Originally posted by AmantuBillahi
View Post
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):
ุซู ูุง ูุฎูู ุนูููู ุฃูู ุจูุบูู ุฃู ุฑุณุงูุฉ ุณููู ุงู ุจู ุณุญูู ูุฏ ูุตูุช ุฅูููู ุ ูุฃูู ูุจููุง ูุตุฏููุง ุจุนุถ ุงูู ูุชู ูู ููุนูู ูู ุฌูุชูู ุ ูุงููู ูุนูู ุฃู ุงูุฑุฌู ุงูุชุฑู ุนูู ุฃู ูุฑุง ูู ุฃูููุงุ ููู ูุฃุช ุฃูุซุฑูุง ุนูู ุจุงูู.
ูู ููุง ูููู: ุฅูู ู ุจุทู ูุชุจ ุงูู ุฐุงูุจ ุงูุฃุฑุจุนุฉ; ูุฅูู ุฃููู: ุฅู ุงููุงุณ ู ู ุณุชู ุฆุฉ ุณูุฉ ููุณูุง ุนูู ุดูุกุ ูุฅูู ุฃุฏุนู ุงูุงุฌุชูุงุฏ; ูุฅูู ุฎุงุฑุฌ ุนู ุงูุชูููุฏ; ูุฅูู ุฃููู: ุฅู ุงุฎุชูุงู ุงูุนูู ุงุก ููู ุฉุ ูุฅูู ุฃููุฑ ู ู ุชูุณู ุจุงูุตุงูุญูู; ูุฅูู ุฃููุฑ ุงูุจูุตูุฑู ููููู: ูุง ุฃูุฑู ุงูุฎูู; ูุฅูู ุฃููู: ูู ุฃูุฏุฑ ุนูู ูุฏู ูุจุฉ ุฑุณูู ุงููู ุตูู ุงููู ุนููู ูุณูู ููุฏู ุชูุงุ ููู ุฃูุฏุฑ ุนูู ุงููุนุจุฉ ูุฃุฎุฐุช ู ูุฒุงุจูุงุ ูุฌุนูุช ููุง ู ูุฒุงุจุง ู ู ุฎุดุจุ ูุฅูู ุฃุญุฑู ุฒูุงุฑุฉ ูุจุฑ ุงููุจู ุตูู ุงููู ุนููู ูุณูู ุ ูุฅูู ุฃููุฑ ุฒูุงุฑุฉ ูุจุฑ ุงููุงูุฏูู ูุบูุฑูู ุงุ ูุฅูู ุฃููุฑ ู ู ุญูู ุจุบูุฑ ุงูููุ ูุฅูู ุฃููุฑ ุงุจู ุงููุงุฑุถุ ูุงุจู ุนุฑุจู; ูุฅูู ุฃุญุฑู ุฏูุงุฆู ุงูุฎูุฑุงุชุ ูุฑูุถ ุงูุฑูุงุญููุ ูุฃุณู ูู ุฑูุถ ุงูุดูุงุทูู.
ุฌูุงุจู ุนู ูุฐู ุงูู ุณุงุฆู ุฃู ุฃููู: ุณุจุญุงูู ูุฐุง ุจูุชุงู ุนุธูู ; ููุจูู ู ู ุจูุช ู ุญู ุฏุง ุตูู ุงููู ุนููู ูุณูู ุฃูู ูุณุจ ุนูุณู ุงุจู ู ุฑูู ุ ููุณุจ ุงูุตุงูุญููุ ูุชุดุงุจูุช ูููุจูู ุจุงูุชุฑุงุก ุงููุฐุจุ ูููู ุงูุฒูุฑ..ุง
- 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..."
