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

[TazkiyyatunNafs]

السلام عليكم ورØمة الله وبركاته

Afwan, I was wondering if there's a knowledgeable sister I can get referred to? I have a lot of questions after reading other threads on the subject, and instead of keep coming on here I'd rather go to a sister for obvious reasons. I'm not looking for one that is Salafi inclined, because I can find my way there. I know it might be too much to ask of brothers, but I don't know where to start. جزاكم الله خيرا

[AmantuBillahi]

السلام عليكم ورØمة الله وبركاته

Afwan, I was wondering if there's a knowledgeable sister I can get referred to? I have a lot of questions after reading other threads on the subject, and instead of keep coming on here I'd rather go to a sister for obvious reasons. I'm not looking for one that is Salafi inclined, because I can find my way there. I know it might be too much to ask of brothers, but I don't know where to start. جزاكم الله خيرا

I don't think there are many on this website that can help you with these issues. Why don't you just post your questions in this thread and see where that takes you?

Also, what exactly do you mean by "Salafi inclined"? Are you referring to someone who is Ash'ari or an Athari opponent of the Najdi Da'wah? By the way, I would still classify Yasir Qadhi as being "Salafi inclined" because he agrees with the Aqeedah of Ibn Taymiyyah.

[Abu Sulayman]

Alhamdulillah. May Allah guide you and help distinguish truth from falsehood.

One thing to remember for anyone who comes from a Salafi/Najdi background is that rejecting the Da'wah of Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab doesn't automatically result in justifying the rituals he considered to be Shirk.

You're right, brother. No one from the scholars of Ahl al-Sunna - be they Hanbali / Athari or Ash'ari / Maturidi - who responded to MIAW (d. 1206 AH) said that one should go and prostrate to other than Allah ta'ala nor did they say that one should circumbulate graves nor what is similar to these actions. Rather they said that those among the laymen who do this out of ignorance are mistaken and should be adviced and teached the correct way of visitation of graves and showing respect and NOT that one calls to their killing and the killing of whosoever does not make Takfir upon them.

At the same time it should be highlighted that these wrong actions connected to the graves are not what differentiates between a monotheist and a polytheist. The classical books of creed do not mention a single word about the issue of graves and this with the knowledge that these issues have always been present. MIAW heavily exaggerated these issues and even lied a lot to make things look much worse than they were (like his ugly claim that most of the people of Hijaz rejected the resurrection!) and acted as if Tawhid and Shirk is all about graves, while this is not the case. If this would be the case, the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - wouldn't have told us to visit the graves!

I think we should always remember one thing: The Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - has conveyed the divine message in the best form and he did not tell us to do things which will lead us to leaving the religion! So when he - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - told us to visit graves, it becomes known with certainty that he did not regard this an action which will lead most of his Umma into "Shirk akbar" as the Najdis claimed.
He - 'alayhil salatu wal salam - also informed us what he feared for and what not and he clearly did not fear for us to become polytheists (see reports from al-Sahihayn and other authentic reports), so how is it possible to ignore his blessed words?

Practices like Istighatha and Shafa'a could still be condemned as Bid'ah and Haram without MIAW.

Seeking intercession (Tashaffu') with the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - during the visitation is clearly something established by the Shari'a, so it's really not acceptable to regard this an innovation or as forbidden (or as "Shirk akbar" as the Najdis claimed as the first people in history).

Do you know that the Hafidh Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) - who was the first to regard it as forbidden (but not "Shirk akbar" of course) - later on (i.e. after writing Qa'ida Jalila) seems to have returned to the position of all other scholars on this issue? I was also surprised to see this, but both the Hafidh Ibn Kathir (d. 774 AH) and the Hafidh Ibn 'Abd al-Hadi (d. 744 AH) - who were both students of Ibn Taymiyya with the latter being a very fanatic supporter of him - mentioned an incident where scholars discussed with Ibn Taymiyya on this issue (due to his abnormal position) and Ibn Taymiyya basically stated that Tawassul and Tashaffu' with the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - is correct and that he only has a problem with Istighatha. I also found such a statement by himself in Majmu' al-Fatawa (with an addition of a footnote by a Najdi / "Salafi" of course, because it destroys their Madhhab).

