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

[Abu Sulayman]

33 - NAJDI WAHHABIS TAKING OVER RIYADH: The people (Muslim families!!!) all left the city (due to the fear of being mass-slaughtered!) in the moment they knew that the Wahhabis had entered the city! The Khariji Najdi Ibn Bishr even describes this very moment and how they had left everything and that there was so much wealth in the city that one cannot count! They hadn't even closed the doors! A LOT OF THEM (men, women and children!!!) DIED DUE TO THIRST AND HUNGER on their way to al-Kharj!
(Letting whole families die in the desert! What for God's sake is the justification for this?!)

ففر أهل الرياض في ساقته الرجال والنساء , هربوا على وجوههم إلى البر , وقصدوا الخرج , وهلك منهم خلق كثير عطشاً وجوعاً , ذكر لي أن الرجل من اهل الرياض يأخذ الغرب (دلو كبير) يجعل فيه ماء يحمله على ظهره , والغرب لا يمسك الماء , والإبل عنده لا يركبها , وتركوها خاوية على عروشها , الطعام واللحم في القدور!! , والسواني في المناحي والأبواب لم تغلق , وفي البلد من الأموال ما يعجز عن الحصر ...ا
- end of quote (from 'Unwan al-Majd 1/78) -

Next time anyone who dares to praise MIAW or tell us anything about "how dare you criticize the Shaykh", then let him or her first tell us in which religion the above mentioned type of crimes - that IAW is all guilty of! - is allowed or justified?! Because the only one commanding these type of crimes is satan and his group!
Let's continue with the results of Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab's ignorance and extreme ideas on a practical level:


37 - KILLING HUGE NUMBERS FROM BANI KHALID AND TAKING AN UNCOUNTABLE HIGH NUMBER OF THEIR ANIMALS AND WEALTH!

ثم انهزم بنو خالد وأتباعهم , فكرّ المسلمون في ساقتهم , يقتلون ويغنمون , وحاز سعود من الإبل , والغنم , والأمتعة , والأثاث , ما لا يعدّ ولا يحصى , وقتل عليهم قتلى كثيرة , وأخذ خمس الغنيمة!! , وقسم باقيها في المسلمين , للراجل سهم وللفارس سهمان
- end of quote (from 'Unwan al-Majd 1/162) -


38 - The Ashraf of Makka* prepare themselves for war against the Wahhabiyya (and this in order to stop all the killing and oppression that Wahhabis were committing) and a lot of people (who were forced under Al Sa'ud's and IAW's rule) "apostate" (according to the Khariji Ibn Bishr!) by siding with the Ashraf
(*There were a lot of scholars, who were from the Ashraf!)

سارت العساكر والجموع من مكة , سيّرهم شريفها غالب بن مساعد , مع أخيه عبد العزيز الشريف إلى نجد لمحاربة أهلها وقتالهم , فسار عبد العزيز المذكور بقوة هائلة , وعدد وعدة , وعسكر كثيف , نحو عشرة آلاف أو يزيدون , ومعهم أكثر من عشرين مدفع , وكان قصدهم الدرعية ومنازلتها , فضلاً عن غيرها من البلدان , وهذه الأحزاب رفعت إليه الرؤوس , ووقع منه شيء في النفوس , لأن أعداء هذا الدين إذا تطاولت إلى أحزاب , ورأوا كثرة ما معهم من العدد والعدة , رجع بالفشل وخاب , فلما رأوا أن الأمر جاء من الأشراف , أيقنوا بالهلكة "للمسلمين!!" والإتلاف , وارتد كثير من العربان , وراسله أناس من أهل البلدان , منهم حسين الدويش رئيس مطير وعربانه , وتبيّن لأهل الباطل دخان , وأكثرهم نقض العهد وخان , وارتد معه كثير من قحطان , فأقبلت تلك العساكر والجنود , وسار معهم كثير من بوادي الحجاز , وعربان شمر ومطير وغيرهم , فملأ السهل والجبل , وصار في قلوب "المسلمين!" منه وجل.....ا
- end of quote (from 'Unwan al-Majd 1/174) -


39 - KILLING 500 (!!!) men from the people of Qatif and the surrounding regions and taking an uncountable huge number of wealth!!!

وتسور "المسلمون!" جدارها وأخذوها عنوة , وأخذوا ما فيها من الأموال وغير ذلك مما لا يعد ولا يحصى , وأخذوا عنك عنوة , وقتلوا منهم خمسمئة رجل
- end of quote (from 'Unwan al-Majd 1/178) -


40 - Attacking Dumat al-Jandal and its surrounding regions and KILLING HUGE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE: its people stayed beleaguered (by the Wahhabis!) "until they made Bay'a upon the religion of Allah..." (what is intended is the not the religion of Allah ta'ala in reality, but the new religion of IAW!)

وأمرهم –أي عبد العزيز- يسيرون إلى دومة الجندل ...ا
فسار الجميع وقصدوا تلك الناحية , ونازلوا أهلها وأخذوا منها ثلاث بلدان , ثم حاصروا الباقين , وقتلوا منهم عدة قتلى كثير , فلم يزالوا محاصرين لهم حتى بايعوا على "دين الله ورسوله والسمع والطاعة!"ا
- end of quote (from 'Unwan al-Majd 1/208) -


To be continued insha`Allah...

[Abu Sulayman]

41 - Attacking Qatar!

سار إبراهيم بن عفيصان بأهل بلدان الخرج وما يليهم من بلدان النواحي , وقصد ناحية قطر , ونازل أهل الحويلة البلد المعروفة على سيف البحر , فأخذها
- end of quote (from 'Unwan al-Majd 1/209) -


42 - Attacking Kuwait!

غزا إبراهيم أيضاً إلى جهة الشمال , فأغار على بلد الكويت , وأخذ غنمهم , وكان قد عبأ لهم كميناً ...ا
- end of quote (from 'Unwan al-Majd 1/209) -

وقصد بلد الكويت وأغار على سوارحهم فأخذها , فخرج عليه أهلها , فناشبهم القتال , ثم خرج الكمين , فانهزم اهل البلد
- end of quote (from 'Unwan al-Majd 1/239) -


43 - Attacking Hijaz, KILLING HUGE NUMBERS from them and cutting a lot of their palm trees [and returning back]!

سار سعود بتلك الجنود وقصد الحجاز , ونازل أهل بلد تربة بلد البقوم المعروفة , فحاصر أهلها حصاراً شديداً , وقطع كثيراً من نخيلها , وقتل بينهم قتلى كثيرة ..ا
- end of quote (from 'Unwan al-Majd 1/211) -


44 - MASS-KILLING THE PEOPLE OF AL-AHSA` AND TERRORIZING THEM AND TAKING THEIR WEALTH (at the hands of Sa'ud I. bin 'Abd al-Aziz, the criminal student of the Dajjal of Najd, IAW!)
(Look how proudly this worthless Khariji says that a lot of the pregnant women lost their babies [because of extreme fear]! What this criminal describes here is literally a holocaust against Muslims!)