ุงุชููุฎูุฐููุง ุฃูุญูุจูุงุฑูููู ู ููุฑูููุจูุงููููู ู ุฃูุฑูุจูุงุจุงู ู ููู ุฏูููู ุงูููููู} ุงูุขูุฉ [ุณูุฑุฉ ุงูุชูุจุฉ ุขูุฉ: 31] ุ ูุณุฑูุง ุฑุณูู ุงููู ุตูู ุงููู ุนููู ูุณูู ูุงูุฃุฆู ุฉ ุจุนุฏู ุจูุฐุง ุงูุฐู ุชุณู ููู ุงููููุ ููู ุงูุฐู ุณู ุงู ุงููู ุดุฑูุง ูุงุชุฎุงุฐูู ุฃุฑุจุงุจุงุ ูุง ุฃุนูู ุจูู ุงูู ูุณุฑูู ูู ุฐูู ุงุฎุชูุงูุง
- 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" ("ุฑุณุงูุฉ ุงูุดูุฎ ุนุจุฏ ุงููู ุขู ุงูุดูุฎ ุนูุฏู ุง ุฏุฎููุง ู ูุฉุ ูุจูุงู ู ุง ูุทูุจูู ู ู ุงููุงุณ ูููุงุชููููู ุนููู") (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" ("ููุณุฃู ุนู ู ุณุฃูุฉ ุงูุดูุงุนุฉ ุงูุชู ุฌุฑุฏ ุงูุณูู ุจุณุจุจูุง") (1/226) and how he was answered until he says:
ูุฅู ูุงู ูุงุฆู ู ููุฑ ุนู ูุจูู ุงูุญู ูุงูุฅุฐุนุงู ูู : ููุฒู ู ู ุชูุฑูุฑูู ุ ููุทุนูู ูู ุฃู ู ู ูุงู ูุง ุฑุณูู ุงูููุ ุฃุณุฃูู ุงูุดูุงุนุฉ : ุฃูู ู ุดุฑู ู ูุฏุฑ ุงูุฏู ุ ุฃู ููุงู ุจููุฑ ุบุงูุจ ุงูุฃู ุฉ ุ ููุง ุณูู ุง ุงูู ุชุฃุฎุฑููุ ูุชุตุฑูุญ ุนูู ุงุฆูู ุงูู ุนุชุจุฑูู : ุฃู ุฐูู ู ูุฏูุจุ ูุดููุง ุงูุบุงุฑุฉ ุนูู ู ู ุฎุงูู ูู ุฐูู ! ููุช : ูุง ููุฒู ุ ูุฃู ูุงุฒู ุงูู ุฐูุจ ููุณ ุจู ุฐูุจุ ูู ุง ูู ู ูุฑุฑุ ูู ุซู ุฐูู : ูุง ููุฒู ุฃู ูููู ู ุฌุณู ุฉุ ูุฅู ูููุง ุจุฌูุฉ ุงูุนููุ ูู ุง ูุฑุฏ ุงูุญุฏูุซ ุจุฐูู .ููุญู ูููู ููู ู ู ุงุช : ุชูู ุฃู ุฉ ูุฏ ุฎูุช ุ ููุง ูููุฑ ุฅูุง ู ู ุจูุบุชู ุฏุนูุชูุง ููุญูุ ููุถุญุช ูู ุงูู ุญุฌุฉุ ููุงู ุช ุนููู ุงูุญุฌุฉุ ูุฃุตุฑ ู ุณุชูุจุฑุงู ู ุนุงูุฏุงูุ ูุบุงูุจ ู ู ููุงุชููู ุงูููู ุ ูุตุฑูู ุนูู ุฐูู ุงูุฅุดุฑุงูุ ููู ุชูุนูู ู ู ูุนู ุงููุงุฌุจุงุชุ ููุชุธุงูุฑูู ุจุฃูุนุงู ุงููุจุงุฆุฑุ ุงูู ุญุฑู ุงุช ุ ูุบูุฑ ุงูุบุงูุจ : ุฅูู ุง ููุงุชูู ูู ูุงุตุฑุชู ู ู ูุฐู ุญุงููุ ูุฑุถุงู ุจูุ ููุชูุซูุฑ ุณูุงุฏ ู ู ุฐูุฑุ ูุงูุชุฃููุจ ู ุนูุ ููู ุญููุฆุฐ ุญูู ู ูู ูุชุงูู
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 itโs 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 taโala"
- 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 Iโve 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:
ูุฃู ุง ููู ุงูุฅู ุงู ุฃุญู ุฏ: ุงูุฐู ููุชู ุงููุงุณ ูุชููุฏ ุฃู ุฑุงู ุนุธูู ุงู ... ุฅูุฎุ ููุฐุง ุงูู ูุชู ูููู ู ู ุฃููุงู ุงูุนูู ุงุก ู ุง ูู ุนููู ูุง ูู....