As for Istighatha: It really depends on what one regards as Istighatha. If it's intended that one is not allowed to say "Ya Rasulallah!" intending Tawassul through him unto one's Lord, then rejecting this is not correct since calling the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - after his death in Tawassul is established from 'Uthman bin Hunayf - radhiallahu 'anhu - and no one from the early Muslims criticized this.
If however it's intended to call the creation in the manner one calls Allah ta'ala such that one says "forgive me or have mercy upon me or sustain me or answer me (and in another manuscript of the same text ‘give me life’ was mentioned) or give me money and a child" - and this is what the Hafidh Ibn Taymiyya intended when he disallowed it - then this is forbidden without any doubt. It becomes real Shirk if the person believes that a creation has real benefit and real harm for him, otherwise one could call it as Shirk asghar or Shirk 'amali.
This is affirmed by Imam al-Jazari [al-Shafi'i] (d. 711 AH) and Imam al-Tufi [al-Hanbali] (d. 716 AH) and this while they were refuting him on Istighatha and supporting seeking aid with the Best of Creation, sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam!

So Ibn Taymiyya had actually a valid point when speaking against Istighatha, but the way he presented his view in addition to his previous rejection of Tawassul and Tashaffu' made the scholars reject his view.
Based upon this: That which the Rafidha do and which also some ignorant [Sunni] laymen do is wrong and to be rejected, but it does not necessitate Takfir because it depends on the beliefs.

By the way: Ibn Qayyim (d. 751 AH) mentioned that Ibn Taymiyya was sitting and listening to the poetry of Imam Yayha bin Yusuf al-Sarsari al-Hanbali (d. 656 AH), who was famous for his beautiful poetry regarding the Messenger of Allah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - and it was praised by the scholars and this with the knowledge that it was filled with seeking aid with the Chosen One, sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam. Al-Hafidh Ibn Taymiyya began to cry and then when the poet reached a passage which includes ISTIGHATHA he cried even more. This alone would be enough to be regarded a "Mushrik" according to Najdis!

This should be enough to see how different Ibn Taymiyya was from the Najdis and that he loved the Messenger of Allah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - and longed to see him. This is quite unlike Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab and his early followers, who would disrespect the Chosen One, sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam! (Their disrespect is reported by a number of reliable scholars of their time.)

On a general note: The way the "Salafis" present Ibn Taymiyya is very different from the real Ibn Taymiyya and they hide a lot about him. This may also explain the fact that Hanabila respected him a lot, while they LITERALLY regarded Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab a FALSE PROPHET.
Don't also forget that even Majmu' al-Fatawa was put together by a Najdi, so it's expected that this Najdi did not include some of his important writings! I mean Ibn Taymiyya was a Sufi (yes by Allah, a Sufi! Just imagine, o "Salafis"!) - as most major Hanabila were - and even though he would use some harsh and exaggerated language in his refutations in his writings (this was simply his style!), in real life he befriended Ash'aris and even called them as "Sadat al-Islam" (The Leaders of Islam).
(I guess some "Salafis" would get a heart attack reading this!)

Also, one should not be confused by thinking that confirming the radical elements of the Najdi Da'wah somehow proves the validity of Ash'ari Aqeedah. The two are not related with one another. You can still believe in Allah’s Names & Attributes according to how Allah described Himself while at same time being a critic of Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab.

If you would tell the sister that she is not obliged to become an Ash'ari, then I would agree with you and this with the knowledge that I'm more inclined towards the Asha'ira than the Hanabila in creed. But saying that this does not "prove the validity of Ash'ari 'Aqida", then this is wrong. Rather the 'Aqida of the Asha'ira is valid no matter whether you want to accept this or not.

I don't really understand your antipathy towards Ash'aris and your vehement denial of them being Sunnis. Allah ta'ala preserved most of the religion and its sciences at the hand of the Asha'ira, so anyone attacking Ash'aris is in reality also attacking Islam without realizing.
If Anti-Ash'ari Hanabila like al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la (d. 458 AH) and his son included Ash'aris into Ahl al-Hadith, then why is it that you can't do it? Are you more Hanbali than them (which is basically impossible)?
Don't also forget that Hanabila themselves toned down a lot of their Anti-Ash'ari attitude when they saw that Ash'aris are basically writing the best books in almost all Islamic sciences and clearly supported the Sunna! Who wrote the best explanation upon Sahih Muslim for example? Imam al-Nawawi (d. 676 AH), who used to teach Ash'ari creed to his students and call the Ash'ari Mutakallimun as "our companions"!!! Who were the scholar of Fiqh and its Usul? Who were the scholars of Hadith? Who were the scholars of Tafsir? Mostly Asha'ira!