فلما كان قبل طلوع الشمس ثور المسلمون! بنادقهم دفعة واحدة , فأرجفت الأرض وأظلمت السماء , وثار عج الدخان في الجو , وأسقط كثير من الحوامل في الأحساء , ثم نزل سعود في الرقيقة المذكورة , فسلم له , وظهر له جميع أهل الأحساء على إحسانه وإساءته , وأمرهم بالخروج فخرجوا , فأقام في ذلك المنزل مدّة أشهر يقتل من أراد قتله ويجلي من أراد جلاءه ، ويحبس من أراد حبسه ، ويأخذ من الأموال ، ويهدم من المحال ، ويبني ثغوراً ، ويهدم دوراً ، وضرب عليهم ألوفاً من الدراهم وقبضها منهم...ا
فهذا مقتول في البلد ، وهذا يخرجونه إلى الخيام ، ويضرب عنقه عند خيمة سعود ، حتى أفناهم إلا قليلا ، وحاز سعود في تلك الغزوة ما لا يحصى
- end of quote (from 'Unwan al-Majd 1/216) -


45 - Attacking Suq al-Shuyukh near Basra (in Iraq) and KILLING A HUGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE; those people who tried to flee DROWNED IN THE WATER (while the Wahhabis happily watched them drowning! It's always "a great feeling" to see Muslims dying in the religion of the Dajjal IAW!)

سار سعود رحمه المعبود بالجنود المنصورة والخيل العتاق المشهورة , من جميع نواحي نجد وعربانها وقصد الشمال , وأغار على سوق الشيوخ المعروف عند البصرة , وقتل منهم قتلى كثيرة , وهرب الناس وغرقوا في الشط
- end of quote (from 'Unwan al-Majd 1/240) -


To be continued insha`Allah...

[Abu Sulayman]

THE CRIMES OF THE WAHHABI NAJDIS AGAINST THE PEOPLE OF AL-HARAMAYN AL-SHARIFAYN!!!

It should be noted here that harming the people of Madina al-Munawwara or committing any crimes there is among the greatest of sins and our noble Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - has explicitly warned against this.
So what did the Najdi Wahhabis do? They threw away the warning of the best of creation - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - behind their backs and implemented instead the new religion of the Najdi Dajjal MIAW, which says the exact opposite of the Prophetic teachings!


46 - IAW's beloved Khariji student Sa'ud I. bin 'Abd al-'Aziz: CALLING ALL OF THE PEOPLE OF MAKKA AND ITS SCHOLARS (!!!) TO "ISLAM"!
(Remember: It was IAW himself who brought this criminal to power!)

من سعود بن عبد العزيز , إلى كافة اهل مكة والعلماء والآغوات وقاضي السلطان , السلام على من اتبع الهدى
أما بعد: فأنتم جيران الله وسكان حرمه آمنون بأمنه.
إنما ندعوكم لدين الله ورسوله!! , ( قل يا اهل الكتاب تعالوا الى كلمة سواء بيننا وبينكم ان لا نعبد الاّ الله ولا نشرك به شيئاً ولا يتخذ بعضنا بعضاً أرباباً من دون الله ، فان تولوا فقولوا: اشهدوا باننا مسلمون ) , فأنتم في أمان الله ثم في أمان أمير المسلمين! سعود بن عبد العزيز , وأميركم عبد المعين بن مساعد ، فاسمعوا له وأطيعوا ما أطاع الله والسلام
- end of quote (from 'Unwan al-Majd 1/261) -


47 - Setting up an embargo against the people of Makka until HUGE NUMBERS OF ITS PEOPLE DIED FROM HUNGER and people even started to eat dogs!

فسدّت الطرق كلّها عن مكة من جهة اليمن وتهامة والحجاز ونجد , لأنهم كلهم رعية سعود وتحت أمره , فثبت عندنا وتواتر أن كيلة الأرز والحب بلغت في مكة ستة أريل , وكيلتهم أنقص من صاع نجد , وبيع فيها لحوم الحمير والجيف بيعت فيها بأغلى الأثمان ، وأكلت الكلاب ، وبلغ رطل الدهن ريالين , ومات خلق كثير منهم جوعاً
- end of quote (from 'Unwan al-Majd 1/285) -


48 - SA'UD I. STOPS THE HAJJ FOR ALL THOSE COMING FROM THE DIRECTION OF THE LEVANT OR ISTANBUL AND THE REGIONS AROUND IT!

فلما خرج سعود من الدرعية قاصداً مكة أرسل فرَّاج بن شرعان العتيبي ، ورجاله معه , لهؤلاء الأمراء المذكورين , وذكر لهم أن يمنعوا الحواج التي تأتي من جهة الشام واسطنبول ونواحيهما ، فلما أقبل على المدينة الحاج الشامي ومن تبعه ، وأميره عبد الله العظم باشا الشام فأرسل اليه هؤلاء الأمراء أن لا يقدم وأن يرجع إلى أوطانه
- end of quote (from 'Unwan al-Majd 1/285) -


49 - Ibn Bishr (the Najdi Khariji!): "IN THIS YEAR - meaning 1223 AH - NO ONE PERFORMED HAJJ FROM THE PEOPLE OF LEVANT, EGYPT, IRAQ, MOROCCO AND OTHER THAN THEM!!"
(NO COMMENT!!!)

ولم يحج في هذه السنة -أي 1223 هـ - أحد من أهل الشام ومصر والعراق والمغرب وغيرهم!! ...ا
- end of quote (from 'Unwan al-Majd 1/297) -


50 - Ibn Bishr: "The people of al-Madina al-Munawwara pledged their alliance to Sa'ud upon the religion of Allah and His Messenger..."
(Meaning: They were not upon the "religion of Allah" before! But let's see whether this Bay'a was done voluntarily!)

بايع أهل المدينة المنورة سعوداً على دين الله ورسوله!! ....ا
- end of quote (from 'Unwan al-Majd 1/288) -

The reason for the above Bay'a: The Wahhabis declared war against al-Madina and made their life difficult and invaded their surroundings and implemented upon them an embargo for years (!) until they were forced to accept the invading Sa'ud and made Bay'a to him:

فأجمعوا على حرب المدينة!! ونزلوا عواليها، ثمَّ أمر عبدالعزيز ببناء قصر فيها فبنوه وأحكموه، واستوطنوه، وتبعهم أهل قباء ومن حولهم وضيَّقوا على أهل المدينة، وقطعوا عنهم السوابل ، وأقاموا على ذلك سنين....
فلمّا طال الحصار على أهل المدينة وقعت المكاتبات بينهم وبين سعود من حسن قلعي وأحمد الطيار والأعيان والقضاة وبايعوا في هذه السنة
- end of quote (from 'Unwan al-Majd 1/288) -

It is indeed as someone from the people of knowledge said: They (IAW and his followers) were the group of satan!


To be continued insha`Allah...

[Abu Sulayman]

51 - Attacking Oman, KILLING A HUGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE, taking a lot of "war booty" and forcing the people to make Bay'a to Sa'ud I.

ثم إن سعود ارسل إلى عمان عبد الله بن مزروع ....ا
ثم إن سعود بعث بعده إلى عمان مطلق المطيري بجيش منأهل نجد , وأمر أهل عمان بالاجتماع عليه والقتال معه , فاجتمع عليه مقاتلة أهل عمان مع ما معه من أهل نجد , فقاتل أهل الباطنة سحار ونواحيها ومن تبعهم , ورئيسهم يومئذ عزان بن قيس , وقاتلوا سعيد بن سلطان صاحب مسكة , ودام القتال بينهم , وقتل من عسكر عزان مقتلة عظيمة بلغت القتلى خمسمئة رجل....ا
وهم على ذلك يقتلون ويغنمون , وأخذ ومن معه قرى كثيرة من نواحي سحار من أهل الباطنة , وبايع غالبهم على دين الله ورسوله والسمع والطاعة , ولم يبق محارب إلا مسكة ونواحيها , مملكة سعيد وما تحت ولاية عزان من سحار , وغنموا منها غنائم كثيرة , وبعثوا بالأخماس إلى سعود بالدرعية
- end of quote (from 'Unwan al-Majd 1/306) -


52 - Humiliating the Al Khalifa - the rulers of Bahrain - and taking away all of their horses and other things!