ูููู ุงูุฅู ุงู ุฃุญู ุฏ ูุฑุฏ ุนูู ู ู ูุงู: ุงูุงุฎุชูุงู ุฑุญู ุฉุ ูุง ูุชุฌู ุฅูุง ุนูู ุงูููู ุจุฃู ุงูุงุฎุชูุงู ููู ุฉ ูุง ุฑุญู ุฉ!!ุ ูุญููุฆุฐ ูุฎุงู ุนูู ุงูู ูุชูุ ููุชููุฏ ุฃู ุฑุงู ุนุธูู ุงูุ ูุฐุง ูุฌู ุงูุชุนุธูู ูุงูุชุญุฐูุฑ ูู ููุงู ุฃุญู ุฏุ ููุดูุฏ ูู ูููู: ููุจุบู ูู ู ุฃูุชู ุฃู ูููู ุนุงูู ุงู ุจููู ู ู ุชูุฏู ูุ ูุฅูุง ููุง ููุชู; ูุฑูุฏ ุฃู ุงูุนูู ุจุฃููุงู ุงูุนูู ุงุก ุณุจุจ ููุฅุตุงุจุฉุ ูู ุนุฑูุฉ ุงูุญู ูู ููุณ ุงูุฃู ุฑุ ูููุณ ุงูู ูุตูุฏ ุฃูู ูุฃุฎุฐ ุจูู ููู ูููุชู ุจูุ ููููู ุงุฎุชูุงููู ุฑุญู ุฉ ูู ุง ุฒุนู ู ูุฐุง....
ููู ูุงู ุงูุงุฎุชูุงู ู ู ุฏูุญุงู ูุฑุญู ุฉ ูู ููู ููุฐุง ุงูุฎูู ู ุนูู
- 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:
ุงุนูู : ุฃูู ููุฌููุฒู ุ ููููุญุณูู ุงูุชูููุณูู ุ ูุงูุงุณุชุบุงุซุฉ ุ ูุงูุชููุดููุน ุจุงููุจู ุตูู ุงููู ุนููู ูุณูู ุฅูู ุฑุจู ุณุจุญุงูู ูุชุนุงูู ุ ููุฌูุงุฒู ุฐูู ููุญูุณููู ุ ู ู ุงูุฃู ูุฑ ุงูู ุนูููู ุฉู ููููููู ุฐู ุฏูู ุ ุงูู ุนุฑููุฉ ู ู ููุนูู ุงูุฃูุจูุงุก ูุงูู ุฑุณููู ุ ูุณูููุฑู ุงูุณูู ุงูุตุงูุญูู ุ ูุงูุนูู ุงุก ูุงูุนูุงู ู ู ุงูู ุณูู ูู ุ ููู ูููููุฑ ุฃูุญุฏู ุฐูู ู ู ุฃูู ุงูุฃุฏูุงู ุ ููุง ุณูู ุนู ุจู ูู ุฒู ู ู ู ุงูุฃุฒู ุงู ุ ุญุชู ุฌุงุก ุงุจู ุชูู ูุฉ ุ ููุชููููู ูู ุฐูู ุจููุงู ููููุจููุณู ููู ุนูู ุงูุถุนูุงุก ุงูุฃุบู ุงุฑ ุ ูุงุจุชุฏุน ู ุง ูู ููุณุจู ุฅููู ูู ุณุงุฆุฑ ุงูุฃุนุตุงุฑ ุ ูููุฐุง ุทุนู ูู ุงูุญูุงูุฉ ุงูุชู ุชููุฏูู ุฐูุฑูุง ุนู ู ูุงููู ุฑุญู ุงููู ุชุนุงูู ุ ูุฅููู ูููุง ููู ู ูุงููู ุฑุญู ุงููู ุชุนุงูู ููู ูุตูุฑ : ยซ ุงุณุชุดูุน ุจู ยป . ููุญู ูุฏ ุจููููุง ุตูุญูุชูุง ุ ููุฐูู ุฃุฏุฎููุง ุงูุงุณุชุบุงุซุฉ ูู ูุฐุง ุงููุชุงุจ ุ ูู ุง ุชูุนุฑููุถู ุฅูููุง ู ุน ุงูุฒูุงุฑุฉ ุ ูุญุณุจููู ุฃููู ุฅููุงุฑ ุงุจู ุชูู ูุฉ ููุงุณุชุบุงุซุฉ ูุงูุชูุณู ููููู ูู ูููู ุนุงูู ู ูุจูู ุ ูุตุงุฑ ุจู ุจูู ุฃูู ุงูุฅุณูุงู ู ูุซูููู
Know, that it is permissable and good to perform Tawassul, Istighathah (seeking aid) and Tashaffuโ (seeking intercession) through the Prophet โ sallallahu โalayhi wa sallam โ unto his Lord subhanahu wa taโala. 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 โ may Allah have mercy upon him โ for it contains the statement of [Imam] Malik to al-Mansur: โSeek intercession through himโ. And weโve already made its health/correctness clear.