Add to all of this: The "Salafi" understanding of being an "Athari" is not the same as that of the Hanabila of being an Athari as you know. Books like Lum'at al-I'tiqad, Qala`id al-'Iqyan and al-'Ayn wal Athar (all three and not just Lum'at al-I'tiqad with a "Salafi" "explanation" (read: distorsion) alone) are basically representative of the real Athari creed and were also teached during the time of IAW by the Hanabila.
It's not allowed to be a modern "Salafi" in creed, because they have a lot of wrong opinions, like them believing in the possibility of the Creator to be a 3-dimensional being or their claim that He goes from one state to another or their support for infinite regression or some of them accepting the possibility of the hellfire ceasing to exist as an acceptable position and other than this.

[Abu Sulayman]

السلام عليكم ورØمة الله وبركاته

Afwan, I was wondering if there's a knowledgeable sister I can get referred to? I have a lot of questions after reading other threads on the subject, and instead of keep coming on here I'd rather go to a sister for obvious reasons. I'm not looking for one that is Salafi inclined, because I can find my way there. I know it might be too much to ask of brothers, but I don't know where to start. جزاكم الله خيرا

Hmm, why don't you post the questions here as the brother AmantuBillahi said?
I would also recommend you to read al-Sawa'iq al-Ilahiyya by the 'Allama Sulayman bin 'Abd al-Wahhab al-Hanbali al-Athari (d. 1208 AH) (especially because you understand Arabic), because he clarifies a lot of things and he basically destroys the so called "Da'wa" of his brother and shows also that he completely misunderstood al-Hafidh Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH).
(By the way: Some people lie and claim that he "accepted the call of his brother", but they don't have a single proof for this claim! In fact the "Salafi" researcher 'Abdullah al-Bassam - who by the way is in no way as extreme as the original Najdis, because he prays for the very Hanbali scholars that IAW made Takfir by name! - clarified why this claim is wrong and mentioned his proofs for this.)

Just so that you know how strong this refutation is: When MIAW's (d. 1206 AH) followers caught Sulayman bin Khuwaytir transporting a letter by the Shaykh Sulayman, IAW commanded him to be killed. This very letter later on became known as the work al-Sawa'iq al-Ilahiyya!
See:

17 - IAW commands Sulayman bin Khwaytir to be killed, because he was catched transporting a letter from Huraymila - by his brother, the Shaykh Sulayman bin 'Abd al-Wahhab! - to the people of 'Uyayyna
(Transporting a scholarly refutation of IAW's views seems to be also "apostasy"?! Note how he himself commands all these crimes to be committed!)

قتل سليمان بن خويطر , وسبب ذلك أنه قدم بلدة Øريملا Ø®Ù�ية –وهم إذ ذاك بلد Øرب- Ù�كتب معه قاضي البلدة سليمان بن عبد الوهاب –أخو الشيخ- كتاباً إلى أهل العيينة , ذكر Ù�يها شبهاً مريبة وأقاويل Ù…ØرÙ�Ø© وأØاديث مضلة , وأمره أن يقرأها Ù�ÙŠ المØاÙ�Ù„ والبيوت , Ù�ألقى ذلك Ù�ÙŠ قلوب بعض أهل العيينة شبهات غيّرت قلوب من لم يتØقق الإيمان , ولم يعرÙ� مصادر الكلام , Ù�أمر الشيخ به أن يقتل Ù�قتل!!ا
- end of quote (from Tarikh Najd p. 107) -

Some passages can be found translated here:

- 'Allama Sulayman bin 'Abd al-Wahhab al-Hanbali (d. 1208 AH): Some of his statements in response to the ignorance of his brother IAW

[AmantuBillahi]

TazkiyyatunNafs

Have you watched the 'Chain Takfir of the Early Najdiyya' series by brother Hajji?

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

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

Part 3 should be coming out soon inshaAllah Ta'ala.

Note: Brother Hajji's error is that he still agrees with the Tawhid of Ibn Abdul Wahhab but rejects his application of Takfir. Other than that, it is filled with a lot of information and easy to follow.

[TazkiyyatunNafs]

I don't think there are many on this website that can help you with these issues. Why don't you just post your questions in this thread and see where that takes you?

Also, what exactly do you mean by "Salafi inclined"? Are you referring to someone who is Ash'ari or an Athari opponent of the Najdi Da'wah? By the way, I would still classify Yasir Qadhi as being "Salafi inclined" because he agrees with the Aqeedah of Ibn Taymiyyah.

I didn't mean sisters on this forum but perhaps sisters outside of it, teachers etc. With Salafi inclined I meant anyone under the 'Salafi Community' umbrella, which would exclude Yasir Qadhi. I actually have been a 'Salafi' misfit for the past year and wasn't sure who I was agreeing with anymore. There's a lot of ta3assub, hizbiyyah among the Salafis. For the past year I've tried to take a more neutral stance towards all those groups and simply tried to stick to the big and past away Salafi scholars. Anyway, I was looking for a preferably Athari opponent of the Najdi Da3wah.

​​​​​​I'd prefer to find a sister instead of posting on here because I don't want to mix more than I already did. When I first started posting everyone called me brother, I never pretended I was but it made me feel a bit better about being here. And now that it's out I'm a sister I feel highly uncomfortable. Either way I shouldn't have been posting on here, and when Abu Sulayman and Eesa mentioned "sister" I felt really embarrassed that this is what I had brought upon myself. I'm literally the only sister on these topics if it wasn't already bad enough that I'm here to begin with it.

[TazkiyyatunNafs]

Hmm, why don't you post the questions here as the brother AmantuBillahi said?
I would also recommend you to read al-Sawa'iq al-Ilahiyya by the 'Allama Sulayman bin 'Abd al-Wahhab al-Hanbali al-Athari (d. 1208 AH) (especially because you understand Arabic), because he clarifies a lot of things and he basically destroys the so called "Da'wa" of his brother and shows also that he completely misunderstood al-Hafidh Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH).
(By the way: Some people lie and claim that he "accepted the call of his brother", but they don't have a single proof for this claim! In fact the "Salafi" researcher 'Abdullah al-Bassam - who by the way is in no way as extreme as the original Najdis, because he prays for the very Hanbali scholars that IAW made Takfir by name! - clarified why this claim is wrong and mentioned his proofs for this.)

Just so that you know how strong this refutation is: When MIAW's (d. 1206 AH) followers caught Sulayman bin Khuwaytir transporting a letter by the Shaykh Sulayman, IAW commanded him to be killed. This very letter later on became known as the work al-Sawa'iq al-Ilahiyya!
See:



Some passages can be found translated here:

- 'Allama Sulayman bin 'Abd al-Wahhab al-Hanbali (d. 1208 AH): Some of his statements in response to the ignorance of his brother IAW

جزاكم الله خيرا will have a look إن شاء الله
I answered your question in my comment above.

[AmantuBillahi]

I didn't mean sisters on this forum but perhaps sisters outside of it, teachers etc. With Salafi inclined I meant anyone under the 'Salafi Community' umbrella, which would exclude Yasir Qadhi. I actually have been a 'Salafi' misfit for the past year and wasn't sure who I was agreeing with anymore. There's a lot of ta3assub, hizbiyyah among the Salafis. For the past year I've tried to take a more neutral stance towards all those groups and simply tried to stick to the big and past away Salafi scholars. Anyway, I was looking for a preferably Athari opponent of the Najdi Da3wah.

There are not too many Athari opponents of the Najdi Da'wah outside of what some people refer to as the "traditionalist Hanabila". However, the Salafi/Najdi Da'wah is already on the decline and I suspect that many will soon identify with a Salafi-Athari approach (i.e. pro Ibn Taymiyyah) similar to Yasir Qadhi.

The Shaykh is expected to publish an academic book on the historical evolution of Salafism/Atharism before the end of this year. I'll be sure to post a link on the forum once it is available to the public inshaAllah.

[Abu Sulayman]

جزاكم الله خيرا will have a look إن شاء الله
I answered your question in my comment above.

I understand your reasoning. I would however like to mention that this a public forum and we're speaking about religious and historical issues without any inappropriate behavior between the genders whatsoever. There are some other threads - especially in the marriage section - where I personally dislike the interactions of some users, but in this section there is no such behavior as far as I can tell.
As far as I know Umm al-Mu`minin 'A`isha - radhiallahu 'anha - used to teach other people from behind a veil and this was also done by other female scholars after her.
If you're uncomfortable then this is different, but it's really not like it's forbidden.

By the way: The work al-Sawa'iq al-Ilahiyya has also been printed under the name Fasl al-Khitab.
Here is a link to the pdf:
https://naseemalsham.com/uploads/Com..._AlIlaheeh.pdf

[TazkiyyatunNafs]

There are not too many Athari opponents of the Najdi Da'wah outside of what some people refer to as the "traditionalist Hanabila". However, the Salafi/Najdi Da'wah is already on the decline and I suspect that many will soon identify with a Salafi-Athari approach (i.e. pro Ibn Taymiyyah) similar to Yasir Qadhi.

The Shaykh is expected to publish an academic book on the historical evolution of Salafism/Atharism before the end of this year. I'll be sure to post a link on the forum once it is available to the public inshaAllah.

That's what I figured once I started searching, but all I could find (online at least) were Salafi sites. It's such a shame because I actually - at least up until what I've read and verified so far - feel increasingly uneasy with Ibn Abdul-Wahhab. I came here to study at a Salafi institute and I know I won't be able to stay here if I continue feeling this way about the Da3wah, and it doesn't seem like there are many if any alternatives?

​​​​​

[Abu Sulayman]

There are not too many Athari opponents of the Najdi Da'wah outside of what some people refer to as the "traditionalist Hanabila".

These traditional Hanabila (like the Shaykh Muhammad al-Sayyid Mustafa al-Hanbali for example) - or al-Hanabila al-Judud ("new Hanbalis") as "Salafis" call them - are actually UPON THE VERY SAME 'Aqida and Fiqh as the classical Hanabila and teach and learn ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY their works and are even connected in their chain of knowledge to them. So when someone of them teaches Lum'at al-I'tiqad, then he does so with a chain of knowledge going back right to the author and he explains what the author intended and does not try to refute him.
"Salafis" can not claim any of this for themselves!

In fact their Najdi forefathers plaid the leading role in killing whatever is Hanbali on the Arabian peninsula, which explains their low number in our times!

[TazkiyyatunNafs]

I understand your reasoning. I would however like to mention that this a public forum and we're speaking about religious and historical issues without any inappropriate behavior between the genders whatsoever. There are some other threads - especially in the marriage section - where I personally dislike the interactions of some users, but in this section there is no such behavior as far as I can tell.
As far as I know Umm al-Mu`minin 'A`isha - radhiallahu 'anha - used to teach other people from behind a veil and this was also done by other female scholars after her.
If you're uncomfortable then this is different, but it's really not like it's forbidden.

By the way: The work al-Sawa'iq al-Ilahiyya has also been printed under the name Fasl al-Khitab.
Here is a link to the pdf:
https://naseemalsham.com/uploads/Com..._AlIlaheeh.pdf

I think it's mostly my feelings on the matter which has also been influenced by my environment. I was actually kind of hoping you would know someone perhaps, inshaaAllaah khayr.

Anyway, I can continue reading the threads even if I were to stop responding inshaaAllaah. Your comment to AmantuBillahi above has actually been quite helpful as was the book reference of Shaykh Sulayman. جزاكم الله خيرا

​​​​​​Edited to add: I meant the comment to AmantuBillahi where you mentioned Ibn Taymiyyah and his stance on Tawassul.

[AmantuBillahi]

That's what I figured once I started searching, but all I could find (online at least) were Salafi sites. It's such a shame because I actually - at least up until what I've read and verified so far - feel increasingly uneasy with Ibn Abdul-Wahhab. I came here to study at a Salafi institute and I know I won't be able to stay here if I continue feeling this way about the Da3wah, and it doesn't seem like there are many if any alternatives?

​​​​​

There is nothing wrong with studying at a Salafi institute as long you keep your mind open and don't become completely indoctrinated by their program. The same would apply if you were to study at a non-Salafi university or institute. Some of the Salafi scholars (Abdul Mohsin al-Abbad if I'm not mistaken) and students of knowledge have permitted studying at al-Azhar with the condition of not being influenced by their Aqeedah.

I guess it really depends on the level of the institute and what you're actually studying. Both strands have their positives and negatives which they excell one another in. If you could study Asma wa-Sifat in depth with a qualified teacher than that wouldn't be something to pass out on, but generally I would prefer studying Fiqh in the traditional sense through a single Madhhab.

Here's a video by Mufti Muneer (Salafi) comparing studying at Madinah with al-Azhar:

Although he is considered more of a "hardline Salafi", he doesn't shy away from praising certain qualities of al-Azhar and advising against being a "sheep" at Madinah. You could potentially go astray if you lack integrity at either institute.

Yasir Qadhi was also asked about this after he claimed that neither strand was completely flawless and he admitted we cannot "reinvent the wheel". There's nothing wrong with studying either tradition and in fact it is recommended to study both of them. The problem is when you become a blind fanatic to either Hizb and remove the human element out of the equation.

[AmantuBillahi]

These traditional Hanabila (like the Shaykh Muhammad al-Sayyid Mustafa al-Hanbali for example) - or al-Hanabila al-Judud ("new Hanbalis") as "Salafis" call them - are actually UPON THE VERY SAME 'Aqida and Fiqh as the classical Hanabila and teach and learn ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY their works and are even connected in their chain of knowledge to them. So when someone of them teaches Lum'at al-I'tiqad, then he does so with a chain of knowledge going back right to the author and he explains what the author intended and does not try to refute him.
"Salafis" can not claim any of this for themselves!

In fact their Najdi forefathers plaid the leading role in killing whatever is Hanbali on the Arabian peninsula, which explains their low number in our times!

I have already shared my thoughts on the diversity that existed between the Hanaabilah and the Ash'ari influences on the later developed school. It is not a black-and-white issue either way you want to look at it and both parties do an injustice when they portray it as such. The Najdis are often guilty of completely dismissing the existence of the other and the "traditionalist" have their own set of inconsistencies which I find problematic.

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

Anyways, this is something I'm continually studying and always looking for more information. I strongly sympathize with the Athari methodology of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah and believe that it most accurately represents the intended theology. The descriptions pertaining to Allah's Names & Attributes are to be understood upon their apparrent/obvious meanings and Kalam-based contentions are incapable of negating the reality of the Dhahir.

[TazkiyyatunNafs]

There is nothing wrong with studying at a Salafi institute as long you keep your mind open and don't become completely indoctrinated by their program. The same would apply if you were to study at a non-Salafi university or institute. Some of the Salafi scholars (Abdul Mohsin al-Abbad if I'm not mistaken) and students of knowledge have permitted studying at al-Azhar with the condition of not being influenced by their Aqeedah.

I guess it really depends on the level of the institute and what you're actually studying. Both strands have their positives and negatives which they excell one another in. If you could study Asma wa-Sifat in depth with a qualified teacher than that wouldn't be something to pass out on, but generally I would prefer studying Fiqh in the traditional sense through a single Madhhab.

Here's a video by Mufti Muneer (Salafi) comparing studying at Madinah with al-Azhar:

Although he is considered more of a "hardline Salafi", he doesn't shy away from praising certain qualities of al-Azhar and advising against being a "sheep" at Madinah. You could potentially go astray if you lack integrity at either institute.

Yasir Qadhi was also asked about this after he claimed that neither strand was completely flawless and he admitted we cannot "reinvent the wheel". There's nothing wrong with studying either tradition and in fact it is recommended to study both of them. The problem is when you become a blind fanatic to either Hizb and remove the human element out of the equation.

It's a bit more complicated than that for me. And it's not exactly like Salafis are known for their tolerance against anyone they see as a mubtadi. But never mind, I think it's better not to talk about my personal situation on here. Another reason I was hoping to find a sister inshaaAllaah.

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

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