تحقق عند سعود أن آل خليفة أهل البحرين يقع منهم بعض المخالفات , فخاف أن يقع أكبر من ذلك , فأرسل إليهم جيشاً....ا
أرسل أمراء ذلك الجيش إلى آل خليفة , وأمروهم يفدون على سعود , وساقوهم كرهاً
وكان سعود لما قبض عليهم أخذ جميع خيلهم ونجائبهم وغير ذلك من الشوكة لهم في البحرين والزبارة
- end of quote (from 'Unwan al-Majd 1/306) -


53 - Attacking the Levant (Sham) and Jordan, KILLING ITS PEOPLE, taking a lot of things as war booty, burning things down and CAUSING HUGE FEAR in the hearts of the people of the Levant, especially Damascus and its surrounding regions!

بلغه الخبر أن بوادي الشام وعربانه من عنزة وبني صخر وغيرهم فيها , فلما وصل تلك الناحية لم يجد فيها أحداً منهم , وإذا قد سبقه النذير إليهم , فاجتمعوا على دوخي بن سمير رئيس ولد علي من عنزة , وهو من وراء الجبل المعروف بطويل الثلج قرب نابلس , نازلين عين القهوة من جبال حوران , ولما بلغ ابن سمير ومن معه إقبال سعود إليهم انهزم بمن معه من البوادي ونزلوا الغور من حوران , فسار سعود في تلك الناحية , وأقبل فيها وأدبر , واجتاز بالقرى التي حول مزيريب وبصرى , فنهبت الجموع ما وجدوا فيها من المتاع والطعام , وأشعلوا فيها النيران , وكان أهلها قد هربوا عنها لما سمعوا بمسيره , ثم نزل عين البجة , وروى منها المسلمون!! وشربت خيلهم وجيوشهم....ا
ثم رجع قافلاً إلى وطنه ومعه غنائم كثيرة من الخيل والمتاع , والأثاث والطعام , وقتل من أهل الشام عدّة قتلى , وحصل في الشام رجفة ورهب عظيم بهذه الغزوة , في دمشق وغيرها من بلدانه وجميع بواديه
- end of quote (from 'Unwan al-Majd 1/309) -


54 - Attacking Tihama and Yemen, KILLING VERY HUGE NUMBERS OF ITS PEOPLE, DESTROYING WHOLE REGIONS AND SETTING THEM ON FIRE and taking almost all of the wealth of the attacked regions, which was so much that it can not be counted in any way or form!

سار عثمان بن عبد الرحمن المضايفي بأهل الحجاز وغيرهم , وقصد أرض تهامة واليمن , وكان حمود أبو مسمار قد سيّر عساكراً عظيمة , فالتقى الجمعان واقتتل الفريقان في الموضع المعروف باوحلة , فاقتتلوا قتالاً شديداً , وانكسر عسكر أبو مسمار , وقتل منهم قتلى كثيرة , نحو مايتين وخمسين رجلاً....ا
ثم سار بعده طامي بن شعيب.... فحاصروها وأخذوها عنوة , وأخذوا غالب ما فيها من الأموال من الذهب والفضة والقماش , واللؤلؤ والحرير وأنواع الأموال التي لا يحصيها العدّ , وذكر لنا أن منهم من طحن اللؤلؤ يظنه ذرة
وقتل من أهلها خلق كثير , قيل إن الذي هلك منهم ألف بين القتل والهلاك , ودمّروا البلد وأشعلوا فيها النيران....ا
وتوجهوا إلى بندر الحديدة , ونازلوا لأهلها فأخذوها عنوة واستالوا على غالب البلد....ا
فأخذ طامي ومن معه ما وجدوا فيها من المال والمتاع , ودموها , وقتلوا من أهلها قتلى كثيرة , وقبض عمال سعود خمس الغنائم وساروا بها إلى الدرعية....ا
- end of quote (from 'Unwan al-Majd 1/312) -


Inna lillahi wa inna ilayhi raji'un! We ask Allah ta'ala to have mercy upon all these Muslims killed at the hands of these satanic Khariji dogs!

After all what has been mentioned, we still find some criminals defending these followers of satan! At the forefront of this are without any doubt the "Salafi" Mashayikh, because their religion is based on lying - similar to the Mashayikh of the Rafidha! - and they are callers to innovation and heresy! Their so called "Tawhid" contains Kufr (!) in reality and they have betrayed the religion of Allah in order to defend their leader MIAW, the horn of satan!
Know - may Allah ta'ala have mercy upon you - that the "Salafiyya" and the Rafidha are among the greatest internal enemies of this Umma, callers to hellfire (!) and to civil war (as is clear from our reality today!) and that one is not allowed to respect their Mashayikh in any way or form! May Allah paralyze their tongues!

[AmantuBillahi]

Chain Takfir of the Early Najdiyya - Part 1 | Bro Hajji

"I myself ascribe to the Athari creed. I am an Athari. My lense is not from what you may say is an Ash'ari point of view or an extreme Sufi point of view. So this is not a direct attack on anyone who ascribes themselves to what they call today as-Salafiyyah. This is a critical and an academic breakdown of certain aspects of this Da'wah which has resulted in heinous crimes which many of the subscribers to it tend to ignore" [01:57]

Chain Takfir of the Early Najdiyya - Part 2 | Bro Hajji

Part 2 includes refernces to the back-and-forth between Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab and his brother Sulayman(ra) along with the allegations of his Da'wah conflicting with Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah(ra).

[Abu Sulayman]

Chain Takfir of the Early Najdiyya - Part 1 | Bro Hajji

"I myself ascribe to the Athari creed. I am an Athari. My lense is not from what you may say is an Ash'ari point of view or an extreme Sufi point of view. So this is not a direct attack on anyone who ascribes themselves to what they call today as-Salafiyyah. This is a critical and an academic breakdown of certain aspects of this Da'wah which has resulted in heinous crimes which many of the subscribers to it tend to ignore" [01:57]

Chain Takfir of the Early Najdiyya - Part 2 | Bro Hajji

Part 2 includes refernces to the back-and-forth between Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab and his brother Sulayman(ra) along with the allegations of his Da'wah conflicting with Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah(ra).

Barakallahu fik for posting these videos.

You know I've just one problem with the video and that is him saying that he doesn't want to attack the "Salafiyya" and that MIAW (d. 1206 AH) - despite his chain-Takfir - had beneficial books like Kashf al-Shubuhat, al-Qawa'id al-Arba'a and other than them in order to understand Tawhid and Shirk.

This is a clear mistake! The reason is that the Takfir and killing that MIAW called to is based upon these very books! These books are no in way representative of any classical 'Aqida school, be it the Hanbalis / Atharis or the Ash'aris / Maturdis. That is why someone like the great Hanbali 'Allama al-Saffarini (d. 1188 AH) compared MIAW's ideas with that of false prophets (!), while he regarded Ash'aris as fellow Sunnis!


Let me explain the wrong reasoning that MIAW used in order to justify his Takfir (which one can find in the above mentioned books!):
He claimed that the Makkan pagans in the pre-Islamic time used to be COMPLETE monotheists regarding the Lordship of Allah ta'ala without setting any partners to him in this and that their polytheism was only one in actions and that this is the "polytheism in divinity"!
Based upon this idea he argues that some actions like calling the Prophets and the righteous for help, or making Tawaf around graves, or rubbing graves or whatever is similar to these actions is "clear Shirk akbar, which expels one from the religion".
Based upon this being clear Shirk one is obliged to declare those who commit these actions as polytheists and anyone doubting this becomes a disbeliever.

Note that the last line would be true, IF the foundations that he build these rulings upon would be correct. But the issue here is that his foundations are completely wrong!


This is the reality of the issue:
The Makkan pagans used to believe Allah ta'ala to be a God out of many and that Allah ta'ala alone could not control and preserve this big creation! They used to ascribe to a lot of beings attributes of Lordship! They believed that angels are daughter of Allah! They believed that Allah is neither All-Knowing, nor All-Seeing, nor All-Hearing, nor All-Powerful! They would ever curse Allah ta'ala, if one were to insult their false gods! And a lot of other things, which I have mentioned in the following thread: Wahhabi claim: Belief in Rububiyya (lordship) of Allah: Muslims = Pagans
High Exalted is Allah ta'ala above what they believed!

This means that the very foundational claim of MIAW - which is found in his Kashf al-Shubuhat and his al-Qawa'id al-Arba'a - is completely wrong!
As for the actions mentioned: Yes prostration to other than Allah ta'ala is forbidden and in some it forms it's disbelief (like prostrating in front of an idol). Calling the Prophets or the righteous in the manner one calls Allah ta'ala is likewise forbidden and maybe even called as Shirk 'amali. But addressing the Prophets for intercession is allowed according to the absolute majority of classical scholars! Making Tawaf around graves is forbidden. Rubbing oneself to graves is disliked. And so on.

These actions only reach the level of "clear polytheism", if they are accompanied with a clear polytheist belief! This is what all the scholars - be they Ash'ari or Hanbali! - were explaining to MIAW!
I'll insha`Allah post the explanation of the forms of polytheism according to one of the Hanbali scholars, who at the same time refutes the IAW's baseless understanding.

[Abu Sulayman]

I'll insha`Allah post the explanation of the forms of polytheism according to one of the Hanbali scholars, who at the same time refutes IAW's baseless understanding.

Shaykh Mustafa bin Ahmad al-Shatti al-Hanbali: Idolatry and its forms

The Hanbali scholar, the Shaykh Mustafa bin Ahmad bin Hassan al-Shatti (d. 1348 AH) (from the Hanbali al-Shatti family and grandson of the famous Hanbali 'Allama Hassan bin 'Umar al-Shatti (d. 1274 AH)!), said in al-Nuqul al-Shar'iyya fil Radd 'ala al-Wahabiyya (p.11-17) (translation taken from HERE):

When discussing shirk,1 it should be known that there are two forms - the greater and the lesser. The greater form is the worship of idolatrous symbols2 and/or idols themselves,3 while the lesser form is looking at causes, depending upon them or showing dependence on them while being heedless of Allah.4 Indeed Allah, He is the One who brought these things into existence. Showing off5 is also a form of shirk, being referred to as minor shirk. The evidence for the dividing of shirk into categories has been mentioned by Allah in the Qur’an, reported in the Sunnah and agreed upon by the Consensus. Our evidence comes from the words of the Exalted One in the Qur’an:

And most of them do not believe in Allah except that they associate partners.6

Allah the Exalted, with this statement, has stated that most of His Slaves possess shirk while they are in a state of faith. Had the intent been major shirk, which negates faith, this would have caused a contradiction in His Word, but this is not possible as He is the One who destroys falsehood and contradiction. If we examine the context, we will know from this that there is another form of shirk, which is the lesser.

We have examples of this in the Sunnah, as explicitly stated in the following hadith from the companion, Abu Musa al-Ash`ari, Allah be pleased with him. He said, “The Messenger of Allah was giving us a speech one day, when he stated:

‘People! Beware of this shirk, for it is more inconspicuous than the tapping of an ant’s legs on a rock’.”7

In another narration, the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, stated:

“Shirk in my Ummah is more inconspicuous than the tapping of an ant’s legs on the rock.”8

The commentator on this hadith, Imam al-Munawi,9 said, “This is because they are looking at causes, such as rain, heedless of the uncaused cause. Whoever makes himself content with causes, has taken protectors besides Allah. A believer does not leave his faith except by denying the uncaused cause and the witness over all, the Lord of Lords, and he indicated this by saying that it is more concealed... Up to that it was waning, coming to nothing among them. He was pleased with them for the virtue of their certainty, especially while Abu Bakr and `Umar were among them. Thus, even if it was a danger for them, the dangers were hidden and there were no traces of it in their souls, just as there is no trace of the tapping of an ant’s legs on the side of a rock.”10

This is the clear and complete understanding of the hadith. Allah willed Abu Bakr as- Siddiq, one of the companions, to ask, “Messenger of Allah, how do we negate it if it is more inconspicuous than the tapping of an ant’s legs?” He said:

“You should say, Allah! Indeed we seek refuge in you that we should associate anything with you while we know and we seek your forgiveness for that which we do not know.”11

There was also a hadith collected by Imam Ahmad, narrated by Mahmud ibn Labid, who said that the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said:

“Indeed, I fear for you the minor shirk.”
The companions said, “And what is the minor shirk?” He said: “Showing off.”12

There are many similar hadiths on this topic, but we will not mention every relevant hadith on this subject in this small research.13 This would go beyond the scope of this small work, which is to explain and clarify the truth while enjoining the right and forbidding the wrong, giving advice to the Muslims in the faith. It became necessary to write this book when some of the people of knowledge began agreeing with the people of false desires and whims.14 To this we can only say there is no might or power except in Allah!

There is also consensus on the topic in question. It is a clearly established point of creed that no common Muslim15 ceases being a believer due to a major sin.16 Once this agreed upon point is known,17 how can one then hold common Muslims to be unbelievers when they do things such as attributing things to cause, making intercession,18 seeking a deed to be done in this life or the Hereafter from a prophet, saint or pious person, living or dead? How could they label them unbelievers when the common Muslims believe that the uncaused cause in the above points being granted is Allah, who is the Creator of the cause and the effect?

At no point is it permissible for us to hold the belief that the one who does any one of these actions mentioned is heading towards kufr,19 or that we judge that he is in kufr without asking him the reality of his creed. What is more, we are not to go into subterfuge and spying on matters where things are attributed to cause, as there are explicitly worded texts on the subject.20 Thus, the one who would make the judgement of kufr on someone committing these actions is in fact an unbeliever21 who has exited from the faith due to his following his base desires.

“Whoever calls a believer an unbeliever then one of them is that.”22

This is the exact wording of the hadith that has also been mentioned by Imam `Abdul Wahhab ash-Sha`rani to be of reliable narration and narrators in his book, The Great and Weighty Matters for Consideration.23

The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said moreover:

“Refrain from those who believe ‘there is no god but Allah’ and do not call one of them an unbeliever due to a sin, for whoever accused those who believe, ‘there is no god but Allah’ of kufr, then he is the one who is closest to kufr.”24

In another narration he, peace and blessings be upon him, states: “He is the one who is the most disbelieving.”25

Once this is understood, for someone to then state that the shirk in question here is of one degree and that it will nullify and render one’s faith as void, contradicts explicitly worded texts, and breaks the consensus.

This is just one of the five issues mentioned in this set of statements. It is these issues that the cursed Najdi group are contradicting by their explicitly held belief that whoever should make intercession26 with the Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him, or other than him, when in need or seek something from him, call on him in his stated need or intention, even if with the vocative particle, ‘O, Messenger of Allah’,27 or believing in any prophet or saint that is dead and making him an intermediary between him and Allah the Exalted, when in need, then he is an idol worshipper whose blood and wealth have become subject to spilling and seizure.28 There is, however, a small contingent among them who do not utter such charges at Muslims so as to call them unbelievers.29 Whoever believes this of the Muslims, may Allah give him what he deserves.

Their leader and head, Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab, the ‘Najdi shaykh’,30 explicitly held these deviant conclusions and stray positions. He is the very one responsible for the corruption of the common folk of Arabia. It was due to him that his followers dispatched a long message to my venerated grandfather, the pious scholar and source of authority for the Hanbalis in his age while he was alive, the late Shaikh Hasan ash-Shatti. This was sent to him believing that he might look at it and praise it. At this time, he was very ill and it was not easy for him to refute all the statements therein in detail, so he wrote at the end of the last page of the message some illuminating comments that can be summarised as follows:

I have read this general message with regard to the matter of Revealed Law as it relates to some doubts that were raised by some ignorant people, who do not necessitate kufr in principle, while some of it may be beneficial in consideration. Ibn `Abdul Wahhab has declared them to be kafir due to this action as stated in this letter, in addition to his declaring their blood and wealth licit for spilling and seizure. This belief was reached due to what appeared to their people by the outward import of the explicitly worded texts of Revealed Law built upon their founder’s ignorance, hatred and bad thoughts about the believers. May Allah curse whoever has this creed, for indeed, whoever declared a believer to be a kafir has already committed kufr.31

Most certainly, at the time of his writing this, his death, may Allah have mercy upon him, was near and it was not easy for him to refute all the statements in the letter in detail, but Allah is our Reckoner and the best one to be trusted. As further evidence, consider the following incident when my grandfather went to the Umayyah Family Central Masjid32 in Sham. Once inside, he overheard an elderly woman saying, “Sayyidi Yahya! Let my daughter be pardoned for my sake!” The Shaikh found the outward import of this speech to be a serious problem and not befitting etiquette in the presence of Allah. He advised her to show righteousness and etiquette in supplication.

He said to her, “My dear daughter! You should say, ‘By the rank or position of Sayyidi Yahya! Let my daughter be pardoned for my sake’!” She said, “Let it be known, Sir, that this is what I mean by the words I say. I say these words because he is nearer to Allah than I.” The Shaikh said, “I understood from that statement that her creed was fine, being that she held that Allah Alone is the doer of all things. The one thing that needed clarification from her was this statement, which was going to Allah the Exalted, for intercession by her seeking her means from him.” My grandfather then said, “I then decided to leave her, as to my knowledge her creed was correct.”

Let one then consider the ignorant, harsh and unforgiving people, and how they are with the Ummah of the Chosen One,33 peace and blessings be upon him. Take a careful look at how they release charges of kufr on the Muslims, declaring their blood and wealth licit for spilling and seizure, without the necessary legal prerequisites being present34 while it seems clear to any of the ignorant people amongst their ranks.35 It is Ibn `Abdul Wahhab who is responsible for this issue and the other issues mentioned, who has brought about this hastily thrown together set of principles. There is nothing in these principles except manifest darkness, immense warring and tribulation. It is the creed of the people of Harura’36 being propounded as well as the devises of Satan being used, and may Allah preserve us and the Muslims from that calamity. Amin.
- end of quote -

(The footnotes can be found in the translation linked above.)


Just look at the harshness in the words of the 'Allama Hassan al-Shatti al-Hanbali and then you'll understand how far these Najdis had gone astray! What is ironic is that they thought he will praise their deviation and Khariji way when sending the letter to him!

And this also shows you that the problem is in the very principles that they had set up in their ignorance and that it’s necessary to be against them and their modern supporters!

[AmantuBillahi]

Barakallahu fik for posting these videos.

You know I've just one problem with the video and that is him saying that he doesn't want to attack the "Salafiyya" and that MIAW (d. 1206 AH) - despite his chain-Takfir - had beneficial books like Kashf al-Shubuhat, al-Qawa'id al-Arba'a and other than them in order to understand Tawhid and Shirk.

This is a clear mistake! The reason is that the Takfir and killing that MIAW called to is based upon these very books! These books are no in way representative of any classical 'Aqida school, be it the Hanbalis / Atharis or the Ash'aris / Maturdis. That is why someone like the great Hanbali 'Allama al-Saffarini (d. 1188 AH) compared MIAW's ideas with that of false prophets (!), while he regarded Ash'aris as fellow Sunnis!


Let me explain the wrong reasoning that MIAW used in order to justify his Takfir (which one can find in the above mentioned books!):
He claimed that the Makkan pagans in the pre-Islamic time used to be COMPLETE monotheists regarding the Lordship of Allah ta'ala without setting any partners to him in this and that their polytheism was only one in actions and that this is the "polytheism in divinity"!
Based upon this idea he argues that some actions like calling the Prophets and the righteous for help, or making Tawaf around graves, or rubbing graves or whatever is similar to these actions is "clear Shirk akbar, which expels one from the religion".
Based upon this being clear Shirk one is obliged to declare those who commit these actions as polytheists and anyone doubting this becomes a disbeliever.

Note that the last line would be true, IF the foundations that he build these rulings upon would be correct. But the issue here is that his foundations are completely wrong!


This is the reality of the issue:
The Makkan pagans used to believe Allah ta'ala to be a God out of many and that Allah ta'ala alone could not control and preserve this big creation! They used to ascribe to a lot of beings attributes of Lordship! They believed that angels are daughter of Allah! They believed that Allah is neither All-Knowing, nor All-Seeing, nor All-Hearing, nor All-Powerful! They would ever curse Allah ta'ala, if one were to insult their false gods! And a lot of other things, which I have mentioned in the following thread: Wahhabi claim: Belief in Rububiyya (lordship) of Allah: Muslims = Pagans
High Exalted is Allah ta'ala above what they believed!

This means that the very foundational claim of MIAW - which is found in his Kashf al-Shubuhat and his al-Qawa'id al-Arba'a - is completely wrong!
As for the actions mentioned: Yes prostration to other than Allah ta'ala is forbidden and in some it forms it's disbelief (like prostrating in front of an idol). Calling the Prophets or the righteous in the manner one calls Allah ta'ala is likewise forbidden and maybe even called as Shirk 'amali. But addressing the Prophets for intercession is allowed according to the absolute majority of classical scholars! Making Tawaf around graves is forbidden. Rubbing oneself to graves is disliked. And so on.

These actions only reach the level of "clear polytheism", if they are accompanied with a clear polytheist belief! This is what all the scholars - be they Ash'ari or Hanbali! - were explaining to MIAW!
I'll insha`Allah post the explanation of the forms of polytheism according to one of the Hanbali scholars, who at the same time refutes the IAW's baseless understanding.

I agree. It appears that Bro Hajji's disagreement with MIAW is only with regards to Takfir and not necessarily his understanding of Tawhid & Shirk. This conflicts with the view of Yasir Qadhi who I quoted on page #2 stating that Istighatha and the likes are only Bid'ah/Haram.

It's actually been years since I've read or encouraged anyone to study the books of Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab. My question to the objective Salafis is what books of Aqeedah were the Muslims (Atharis/Hanbalis) studying before MIAW published Kitab at-Tawhid, Kashf ash-Shubuhat, Usool ath-Thalatha, Qawaid al-Arba, Nawaqid al-Islam, etc? Haven't you noticed that every Salafi ciriculum/program relies on these books as the foundations of what they teach as theology? What were the Muslims upon before Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab wrote those books, and how do you feel comfortable depending your religion on a contraversial late 12th century figure?

[AmantuBillahi]

The Khuruj of Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab | Bro Hajji

[AmantuBillahi]

The Khuruj of Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab | Bro Hajji

Correction: The title of the video should be "The Origin of the Saudi Kingdom (Rebellion). However, it contains many of the statements and precepts of Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab.

[Abu Sulayman]

I agree. It appears that Bro Hajji's disagreement with MIAW is only with regards to Takfir and not necessarily his understanding of Tawhid & Shirk. This conflicts with the view of Yasir Qadhi who I quoted on page #2 stating that Istighatha and the likes are only Bid'ah/Haram.

It's actually been years since I've read or encouraged anyone to study the books of Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab. My question to the objective Salafis is what books of Aqeedah were the Muslims (Atharis/Hanbalis) studying before MIAW published Kitab at-Tawhid, Kashf ash-Shubuhat, Usool ath-Thalatha, Qawaid al-Arba, Nawaqid al-Islam, etc? Haven't you noticed that every Salafi ciriculum/program relies on these books as the foundations of what they teach as theology? What were the Muslims upon before Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab wrote those books, and how do you feel comfortable depending your religion on a contraversial late 12th century figure?

You asked a very good question and that is:
What were the [Sunni] Muslims before MIAW (d. 1206 AH) studying?

It should be noted that in the classical learning in accordance to the way of Ahl al-Sunna Tamadhhub (belonging to a Madhhab) played a huge role and this is because the 4 relied upon Madhahib had been teached in a systematic way for centuries upon centuries and the scholars belonging to these Madhahib had all chains of knowledge and permissions to teach going back to the very founders of these Madhhahib (who had reached the level of Mujtahid Mutlaq), who in turn where connected to the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - through the noble companions and their direct followers.

When it comes to creed the Sunni Muslims used to be either Ash'ari or Maturidi or Hanbali. These three schools were united on all major issues of creed and only differed in some of the details.
The Ash'aris in the 12th Hijri century would usually study works such as al-Sanussiya (i.e. Umm al-Barahin), Jawharat al-Tawhid and similar works.
The Hanbalis in the 12th Hijri century would usually study Lum'at al-I'tiqad, Qala`id al-I'qyan (i.e. Mukhtasar of Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in) and similar works.

Note that the scholars who used to teach these works were connected to the original authors of the works by chains of knowledge and permission to teach! This is how they would make sure that misunderstandings do not happen and that creed is teached in an authentic way. The original authors themselves were also connected to other scholars before them and this goes back until it reaches the Master of the first and the last, sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam.

What MIAW now did was trying to brake this chain of Isnad and Ijaza and trying to argue that his own understanding - which literally no one agreed with and is in direct opposition of many many Ayat and Ahadith! - is the only correct and acceptable way (already quoted in the op) and that whosoever goes against his way - after hearing about it - has become a "disbeliever who needs to be faught". His mindset clearly entails claiming prophethood (!!!) and that is why you'll see that a lot of scholars in his time spoke to him in the manner one speaks to false prophets!
In fact it is even more than the claim of prophethood, because the one not believing in the Prophets - peace and blessings be upon them - is a disbeliever, but he is not to be faught except if he fights the believers or tries to stop the spread of the Prophetic message, while MIAW believes that the one going against his call is to be faught no matter what!

It should be also noted here that it's mentioned in the relied upon creedal books of the Hanabila that the one making Takfir upon a Muslim and believing him to be a disbeliever has committed disbelief himself (!) in reality (so they understood the famous Hadith on this issue LITERALLY!). This means that in the eyes of the Hanbali scholars MIAW was committing Kufr upon Kufr with all the Takfir that he was doing upon Muslims and their scholars.

The "Salafi" Mashayikh are basically blind followers of MIAW's call and are ready to openly lie (!!!) in order to defend him. That it's not allowed to trust such people regarding ones religion is not needed be explained any further here.

[Abu Sulayman]

^
Unfortunately the time for editing posts is very short such that my posts contain mistakes every now and then. It's al-Sanusiyya (not al-Sanussiya) and Qala`id al-'Iqyan (not Qala`id al-I'qyan).

The Khuruj of Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab | Bro Hajji

Thanks again for sharing.
A good video, but it contains the same mistake as before and that is the claim that MIAW's (d. 1206 AH) books on Tawhid and Shirk are good, which really is not the case. Quite the opposite! These definitions are that of a new religion, which why these very same principles enabled him to make Takfir upon the whole Umma!

There is an interesting point, which I don't know you realized or not:
A number of the translations he uses in these video are word by word (!) taken from my posts in the thread "The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than ISIS", so he either has read my posts in that thread or he has seen them on other websites (because some people have copied the posts on other websites).


An additional information regarding the time of fall of the Ottoman Khilafa:
While both Al Sa'ud and Hussayn bin 'Ali (Sharif of Makka) revolted against the Ottoman state, Hussayn bin 'Ali seems to have not been a full traitor and did not intend to give Palestine to the Zionists and believed in the obligation to uphold the Khilafa. This is the reason why the British gave precedence to Al Sa'ud, because they were full blown traitors and not interested in the continuation of the Khilafa at all.


Professor Mehmet Ali Büyükkara wrote a book titled "İhvan'dan Cüheyman'a Suudi Arabistan ve Vehhabilik" (Saudi Arabia and Wahhabism from Ikhwan to Juhayman), where he says the following on p. 46 (translation taken from HERE):

W. Shakespear, the political representative of the British in the region, came to Riyad in 1914 and warm friendships between the Saudis and the British were established as a result. This friendship became stronger when the First World War started. Ibn Saud who rejected the call for an alliance from the Ottoman State, immediately after this, while the Ottoman delegation was still in Riyad, offered an alliance to the British... ...From now on, the side of the Ottoman governer of Najd was evident. This togetherness was strengthened when the chivalry medal of the British-Indian Empire was given to Ibn Saud.
- end of quote -

Some pages later Prof. Büyükkara quotes from Jack Philby's book "Arabia of the Wahhabis" (London, 1928) (see p.23-24).

Here are the relevant quotes (scan of the two pages):

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-dDW-aoaCas...1600/Phiby.png

'Why!' he said 'if you English were to offer me of your daughters to wife I would accept her...
But I would not take of the daughters of the Sharif or of the people of Mecca or other Muslims, whom we reckon as Mushrikin. I would eat of meat slain by Christians without question. Ay, but it is the Mushrik, he who associates others in worship of God, that is our abomination...
Ibn Sa'ud by the way of commentary and turning to me, remarked that he unlike Faisal was of the stock of Isma'il - 'cousins to you, for you are of the stock of Ishaq.' The Turks, he said, were Aulad Iblis, being Tatars by origin.
- end of quote -

The above quotes show quite clearly the traitorous Khariji mindset of Ibn Sa'ud - who himself is from the Awlad (children) of the accursed Iblis! - and that the third Saudi state was built upon treason towards the Umma of Islam!

It should be noted here that the Al al-Shaykh (descendants of IAW) were and are allied to the Al Sa'ud until this day and age and the one who has looked into the history of this state and the Fatawa of the Wahhabi establishment knows that they make Takfir for the sake of Al Sa'ud and that they also declared people as "Khawarij" for the sake of Al Sa'ud also! The reason for this is that that they need the Al Sa'ud to stay strong and to spread their call [to hellfire].

[Abu Sulayman]

@AmantuBillahi

There is one thing that surprises me to be honest. Why do you still trust these "Salafi" Mashayikh regarding your creed?
I mean you know that they don't have a chain of knowledge going back to any of the classical Hanbali scholars.

Even when they teach Lum'at al-I'tiqad: They don't have any permission to teach it that goes back to the author, while some of the people whom they refer to as al-Hanabila al-Judud ("the new Hanbalis") are actually connected to the classical Hanbalis and therefore are the real Hanbalis in reality! Take for example the Shaykh Yusuf Sadiq al-Hanbali, who is a student of the Shaykh Muhammad al-Sayyid al-Hanbali, who in turn is a student of the Shaykh 'Abd al-Razzaq Khafaja (Hanbali scholar and was part of the Lajna of Fatwa, you won't find anything online about him) and he was connected to the classical Hanabila.

It should be also noted that these followers of IAW played a huge role in almost wiping out the Hanbali Madhhab from this planet! They were actively trying to kill Hanabila and a lot of the Hanbali scholars had to flee to non-Hanbali lands such that they lost connection to their students!

There is another important point here: Is a person whose creed is the same as in Lum'at al-I'tiqad a Sunni Muslim according to these people?
The answer: No, he isn't until he accepts the things that IAW teached according to these "Salafis"! In fact according to the Najdis he's not even a Muslim (!) until he accepts the things that IAW teached.

If this is their mindset, how can you trust them to explain the Hanbali creed in the correct manner?

[Abu Sulayman]

Different examples of stealing, killing and destruction caused by Wahhabis according to 'Unwan al-Majd

These quotes and the quotes mentioned before are only from the first volume of 'Unwan al-Majd fi Tarikh Najd (by the Khariji Ibn Bishr (d. 1288 AH)!


55 - Attacking al-Rawdha (p. 84): "فأغار على أهل بلد الروضة , وقتل من أهلها خمسة رجال , وقتل من المسلمين شهيل بن سحيم"
56 - Attacking al-Zulfi (p. 85): "سار على بلد الزلفى فأخذ غنمهم , ولحقه الفزع وتركها لهم"
57 - Attacking Riyadh (p. 84): "غزا عبد العزيز الرياض , فلما أصبح الصباح ارتفع الصياح , وقتل من أهل الرياض تسعة رجال"
58 - Attacking al-Muriqabat (p. 84): "خرج أهل البلد وناوشوهم القتال , فخرج عليهم الكمين , فوقعت عليهم الهزيمة , وقتل منهم سبعة رجال"
59 - Attacking al-Nabta (p. 84): "أغار عليهم عبد العزيز وقتل منهم عشرة رجال , وأخذ أثاثهم , وغنم "المسلمون!" ثمانين ذوداً من الإبل , وجميع أمتعتهم . الذود : ثلاثون من الإبل"
60 - Attacking Riyadh another time (p. 86): "دخل البلد وقتل منهم رجال"
61 - Attacking al-Kharj and Na'jan (p. 86): "قتل منهم سبعة رجال , وقطع بعض النخيل"
62 - Attacking Marat (p. 87): "فقتل من أهل البلد قريب من عشرين رجلاً , وقتل من "المسلمين!" رجلان"
63 - Attacking al-Far'a (p. 87): "فقتل من أهلها عدة رجال"
64 - Attacking Jalajil (p. 91): "قطعوا نخلاً وقتلوا من أهلها نحو عشرة رجال"
65 - Attacking Hamad al-Mudihim and Al Sa'id al-Dhafir family (p. 91): "استأصل جميع أموالهم , وقتل منهم نحو الثلاثين رجلاً"
66 - Attacking Subay' (p. 100): "غزا عبد الله بن محمد بن سعود فرقاناً من سبيع كثيره وغيرهم وهم نازلون بالعرمة , فشن عليهم الغارة بالصباح , فأخذهم , وأخذ منهم أموالاً كثيرة"
67 - Attacking Tharmada (p. 101): "أغار على البد وأخذ أغنامهم واستاقها , فخرجوا عليه , فلما التحم القتال , خرج عليهم الكمين , وانهزم البلد , وقتل منهم نحواً من عشرين رجلاً"
68 - Attacking al-Muhammara (Khorramshahr) (p. 115): "وقتل منهم رجالاً"
69 - Attacking Al Hbaysh family (p. 118): "أخذ عليهم إبلاً كثيرة , وقتل من الأعراب عدّة رجال"
70 - Attacking al-Dilam (p. 123): "سار سعود بن عبد العزيز إلى الدلم , فلما أصبحوا أغاروا عليهم وأخذوا الغنم"
71 - Attacking al-Dhubay'a (p. 123): "أغار عليهم عبد العزيز وأخذ عليهم السارحة , فخرج أهلها , وناوشوهم القتال , فخرج عليهم الكمين , وقتل من أهلها اثنا عشر رجلاً"
72 - Attacking al-Yamama (p. 131): "جهز ثمانين راكباً إلى اليمامة , فعقروا فيها إبلاً ورجعوا"
73 - Attacking Hotat Bani Tamim (p. 142): "وقتل من أهلها خمسة عشر رجلاً"
74 - Attacking al-Rawdha another time (p. 151): "نزل سعود الروضة , واشتد عليهم القتال والمواقعات , واستولى على النخيل"
75 - Attacking al-Ahsa` (p. 154): "سار سعود "بالمسلمين!" وقصد ناحية الأحساء , وصبح أهل العيون ولم يبلغهم عنه خبر , وأخذ كثيراً من الحيوانات , وأخذ من بيوتها أزواداً وأمتعة"
76 - Attacking Mutayr (p. 173): "فحصل قتال شديد , وقتل منهم نحو خمسين رجلاً , وغنم "المسلمون!" ما معهم من الأموال والأمتعة , والأثاث , والإبل , والزاد , والإبل , والغنم"
77 - Attacking north of Najd (p. 210): "سار سعود وقصد جهة الشمال فأغار على عربان كثيرة مجتمعة , فهزمهم وقتل منهم رجالة كثيرة , وأخذ منهم ألفاً وخمسمئة بعير , وجميع أغنامهم , ومحلتهم وأثاثهم"
78 - Attacking 'Utayba and Mutayr tribe (p. 213): "سار سعود وأغار على عربان من عتيبة ومطير , وهم في حرة , فدهمهم فيها وهربوا , وحصل قتال شديد , فأخذ عليهم نحو مئة بعير وأغناماً كثير , وكثيراً من الأمتعة والأزواد"
79 - Attacking Shahran tribe (p. 236): "غزا ربيع بن زيد الدوسري , وأمره عبد العزيز أن يقصد جهة الحجاز , فأغار على عربان شهران في الجنوب , وقتل منهم خمسين رجلاً , وأخذ منهم إبلاً وأغناماً كثيرة"
80 - Attacking al-Baqum tribe in Hijaz (p. 239): "غزا هادي بن قرملة وأغار على البقوم في الحجاز فهزمهم وقتل منهم عدّة رجال ثم بعد شهرين غزاهم فقتل منهم قتلى وأخذ كثيراً من الإبل والغنم"
81 - Attacking al-Shararat tribe (p. 240): "غزا حجيلان بن حميد أرض الشام , وأغاروا على عربان الشرارات فانهزموا , فقتل منهم مئة وعشرون رجلاً"
82 - Attacking Samawa (in Iraq) (p. 289): "سار وقصد السماوة , وحاصر أهلها , وأخذ من نواحيها , ودمّر أشجارها"
83 - Attacking al-Safra` (p. 333): "سار سعود إلى وادي الصفراء , فحرق نخيلاً وقتل رجالاً"
84 - Attacking al-Suwayriqiyya (p. 333): "فحصرهم , ونزلوا منها بالأمان على نصف الحلقة , وشطر ما تحت يديهم , بعدما قطع نخيلهم وهدم أكثر منازلهم , فأقام عليها مدّة أيام , وجمع فيها الغنايم وباعها , وقسمها على المسلمين!! , للراجل سهم وللفارس سهمان"
85 - Attacking Safina (p. 367): "نزلها عبد الله بن سعود , وأخذ عليهم إبلاً وغنماً كثيرة"
86 - Attacking al-Busayri (p. 377): "فأغار على البصيري ودهمهم , وأخذ محلتهم وأمتعتهم وأغنامهم , وكانوا قد هرّبوا الإبل وزبنوها"


Note that all these quotes are just from the first volume and I did not mention any of the details (like for example their destruction of the majority of the houses in al-Suwayriqiyya, which is a village near Madina al-munawwara!), because their crimes are like an ocean! One cannot count them!

Now imagine, if one goes on to the second volume and mentions those crimes. But I think by now the issue has become more than clear and the amount of proofs against them is already more than enough.

[AmantuBillahi]

@AmantuBillahi

There is one thing that surprises me to be honest. Why do you still trust these "Salafi" Mashayikh regarding your creed?
I mean you know that they don't have a chain of knowledge going back to any of the classical Hanbali scholars.

Even when they teach Lum'at al-I'tiqad: They don't have any permission to teach it that goes back to the author, while some of the people whom they refer to as al-Hanabila al-Judud ("the new Hanbalis") are actually connected to the classical Hanbalis and therefore are the real Hanbalis in reality! Take for example the Shaykh Yusuf Sadiq al-Hanbali, who is a student of the Shaykh Muhammad al-Sayyid al-Hanbali, who in turn is a student of the Shaykh 'Abd al-Razzaq Khafaja (Hanbali scholar and was part of the Lajna of Fatwa, you won't find anything online about him) and he was connected to the classical Hanabila.

It should be also noted that these followers of IAW played a huge role in almost wiping out the Hanbali Madhhab from this planet! They were actively trying to kill Hanabila and a lot of the Hanbali scholars had to flee to non-Hanbali lands such that they lost connection to their students!

There is another important point here: Is a person whose creed is the same as in Lum'at al-I'tiqad a Sunni Muslim according to these people?
The answer: No, he isn't until he accepts the things that IAW teached according to these "Salafis"! In fact according to the Najdis he's not even a Muslim (!) until he accepts the things that IAW teached.

If this is their mindset, how can you trust them to explain the Hanbali creed in the correct manner?

Trust is a strong word. The beliefs I hold in creed aren't merely based on Taqlid or dependent on any Salafi scholar. I strongly sympathize with the Athari methodology of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah(ra) and believe that it most accurately represents the creed of the Salaf. This is what essentially binds me to the Salafi Mashayikh and the contemporary Salafi movement.

I don't believe that Allah revealed or even preserved the Hanbali Madhhab. Let us agree for the sake of argument that the "traditional/mainstream" Hanbali scholars differed with the Salafis and actually believed in Tafwid. This does not necessitate that their viewpoint is the truth or that we are obliged to follow them. At the end of the day what is more important than conforming with the "traditional Hanbali scholars" is following Imam Ahmad(ra) himself and the Salaf as-Salih.

There's a difference of opinion amongst Salafis regarding the theological inclinations of Ibn Qudama(ra). I'm of the view that he was not a blameworthy/extreme Mufaawid despite some of his seemingly problematic statements. In any case, what this example demonstrates is that Salafis do not consider the Haqq/orthodoxy as resting upon the shoulders of Ibn Qudama. Ibn Qudama could actually be criticized for his alleged deviations in Aqeedah without it effecting the Salafi narrative of the Athari creed. One should also note that Lumatul Itiqad is absolutely consistent with the Salafi/Athari understanding.

On the previous page I briefly pointed out that the rise of Tafwid and the gradual "Ash'arization" of the Hanbali Madhhab just before Ibn Taymiyyah's prominence was a byproduct of the political dominance of Ash'arism and the influence of the Nizamiyya. It is not farfetched to assume that the Hanbali scholars were pressured into reforming aspects of their theology in order to lessen the tensions between them and the new mainstream denomination. There are historical examples of the Ash'ari elite imprisoning certain Hanbali scholars who did not toe the line on what they deemed to be acceptable Hanbali interpretations.
The scholars you referenced as being authoritative in the Hanbali/Salafi thread were either contemporaneous to Ibn Taymiyyah or from the latter generations. As such, none of them would be considered "authoritative" in the eyes of Ibn Taymiyyah himself. The Hanbalis prior to that era had relatively major disagreements in the Usool of Aqeedah along with different perceptions of Imam Ahmad(ra). One could easily argue that the proposed "mainstream Hanabila" didn't necessarily see eye-to-eye with another either. This is despite the fact that some of the later contributors to the Madhhab might have attempted to reconcile their differences and declare the variant trends to be complimentary.

Anyways the point I'm trying to make is that what developed and became the "traditional" Hanbali school was put together by fallible scholars in the latter centuries and does not necessarily represent the exact views of Imam Ahmad(ra) or the Salaf on every issue. However, there's no denying that it is the most orthodox Madhhab in Aqeedah and closest to the truth. Unfortunately we don't have many Athari resources in the English language outside of what the Salafis have to offer. I would definitely be interested in studying the history of the Madhhab in more detail for myself.

Lastly, I'm not really buying the whole unbroken Isnad back to the classical Ulama concept. I recall overhearing some knowledgeable brothers disputing the authenticity of those chains and the deception surrounding the Asaneed of the Suffiyyah in modern times.
I guess the thing for me is how improbable it is for someone to have a direct chain of Lumatul Itiqad back to Ibn Qudama himself. Like what does that even mean? Does this only refer to having "permission" to teach the book or did they preserve Ibn Qudama's personal Tafsir as well? If the Isnad is merely an Ijaza to teach the book then I don't necessarily find this intriguing. However, if they claim to possess the actual interpretation of Ibn Qudama himself then that would be worth verifying.

Wa Allahu Alam