And this is why weโve 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 โ sallallahu โalayhi 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:
ูุฃููู : ุฅููู ุงูุชูููุณูู ุจุงููุจู ุตู ุงููู ุนููู ูุณูู ุฌูุงุฆุฒู ูู ูู ุญูุงูู ุ ูุจู ุฎูููููู ุ ูุจุนุฏ ุฎููููููู ุ ูู ู ูุฏููุฉู ุญูุงุชู ูู ุงูุฏููุง ุ ูุจุนุฏ ู ูุชู ูู ู ูุฏูุฉ ุงูุจุฑุฒุฎ ุ ูุจุนุฏ ุงูุจุนุซ ูู ุนุฑุตุงุช ุงูููุงู ุฉ ูุงูุฌูุฉ ุ ููู ุนูู ุซูุงุซุฉ ุฃููุงุน
I say: Tawassul through the Prophet โ sallallahu โalayhi wa sallam โ 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 itโs of three types.
- end of quote -
ุงูููุน ุงูุฃูู : ุฃู ูุชูุณููู ุจู ุ ุจู ุนูู : ุฃููู ุทุงูุจ ุงูุญุงุฌุฉ ูุณุฃูู ุงููู ุชุนุงูู ุจู ุ ุฃู ุจุฌุงูู ุ ุฃู ุจุจุฑูุชู ุ ููุฌูุฒ ุฐูู ูู ุงูุฃุญูุงู ุงูุซูุงุซุฉ ุ ููุฏ ููุฑุฏ ูู ููููู ู ููุง ุฎูุจุฑู ุตุญูุญ
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 taโala 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:
ุงูููุน ุงูุซุงูู : ุงูุชูุณู ุจู ุ ุจู ุนูู ุทูุจ ุงูุฏุนุงุก ู ูู ุ ูุฐูู ูู ุฃุญูุงู
The second type [of Tawassul]: Performing Tawassul throuh him, meaning that one asks him (the Prophet, sallallahu โalayhi wa sallam) for supplication (Duโa`) and itโs in the [following] situations.
- end of quote -
On p. 383:
ุงูููุน ุงูุซุงูุซ ู ู ุงูุชูุณู : ุงู ููุทูุจู ู ูู ุฐูู ุงูุฃู ุฑ ุงูู ูุตูุฏ ุ ุจู ุนูู ุฃูู ุตูู ุงููู ุนููู ูุณูู ูุงุฏุฑู ุนูู ุงูุชููุณุจููุจ ููู ุ ุจุณุคุงูู ุฑุจู ูุดูุงุนุชู ุฅููู ุ ููุนูุฏ ุฅูู ยซ ุงูููุน ุงูุซุงูู ยป ูู ุงูู ุนูู ุ ูุฅู ูุงูุช ุงูุนุจุงุฑุฉ ู ุฎุชููุฉ
The third type of Tawassul: That one requests the wanted thing from him (the Prophet), with the meaning that he โ sallallahu โalayhi wa sallam โ 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 Tashaffuโ)
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:
ูุฃู ุง ูููู: ูุงู: ุดุฑู ุงูุฏูู ุงูุจูุตูุฑูุ ูุฐูุฑ ูุฐุง ุงูููุจ ููุง ุธุงูุฑ ูู ู ุฑุงุบู ุฉ ุนุจุงุฏ ุงููู ุงูู ูุญุฏูู ุงูู ุคู ูููุ ุงูุฐูู ุฃููุฑูุง ูููู ูู ู ูุธูู ุชู ุงูู ุดููุฑุฉ:
ูุง ุฃูุฑู ุงูุฎูู ู ุง ูู ู ู ุฃููุฐ ุจู ... ุณูุงู ...ุงูุฃุจูุงุช
ููุฏ ุนุฑู ูุนูุฏ ูุฐุง ูุฃู ุซุงูู ุนู ุงูุฑุฌูุ ูููู ุนูู ู ุง ูู ุฃุจูุบ ูุฃุดุฏ ู ู ูุฐุง
- 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):
ูุงุนูู ุฑุญู ู ุงููู ุฃู ุฃุดูุงุก ู ู ุฃููุงุน ุงูุดุฑู ุงูุฃูุจุฑ ููุน ููู ุจุนุถ ุงูู ุตูููู ุนูู ุฌูุงูุฉุ ูู ููุทู ููุ ู ู ุฐููุ ูููู ูู ุงูุจุฑุฏุฉ:
ูุง ุฃูุฑู ุงูุฎูู ู ุง ูู ู ู ุฃููุฐ ุจู ... ุณูุงู ุนูุฏ ุญููู ุงูุญุงุฏุซ ุงูุนู ู
ููู ุงููู ุฒูุฉ ุฌูุณ ูุฐุง ูุบูุฑู ุฃุดูุงุก ูุซูุฑุฉ; ููุฐุง ู ู ุงูุฏุนุงุกุ ุงูุฐู ูู ู ู ุงูุนุจุงุฏุฉ ุงูุชู ูุง ุชุตูุญ ุฅูุง ููู ูุญุฏู; ูุฅู ุฌุงุฏูู ุจุนุถ ุงูู ุดุฑููู ุจุฌูุงูุฉ ูุฐุง ุงููุงุฆูุ ูุนูู ู ูุตูุงุญูุ ููุงู ุจุฌููู: ููู ูุฐุงุ ููู ูู: ุฃุนูู ู ูู ูุฃุฌูุ ุฃุตุญุงุจ ู ูุณูุ ุงูุฐูู ุงุฎุชุงุฑูู ุงููู ููุถููู ุนูู ุงูุนุงูู ููุ ุญูู ูุงููุง: {ููุง ู ููุณูู ุงุฌูุนููู ููููุง ุฅููููุงู ููู ูุง ููููู ู ุขููููุฉู} [ุณูุฑุฉ ุงูุฃุนุฑุงู ุขูุฉ: 138] ุ ูุฅุฐุง ุฎูู ูุฐุง ุนูู ุจูู ุฅุณุฑุงุฆููุ ู ุน ุฌูุงูุชูู ูุนูู ูู ููุถููู ; ูู ุง ุธูู ุจุบูุฑูู ุ
- end of quote -
And here from IAW's Kitab al-Tawhid:
ุงูุซุงูุซุฉ: ูููู ุตูู ุงููู ุนููู ูุณูู : (ุฃุฌุนูุชูู ููู ูุฏุงูุ) ูููู ุจู ู ูุงู:
ูุง ุฃูุฑู ุงูุฎูู ู ุง ูู ู ู ุฃููุฐ ุจู ุณูุงู . . . . ูุงูุจูุชูู ุจุนุฏู!!
- end of quote -
And here from his Khariji progeny (from al-Durar al-Saniyya 11/299):
ู ู ุนุจุฏ ุงูุฑุญู ู ุจู ุญุณูุ ูุงุจูู ุนุจุฏ ุงููุทููุ ุฅูู ุนุจุฏ ุงูุฎุงูู ุงูุญูุธูุ ุณูุงู ุนูููู ูุฑุญู ุฉ ุงููู ูุจุฑูุงุชู.
ูุจุนุฏ: ููุฏ ุจูุบูุง ู ู ูุญู ุณูุชููุ ุงุดุชุบุงููู ุจุจุฑุฏุฉ ุงูุจูุตูุฑูุ ููููุง ู ู ุงูุดุฑู ุงูุฃูุจุฑ ู ุง ูุง ูุฎููุ ู ู ุฐูู ูููู:
ูุง ุฃูุฑู ุงูุฎูู ู ุง ูู ู ู ุฃููุฐ ุจู *** ุณูุงู ุนูุฏ ุญููู ุงูุญุงุฏุซ ุงูุนู ู
- 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:
ูููุฐุง ุขู ูุฐุง ุงูููู ุจุจุนุถูู ุฅูู ุฅููุงุฑ ุงูุฑุจ ุชุจุงุฑู ูุชุนุงููุ ูู ุง ูู ู ุฐูุจ ุงุจู ุนุฑุจูุ ูุงุจู ุงููุงุฑุถุ ููุฆุงู ู ู ุงููุงุณุ ูุง ูุญุตููู ุฅูุง ุงููู
- end of quote (from al-Durar al-Saniyya 1/113) -
ูุฃู ุง ุฃููุงุนูุ ูู ููุง: ุงูุดุฑู ูู ุงูุฑุจูุจูุฉุ ููู ููุนุงู: ุดุฑู ุงูุชุนุทูู ูุดุฑู ูุฑุนููุ ูุดุฑู ุงูุฐู ุญุงุฌ ุฅุจุฑุงููู ูู ุฑุจูุ ูู ูู ุดุฑู ุทุงุฆูุฉ ุงุจู ุนุฑุจู...ุง
- end of quote (from al-Durar al-Saniyya 2/307) -
ูู ู ุฃูู ุงูุนูู ู ู ุฃุณุงุก ุจู ุงูุธูุ ุจูุฐู ุงูุฃููุงุธ ูุฃู ุซุงููุงุ ูู ููู ู ู ุชุฃูู ุฃููุงุธูุ ูุญู ููุง ุนูู ุบูุฑ ุธุงูุฑูุงุ ูุฃุญุณู ููู ุงูุธู. ูู ู ุฃูู ุงูุนูู ูุงูุฏูู ู ู ุฃุฌุฑู ู ุง ุตุฏุฑ ู ูู ุนูู ุธุงูุฑูุ ููุงู: ูุฐู ุงูุฃุดุนุงุฑ ููุญููุงุ ุชุชุถู ู ู ุฐูุจ ุฃูู ุงูุงุชุญุงุฏ ู ู ุงููุงุฆููู ุจูุญุฏุฉ ุงููุฌูุฏ ูุงูุญูููุ ููุตูุฏุชู ุงูู ุณู ุงุฉ: ูุธู ุงูุณูููุ ูู ุซู ูุซูุฑ ู ู ุดุนุฑ ุงุจู ุฅุณุฑุงุฆููุ ูุงุจู ุนุฑุจูุ ูุงุจู ุณุจุนููุ ูุงูุชูู ุณุงููุ ูู ุง ููุงูููุง ู ู ุงููุซุฑ ุงูู ูุงูู ูู ุนูุงูุง.
ููุฐู ุงูุฃุดุนุงุฑ ู ู ููู ูุงุ ุนูู ุฃููุง ููุฑ ูุฅูุญุงุฏุ ูุฃููุง ู ูุงูุถุฉ ููุนูู ูุงูุฏูู...ุง
- end of quote (from al-Durar al-Saniyya 3/21) -
ูุงูููุงู ุงูุขู ููู ุง ุนููู ุฃูู ูุญุฏุฉ ุงููุฌูุฏ ุงุจู ุนุฑุจูุ ูุงุจู ุงููุงุฑุถุ ูุงูุชูู ุณุงููุ ูุฅุฎูุงููู ุ ูุฃูู ุงูุฐู ุชุถู ูู ุงูุณุคุงู; ููููู: ู ุฐูุจ ูุฐู ุงูุทุงุฆูุฉ ุงูู ูุนููุฉ ุฃู ุงูุฑุจ ุชุนุงูู ูุชูุฏุณ ูู ุนูู ุงููุฌูุฏุ ููุตุฑุญูู ูู ูุชุจูู : ุฃู ูุฌูุฏ ุงูุฑุจ ูู ุนูู ูุฌูุฏ ุงูุณู ุงูุงุชุ ูุงูุฃุฑุถุ ูุงูุฌุจุงูุ ูุงูุจุญุงุฑุ ูุฌู ูุน ุงูู ูุฌูุฏุงุช ูู ุนูู ุงูุฑุจุ ุนูุฏูู ! ูููุณ ุนูุฏูู ุฑุจ ูุนุจุฏ! ููุง ุฎุงูู ูู ุฎููู!!ุง
- end of quote (from al-Durar al-Saniyya 3/347-348) -
ููุง ูููู: ุฅู ููู ุฃูู ุงูุณูุฉ ูุงูุฌู ุงุนุฉ ูููู ุงุจู ุนุฑุจู ูุฃุตุญุงุจู -ุฃูู ูุญุฏุฉ ุงููุฌูุฏ - ุฅูุง ู ู ูููู: ุฅู ููู ู ูุณู ุนููู ุงูุณูุงู ูููู ูุฑุนูู ุงููุนูู ุณูุงุก; ูู ุง ุนููู ุฃุจู ุฌูู ูุฅุฎูุงูู ูุธูุฑ ู ุง ุนููู ุงูุฑุณูู ูุฃุตุญุงุจูุ ุณุจุญุงูู ูุฐุง ุจูุชุงู ุนุธูู
- end of quote (from al-Durar al-Saniyya 3/355) -
ููุฐุง ุงุดุชูุฑ ุนูู ุฃูู ุนูู ุฏูู ุงุจู ุนุฑุจูุ ุงูุฐู ุฐูุฑ ุงูุนูู ุงุก ุฃูู ุฃููุฑ ู ู ูุฑุนูู...ุง
- end of quote (from al-Durar al-Saniyya 10/25) -
ููุฏ ุฐูุฑ ุฃูู ุงูุนูู : ุฃู ุงุจู ุนุฑุจู ู ู ุฃุฆู ุฉ ุฃูู ู ุฐูุจ ุงูุงุชุญุงุฏูุฉุ ููู ุฃุบูุธ ููุฑุง ู ู ุงููููุฏ ูุงููุตุงุฑู..ุง
- 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":
ููุง ูุฃู ุฑ ุจุฅุชูุงู ุดูุก ู ู ุงูู ุคููุงุช ุฃุตูุงุ ุฅูุง ู ุง ุงุดุชู ู ุนูู ู ุง ูููุน ุงููุงุณ ูู ุงูุดุฑูุ ูุฑูุถ ุงูุฑูุงุญูู
- 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:
ูุฃู ุง ุฏูุงุฆู ุงูุฎูุฑุงุชุ ูู ุง ููู ุนูู ุฃูู ุญุฑูุชูุง ููู ุณุจุจุ ูุฐูู ุฃูู ุฃุดุฑุช ุนูู ู ู ูุจู ูุตูุญุชู ู ู ุฅุฎูุงูู: ุฃู ูุง ูุตูุฑ ูู ููุจู ุฃุฌู ู ู ูุชุงุจ ุงูููุ ููุง ูุธู ุฃู ุงููุฑุงุกุฉ ููู ุฃูุถู ู ู ูุฑุงุกุฉ ุงููุฑุขู. ูุฃู ุง ุฅุญุฑุงููุงุ ูุงูููู ุนู ุงูุตูุงุฉ ุนูู ุงููุจู ุตูู ุงููู ุนููู ูุณูู ุจุฃู ููุธ ูุงูุ ููุณุจุฉ ูุฐุง ุฅูู ู ู ุงูุฒูุฑ ูุงูุจูุชุงู
- 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:
ููุฏ ูุงู ุจุนุถ ุงูุนูู ุงุกุ ูู ุง ููู ูู: ุฅู ุงูุดูุฎ ู ุญู ุฏ ุจู ุนุจุฏ ุงูููุงุจ ุฃุญุฑู ุฏูุงุฆู ุงูุฎูุฑุงุช ุ ุงุณุชุญุณู ุฐูู ููุงู:
ูุญุฑู ุนู ุฏุง ููุฏูุงุฆู ุฏูุชุฑุง ... ุฃุตุงุจ ููููุง ู ุง ูุฌู ุนู ุงูุนุฏ
ุบูู ููู ุนูู ุงูุฑุณูู ููุฑูุฉ ... ุจูุง ู ุฑูุฉ ูุงุชุฑูู ุฅู ููุช ุชุณุชูุฏู
ุฃุญุงุฏูุซ ูุง ุชุนุฒู ุฅูู ุนุงูู ููุง ... ุชุณุงูู ูููุณุง ุฅู ุฑุฌุนุช ุฅูู ุงูููุฏ
- 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!
Leave a comment: