذهب الاتحادية، وهم أغلظ كفرا من اليهود والنصارى..ا
- end of quote (from al-Durar al-Saniyya 10/54) -

10) IAW burning the works Dala`il al-Khayrat and Rawdh al-Rahayin

IAW had a problem with everything that is somehow connected to the Messenger of Allah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - and his praise! This implies some sort of enmity towards the Messenger of Allah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - that he seemed to hide inside himself!

Let us first see how his Khariji son (the same as above mentioned) says that Rawdh al-Rayahin let's people "fall into Shirk":

ولا نأمر بإتلاف شيء من المؤلفات أصلا، إلا ما اشتمل على ما يوقع الناس في الشرك، كروض الرياحين
- end of quote (from al-Durar al-Saniyya 1/288 AH) -

And here IAW himself admits that he indeed burned (!) Dala`il al-Khayrat and gives an idiotic reasoning for it:

وأما دلائل الخيرات، وما قيل عني أني حرقتها فله سبب، وذلك أني أشرت على من قبل نصيحتي من إخواني: أن لا يصير في قلبه أجل من كتاب الله، ولا يظن أن القراءة فيه أفضل من قراءة القرآن. وأما إحراقها، والنهي عن الصلاة على النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم بأي لفظ كان، فنسبة هذا إلي من الزور والبهتان
- end of quote (from al-Durar al-Saniyya 1/288 AH) -

And here IAW's Khariji grandson affirms that IAW indeed burned Dala`il al-Khayrat:

وقد قال بعض العلماء، لما قيل له: إن الشيخ محمد بن عبد الوهاب أحرق دلائل الخيرات ، استحسن ذلك فقال:
وحرق عمدا للدلائل دفترا ... أصاب ففيها ما يجل عن العد
غلو نهى عنه الرسول وفرية ... بلا مرية فاتركه إن كنت تستهدي
أحاديث لا تعزى إلى عالم فلا ... تساوي فليسا إن رجعت إلى النقد
- end of quote (from al-Durar al-Saniyya 11/492 AH) -

RESULT: IAW was lying in the letter to the people of al-Qassim.
This is something that he does every now and then out of political, strategical or other reasons. So he's a liar and not to be trusted in any way or form!

Last point: The one who made these points against him was the Hanbali Shaykh Ibn Suhaym, right? IAW did not just perform Takfir upon him (see the 9th point of the theoretical results), but upon the WHOLE 'Aniza tribe (the tribe of the Shaykh in question!) (see the 19th point)!! So this is yet another proof that IAW was a Khariji Takfiri!

Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 28-06-20, 04:52 PM.
Leave a comment:
Abu Sulayman replied

27-06-20, 09:13 PM
Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post

- When it comes to mentioning the issue one wants to the Messenger of Allah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - (which is the third type of Tawassul according to Imam al-Subki (d. 756 AH)) or to ask for his aid (i.e. Istighatha!), then you'll find scholars of the past allowing this also long as ones creed is correct and one does not ask in the manner one asks Allah ta'ala. Some later scholars however disallowed this to the laymen, because of the fear of misunderstandings and because of the excesses that some people committed in this context (see the Rafidha for example!). So Imam Ibn Taymiyya had actually a point here in disallowing it. He called it as "Shirk", but did not intend real Shirk that throws one out of the religion. What is interesting the know is that this view was also supported by Shaykh Sulayman bin 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1208/1210 AH), yet his brother (i.e. IAW) made Takfir upon him and upon the people of Huraymila for following his Anti-Takfir stance (as is clear from Mufid al-Mustafid of IAW)!

Some of the statements of Shaykh Sulayman bin 'Abd al-Wahhab in response to the ignorance of his brother IAW

Shaykh Sulayman bin 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1208/1210 AH) was a Hanbali scholar and the Qadhi (judge) of Huraymila (a township in Najd), who were one of the early supporters of his brothers (i.e. Muhammad bin 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH)) call.
He advised them to fear Allah ta'ala and not to take part in the killing of Muslims that his brother was calling them to and wrote a letter, which he named as Fasl al-Khitab fil Radd 'ala Muhammad bin 'Abd al-Wahhab. This letter was filled with strong proofs such that the people of Huraymila thereafter indeed stopped supporting IAW and his commands to kill the inhabitants of all other cities of the region. This letter was sent to 'Uyayyna. The person who transported the letter was killed by the followers of his brother on the command of IAW himself. IAW also made Takfir upon his brother and the people of Huraymila in his Mufid al-Mustafid. His followers thereafter attacked the township for their "apostasy" and killed many!
This shows to you that IAW was unable to respond to the refutations of the scholars and therefore chose to make Takfir and simply kill his opponents. That this is the bahaviour of criminals and not scholars is not needed to be stated here or explained any further.

This letter was later on printed under the name al-Sawa'iq al-Ilahiyya fil Radd 'ala al-Wahhabiyya.

The brother Pluma from the IA Forums (it does not exist anymore) had a very interesting thread with the name IAW and declaring takfîr on a whole population : the case of Al-Huraymila (click on the name to see the cached thread, it's really very informative and he uses Najdi sources!), where he also brought quotes from the book (and I've taken the quotes that will follow from him).

So let's see what the Shaykh Sulayman said:
After mentioning the conditions of Ijtihad he said:

وانما ذكرت هذه المقدمة لتكون قاعدة يرجع اليها فيما نذكره فان اليوم ابتلى الناس بمن ينتسب الى الكتاب والسنة ويستنبط من علومهما ولا يبالي من خالفه واذا طلبت منه ان يعرض كلامه على اهل العلم لم يفعل بل يوجب على الناس الاخذ بقوله ويمفهومه ومن خالفه فهو عنده كافر هذا وهو لم يكن فيه خصلة واحدة من خصال اهل الاجتهاد ولا والله عشر واحدة

I have mentionned this introduction so it will be a rule by which we will judge in what we mention because in this day the people have been affected by one who is associated to the book and the sunna and draws conclusions from its sciences. He is apathetic to the one who differs with him and when it is requested to that he submits his statement to the people of knowledge he doesn't do it, rather he imposes on the people that they take his words and his understanding and that whoever differs with him, then he is a kafir, even though he doesn't have one attribute from the attributes of the people of ijtihad... by Allah, he does not even have one tenth of an attribute of ijtihâd
- end of quote -

He said after the mentioning of some Ayat on Shirk:

فنقول نعم كل هذا حق يجب الايمان به ولكن من اين لكم ان المسلم الذي يشهد ان لا اله الا الله وان محمدا عبده ورسوله اذا دعى غائباً او ميتاً او نذر له او ذبح لغير الله او تمسح بقبر او اخذ من ترابه ان هذا هو الشرك الاكبر الذي من فعله حبط عمله وحل ماله ودمه وانه الذي اراد الله سبحانه من هذه الاية وغيرها في القرآن فان قلتم فهمنا ذلك من الكتاب والسنة قلنا لا عبرة بمفهومكم ولا يجوزلكم ولا لمسلم الاخذ بمفهومكم فان الامة مجمعة كما تقدم ان الاستنباط مرتبة اهل الاجتهاد المطلق ومع هذا لو اجتمعت شروط الاجتهاد في رجل لم يجب على احد الاخذ بقوله دون نظر

So we say yes this true and we have to accept it and have faith in it but where did you get that the muslim, who testifies that there is no divinity but Allah and that Muhammad is his slave, when he calls an absent or a dead, or vows to him, or makes a sacrifice to other than Allah or takes some of his soil that this is the great shirk for which the perpretrator loses his deeds and his wealth and blood becomes permissible, and that this is what Allah meant by these verses and others in the quran. If you say that this from your understanding of the quran and sunna, we say there is nothing to be taken in account from your understanding and it is not permissible for you or for a muslim to take this understanding because the ummat has agreed as we have explained that drawing rules is one of the degrees of the mujtahid mutlaq, and even if you reached the level of ijtihad it is not obligatory for anyone to follow your position without verifiying it.
- end of quote -

قال الشيخ تقي الدين من اوجب تقليد الامام بعينه دون نظر انه يستتاب فان تاب والا قتل انتهى وان قلتم اخذنا ذلك من كلام بعض اهل العلم كابن تيمية وابن القيم لانهم سموا ذلك شركاً (قلنا) هذا حق ونوافقكم على تقليد الشيخين ان هذا شرك ولكن هم لم يقولوا كما قلتم ان هذا شرك اكبر يخرج من الاسلام وتجري على كل بلد هذا فيها احكام اهل الردة بل من لم يكفرهم عندكم فهو كافر تجري عليه احكام اهل الردة ولكنهم رحمهم الله ذكروا ان هذا شرك وشددوا فيه ونهوا عنه ولكن ما قالوا كما قلتم ولا عشر معشاره ولكنكم اخذتم من قولهم ماجاز لكم دون غيره بل في كلامهم رحمهم الله مايدل على ان هذا الافاعيل شرك اصغر وعلى تقدير ان في بعض افراده ماهو شرك اكبر على حسب حال قائله ونيته فهم ذكروا في بعض مواضع من كلامهم ان هذا لا يكفر حتى تقوم عليه الحجة الذي يكفر تاركها كما يأتي في كلامهم ان شاء الله مفصلا ولكن المطلوب منكم هو الرجوع الى كلام اهل العلم

Sheikh Taqi Al-Din (Shaykh Al-Islâm Ibn Taymiyya) said: Whoever renders obligatory the following of an Imam in particular without verification then he is asked to repent or else he is killed, end of his words. If you say that you took this from the speech of some people of knowledge like Ibn Taymiya and Ibn Al-Qayyim because they called this shirk, we say it is the truth and we agree with you in doing their taqlîd the two sheikhs and that this is shirk but they did not say as you did that is shirk akbar which expells from the religion of islam and for which a region is declared a region of apostasy when that sort of act takes place in their region. In fact, whoever doesn't make takfir of them, then he is a kafir for you and the rulings of apostasy apply to him! But they said this is shirk and they were hard on it, they forbade it but they did not say what you said nor one tenth of what you said. Rather there is in their speech what indicates that these actions are shirk asghar. Let's suppose that, among some individuals, it is shirk akbar then it depends on the situation and intention of the individual because they mentionned in some places of their statements that takfir is not made until the proof is established which expels the one who abandons the proof as will be shown, insha Allah, with details.
What is requested from you is that you return to the statements of the scholars.
- end of quote -

He said regarding asking other than Allah ta'ala:

واما (السؤال) من غير الله فصله الشيخ تقي الدين رحمه الله ان كان السئل يسئال من المسئول مثل غفران الذنوب وادخال الجنة والنجاة من الناروانزال المطر وانبات الشجر وامثال ذلك مما هو من خصائص الربوبية فهذا شرك وضلال يستتاب صاحبه فان تاب والاقتل ولكن الشخص المعين الذي فعل ذلك لا يكفر حتى تقوم عليه الحجة الذي يكفر تاركها كما يأتي بيان كلامه في ذلك ان شاء الله تعالى

As for the request (du'a) from other than Allah, then the shaykh Taqi Al-Din rahimahullah explained that if the one who request from the requested something like forgiving sins, entering paradise, protection from the hell-fire, giving rain or the germination of trees and things like that which are from the specificities of Lordship then it is shirk and Dalal, the one involved in it is asked to repent either he repents or is killed. But the individual who does that is not expelled from Islâm until the proof which expels the one who abandons it is established as will be mentionned insha Allah ta'âla
- end of quote -

(فان قلت) ذكر عنه في الاقناع انه قال من جعل بينه وبين الله وسائط يدعوهم ويسئالهم ويتوكل عليهم كفر اجماعاً (قلت) هذا حق ولكن البلاء من عدم فهم كلام اهل العلم لوتأملتم العبارة تأملا تاما لعرفتم انكم تأولتم العبارة على غير تأويلها ولكن هذا من العجب تتركون كلامه الواضح وتذهبون الى عبارة مجملة تستنبطون منها ضد كلام اهل العلم وتزعمون ان كلامكم ومفهومكم اجماع هل سبقكم الى مفهومكم من هذه العبارة احد ياسبحان الله ماتخشون الله (ولكن) انظر الى لفظ العبارة وهو قوله يدعوهم
ويتوكل عليهم ويسئالهم كيف جاء بواو العطف وقرن بين الدعاء والتوكل والسؤآل

If you say what was mentionned from him (Shaykh Al-Islâm) in Al-Iqnâ' that he said : Whoever takes an intermediary between himself and Allah, invoking them, asking them and relying on them has disbelieved by consensus.
I say: It is true but the catastrophe comes from your misunderstanding of the statements of people of knowledge. If you had pondered attentively the wording you would have known that you have misinterpreted it. What is strange with you is that you leave clear words of scholars and you use a resumed statement which goes against what the people of knowledge said and you pretend that your interpretation is a consensus. Has anyone preceded you in your understanding? Ya subhan Allah, don't you fear Allah? But look at the wording and it is his word : "invokes them and relies on them and asks them" look how the word "and" of inclusion came and he joined between the invocation, reliance and asking.
- end of quote -

He said regarding Tabarruk with graves (not Tabarruk in general) and Tawaf around graves:

(واما) التبرك والتمسح بالقبور واخذ التراب منها والطواف بها فقد ذكره اهل العلم فبعضهم عده في المكروهات وبعضهم عده في المحرمات ولم ينطق واحد منهم بان فاعل ذلك مرتد كما قلتم انتم بل تكفرون من لم يكفر فاعل ذلك فالمسئالة مذكورة في كتاب الجنائز في فصل الدفن وزيارة الميت فان اردت الوقوف على ماذكرت لك فطالع الفروع والاقناع وغيرهما من كتب الفقه

As for Tabarruk, and rubbing the graves as well as taking from its soil and making tawâf around it, so among the people of knowledge some have mentionned these actions among the disliked things and others among the forbidden things and none of them ever said that the one who doing it is an apostate (as you said) and so is the one refusing to make his takfir. This topic was mentioned in the section of funerals under the subsection of burial and visiting the dead. If you want to find what I mentioned refer to Al-Furu, Al-Iqna and other books of fiqh.
- end of quote -

He said the following regarding chain-Takfir (which his brother was famous for doing!):

فان قلتم مقتدون ببعض اهل العلم في ان هذه الافعال شرك (قلنانعم) ونحن نوافقكم على ان من هذه الافعال مايكون شركا ولكن من اين اخذتم من كلام اهل العلم ان هذا هو الشرك الاكبر الذي ذكر الله سبحانه في القرأن والذي يحل ما صاحبه ودمه وتجري عليه احكام المرتدين وان من شك في كفره فهو كافر

If you say that you are following some of the people of knowledge who said these actions are shirk, then we say yes and we agree with you that among some of these actions is what is shirk but where did you take from the people of knowledge that this is the great shirk which Allah has mentionned in the quran and the one which allows the blood of its doer, that the rulings of the apostates apply to him and that whoever doubts about his kufr is a kafir
- end of quote -

Regarding the "proofs" his brother uses:

ولكن من اعجب العجب انكم تستدلون بها على خلاف كلام صاحبها وعلى خلاف كلام من اوردها ونقلها في كتبه على خصوصيات كلامهم في هذه الاشياء التي تكفرون بها بل ذكروا النذر والذبح وبعض الدعاء وبعضها عدوه في المكروهات كالتبرك والتمسح واخذ تراب القبور للتبرك والطواف بها وقد ذكر العلماء في كتبهم منهم صاحب الاقناع واللفظ له قال ويكره المبيت عند القبر وتجصيصه وتزويقه وتخليقه وتقبيله والطواف به وتبخيره وكتابة الرقاع اليه ودسها في الانقاب والاستشفاء بالتربة من الاسقام لان ذلك كله من البدع

From the strangest of things is that you use it (the word), in another way than he said it and in contradiction with how it was reported from him and mentionned. In particular these things which you make takfir like vows, sacrifices, some duaas and some of these things he mentionned them among the disliked things like tabarruk, rubbing, taking from the soil of the grave for tabarruk and tawaf around it. The scholars mentioned in their books among them the writer of Al-Iqna and the word is as follows, he said: It is disliked to sleep around the grave, to plaster it, to adorn it, to kiss it, to make tawaf around it, to incense it, to write something on it, to shove a whole in it, to seek cure from its soil for the sick because all of this is an innovation...
- end of quote -

Imagine that after the Shaykh Sulayman clarified all the above - and more! - IAW still had the audacity to continue his mass-Takfir and kept on killing Muslims and in fact made Takfir upon his own brother and the people of Huraymila and killed many of them! Why? Because they didn't agree with his Takfir!
Leave a comment:
Abu Sulayman replied

27-06-20, 07:43 PM
Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post

Are you familiar with Shaykh Yasir Qadhi's reccent denounciation of Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab and the Najdi Da'wah?

...

"The differences between Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Abdul Wahhab - and there are profound differences - of them, the most important one, is that Ibn Taymiyyah did not make Takfir of his opponents who did the same thing the opponents of MIAW did and he (MIAW) made Takfir" [11:35]

"How he viewed the Ottomon Empire and the entire Ummah as being outside the folds of Islam - even if there's Uder bil-Jahil, but they're no longer Muslim. Why? Because of things he considered to be Kufr Akbar & Shirk Akbar and the majority of the Ummah did not consider to be Kufr Akbar & Shirk Akbar" [10:34]

"At that stage I was still under the presumption that Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Abdul Wahhab represent the same trend. Whereas now I differentiate between the two... So, I'm not pro calling out to the dead; it's Haram to call out to the dead. It is a stepping stone to Shirk. It is an evil Bid'ah. But to consider anyone who does that to automatically be comitting Kufr Akbar - no, that is not correct. And that is the position I argue is the position of Ibn Taymiyyah" [14:52]

I'm aware that he has denounced Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH), but I've not watched any of his speeches because I don't listen to his talks.

The quotes that you brought from him however above are spot on!
To act as if Imam Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) and IAW had the same understanding is actually an insult to Ibn Taymiyya! Imam Ibn Taymiyya was an ocean in the Islamic sciences, while this IAW did not even know some of the basic Islamic sciences.
Yes Ibn Taymiyya had some differences in opinion with the scholars of his time and some of his works contain problematic statements, but he would not make Takfir upon his opponents, nor call for their killing - quite unlike IAW! - and there is clearly a differentiation in his statements concerning Shirk and Kufr.
In fact all of the Hanbali scholars - like Ibn 'Afaliq (d. 1164 AH), Ibn Suhaym (d. 1181 AH), Ibn Fayruz (d. 1216 AH), etc - who responded to IAW respected Ibn Taymiyya and believed that IAW had no idea how to understand Ibn Taymiyya in the correct manner. IAW even mentions specifically the 'Allama Ibn Fayruz and how he would put special importance on the words of Imam Ibn Taymiyya, yet he makes Takfir upon him in the very same quote!
It should be however noted here that basically none of the major Hanbali scholars were followers of Ibn Taymiyya and only respected him a scholar within the Madhhab and did not turn his statements into the judge on everything.

The scholars in the time of IAW basically told him this: "Some of what you call as Shirk and Kufr, is forbidden and only becomes Shirk or Kufr in specific circumstances. Other things that you call as such is only disliked and not even near to Shirk! Then there are things that you call as Shirk, which the absolute majority of scholars have allowed or even recommended! You're asked to adhere to the statements of the scholars and you're not a Mujtahid! You're not even a scholar! You're not allowed to do Takfir upon the people for these issues! What is worse is that you even make Takfir upon those who don't agree with your Takfir!"

If you recheck classical source you'll for example see that they even differentiate in a major issue like prostrating to other than Allah ta'ala! They say it's forbidden and a major sin and in some of its forms it's disbelief. As for other issues:
- When it comes to Tawaf around graves, then they said it's forbidden.
- When it comes to Tabarruk, then they allowed it (!) and regarded some forms as disallowed or disliked.
- When it comes to supplicating to Allah ta'ala near the graves of the righteous, then this is something that the scholars would do themselves.
- When it comes to the issue of asking Allah ta'ala by the rank of the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - (which is the first type of Tawassul according to Imam al-Subki (d. 756 AH)), then this was allowed by all scholars, because it's clearly supported by the Sunna! Only Ibn Taymiyya disagreed on this issue and this was clearly a mistake on his part. In fact he admits that the Hadith of the blind man - which contains clear Tawassul! - was acted upon by the Salaf al-salih in his Qa'ida Jalila.
- When it comes to asking the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - to pray for you (which is the second type of Tawassul according to Imam al-Subki (d. 756 AH)) or to ask for his intercession (i.e. Tashaffu'), then this was again allowed by the scholars! You just need to check the chapter regarding Hajj under the section of visiting the grave of Rasulullah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - in any major Fiqh book of any of the 4 Madhahib and you'll see them mentioning the seeking of intercession in this context! Ibn Taymiyya disagreed with this also, but did not Takfir on this issue.
- When it comes to mentioning the issue one wants to the Messenger of Allah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - (which is the third type of Tawassul according to Imam al-Subki (d. 756 AH)) or to ask for his aid (i.e. Istighatha!), then you'll find scholars of the past allowing this also long as ones creed is correct and one does not ask in the manner one asks Allah ta'ala. Some later scholars however disallowed this to the laymen, because of the fear of misunderstandings and because of the excesses that some people committed in this context (see the Rafidha for example!). So Imam Ibn Taymiyya had actually a point here in disallowing it. He called it as "Shirk", but did not intend real Shirk that throws one out of the religion. What is interesting the know is that this view was also supported by Shaykh Sulayman bin 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1208/1210 AH), yet his brother (i.e. IAW) made Takfir upon him and upon the people of Huraymila for following his Anti-Takfir stance (as is clear from Mufid al-Mustafid of IAW)!

Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 27-06-20, 07:46 PM.
Leave a comment:
aMuslimForLife replied

27-06-20, 07:30 PM
Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post

It's interesting how even some of the contemporaries of MIAW recognized that his Da'wah was inconsistent with Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya(ra). His brother Sulayman Ibn Abdul Wahhab(ra) alluded to this point in the refutations he wrote against him and his movement. What is unfortunate in our times is how most people are under the impression that Ibn Taymiyyah and Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab shared the exact same beliefs and methodology. This widely held misconception stems from the influences of the Najdi Da'wah through the more subtle avenue of Salafiyya. Had the contemporary Salafi movement never been formed, then the generic followers of Ibn Taymiyya would have identified themselves as Atharis and remained neutral in how they judged individual scholars/movements.

The inherent flaw of the contemporary Salafi movement is that it was founded on the radical teachings of the 12th century reformist Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab. Regardless if anyone claims that Salafiyyah is a theoretical Manhaj and not a Firqa based on personalities. The fact of the matter is that the most reputable scholars of the movement were unanimously in favour of MIAW's ideaology. What this means is that it would pratically take a miracle for us to witness an actual reformation of the Salafi Aqeedah. Not only do the Salafis hold their senior scholars in very high-esteem, but the amount of humbe pie the "saved sect" would have to endure might literally be too much to swallow. We can even see examples of this in the reaction of their communities and Du'at in the West. How is it possible that Yasir Qadhi and others could make such heavy allegations against MIAW without having an equally persuasive response from one of his faithful followers? How does it make sense to read in the faults of Yasir Qadhi on borderline trivial matters and remain silent when the orthodoxy of one of your most influential figures is put to question? What does the average Salafi rely on other than Taqlid to justify taking his/her religion from someone with so many question marks over them?

I don't think there were any generic followers of Ibn Taymiyyah pre-MIAW. MIAW revived the creed of Ibn Taymiyyah. One of my problems with the creed of Ibn Taymiyyah, is that I don't think his creed was a standard creed taught in traditional Hanbali circles. I think when Ibn Taymiyyah died, his creed died with him, only to be revived by MIAW. Ibn Taymiyyah's creed may have been taught in a higher creedal curriculum, for Hanbali scholars who specialized in Hanbali Aqida within the madhab, as part of comparative Hanbali creeds which would have included any divergent creeds from the main Hanbali creed such as Ibn Jawzi, Ibn Aqil, Abu Yala, and others.

Ibn Taymiyyah's creed is complex and isn't the creed of the Salafus Saleh. Imam Mustafa ibn Ahmad Al Shatti al Hanbali said, "They (Najdi movement) claim advanced juridical reasoning and use Shaykh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah alone as an advocate for themselves. The very Imam exited from the Hanbali school in a number of areas in which he is isolated, and that would be tantamount to claiming advanced juridical reasoning (mujtihad Mutlaq). (1) The only problem is he never systematised these points as a separate legal school, as the four legal schols were written down, established and systematically discussed." (2) (The Divine Texts - Al Nuqul al Shariyyah fi al Raddial al Wahabiyyah by Mustafa Ibn Ahmad al Shatti al Hanbali)

(1) Shaykh Abu Jafar al Hanbali comments, "There were some 11 or more issues in which Imam Ibn Taymiyyah contradicted the school and breached consensus. These include:

1) The knowability of the Essence of Allah in this life;
2) the knowability of the names and attributes of Allah in this and Hereafter;
3) the infallibility of the prophets;
4) the abiding nature of the Great Fire;
5) the qualities of absolute ijithad;
6) three divorces in one sitting;
7) the intercession of the prophets, pious and saints;
8) visiting the graves and setting out on travel to them;
9) whether or not previous revelations were corrupted in nature or interpretation;
10) whether the world created from nothing or was eternally existent;
11) the state of the dead.

These and other issues are known by his contemporaries to have been breaches by Imam Ibn Taymiyyah."

(2) Shaykh Abu Jafar al Hanbali comments, "The author makes a number of points worth considering.

1) Imam Ibn Taymiyyah exited from the Hanbali school in some issues, which puts him outside the foundational principles under which he is restricted due to his not being an absolute mujitahid.
2) His doing this would be tantamount to setting up or claiming absolute ijithad.
3) If he had set up a separate school, he left no laid own principles of such a school.
4) There were no students who were licensed and continued to pass it down unbroken.
When this is the case, how could those who came after him, who were not even qualified, lay claim to something that is not systemized or left to posterity?"

According Abu Jafar Al Hanbali, who has studied traditionally with Hanbali scholars, there is no unbroken chain of transmitters of Ibn Taymiyyah's work. This leaves his works unusable, from the perspective of traditional Sunni Islam, because in traditional Sunni Islam everything is based on Isnad.

The importance of isnad is illustrated in this hadith.

The Messenger of Allah, sallahu alayhi wa salam, said, "There shall not cease to be a group from amongst my Ummah upon the truth. Those who forsake them will not be able to harm them, until the command of Allah comes." (Muslim)

Abdullah Ibn Mubarak (d181) said, "According to me the isnad is from the Religion. And if it were not for the isnad, whoever wished could have said whatever he wished." (Sahih)

Allah says, "Indeed, We revealed to you the remembrance, and We shall preserve it." (15:9)

You asked me once, why am I on this side of the fence?

Irregardless of the imperfections I may see in this madhab or that madhab, Allah has decided to use the scholars of four madhabs, Shafis, Malikis, Hanafis, and Hanbalis, to preserve the religion. These scholars are instrumental in the preservation of the Quran and Sunnah. And these scholars whether we agree or disagree with them on this point or that point, were Asharis, Maturidis and Atharis. They collectively are Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah, they preserved the religion. They transmitted what we know from the Salafus Saleh, in the form of these four madhabs of fiqh, and three madhabs of Aqida, through an unbroken chain of transmitters.

"And if it were not for the isnad, whoever wished could have said whatever he wished."

And Allah knows best.
1 like
Leave a comment:
AmantuBillahi replied

27-06-20, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post

'Allama Ibn Humayd al-Hanbali: Praising the father and brother of IAW and criticizing IAW as "the founder of the mission whose evil had spread across the horizon" and his attempt to assassinate his brother

The 'Allama Ibn Humayd al-Najdi (d. 1295 AH) - the Mufti of the Hanabila in Makka! - wrote an excellent biographic work regarding Hanbali scholars (from the year 751 AH on until the time of the author) naming it as al-Suhub al-Wabila 'ala Dhara`ih al-Hanabila. It's a continuation of Imam Ibn Rajab's (d. 795 AH) Dhayl 'ala Tabaqat al-Hanabila. Even the Najdis and "Salafis" admit that it's a good work.

What's interesting is that he did not mention a single of these Wahhabi Najdis as Hanbali scholars or scholars in general (!) (with the exception of Aba Butayn (d. 1282 AH) if I remember correctly). He did however mention the father and brother of IAW.
So let's see what he said:

(415) 'Abdul Wahhab Ibn Sulayman Ibn 'Ali Ibn Musharraf al-Tamimi al-Najdi:

Shaykh 'AbdulWahhab studied fiqh with his father, the author of the famous book al-Mansak, and he also studied with others. He gained religious knowledge, and also taught it. He wrote an explanation of some religious issues and it was recognised as being well-written. He died in the year 1153 AH.

He is the father of Muhammad, who was founder of themission whose evil has spread across the horizon. However, there is an enormous difference between fatherand son. Indeed, Muhammad (ibn 'AbdulWahhab) did not reveal his mission until after the death of his father.

Some of the people whom I met have related from some of the people of knowledge narrations from the contemporaries of Shaykh 'AbdulWahhab that describe his anger with his son Muhammad. This is because he had not agreed to study the religious knowledge of his ancestors and the people of his area. His fatherhad a presentiment that something would happen because of his son Muhammad, and so he frequently said to the people, “How much evil you willsee from Muhammad.”
Subsequently, what Allah destined to happen came to pass.

Similarly, his son Sulayman, the brother of Muhammad (ibn 'Abdul Wahhab), was also opposed to his mission. He refuted himemphatically with verses of the Holy Qur’an and Ahadith, since the refuted one (Muhammad Ibn `AbdulWahhab) would not accept other than these two sources. Nor would he consider the sayings of earlier or later scholars, whoever they may be, other thanIbn Taymiyyah and his student Ibn al-Qayyim (al-Jawziyyah). This is because Muhammad Ibn `Abdul Wahhab considered their sayingsto be explicit verses which do not accept interpretation and he used them in debate with the people, despite the fact that the sayings of these two figures contradicted what he understood.

Shaykh Sulayman named his refutation against his brother ‘Fasl al-Khitab fil Radd 'ala Muhammad ibn 'Abdul Wahhab’ (The Empathic Speech on the Refutation of Muhammad Ibn 'Abdul Wahhab). However, Allah protected Sulayman from the evil and deception of his brother, whose great influence spread threat far and wide. This is because if one contradicted and refuted him, and he was unable to kill him openly, he would send someone to assassinate him in their bed or in the market-place at night, since he judged whoever contradicted him to be a blasphemer and legalised their killing.

It has been said that an insane person lived in the town and among his habits was to strike whoever he came across, even with a weapon. Muhammad gave an order that this insane man was to be given a sword and admitted to the mosquewhere his brother Shaykh Sulayman sat alone. When Shaykh Sulayman saw him, he was afraid. The insane man threw the sword from his hand and said, “O Sulayman, do not be afraid; you are of those who are saved.” He repeated this many times and this is without doubt among the karamat.
- end of quote (from translation of the biography of Shaykh 'Abd al-Wahhab from al-Suhub al-Wabila p. 675-680* -

* Just look at the footnotes added by the Wahhabi Muhaqqiq. It's funny how humiliated he feels and how he starts to accuse the 'Allama Ibn Humayd in a childish manner! Why do they even print this book, if they don't like the author?! Yes, the scholars of that time did not like your IAW in any way or form and regarded him as the ignorant Khariji that he was! Get this into your brain and do not expect respect for him!

To be continued insha`Allah...

It's interesting how even some of the contemporaries of MIAW recognized that his Da'wah was inconsistent with Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya(ra). His brother Sulayman Ibn Abdul Wahhab(ra) alluded to this point in the refutations he wrote against him and his movement. What is unfortunate in our times is how most people are under the impression that Ibn Taymiyyah and Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab shared the exact same beliefs and methodology. This widely held misconception stems from the influences of the Najdi Da'wah through the more subtle avenue of Salafiyya. Had the contemporary Salafi movement never been formed, then the generic followers of Ibn Taymiyya would have identified themselves as Atharis and remained neutral in how they judged individual scholars/movements.

The inherent flaw of the contemporary Salafi movement is that it was founded on the radical teachings of the 12th century reformist Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab. Regardless if anyone claims that Salafiyyah is a theoretical Manhaj and not a Firqa based on personalities. The fact of the matter is that the most reputable scholars of the movement were unanimously in favour of MIAW's ideaology. What this means is that it would pratically take a miracle for us to witness an actual reformation of the Salafi Aqeedah. Not only do the Salafis hold their senior scholars in very high-esteem, but the amount of humbe pie the "saved sect" would have to endure might literally be too much to swallow. We can even see examples of this in the reaction of their communities and Du'at in the West. How is it possible that Yasir Qadhi and others could make such heavy allegations against MIAW without having an equally persuasive response from one of his faithful followers? How does it make sense to read in the faults of Yasir Qadhi on borderline trivial matters and remain silent when the orthodoxy of one of your most influential figures is put to question? What does the average Salafi rely on other than Taqlid to justify taking his/her religion from someone with so many question marks over them?
Leave a comment:
AbuMubarak replied

27-06-20, 12:30 AM
Originally posted by Umm Uthmaan View Post

We get it. You do not subscribe to his dawah (Allah yarhamo). Why do you keep making threads about this subject?

There is nothing wrong with him posting all of this information in one thread

For those who agree or disagree, it is here for their perusal

this is the purpose of ummah.com to disseminate knowledge beneficial to Muslims, even if we disagree, the discussion should always be a benefit

as for muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab, his book, the three fundamentals secured my respect for him for this world and the hereafter
His being betrayed by the Sauds showed that he was firm in his stance

I am not saying he was perfect or that he may not have made major mistakes in life, (we all do)
Leave a comment:
AmantuBillahi replied

27-06-20, 12:08 AM
Are you familiar with Shaykh Yasir Qadhi's reccent denounciation of Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab and the Najdi Da'wah?

"The differences between Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Abdul Wahhab - and there are profound differences - of them, the most important one, is that Ibn Taymiyyah did not make Takfir of his opponents who did the same thing the opponents of MIAW did and he (MIAW) made Takfir" [11:35]

"How he viewed the Ottomon Empire and the entire Ummah as being outside the folds of Islam - even if there's Uder bil-Jahil, but they're no longer Muslim. Why? Because of things he considered to be Kufr Akbar & Shirk Akbar and the majority of the Ummah did not consider to be Kufr Akbar & Shirk Akbar" [10:34]

"At that stage I was still under the presumption that Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Abdul Wahhab represent the same trend. Whereas now I differentiate between the two... So, I'm not pro calling out to the dead; it's Haram to call out to the dead. It is a stepping stone to Shirk. It is an evil Bid'ah. But to consider anyone who does that to automatically be comitting Kufr Akbar - no, that is not correct. And that is the position I argue is the position of Ibn Taymiyyah" [14:52]

---

In all fairness this forum doesn't seem to have a Wahhabi representative to make an actual case in favour of Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab. However, the overall silence of the Salafi community in the West to Yasir Qadhi's heavy allegations against their 'spiritual founder' speaks volumes in my books.

From the few who publicly challenged his claims were:

"Takfīr of a Muslim is to declare him to be an unbeliever, outside the fold of Islam. This is a deliberate and orchestrated attempt by Yasir Qadhi to peddle his falsehood and ascribe to Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul-Wahhāb that which he is innocent of...

Read now the words of Muhammad Ibn Abdul-Wahhāb and judge for yourselves. Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul-Wahhāb stated:

1. “So, if we do not make takfīr upon the one who worships the shrine over the grave of Abdul-Qādir [Al-Jilāni], or the shrine over the grave of Ahmad Al-Badawi and their likes due to their ignorance, and in the absence of someone who can inform them [of their error], then how could we possibly make takfīr upon the one who does not associate partners in worship with Allah or upon the one who does not migrate to us… How free you are, O Allah, from all imperfections, the Most Perfect. Indeed this is a great slander.” [1]

2. Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul-Wahhāb (may Allah’s mercy be upon him) said in reply to Sulaymān Ibn Suhaym who accused the Shaykh of takfīr: “Indeed Allah knows that this man has fabricated lies against me by ascribing to me what I never said, and most of which have never even occurred to me! From them is his claim that I invalidate the books of the Four Madhhabs, and that I say that the people (i.e. the ummah) has been upon nothing (i.e. no Islam) for 600 years! And that I make takfīr of the one who makes Tawassul (seeks nearness to Allah) through the righteous ones [who have passed away]. He claims that I made takfīr of Al-Busayri… and that I said that whoever swears by other than Allah is an unbeliever… My answer to all of this is: ‘How free you are, O Allah, from all imperfections, the Most Perfect. Indeed this is a great slander.’ And before this, there were those who slandered the Messenger Muhammad (ﷺ) claiming that he had reviled Jesus the son of Mary (may Allah’s peace be upon them) and that he reviles the righteous. So their hearts resemble one another in their fabrication of lies and bearing false witness.” [2]

So these are the clear words of Shaykhul-Islām Muhammad Ibn Abdul-Wahhāb (may Allah’s mercy be upon him). Compare them to the lies and fabrications of this pseudo-academic, Yasir Qadhi who is merely a utensil for the enemies of Tawhīd and the Sunnah.

Shaykh Al-Islām, Muhammad Ibn Abdul-Wahhāb (may Allah’s mercy be upon him) also stated:

“And I do not testify for anyone from the Muslims [by name] that he is [definitely] in Paradise or in the Fire except for whoever Allah’s Messenger (salallāhu ‘alaihi wasallam) testified. However, I have hope for the doer of good and I fear for the sinner. And I do not accuse ANYONE from the Muslims of being an UNBELIEVER due to a sin, and NOR DO I EXPEL HIM FROM THE FOLD OF ISLAM.“ [3]

https://www.abukhadeejah.com/a-brief...-died-1206-ah/

@Abu sulayman

In a recent video the author quoted some of the phrases attributed to MIAW above and claimed that Yasir Qadhi has slandered him. What is your response to the mainstream Salafis who interpret MIAW in light of these statements and argue that Shirk was completely widespread during his era?
Leave a comment:
Abu Sulayman replied

25-06-20, 10:25 PM
Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post

15 - Events of 1165 AH according to Ibn Ghannam (student of IAW!): The people of Huraymila "apostated" and their judge was Sulayman bin 'Abd al-Wahhab, the brother of IAW

وفي شوال من هذه السنة , ارتد أهل حريملاء! , وكان قاضيها سليمان بن عبد الوهاب !! , أخا الشيخ محمد بن عبد الوهاب
- end of quote (from Tarikh Najd p. 105) -

Look at this shameless mass-Takfir! The people of Huraymila were among the very early supporter of IAW and supported him in fighting.
After the asassination of Ibn Mu'ammar INSIDE THE MOSQUE the people of Huraymila were shocked and the Shaykh Sulayman bin 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1208/1210 AH) (Hanbali scholar and brother of IAW!) advised them to stop all this killing.
They came to the realization that what they were doing was wrong and therefore stopped aiding Ibn Sa'ud and IAW!
This was enough for making Takfir upon them according to IAW! He wrote Mufid al-Mustafid specifically in order to justify Takfir against them and calls his brother a "Mulhid" (atheist!) without naming him, while admitting that they had not committed any "polytheism" (so even according to his way they had done nothing Shirki!).

Please read also this (from Najdi sources!):

Ibn Abdul Wahhab made takfir of his own brother, attempted to kill him and slaughters towns and supporters of his brother

To be continued insha`Allah...

'Allama Ibn Humayd al-Hanbali: Praising the father and brother of IAW and criticizing IAW as "the founder of the mission whose evil had spread across the horizon" and his attempt to assassinate his brother

The 'Allama Ibn Humayd al-Najdi (d. 1295 AH) - the Mufti of the Hanabila in Makka! - wrote an excellent biographic work regarding Hanbali scholars (from the year 751 AH on until the time of the author) naming it as al-Suhub al-Wabila 'ala Dhara`ih al-Hanabila. It's a continuation of Imam Ibn Rajab's (d. 795 AH) Dhayl 'ala Tabaqat al-Hanabila. Even the Najdis and "Salafis" admit that it's a good work.

What's interesting is that he did not mention a single of these Wahhabi Najdis as Hanbali scholars or scholars in general (!) (with the exception of Aba Butayn (d. 1282 AH) if I remember correctly). He did however mention the father and brother of IAW.
So let's see what he said:

(415) 'Abdul Wahhab Ibn Sulayman Ibn 'Ali Ibn Musharraf al-Tamimi al-Najdi:

Shaykh 'AbdulWahhab studied fiqh with his father, the author of the famous book al-Mansak, and he also studied with others. He gained religious knowledge, and also taught it. He wrote an explanation of some religious issues and it was recognised as being well-written. He died in the year 1153 AH.

He is the father of Muhammad, who was founder of themission whose evil has spread across the horizon. However, there is an enormous difference between fatherand son. Indeed, Muhammad (ibn 'AbdulWahhab) did not reveal his mission until after the death of his father.

Some of the people whom I met have related from some of the people of knowledge narrations from the contemporaries of Shaykh 'AbdulWahhab that describe his anger with his son Muhammad. This is because he had not agreed to study the religious knowledge of his ancestors and the people of his area. His fatherhad a presentiment that something would happen because of his son Muhammad, and so he frequently said to the people, “How much evil you willsee from Muhammad.”
Subsequently, what Allah destined to happen came to pass.

Similarly, his son Sulayman, the brother of Muhammad (ibn 'Abdul Wahhab), was also opposed to his mission. He refuted himemphatically with verses of the Holy Qur’an and Ahadith, since the refuted one (Muhammad Ibn `AbdulWahhab) would not accept other than these two sources. Nor would he consider the sayings of earlier or later scholars, whoever they may be, other thanIbn Taymiyyah and his student Ibn al-Qayyim (al-Jawziyyah). This is because Muhammad Ibn `Abdul Wahhab considered their sayingsto be explicit verses which do not accept interpretation and he used them in debate with the people, despite the fact that the sayings of these two figures contradicted what he understood.

Shaykh Sulayman named his refutation against his brother ‘Fasl al-Khitab fil Radd 'ala Muhammad ibn 'Abdul Wahhab’ (The Empathic Speech on the Refutation of Muhammad Ibn 'Abdul Wahhab). However, Allah protected Sulayman from the evil and deception of his brother, whose great influence spread threat far and wide. This is because if one contradicted and refuted him, and he was unable to kill him openly, he would send someone to assassinate him in their bed or in the market-place at night, since he judged whoever contradicted him to be a blasphemer and legalised their killing.

It has been said that an insane person lived in the town and among his habits was to strike whoever he came across, even with a weapon. Muhammad gave an order that this insane man was to be given a sword and admitted to the mosquewhere his brother Shaykh Sulayman sat alone. When Shaykh Sulayman saw him, he was afraid. The insane man threw the sword from his hand and said, “O Sulayman, do not be afraid; you are of those who are saved.” He repeated this many times and this is without doubt among the karamat.
- end of quote (from translation of the biography of Shaykh 'Abd al-Wahhab from al-Suhub al-Wabila p. 675-680* -

* Just look at the footnotes added by the Wahhabi Muhaqqiq. It's funny how humiliated he feels and how he starts to accuse the 'Allama Ibn Humayd in a childish manner! Why do they even print this book, if they don't like the author?! Yes, the scholars of that time did not like your IAW in any way or form and regarded him as the ignorant Khariji that he was! Get this into your brain and do not expect respect for him!

To be continued insha`Allah...

Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 25-06-20, 10:31 PM.
2 likes
Leave a comment:
Linkdeutscher replied

25-06-20, 09:14 PM
I believe even Salafis can't argue agaist the fact that MiaW is highly overrated at best.
Leave a comment:
Abu Sulayman replied

25-06-20, 09:00 PM
Originally posted by Umm Uthmaan View Post

We get it. You do not subscribe to his dawah (Allah yarhamo). Why do you keep making threads about this subject?

Instead of supplicating for him, why don't you supplicate for all the people that he commanded to be killed? Do you support all this Takfir, killing and stealing? Do you really think that anyone can run away from the justice of Allah ta'ala, while having spilled so much blood from Ummati Muhammad (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam)?!

Haven't you read the statement of Allah ta'ala:

{ وَمَن يَقْتُلْ مُؤْمِناً مُّتَعَمِّداً فَجَزَآؤُهُ جَهَنَّمُ خَٰلِداً فِيهَا وَغَضِبَ ٱللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَلَعَنَهُ وَأَعَدَّ لَهُ عَذَاباً عَظِيماً }

{ Whoso slayeth a believer of set purpose, his reward is hell for ever. Allah is wroth against him and He hath cursed him and prepared for him an awful doom. }

[4:93]

And His statement:

{ قُلْ هَلْ نُنَبِّئُكُم بِٱلأَخْسَرِينَ أَعْمَالاً }
{ ٱلَّذِينَ ضَلَّ سَعْيُهُمْ فِي ٱلْحَيَاةِ ٱلدُّنْيَا وَهُمْ يَحْسَبُونَ أَنَّهُمْ يُحْسِنُونَ صُنْعاً }

{ Say: Shall We inform you who will be the greatest losers by their works ? }
{ Those whose effort goeth astray in the life of the world, and yet they reckon that they do good work. }

[18:103-104]

And the statement of our beloved Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - as authentically reported in Sahih Ibn Hibban on the authority of Hudhayfa, radhiallahu 'anhu (translation taken from HERE and edited a little bit):

إِنَّ مَا أَتَخَوَّفُ عَلَيْكُمْ رَجُلٌ قَرَأَ الْقُرْآنَ حَتَّى إِذَا رُئِيَتْ بَهْجَتُهُ عَلَيْهِ ، وَكَانَ رِدْئًا لِلْإِسْلَامِ ، غَيَّرَهُ إِلَى مَا شَاءَ اللَّهُ ، فَانْسَلَخَ مِنْهُ وَنَبَذَهُ وَرَاءَ ظَهْرِهِ ، وَسَعَى عَلَى جَارِهِ بِالسَّيْفِ ، وَرَمَاهُ بِالشِّرْكِ ، قَالَ : قُلْتُ : يَا نَبِيَّ اللَّهِ ، أَيُّهُمَا أَوْلَى بِالشِّرْكِ ، الْمَرْمِيُّ أَمِ الرَّامِي ؟ قَالَ : بَلِ الرَّامِي

Verily, I fear for you that a man will recite the Quran [abundantly], so much so that the splendour of the Quran is visible upon him and he takes Islam as a cloak [i.e. He lives his life in accordance to the teachings of Islam diligently]. Then, he changes to whatever Allah wills for him, such that it is stripped from him and he throws [Islam] behind his back, assaulting his neighbour with the sword and accusing him of shirk (polytheism).’ I said, “O Prophet of Allah, which one is closer to shirk? The accused or the accuser?” [The Prophet (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam)] said, ‘Rather it is the accuser.'
- end of quote -

Or as he said, peace and blessings be upon him.

And also other Ahadith regarding what he - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - feared for us and what he did not fear for us! And it is clear that he did not fear for us to all become polytheists - as IAW claimed in his vain and indirect claim of Prophethood! - and it's obligatory to give precedence to the words of the Messenger of Allah, sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam!

Originally posted by Simply_Logical View Post

Abu Sulayman i appreciate your threads and info you post but dont you think youre a bit too obsessed with this topic and person? seems a bit unhealthy tbh

I don't intend to make any additional threads regarding IAW (d. 1206 AH) after this thread, because I think this thread contains very clear-cut statements that show how far this man had left the correct way.

The reason why I concentrate on warning against him is that this man has misguided a huge number of people in our times into different directions:
- Those who follow his ideas completely are pure Khawarij. Some classical scholars regard Khawarij even as disbelievers.
- Some people who follow his views have even stated words that are either disrespectful or very close to it in relation to the Messenger of Allah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - (like for example the evil Ibn Sahman (d. 1349 AH) (see the op)). In fact some scholars reported some statements that IAW himself used to say, which are clearly disrespectful and I don't need to mention the ruling upon such a person!
- Those who falsely believed that these bloodthirsty actions and ideas represent Islam, which lead them either to move away from the religion or to apostate completely! We ask Allah ta'ala for well-being.
- Those who have been only partly influenced by his ideas and therefore left referring to the classical scholars of Islam and instead refer to deviant people. These people have a very strong presence on the internet, television and media in general.

Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 25-06-20, 09:02 PM.
1 like
Leave a comment:
Simply_Logical replied

25-06-20, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by SwordofKhaine View Post

Knowledge.

His material is invaluable. I also learned a few things from Amantu Billahi as well, although I disagree with most of what he says.

Just enjoy the content, without complaining.

everything in moderation, son.
3 likes
Leave a comment:
Simply_Logical replied

25-06-20, 04:45 PM
Abu Sulayman i appreciate your threads and info you post but dont you think youre a bit too obsessed with this topic and person? seems a bit unhealthy tbh
3 likes
Leave a comment: