The End - 2000 to 2009

Shaykh Hamza Yusuf defends the Wahhabi Saudi Ulema

  • Author: MR
  • Filed under: Islam, Video
  • Date: Jun 17,2007 | 01:00 PM

Check out this interview with Riz Khan from AlJazeera English, especially the part 7:51. Some guy calls in and blames the “Wahhabi Sect” for terrorism and look at Shaykh Hamza’s response! MashaAllah!

This is a great sign of unity. It’s almost as if all the mainstream lines of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamma are about to converge. Alhamdulillah!
Or
This is a sign of fair unity amongst differences. All the mainstream lines of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamma are straightening out into a parallel formation.


  • RSS feed for comments on this post

  • 258 Responses for "Shaykh Hamza Yusuf defends the Wahhabi Saudi Ulema"

    1. mike June 17th, 2007 at 4:08 pm

      MashaAllah, the brother is just deep man, may Allah continue to allow his voice to be heard, I think were going to start seeing a whole lot more of him and possibly some political future. This is a man of action and purity, may Allah be pleased with him.

    2. Ahmed , A June 17th, 2007 at 8:21 pm

      salam alaykum , Listen brother do you think its appropriate to use the word wahabi on your video title even though its mentioned in the video! im not going to applaud the hamza yusuf , but it was wrong of him to even use it because its the wrong term! why cant he say salafis which is the correct term! im really sick to the core of ppl specialy Sufis who constantly use that word in a negative way to describe salafis!

    3. Mujahideen Ryder June 17th, 2007 at 8:49 pm

      Ahmed , A on June 17, 2007 at 8:21 pm said:

      salam alaykum , Listen brother do you think its appropriate to use the word wahabi on your video title even though its mentioned in the video! im not going to applaud the hamza yusuf , but it was wrong of him to even use it because its the wrong term! why cant he say salafis which is the correct term! im really sick to the core of ppl specialy Sufis who constantly use that word in a negative way to describe salafis!

      Imam Abu Hanafi – Hanafis
      Imam Malik – Malikis
      Imam Shafi – Shafis
      Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbali – Hanbalis

      Shaykh Ibn Abdul Wahhab – Wahhabis

      It’s not negative at all. It’s just to distinguish the Muslims who adhere to the beliefs, writings and teachings of Shaykh Ibn Abdul Wahhab.

      What’s the big deal?

    4. RandomDudette June 17th, 2007 at 9:32 pm

      I think the bro above is referring to the fact that the term “Wahhabi” has negative connotations to it, so whenever someone uses the word they have a mental image of the stereotyical extremist Muslim.

    5. Mujahideen Ryder June 17th, 2007 at 9:34 pm

      RandomDudette on June 17, 2007 at 9:32 pm said:

      I think the bro above is referring to the fact that the term “Wahhabi” has negative connotations to it, so whenever someone uses the word they have a mental image of the stereotyical extremist Muslim.

      Me personally, I view Salafi and Wahhabi as synonyms.

    6. Danya June 17th, 2007 at 10:17 pm

      Amir, I don’t think this is “unity” or converging of strains of Islam, but Shaykh Hamza, like he said, is being fair. It was a good answer I thought.

    7. Mujahideen Ryder June 17th, 2007 at 10:23 pm

      Danya on June 17, 2007 at 10:17 pm said:

      Amir, I don’t think this is “unity” or converging of strains of Islam, but Shaykh Hamza, like he said, is being fair. It was a good answer I thought.

      Well, it’s fair unity. Maybe not converging, but parallel.

    8. abu abdillah June 17th, 2007 at 11:06 pm

      i think that many salafis like sufis as much as he “likes” salafis

      i don’t see unity or convergence, just a statement of fact.

    9. Mujahideen Ryder June 17th, 2007 at 11:17 pm

      abu abdillah on June 17, 2007 at 11:06 pm said:

      i think that many salafis like sufis as much as he “likes” salafis

      i don’t see unity or convergence, just a statement of fact.

      Then those salafis are the cause of disunity.

    10. abu abdillah June 17th, 2007 at 11:23 pm

      it could be, but they dont go on national TV and voice their like/dislike of other Muslims and their ideologies.

    11. Mujahideen Ryder June 17th, 2007 at 11:30 pm

      abu abdillah on June 17, 2007 at 11:23 pm said:

      it could be, but they dont go on national TV and voice their like/dislike of other Muslims and their ideologies.

      yeah they make websites, post on forums and 40+ pages of pdf documents “refutations of so and so” etc.

    12. abu abdillah June 17th, 2007 at 11:35 pm

      jidal, argumentation with no benefit, is something discouraged in Islam, so this shall be my last post.

    13. Mujahideen Ryder June 17th, 2007 at 11:40 pm

      abu abdillah on June 17, 2007 at 11:35 pm said:

      jidal, argumentation with no benefit, is something discouraged in Islam, so this shall be my last post.

      Well, I was serious. No arguing. I thought you meant that the salafis that don’t like sufis dont go on TV. So I Said yeah they make websites which are out there. They also have long pdf files of refutations. I’m not sure if you are aware of them, but they do exist. Pretty sad.

      Actually at one Shaykh Hamza event, they printed a 1,000s of copies and handed them out outside the lecture hall.

      Very sad. Anyways please forgive me if it seemed like I was arguing.

      May Allah (swt) accept your duas and grant you jannah. Ameen!

    14. Ibraaheem June 18th, 2007 at 1:12 am

      Doesn’t change the fact he is a Sufi kaafir who shows walaa to the kuffar

    15. Fazli June 18th, 2007 at 3:52 am

      Ibraaheem on June 18, 2007 at 1:12 am said:

      Doesn’t change the fact he is a Sufi kaafir who shows walaa to the kuffar

      NauzubIllah..

      Who is one to lable another a kafir.Anyway what is a sufi kafir?

    16. Ahmed A A June 18th, 2007 at 8:06 am

      Mujahideen Ryder on June 17, 2007 at 8:49 pm said:

      Imam Abu Hanafi – Hanafis
      Imam Malik – Malikis
      Imam Shafi – Shafis
      Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbali – Hanbalis

      Shaykh Ibn Abdul Wahhab – Wahhabis

      It’s not negative at all. It’s just to distinguish the Muslims who adhere to the beliefs, writings and teachings of Shaykh Ibn Abdul Wahhab.

      What’s the big deal?

      what a laughable post! since when was there a 5th Mathhab, where on earth did you get that information from! Yes it is a big deal when you use the term wahabi because its well known the word is used to reffer to ppl who are extreme in their worship! or any one who followes the quran and sunnah exactly the way it is! Thats the only reason why Sufis are on the rampage to challange salafis who are on the rise in reviving this back! Salafis dont follow wahabi mathhab as you claim mr ryder! you are just another victim who has happend to believe in this wahabi myth!

      You take a look at amazon for the wahabi myth book http://www.amazon.com/Wahhabi-Myth-Dispelling-Prevalent-Fictitious/dp/1553953975

      and also the website

      http://www.thewahhabimyth.com/

      and what Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid has to say about this too!

      http://islamqa.com/index.php?ref=12932&ln=eng&txt=Wahab

    17. Mujahideen Ryder June 18th, 2007 at 8:53 am

      Ahmed A A on June 18, 2007 at 8:06 am said:

      what a laughable post! since when was there a 5th Mathhab, where on earth did you get that information from! Yes it is a big deal when you use the term wahabi because its well known the word is used to reffer to ppl who are extreme in their worship! or any one who followes the quran and sunnah exactly the way it is! Thats the only reason why Sufis are on the rampage to challange salafis who are on the rise in reviving this back! Salafis dont follow wahabi mathhab as you claim mr ryder! you are just another victim who has happend to believe in this wahabi myth!

      You take a look at amazon for the wahabi myth book http://www.amazon.com/Wahhabi-Myth-Dispelling-Prevalent-Fictitious/dp/1553953975

      and also the website

      http://www.thewahhabimyth.com/

      and what Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid has to say about this too!

      http://islamqa.com/index.php?ref=12932&ln=eng&txt=Wahab

      Bro, relax. I’m not saying Wahhabi is a madhab. There is also Ashari and Maturidi and they are not Madhabs. In Sufi tariqas there are also Shahdili, Qadiri, etc.

      Even the word salafi it self, it means those who follow the salaf, thus salafi.

      Thos who follow Shaykh ibn Abdul Wahhab, thus Wahhabis.

      Linguistically it has nothing to do with a madhab or sect or anything. It is simply saying that a wahhabi is a person who follows the teachings, writings and beliefs of Shaykh ibn Abdul Wahhab.

      May Allah (swt) forgive us all and guide us. Ameen.

    18. Mujahideen Ryder June 18th, 2007 at 8:57 am

      Ibraaheem on June 18, 2007 at 1:12 am said:

      Doesn’t change the fact he is a Sufi kaafir who shows walaa to the kuffar

      May Allah (swt) forgive you and guide you. May Allah (swt) preserve Shaykh Hamza Yusuf.

    19. Ahmed A A June 18th, 2007 at 9:36 am

      Imam Abu Hanafi – Hanafis
      Imam Malik – Malikis
      Imam Shafi – Shafis
      Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbali – Hanbalis

      Shaykh Ibn Abdul Wahhab – Wahhabis

      Brother you wrote that from what i understood from that it appears as the wahabis dont take upon all the other sheiks but just follow sheik ibn abdul wahab , but if any one was to see that it will apear to them as wahabis making up their own new mathhab! thats all jazakallah khairan for your reply brother!

    20. Mujahideen Ryder June 18th, 2007 at 10:03 am

      Ahmed A A on June 18, 2007 at 9:36 am said:

      Imam Abu Hanafi – Hanafis
      Imam Malik – Malikis
      Imam Shafi – Shafis
      Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbali – Hanbalis

      Shaykh Ibn Abdul Wahhab – Wahhabis

      Brother you wrote that from what i understood from that it appears as the wahabis dont take upon all the other sheiks but just follow sheik ibn abdul wahab , but if any one was to see that it will apear to them as wahabis making up their own new mathhab! thats all jazakallah khairan for your reply brother!

      Actually, correct me if I am wrong, but most of the Wahhabi Ulema in Saudi adhere to the Hanbali Madhab.

      But yeah you are correct, the way I listed the 4 imams and then shaykh ibn Abdul Wahhab i made it same liek it was a 5th madhab.

    21. ali June 18th, 2007 at 10:37 am

      “We need a Muslim stillness, rather than a Muslim movement.”

      That was classic.

    22. YoussefAlMasry June 18th, 2007 at 11:21 am

      I don’t necessarily think that Hamza Yusuf was “defending” the “Wahhabi” (slash Salafi slash Saudi) ulema, rather he was merely telling the truth. Being honest and nuanced is really the least we should expect of him, given his standing.

    23. Mujahideen Ryder June 18th, 2007 at 11:27 am

      YoussefAlMasry on June 18, 2007 at 11:21 am said:

      I don’t necessarily think that Hamza Yusuf was “defending” the “Wahhabi” (slash Salafi slash Saudi) ulema, rather he was merely telling the truth. Being honest and nuanced is really the least we should expect of him, given his standing.

      The brother who called in accused the Salafis as the root cause of terrorism. Shaykh Hamza defended them by speaking the truth.

    24. Ahmed A A June 18th, 2007 at 12:10 pm

      This was written by a brother who came to islam and had negative view on sheik muhammed abdul wahab and the truth about the sheik him self!

      Justifying Wahhabism

      relationship between Muhammad bin Abdul-Wahhaab and Ibn Taymiyah, Abdul-Wahhab was indeed influenced by Ibn Taymiyah. In fact Abdul-Wahhab started a similar movement at his time. But Abdul-Wahhab had his da3wa (invitation to Islam) in the heart of the Arabian Desert, while Ibn Taymiyah in the center of the area and heart of Islam at that time, Sham (Syria). So he gained much more followers.

      Muhammad Bin Abdul-Wahhab came at a similar time, when in Arabia people started worshipping stone and grave in the name of Islam. He fought a lot of innovations and additions to Islam and his efforts succeeded in uniting with the family of Sa3ud and forming the first Saudi state, but at that time the family of Saud were righteous people, unlike the family of Saud of today. It is interesting to note that Abdul-Wahhab and his students were all Hanbalis, just like Ibn Taymiyah. The first Saudi State ended with the 3rd Ottoman campaign led by Muhammad Ali Basha himself, but even that failed to erase the methodology. The methodology is until today widespread in the entire peninsula and not only Saudi Arabia.

      Frankly, I hear a lot of slander thrown at Muhammad bin Abdul-Wahhab, and I personally used to dislike him. But when I read his book Kitab al-Taw7eed and checked the accessions thrown at him I did not find any of the slander thrown at him truthful. Some cases he is clearly innocent from what is said, sometimes what they accuse him of is clearly in accordance with Quran and Sunnah. Like for example the Sufis attack him for destroying the dooms that were built over the graves of the Companions, but the fact is there are many Hadeeths that say that such things are the actions of the Jews and Christians, and that those who build such things are the worst of the creation and that the Prophet cursed such a thing, and that he strictly forbade such a thing. So as you see, those who attack him are either ignorant about the Sunnah or are just venting out hatred against Arabs.

      Some of the other innovation Abdul-Wahhab students canceled, was the innovation of performing four prayers one for each school (mathab). Like a Hanafi would do Athan (call prayer) and then all the Hanafis would perform the prayer behind a Hanafi Imam, then a Maliki would do Athan and the Malikies would do their prayer and so on. Abdul-Wahhab students canceled this and praying in the Ka3ba returned to be unity like it was at the days of the Companions and like it is today, thanks for Allah.

      In fact if Abdul-Wahhab is what I know about him by now, then he is Insha’ Allah another reformer (Mujadid) like Ibn Taymiyah: he revived the forgotten of the Sunnah, he fought innovations, and he returned the people to the understanding of the Companions.

      As for the Wahhabi Da’wa today, most Wahhabi people live in Saudi Arabia. Almost all people in Mecca and Medina belong to this school. They don’t use the term Wahhabi, but rather, Salafi Da’wa or Ahlul Sunna wal Jama’a. Although, they have a negative view about women and some modern inventions, they played in important role to keep Islam alive in Arabia. They also played a significant role in raising up Islam and resisting missionary Christians in the Muslim world. Many people think that Wahhabi people are bad because the King of Saudi Arabia is bad. This assumption is clearly wrong since the Saudi king does not follow that school. His jails are full with Wahhabi scholars. Some people (unfortunately) slander Wahhabis as a way to slander Arabs. If you want to know the truth about those people, I advice you to check this site that is maintained by a famous Wahhabi scholar: http://www.Islam-qa.com and check out http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA

    25. Mujahideen Ryder June 18th, 2007 at 12:16 pm

      Shaykh ibn Abdul Wahhab did many good. In honesty, even tradionalitists and sufis can’t deny this, he revived Islam in his times and caused a huge movement back towards Islam. After all there were many wahhabis who became sufis. If it wasn’t for Shaykh ibn Abdul Wahhab, there’d be do salafi movement, thus there would have been no MR, becuase it was the salafi dawah that brough be back to Islam, alhamdulillah.

    26. Ahmed A A June 18th, 2007 at 12:18 pm

      and the kitab al tawheed translated into english can be found on here by the same brother who translated! everything you need to no about tawheed is there! and may i ask you read with an open mind!

      http://www.islamicweb.com/beliefs/creed/abdulwahab/

    27. Ahmed A A June 18th, 2007 at 12:22 pm

      Mujahideen Ryder on June 18, 2007 at 12:16 pm said:

      Shaykh ibn Abdul Wahhab did many good. In honesty, even tradionalitists and sufis can’t deny this, he revived Islam in his times and caused a huge movement back towards Islam. After all there were many wahhabis who became sufis. If it wasn’t for Shaykh ibn Abdul Wahhab, there’d be do salafi movement, thus there would have been no MR, becuase it was the salafi dawah that brough be back to Islam, alhamdulillah.

      indeed brother thats correct , i just want ppl to no that we are no new sect we are just muslims who follow the quran and sunnah! and brother if you have the time pls look at http://www.islamicweb.com/beliefs/creed/abdulwahab/

    28. Sister of Islam June 18th, 2007 at 12:31 pm

      Jazkullah Khairan for the informational posts.
      I think it is important that we don’t condemn the Salafi group or put it in the negative stance.

      I thought the speech was excellent, and Hamza Yusuf himself is entitled to his own opinion, just as any other sheikh and imam who have their own stance and teach their school at their masjid.

      We should take what is good out of this speech and this is

      1. He respected everyone regardless of sect or religion
      2. He is reminding all muslims that we should focus on remembering Allah(swt)
      3. Addressed the west in the positive light
      4. Encouraged the immigrants that are scared to speak out
      5. Encouraged us to collectively stand together against unjust policies and actions against the current administration; for ex. against the war
      6. Against the war
      7. Stated the recent problem with muslim countries today, subhan’Allah and gave advice that we should look more within; (look at duuas, supplications, verse of Qur’an)
      8. Lets not forget he is giving dawah about Islam.

    29. Sister of Islam June 18th, 2007 at 12:32 pm

      May Allah(swt) reward him

    30. YoussefAlMasry June 18th, 2007 at 4:37 pm

      OK, fair enough. Although, he was pretty keen on qualifying his “defense,” i.e., by pointing out his disagreeing with these ulema’s perspectives on Islam.

      Regardless, he was level-headed and fair in his response, so props for that.

    31. jinnzaman June 18th, 2007 at 5:49 pm

      I like how Salafis have no problem bashing other Muslims (i.e. declaring takfeer of a well knowned shaykh) but the second you do something as miniscule as quote a video clip that refers to them as Wahhabis, they cry bloody mary.

      MR, you’re wasting your time bending over backwards trying to please the Salafis. Their problem is not intellectual, but political and spiritual. Don’t change your aqeedah to please them, you’ll only end up regretting it.

      If someone wants to see a working model of how to reconcile the differences between the Salafis and the Sufis, then they should just become Deobandi. Deobandi ‘Ulema have a very balanced approach to all of these issues.

      And frankly speaking, Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab wasn’t a big deal. His intellectual works are rather miniscule compared to the works of other ‘Ulema, especially Shaykh Ibh Taymiyyah. The only thing propping up the Salafi dawah, historically, has been the Saudi state and that has been set up and nurtured by the kuffar. Other than that, the Salafi dawah attracts youth who are ignorant of the classical traditions and get sucked into clever slogans.

    32. aysha June 18th, 2007 at 7:40 pm

      [blockquote]I like how Salafis have no problem bashing other Muslims (i.e. declaring takfeer of a well knowned shaykh) but the second you do something as miniscule as quote a video clip that refers to them as Wahhabis, they cry bloody mary.[/blockquote]

      owned. you summed it up better than i could.

      solid response by shaykh hamza yusuf.

    33. Nameless June 19th, 2007 at 8:53 pm

      As-Salam Alaikum

      Jinnzaman, why are you trying to create schisms within the Ummah? Everyone is starting to come together and (at least) agreeing to disagree, but you make a post telling MR not to reconcile with his Brothers. Where is the benefit in this? Brother, realize that what you’re doing brings no benefit to anyone, and is only harming the unity of the Ummah.

      As-Salam Alaikum

    34. Mujahideen Ryder June 19th, 2007 at 10:31 pm

      Nameless on June 19, 2007 at 8:53 pm said:

      As-Salam Alaikum

      Jinnzaman, why are you trying to create schisms within the Ummah? Everyone is starting to come together and (at least) agreeing to disagree, but you make a post telling MR not to reconcile with his Brothers. Where is the benefit in this? Brother, realize that what you’re doing brings no benefit to anyone, and is only harming the unity of the Ummah.

      As-Salam Alaikum

      It’s funny how you go after JinnZaman for giving me his naseeha but yet you overlook the salafi who called Shaykh Hamza Yusuf (may Allah preserve him) a kafir (see above for daleel).

      Allah knows best.

    35. jinnzaman June 20th, 2007 at 3:56 pm

      Nameless,

      Yes, I am responsible for creating ALL of the schisms in the Muslim world. I have a special time machine, see, and I went back in time and created beef between Sunnis and Shias and Khwaraj. I am single handedly responsible for the formation of the Mu’tazila and the Karamiyyah and the Jahmiyyah. In my spare time, I like to find sects and schisms as well as long walks on the beach. I once did a science fair project on how to make Salafis and Sufis. Yes, I am clearly responsible for creating the schisms in the Ummah.

      [/sarcasm]

      If you think that these schisms don’t exist, you are being naive. The problem with Salafis is how they view other Muslims. I tell MR to be wary of Salafis and I get attacked, but there’s a Salafi on here who calls Shaykh Hamza a kaffir and no one has beef. Its kinda like how when I called for a boycott of Al Maghrib for calling Shaykh Allawi al-Makki the greatest propagator of shirk in the Ummah, but people focused on the boycott and not the accusation of Shirk.

      The problem I have with this whole discourse on “unity” is that its entirely superficial and, if you don’t mind my asking, politically convenient. Salafis ask for unity when they’re castigated in the media for dumb statements that they make, and then call for unity and ask Traditionalists to make peace.

      These calls for unity are fake. I want to see some genuine steps by Salafis to promote unity and they can start by stop doing takfeer of our ‘Ulema.

      Until the Salafis drop takfeer, then there can be no unity in the Ummah. I will never promote unity with those who call the ‘Ulema mushrikeen and kuffar.

      If you want a good warm, kumbaya feeling of Islam thats not based upon reality, then talk about unity. But if you want real change and progress in the Ummah, the face the facts that we have some very deep fractures within our community and the only way to solve them is by first recognizing they exist.

      masalama

    36. none June 20th, 2007 at 5:41 pm

      jinnzaman,

      as far as i know the mud slinging occurs from both sides of the schism. To put all the blame on one side and absolve the other of wrong doing is a travesty to fairness and justice.

      I am not well versed on English literature, but in Arabic, many of the “sufi”/madhab leaning scholars make blanket takfeer of the “wahabia”. if you read arabic, i will be more than willing to personally send you the references, but would prefer not to share them on a public forum.

      as far as the little that i know about islamic polemic literature in English, I doubt Haddads work titled “Albaani and Friends” has too many nice things to say about Albaani and his friends.

      I agree with you that we do need to realize the existence of these schisms and by and large they are calls for unity are very superficial.

      You can also call it political, but all Muslims who ascribe to any form of a strict interpretation of Islam are/will be under attack in the very near future.

      As a point, Akbar Ahmad has recently warned against the fear of the Deoband model overtaking the Aligargh model. I am sure your reading of geopolitical realities of the subcontinent allow you to comprehend his fear.

      I don’t think too many liberal/ secular Muslims will come to the defense of the Deobandia any time soon. After all people associate Tableeghi Jamaat and strict madaris with the deobandia, not exactly 2 groups many non-religious Muslims like too much. How many non-tableeghis like to be visited at their house after Asr to remind them to come to the masjid? How many people not well grounded in Islam have a positive view of DarulUlooms and other madrasas?

      My point is, probably no one besides salafis will come to the help and defense of deobandis, the next target in the “war on terror”

      Honestly speaking, I don’t even think large civil rights groups feel too comfortable defending Muslims who have big beards, wear shalwar kameez while their women are in niqab. its not exactly PC.

      The reality is we, all practicing Muslims, are under attack, so we should leave scholarly debate, which has always been around, to the scholars and encourage the awwaam, masses, to stay clear of the legitimate scholarly debate and focus on things in our control and things we can collectively do help alleviate the situation we are currently in.

    37. Mujahideen Ryder June 20th, 2007 at 5:59 pm

      none said:
      My point is, probably no one besides salafis will come to the help and defense of deobandis, the next target in the “war on terror”

      I disagree especailly when Shaykh Bilal Philips mocks the Hanafi Madhab (Lecture here). Also Sh. Albani’s father was a great Hanafi scholar of his time. Many of Sh. Albani’s writings are mostly focused on refuting Hanafi positions. Deobandis are very hanafi. The Deobands have written many books refuting the Salafi claims against the Hanafi madhab.

      Allah knows best.

    38. none June 20th, 2007 at 6:21 pm

      assalamu alaikum,

      90%-95% of sh. al-albaanis writing revolve around hadith authentication and verification, his silsilah ad-daeefah and saheehah, irwa al ghaleel, authentication of abu dawud, ibn majah, and nasaai, comprise the bulk of his writing.

      there is no doubt he was critical and harsh on the hanafi madhab, but to say many of his writing focused on refuting the hanafis, is historically inaccurate.

      currently in Guantanamo, i would guess probably half of the detainees there are pakistanis/ afghans of deobandi manhaj, and throughout the world some of the stongest critics of what is going on there have been salafi scholars. i believe cageprisoners, one of the few sites focusing on the prisoners, is salafi run and they rigorously stand up for the muslim prisoners, regardless of their manhaj.

    39. Mujahideen Ryder June 20th, 2007 at 6:29 pm

      none on June 20, 2007 at 6:21 pm said:

      assalamu alaikum,

      90%-95% of sh. al-albaanis writing revolve around hadith authentication and verification, his silsilah ad-daeefah and saheehah, irwa al ghaleel, authentication of abu dawud, ibn majah, and nasaai, comprise the bulk of his writing.

      there is no doubt he was critical and harsh on the hanafi madhab, but to say many of his writing focused on refuting the hanafis, is historically inaccurate.

      currently in Guantanamo, i would guess probably half of the detainees there are pakistanis/ afghans of deobandi manhaj, and throughout the world some of the stongest critics of what is going on there have been salafi scholars. i believe cageprisoners, one of the few sites focusing on the prisoners, is salafi run and they rigorously stand up for the muslim prisoners, regardless of their manhaj.

      Imam Zaid Shakir and Shaykh Hamza Yusuf have also voiced there outrage over Guantanamo Bay.

      Alhamdulillah for cageprisoners mashaAllah! May Allah (swt) give them success! May Allah (swt) free all the innocent people in prison. Ameen!

      CAIR is also a huge activist against the Guantanamo camps. Same with Chaplain Jamees Yee who wrote a book about it.

    40. none June 20th, 2007 at 6:52 pm

      i’m not saying that salafis are the only voice of dissent against all injustices in the world. may Allah (SWT) reward all those who stand up for the truth and justice.

      in the eyes of the enemies of Islam, we are all on the same boat they want to sink. the sooner we realize that the better.

      just like salafis are wrong in some of their actions, i think its right to mention 2 parties can be wrong and 2 wrongs dont make a right.

      often times i notice salafis only seeing the wrongs of others while being oblivious to themsevles, and i think the same is true for non-salafis.

      since the time of teh sahabah, scholars have disagreed and been harsh on other scholars and schools of thought. for a non-salafi example, look at the historical relationship between shafiis and hanafis, look at the relationship between badr ud deen al-aini, a hanafi scholar, and ibn hajar al-asqalani, a shafii scholar.

      i mention this because it is naive to think scholars will all of a sudden stop critiquing each other, often times harshly.

      Just to mention to Jinnzaman, one of teh last fatwas given by Mufti Muhammad Shafi, the grand mufti of pakistan and staunch deobandi scholar, was him mentioning its not allowed to pray behind a member of jamaat islaami. That basically is takfeer because we can pray behind anyone who is ahl ul qibla. should we boycott deobandis now and hate deobandis because of differences deobandis have with maududi?

      should we dislike deobandis because they write books like the fitna of maududi? Again my goal in mentioning these stories is to show that harshness and strong critiques of others is found in all methodologies, and that should be known and not exploited against one group.

      in conclusion, people who disagree need to find some way to communicate and constructively work together and realize that differences have been around forever and will be around forever, therefore we should work together on what we agree on and have ta’awun al al birr wa at taqwa (working together on what is good and that which leads to fear of Allah.)

    41. UKer June 20th, 2007 at 8:22 pm

      sorry to interupt..but found this on the internet..and really liked it..thought id share:

      If union with The Beloved

      is the target

      Then tassawuf is the

      guided arrow of the seeker

      And Shari’ah is the bow

      without which the

      arrow cannot be shot.

      :)

    42. jinnzaman June 20th, 2007 at 9:42 pm

      None,

      The mudslinging by most Traditionalists is miniscule to the sheer amount of takfeer and bid’a proclamations coming from Salafis. Out of all the scholars of Ahl us Sunnah, you could only name one who was critical of Salafis, but Imam Haddad has never engaged in takfeer of a Salafi scholar. The people who are very harsh towards Salafis are on the periphery of the Ummah whereas the Salafis that are very harsh towards traditionalists are on the forefront of the Salafi dawah.

      Look at this discussion. How many traditionalists have engaged in takfeer of a Salafi scholar, yet already we see takfeer of a traditionalist scholar by Salafis.

      If you can’t see that Salafis engage in more takfeer than any other group, then you’re blind. The mud-slinging is not occuring on both sides and even if it is there’s a disproportionate amount coming from Salafis as opposed to Traditionalists.

      So again, if Salafis want unity, they should live up to it. I’m not talking about political unity, I’m talking about theological and juristic unity.

      masalama

    43. none June 20th, 2007 at 10:54 pm

      of all the scholars of ahl us sunnah i could only name one? i was hoping that i wouldnt have to bring scholars names and their views into the public domain, but since you asked

      i could name more if you are interested so i guess i will go ahead and name more:

      from among modern scholars

      nuh ha mim keller- i think its obvious he makes tabde’e of salafi scholars. i also believe he is on the “forefront” of “traditional” scholars

      buti: read his work la madhabiya akhtar bida. basically calling salafism the most dangerous innovation in modern times. Pretty straight forward if you ask me. he is also among the forefront of the scholars of Syria and internationally known and respected among the traditional circles.

      Abdul Hakim Murad- i believe that his tabd’ee of salafis is quite evident.

      nawal ur rahman- http://www.shariahboard.org/. if you understand urdu go the website and you will find his opinion of the salafis there. he makes tabde’e of them in several questions.

      shaikh abdul hayy al lucknowi- again i feel no need to quote you names of books in arabic where he on more than one occasion makes tabdee of siddiq hassan khan, one the ahl ul hadith scholars of india in his time period. Sh. Lucknowi is considered one of the greatest hanafi scholars of the past 150 years and his sharh al hidaya is absolutely amazing.

      ibrahim desai- basically refuting sunnipath.
      http://www.askimam.org/fatwa/fatwa.php?askid=4691522581fb59d7100aca288dacda85
      http://www.askimam.org/fatwa/fatwa.php?askid=20b9f5563fb86b9089db85395f1851a4

      zahid al kawthari- his la madhabiyya book which the title roughly translates to non madhabism is the gateway to atheism. He is considered one of the last and most famous ottoman scholars. Again he is a giant in the hanafi community.

      the list could go on and on, but for you to think that the mud slinging is only from one side in reality, makes you the blind one.

      the issue isnt of more or less, if i pray 3 times a day and you pray 4, it doesnt make you any better than me, whats wrong is wrong and it happens on both sides. go to any deobandi madrassah in pakistan and see the opinion of deobandi scholars in pakistan towards the ahl ul hadith.

      i reckon you know several deobandi scholars in MD, go and ask them if tehy think salafis are ahl us sunnah.

      also, i highly doubt the traditionalists want unity, as obviously evidenced by your behavior. i guess akhlaq is something you need a little work on.

    44. Mujahideen Ryder June 20th, 2007 at 11:06 pm

      to ‘none’ – I agree that scholars on both sides may have been saying things against the others. But they have that right they are scholars.

      The clear problem here is the regular salafi laymen throw around the k word in every other sentence. They drop the kufr, biddah, shirk on almost anything. Almost every single time I’ve posted on many forums (10+) about Shaykh Hamza, I almost always get few posts saying hes a kafir or stop promoting kufr or this is straight up ahlul biddah.

      I have never ever said any salafi or salafi scholar is not part of ahlus sunnah. But yet people have said to me more then 15 times shaykh hamza, shaykh nuh, sufism, tasawwuf, madhabs are all biddah, kufr and shirk by salafis.

      Jinnzaman has also received the same reception from our salafi brothers on forums.

      Just look at troid.org or salafitalk.net or allahuakber.net or hamzayusuf.faithweb.com and the list goes on.

      There are countless and countless of sites, forum posts by 100s of salafis on the internet who throw around the k word.

      If you can show me 5 sites where traditional/sufi/deobandi muslims explicitly say “so and so is a kafir” or “so and so is ahlul biddah” or “salafis are kafirs” or something similar, then maybe you have a point.

      The reality is, our salafi brothers are very aggressive in the usage of kufr, biddah and shirk.

      If you keep denying that, then you really need to get around more.

      Allah knows best.

    45. jinnzaman June 21st, 2007 at 12:01 am

      None

      Way to subvert the issue. I am not talking about accusations of bid’a, but accusations of shirk and kufr. There’s a world of a difference between engaging in takfeer and merely stating that something is bid’a.

      So again, out of all the scholars you’ve listed, which one of them has OPENLY made takfeer of a PARTICULAR Salafi scholar in a manner that is similar to the WAY that Salafis have OPENLY engaged in TAKFEERE of a Traditionalist scholar?

      Here, in this thread, you’re to busy whining and being a cry baby about how Salafis are being “bashed”, yet this one dude has already engaged in TAKFIR of Shaykh Hamza Yusuf with ABSOLUTELY NO OUTCRY from ANY Salafis.

      If this is what you mean by “unity”, then you can take it and shove it. We don’t need unity with fake people who only care about their own sect. We’ll have unity when Salafis condemn their own for engaging in takfeer. If you want unity, keep your people in check.

      masalama

    46. none June 21st, 2007 at 12:04 am

      assalamu alaikum,

      I generally don’t like to post too much information about myself, because it is irrelevant, but having studied for a number for over seven years in Pakistan, Jordan, and Saudi from scholars who ascribe to various methodologies the mud slinging is equal on both sides. Considering I just came back to American and for the first time am getting acclimated to the internet, maybe I do need to get around more.

      But i sincerely feel sorry for people who depend on nameless and faceless websites to learn their deen and come to opinions regarding others and different manahij. That is probably a bigger problem then lay people discussing issues that graduates from many darul ulooms dont even discuss.

      before closing this last post of mine i would highly recommend all of you to take the time out of your busy schedules and waste less time arguing things you have no control over and learn the deen.

      Unless everyone here is hafidh, knows arabic and is sincerely trying to learn their deen, discussions like this well bear no fruit and will only lead to our hearts become harder.

      Allah (SWT) knows best and give every muslim his rights.

    47. none June 21st, 2007 at 12:18 am

      jinnzaman,

      jazakAllah khair for your response.

      May Allah (SWT) bless you and give you the best of this dunya and the akhirah

      when we were in our last year while reading the books of hadith, our teachers mentioned how people love to attack the ‘ulema and we should all expect it and i was getting worried that things have been going very smoothly for me.

      now inshaAllah i know my efforts of studying inshaAllah have not been in waste!

    48. jinnzaman June 21st, 2007 at 1:05 am

      Assalamu alaikum

      Which ‘Ulema have I attacked? Have I engaged in takfeer like your brethren on this very page? Have I accused you or anyone else of bid’a?

      Returning to the subject at hand, you merely stated your personal opinion, you haven’t cited any sources to support your accusation that Traditionalists have engaged in Takfeer of particular Salafi scholars in a manner that Salafis, even on this website, have engaged in Takfeer of Traditionalist ‘Ulema. There are ENTIRE websites dedicated towards discrediting Traditionalist ‘Ulema such as Shaykh Hamza and Shaykh Nuh. Traditionalists call Salafis “wahhabis” and they freak out, but they have no problems when our ‘Ulema are called kuffar and mushrikeen? Why is there such a different standard? If I engaged in Takfeer of a Salafi scholar, it’d create a huge clamor and cry. Yet, when Salafis do it, no one cares. The fact is, there is a disproportionate number of Salafis bashing Traditionalists then vice versa.

      Why all this dramatic rhetoric? No one is bashing the ‘Ulema, except for the one Salafi on this page (who hasn’t been condemned by other Salafis, which illustrates the flagrant hypocrisy) How do you expect there to be unity when the very people you are trying to “unite” with are being pronounced as kuffar and mushrikeen? This is not only illogical, it is nothing more than a temporary solution that ignores the core issues. Preaching unity is not the solution to the schisms in the Ummah. It is not going to solve the problem between Salafis and Traditionalists. The only way to reconcile the two is dropping the takfeer gun. If Salafis want to unite the Ummah, they have to stop declaring large portions of it to be disbelievers and polytheists.

      masalama

    49. sundoc June 21st, 2007 at 1:31 am

      As Jinnzaman said: “Which ‘Ulema have I attacked? Have I engaged in takfeer like your brethren on this very page? Have I accused you or anyone else of bid’a?”

      I RARELY post on blogs, though there are several I follow quite regularly… having read through the past few comments being exchanged between ‘none’ and ‘jinnzaman’ I’ve got to say I’m amazed at the feeling you’ve taken away from the exchange dear none (and May Allah azawajal honour you and and your family for all your efforts in the study of our magnificent Deen, ameen).
      Jinnzaman’s comment I quoted at the beginning of this post is exactly what I was going to say, the only scholar who has been attacked on this blog entry has been Shaykh Hamza (may Allah Ta’ala increase him and be pleased with him, ameen). I think the point being missed is that there being a HUGE difference between stating someone is engaged in bid’a as opposed to labeling someone a kaafir. Khair, may Allah SubhanwaTa’ala forgive and guide us all, ameen.

    50. Br Yusuf June 21st, 2007 at 4:51 am

      where to start… brosthers please dont debate akhi even if you have studied for 30 years just leave it, if we are true salaafis we know we dont get in to debate we walk away inshallaah, we warn and leave.

      Akhi Jinnzaman, im sure scholars who you follow have argued this out so lets just leave it, we are one single brotherhood.!!

      and to al of yaalll we a Muslim we believe in Allaah swt And the Rashuallaah SAWs

      Lets not argue but move on i dont agree with Hamza Yusuf, who im i to say he is kafir or he is wrong… i dont follow his way .. but to all you salaafis or sufii lets stop all of this.please no need to argue

      Remember a man slips more by his tonque then his foot! spread salaaam YAAANI:)

      Remember Allaah is whatching and sometimes we argue just to be RIGHT not to make Allaah swt word HIGH
      read the story of Al wara ibn Malak you will understand what i mean its in a book called people around the messanger.

      and to finsh Imaam shafi said,
      If i ever got ina doubt with anyone i would make Du’a that the trith submits to his tonque…

      Take fawaaaid ikwaaan abd ikawat

      As’salaamalykum
      Yusuf:)

    51. Siraaj Muhammad June 21st, 2007 at 7:19 am

      MR,

      Not sure repeatedly saying he doesn’t like wahabi-ism is a sign of unity. I think it’s simply speaking the truth as understood, and I believe as he said, he was being fair.

      I also do not believe it is appropriate to label your brothers with something they do not label themselves with (wahabi, kaafir, ikhwaani, sufi, etc). Doesn’t do much for unity.

      Jinnzaman,

      If the goal is unity, then whether one makes takfeer or calls someone an extreme propagator of bid’ah, the net result remains – disunity, distrust, and division. I am salafi, and I am long past the longwinded arguments that fill the internet and my work and focus now remains on calling practicing Muslims to study Islam, for nonpracticing Muslims to practice Islam through the facilitation of programs that can build their eman, and working with daw’ah oriented organzations to help in calling nonMuslims to Islam. Anyone who wants to help out in that, even nonMuslims, are welcome to join and help out.

      As many have already advised above, the time has come to leave off the petty arguing that fills the internet forums and blogs and return to productive spiritual activities. I say this as someone who was both benefitted and harmed by active participation in such, and it is sincere naseeha to all others from one who has been there to minimize this.

      Siraaj

    52. jinnzaman June 21st, 2007 at 11:07 am

      Siraj Muhammad et al,

      Now we hav two lines of arguments being presented that contradict one another. Some of the Salafis admitted engaging in takfeer and retorted with “Some Traditionalist ‘Ulema engage in Takfeer as well.” When I challenged this argument to produce one shred of direct evidence, no one was able to produce any scholars who actually engaged in takfeer of a particular scholar in the manner that Shaykh Yasser Qadhi called Shaykh Allawi “the greatest propagator of shirk.” The challenge still stands.

      The other line of argument present in these comments is “well, these issues are irrelevant because they only exist on the internet.” This is patently false. These discussions do not exist only on the Internet, but in real life as well, at Masajid and MSAs. When you have the instructor of aqeedah at Al Maghrib engaging in what is essentially takfeer, how is this “only online”? There is something fundamentally wrong with a methodology that produces such instructors. Do you not think that the ideas of a teacher will transfer to their students as well?

      The only response you have is “well, your scholars say we engage in bid’a.” Firstly, not all of our scholars do that. As I pointed out in my original post, the Deobandi ‘Ulema don’t have as big of a problem with Salafis as the ‘Ulema from the Middle East and former Ottoman lands do. So its misleading to attribute all of the Traditionalist ‘Ulema in the Ummah as accusing Salafis of bid’a. Secondly, and this is the most important part, you have equated an accusation of kufr with an accusation of bid’a. There is a WORLD Of a difference between the two.

      What I find most disturbing is that in the entire 52 comment discussion on this topic, not a SINGLE SALAFI has condemned the takfeer against Shaykh Hamza Yusuf in this thread. This is a perfect illustration of the problem.

      So to all of the Salafis, the message is simple: You want real unity? Then STOP THE TAKFEER of the ‘Ulema.

      No ifs, ands, or buts.

      No saying ‘lets talk about it behind closed doors.’ No saying ‘we’ll talk about it later.’

      No, either you are against takfeer or are you condone it. This cannot stand.

      masalama

    53. Omar June 21st, 2007 at 1:14 pm

      Salam alaykum jinnzaman,

      Ok then, I condemn the takfir of Hamza Yusuf.

      No traditional scholar has made takfir of a ‘wahhabi’? Are you joking? What about Mashhur al-Haddad (that is, that major Haddad, a contemporary of ibn Abdul-Wahhab), who went even worse than takfir, and said that ibn Abdil-Wahhab thought he was a prophet. An obvious slander and a heinous crime, coming from someone who claims ‘enlightenment’ or whatever it is.

    54. Omar June 21st, 2007 at 1:21 pm

      …and, what about the huge group of ‘traditional’ scholars that call believers in ‘uluww kuffar? What about all the ‘traditional’ scholars who call Hafidh ibn Khuzayma a mushrik? What about the ‘traditional’ scholars who call the Uthman b. Sa`id ad-Darimi (a student of Imam Ahmad) a ‘pagan idolator? What about the ones who call alKhallal a ‘mujassim’; or what of those who say the same of Ibn Taymiyya?

    55. Omar June 21st, 2007 at 1:28 pm

      “The only thing propping up the Salafi dawah, historically, has been the Saudi state and that has been set up and nurtured by the kuffar.”

      Dude, your referring to the 3rd Saudi state, which was not that of ibn AbdilWahhab, and how far they strayed from him, only Allah knows.

      Secondly, the Ottoman Empire was not only nurtured by, but saved from extinction by the kuffar, on repeated occasions. Kuffar even when to war to shore it up- far more so than they did for KSA. The Ottoman Empire probably wouldn’t even have survived if it were not for the help of kuffar- w’Allahu a’lam. That’s why they dismantled it, just as easily as they had maintained it.

    56. Yursil June 21st, 2007 at 3:45 pm

      BismillahirRahmanirRaheem
      as-salamu’alaikum,

      Omar, you have one confused version of history regarding the Ottomans. Do you even have one source for this strange opinion you are inventing?

    57. Omar June 21st, 2007 at 4:07 pm

      Yes. My professors (of History), my teachers and the books of history- these aren’t matters that anyone can disagree on.

      Go to a library and look up ‘The Eastern Question’, insha Allah you’ll find everything you need.

    58. Omar June 21st, 2007 at 4:17 pm

      You should brush up on history before risking a lawsuit ;)

      Just kidding

    59. Yursil June 21st, 2007 at 4:19 pm

      as-salamu’alaikum,

      Listening to Kuffar books on history is not a good start.

      Regardless, every book of theirs about Ottoman history dictates that the Kuffar were attacking it from inside and out. Unless you start considering Russians, English, French, Australians, etc were all believers.

    60. Mujahideen Ryder June 21st, 2007 at 4:37 pm

      Omar –

      I agree scholars on both sides have made refutations, takfir, etc. on each other.

      The issue I’m talking about is that the everyday salafi (for example the person above who called Shaykh Hamza the k word) throws around the kufr, bidda, shirk against others. Again if you look at an traditional forum, site, blog, etc. you will not find anything, not a single statement saying “shaykh [insert salafi scholar here] is a kafir]”

      BUT

      if you go to allahuakbar.net, bilalphillips.com, hamzayusuf.faithweb, nuh.faithweb, islamicthinkers.com, salafitalk.met, troid.org, and others you will clearly see: “so and so is a kafir” “they are deviants” “they are not part of ahlus sunnah”

      The amount of negativity from the students of the salafi scholars is far greater then the students of the traditiona/deobandi/sufi scholars.

      Allah knows best.

    61. whodat June 21st, 2007 at 5:13 pm

      Just because some loser calls someone else a kafir, I don’t see the need to apologize on his behalf. The guy is anonymous and everyone can plainly see that he was just messing with the board, although seriously playing with his deen.

      Quick question. If someone is accused of ‘promoting’, ‘propogating’ ‘practising’ Shirk. Does that mean the accuser has placed takfeer on the individual?

      Also if someone is accused of athropomorphism, is he considered a kafir or mubtadi?

    62. Concerned June 21st, 2007 at 5:21 pm

      salam aleykum..

      disregarding this unenlightened debate on which scholars made takfir of the other, the use of the term wahhabi by Ustadh Hamza yusuf is very inappropriate and was shocking to me when i heard it. Knowingly this is a blessed name and attribute of allah swt and no muslim in the world has ever claimed to be a wahhabi. Hamza yusuf should have clearly stated this to the caller and whoever is listening in his speech, although he being fair with the salafi doctrine endured by righteous scholars i.e Sh ibn baaz rahimu allah.

    63. Siraaj Muhammad June 21st, 2007 at 10:38 pm

      jinnzaman on June 21, 2007 at 11:07 am said:

      Siraj Muhammad et al,

      Now we hav two lines of arguments being presented that contradict one another. Some of the Salafis admitted engaging in takfeer and retorted with “Some Traditionalist ‘Ulema engage in Takfeer as well.” When I challenged this argument to produce one shred of direct evidence, no one was able to produce any scholars who actually engaged in takfeer of a particular scholar in the manner that Shaykh Yasser Qadhi called Shaykh Allawi “the greatest propagator of shirk.” The challenge still stands.

      The other line of argument present in these comments is “well, these issues are irrelevant because they only exist on the internet.” This is patently false. These discussions do not exist only on the Internet, but in real life as well, at Masajid and MSAs. When you have the instructor of aqeedah at Al Maghrib engaging in what is essentially takfeer, how is this “only online”? There is something fundamentally wrong with a methodology that produces such instructors. Do you not think that the ideas of a teacher will transfer to their students as well?

      The only response you have is “well, your scholars say we engage in bid’a.” Firstly, not all of our scholars do that. As I pointed out in my original post, the Deobandi ‘Ulema don’t have as big of a problem with Salafis as the ‘Ulema from the Middle East and former Ottoman lands do. So its misleading to attribute all of the Traditionalist ‘Ulema in the Ummah as accusing Salafis of bid’a. Secondly, and this is the most important part, you have equated an accusation of kufr with an accusation of bid’a. There is a WORLD Of a difference between the two.

      What I find most disturbing is that in the entire 52 comment discussion on this topic, not a SINGLE SALAFI has condemned the takfeer against Shaykh Hamza Yusuf in this thread. This is a perfect illustration of the problem.

      So to all of the Salafis, the message is simple: You want real unity? Then STOP THE TAKFEER of the ‘Ulema.

      No ifs, ands, or buts.

      No saying ‘lets talk about it behind closed doors.’ No saying ‘we’ll talk about it later.’

      No, either you are against takfeer or are you condone it. This cannot stand.

      masalama

      Please refer back to my original post in which I condemned namecalling and added in parentheses ‘kaafir’.

      Shaykh Yasir Qadhi has stated that he has not made takfeer of Allawi. There is a clear difference between what was said and what is being interpreted by his critics. In his interpretation of his own speech, he did not make takfeer of Allawi.

      No one said all traditionalist scholars engage in takfeer (keep your strawmen for your milk shaykhs :D). It was stated that takfeer has come for both sides. The converse is also true – not all salafi scholars have engaged in making takfeer of “traditionalist” scholars. If you can prove they all have, please do so.

      And no one said kufr and bid’a are equal in and of themselves. I simply stated the effect was the same – disunity. With websites like marifah.net, which focus more on refuting salafis rather than teaching “traditional” ideology, I don’t think I really need to go into too much detail. The content speaks for itself.

      Siraaj

    64. Siraaj Muhammad June 21st, 2007 at 10:42 pm

      Yursil on June 21, 2007 at 3:45 pm said:

      BismillahirRahmanirRaheem
      as-salamu’alaikum,

      Omar, you have one confused version of history regarding the Ottomans. Do you even have one source for this strange opinion you are inventing?

      On a side note, this is a very sad comment. You asked the brother for evidence regarding his post and called him a liar within the same sentence.

      Siraaj

    65. none June 21st, 2007 at 11:21 pm

      That is the place of earthquakes, and fitnas, and from it the Devil’s Horn shall rise.’ [Narrated by Bukhari.] And nothing has emerged from there to bring about earthquakes and fitnas in the religion like Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, who was astray and led others astray. Hence he was the Devil’s Horn foretold by the Messenger (upon him be blessings and peace), and he abstained from offering prayer for Najd because of him, and because of the fitnas which would flow from his demonic da’wa. Whoever adheres to that da’wa has committed unambiguous kufr, and is destined for apostasy and ‘swerving from the religion’, as is visible in the case of the other mulhids [heretical unbelievers] of the age who are notorious for their ilhad, for in every case they began by holding fast to the sect of the Devil’s Horn, as is well-known to scholars of experience and insight.~source masud.co.uk

      is this kufr on people who follow the methodology of abdul wahhab?

    66. none June 21st, 2007 at 11:25 pm

      he categorization of the Wahhabis as Kharijis has been a leitmotiv of Sunni heresiography for the past 200 years.-livingislam.org

      i guess at least hes not making takfeer on salafis

      s

    67. Mumin June 22nd, 2007 at 12:10 am

      Omar you are right, it was the third saudi state not the 1st saudi state. Anyways it is well known the ottomans were supported by the nonmuslim regimes against Muhammad Ali of egypt who was the one responsible for ending the 1st saud state. What’s funny is that muhammad ali after sending his son ibrahim pasha to attack the sauds rebelled against the ottoman khalifah himself and there is no statement from any of the scholars who attacked the sauds against him. Muhammad ibn abdul wahhab came much before the advent of oil and the fact that most of arabia was still under his dawah after he left is a testament to his work. The sufis as usual resort to obscuring history to defend their sectarian ideas.

      Also i’m pretty sure there a lot of sufi scholars that claimed Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn Qayyim, and others were advocating anthropomorphism. Maybe a quick search to masud could better substantiate this.

      Oh here it is:
      http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/littlk.htm

      Anyways isnt accusing someone of anthropomorphism the same as accusing someone of kufr?

    68. Mumin June 22nd, 2007 at 12:16 am

      \

      Yursil on June 21, 2007 at 3:45 pm said:

      BismillahirRahmanirRaheem
      as-salamu’alaikum,

      Omar, you have one confused version of history regarding the Ottomans. Do you even have one source for this strange opinion you are inventing?

      Are you serious? It is well known the british and austrian navies supported the ottomans against Muhammad ali’s desire to control greater syria. And salafis are accused of being narrowminded.

    69. jinnzaman June 22nd, 2007 at 2:04 am

      wow, i like how this thread has completely degenerated into the typical Traditionalist-Salafi flame war.

      Just to clarify my comments and bring them on course:

      1. I have no problem with the Salafi understanding of aqeedah or fiqh. I have defended the Salafi aqeedah on various forums as well as on my blog, while also criticizing it from an Ashari perspective. The problem with Salafis is the takfeer culture and constant accusations of bid’a against others.

      2. With regards to the term “wahhabi”, I agree its derogatory. Again, on various forums and on my blog, I have criticized those who use the term “wahhabi” and recommended the use the term “muwahiddun” or “salafi” as an alternative.

      3. With regards to the Uthmani Khilafah, they engaged in jihad against the kuffar for 700 hundred years. The Saudi state never engaged in jihad. The only time it supports “mujahideen” is when their puppet masters order them to do so.

      4. The spread of the Salafi dawah in the world today would not exist but for the Saudi state. Prior to the development of the petro-dollar system, the dawah by Salafis was limited within najd. So the argument that “but for the assistance of the kuffar, the Saudi state would not stand and without the Saudi state, the Salafi dawah wouldn’t have spread out into the world” is entirely valid. If you’ve got a problem with history, take it up with Allah (subhana wa ta’ala) on the Day of Judgment. You can’t change the facts.

      masalama

    70. Omar June 22nd, 2007 at 4:53 am

      Yes, the Ottomans engaged in Jihad w’al Hamdulillah. I was wrong to point out only the errors that occured in their (later) centuries. The point being, however, that you pointed out that the 3rd Saudi state was nurtured by kuffar- which is true. But, so wwas the Ottoman Empire (I am talking about not their entire history, of course).

      So what Jinnz :) ? Ahs’ari aqidah wouldn’t have spread at all were it not for the sword of Ibn Tumart and the patronage of wealthy rulers such as Nizam al-Mulk. This is how schools of thought usually spread- with the patronage of a ruler.

    71. Omar June 22nd, 2007 at 4:59 am

      “Listening to Kuffar books on history is not a good start.”

      With all due respect, Yursil, this statement makes you look foolish. Are you telling me that the kuffar were engaged in some huge conspiracy theory to re-write history to malign the Ottomans? Are you telling me, we can’t rely on Hansard’s to report Parliamentary debates? Fortunately, not all sufis are as narrow-minded as this.

      “Regardless, every book of theirs about Ottoman history dictates that the Kuffar were attacking it from inside and out. Unless you start considering Russians, English, French, Australians, etc were all believers.”

      Firstly, I’m not talking about the whole of history. Secondly, I doubt someone could have read about Ottoman history in the nineteenth century wihtout having come across this. And you sound quite a lot like that. Thirdly, that some kuffar attacked it from ‘outside’ doesn’t preclude others from defending it. Have you ever heard of the Crimean War?

      Go read a book, Yursil.

    72. Omar June 22nd, 2007 at 5:02 am

      MJ, what you said is true- but I’m not responsible for the actions of others.

      “The issue I’m talking about is that the everyday salafi… Again if you look at an traditional forum, site, blog, etc. you will not find anything, not a single statement saying “shaykh [insert salafi scholar here] is a kafir]”.

      Actually, you will. You will find them accuse ibn Khuzayma, Uthman b. Sa’id adDarimi etc of shirk and tajsim, just like their scholars have done.

      …Not to mention ibn Taymiyya

    73. Omar June 22nd, 2007 at 5:04 am

      Yursil, I posted more on history here:

      http://z14.invisionfree.com/Shield_of_Islam/index.php?showtopic=1684&st=0&#last

    74. Mujahideen Ryder June 22nd, 2007 at 7:16 am

      You guys are so lucky, I have a “no-close-comment policy unless my mother or father tells me to do so”

      haha.

      anyways some Muslims are just wack.

    75. Omar June 22nd, 2007 at 8:02 am

      as-salamu’alaikum,

      Oh, I’ve read quite a bit on Ottoman history. And Hansard is quite a bit different than dealing with Kuffar about Ottoman history. Anyone reading their history about us, without even knowing what the Taj utTevarikh is a seriously confused Muslim ‘historian’.

      The fact remains that you have no Muslim sources with which to understand the events within Ottoman History, much less Ottoman sources.

      Buying into the Western interpretation of those events is a recipe for disaster.

      Anyway, I’m sure you have heard of the Battle at Galipoli, and this little thing we like to call World War I which presents itself as somewhat of a contradicition with your events as the same nations supposedly ‘propping up’ the Ottoman empire were ready to attempt to dismantle it as well.

      When understood through the proper lens, it may then become clear that the Ottomans were simply ‘keeping their enemies close’ when dealing with the Kuffar in the above situations.

    76. Yursil June 22nd, 2007 at 8:03 am

      sorry, I was addressing Omar, but the above comment is from me, yursil

    77. Omar June 22nd, 2007 at 10:43 am

      Yursil, first of all, I asked you on your blogsite to e-mail me, since I don’t want to spin this out on this site, and give MR a heart attack.

      Yes, the ANZACs attacked the Turks at Gallipoli- so what? That still doesn’t come close to refuting what I said, viz. the Ottomans were propped up by non-Muslims throughout nineteenth century history. In fact, when you’re talking about WWI, you clearly haven’t read my posts, which refer to C19th.

      In fact, only with the arrival of Gladstone in office to we get an obviously anti-Ottoman policy- and even that, only within Europe (‘bag and baggage’).

      You’re silly- because Hansard’s isn’t a history of the Ottoman Empire- Hansard’s is the well-known record of all past Parliamentary debates.

      I wonder what time period Taj utTevarikh covers? I doubt very much that it discusses, at all, the period that I’m talking about.

      What do you mean ‘keeping their enemies close’? You obviously don’t even care about what the Crimean war was…what the hell do you mean the ‘Western interpretation’?! Even the Ottomans will tell you that they literally begged Britain etc to come to their defence. In fact, they declared war on Russia ‘early’, so that despite the Tsar’s withdrawal from Moldavia and Wallachia, the British and French would help him out.

      You have no idea what you’re on about. Listen to you- ‘we can’t trust the kuffar to tell us their own political history’. You’d lose your job for that, if you were in academia. alHamdulillah, most sufis are not fanatics like you who go to the length of actively denying history. You, my brother, have an agenda.

    78. Omar June 22nd, 2007 at 10:44 am

      Bro, despite the fact that you’re my brother, I trust my non-Muslim professors, who write and teach about this stuff for a living, more than you for their scholarship in this field.

    79. Yursil June 22nd, 2007 at 11:00 am

      as-salamu’alaikum,

      MR has a strong heart, I know he can handle it.

      I’m silly because Hansard doesn’t cover Ottoman history? I didn’t bring up Hansard in this discussion, in fact I pointed out the distinction.

      “your job for that, if you were in academia”

      Good thing I’m not in ‘Academia’.

      “I trust my non-Muslim professors”

      MashaAllah, my point exactly. I hear some of them teach Quran and Hadith as well.

    80. Omar June 22nd, 2007 at 11:09 am

      Firstly, can you e-mail me?

      Secondly, don’t be a fool. You have a sectarian agenda, whereas my teachers don’t. They teach for a living, and you’re ignorant.

      You’re trying to dispute history that no-one, Muslim or non-Muslim, disagrees over.

      Bro, a trust a kafir surgeon to do open-heart surgery on me, more than I trust you to do it.

      And, you’re as much of a historian as you are a heart surgeon.

    81. Omar June 22nd, 2007 at 11:10 am

      My e-mail is anchassiATbtinternetDotcom.

      Can you take whatever debate there? I’m sure MR is already tearing his hair out.

    82. Omar June 22nd, 2007 at 11:12 am

      In fact, I would like it if Jinnzaman came over here to arbitrate- or e-mailed me, that would be better.

    83. Omar June 22nd, 2007 at 11:13 am

      “MashaAllah, my point exactly. I hear some of them teach Quran and Hadith as well.”

      Don’t you dare misquote me like that ever again. My context makes it clear what I said.

    84. Omar June 22nd, 2007 at 11:15 am

      In fact, if I could read Turkish I guarantee I would be able to bring you 1000′s of articles refuting what you say. Obviously, you’re trying to reinvent the wheel when it comes to our knowledge of history.

      That ends my contribution.

    85. Yursil June 22nd, 2007 at 11:43 am

      as-salamu’alaikum,

      You’re trying to dispute history that no-one, Muslim or non-Muslim, disagrees over.

      Well, I believe the Ottomans dispute it.

      I am disputing your conclusions from undisputed facts. The only fact is that certain European powers were used as allies against other European powers. Drawing conclusions about who needed who and what the intentions and goals were on the Ottomans side is far beyond being exclusive for you (our your Kaffir teachers).

      I am not heart surgeon, indeed, and your teachers are not Ottomans.

      Their ‘impartiality’ doesn’t make them good Hadith or Quran or Sirat teachers either.

    86. UKer June 22nd, 2007 at 12:10 pm

      this is sooo bad! U no, a cuss here and there is ok…but getting into it this bad is not good! When the other doesnt wanna listen, u shudnt carry on…even if u have jewels coming out of ur mouth, it would be like ur chucking them away. Only talk when the other is seeking ur advice…but this has got to a different level..
      btw this advice goes 2 myself first.
      Chill evry1!!
      Wasalam.

    87. jinnzaman June 22nd, 2007 at 12:53 pm

      InshaAllah, the discussion can continue on the forum, as both of you are members of it. :P

      I’ll join in over the weekend.

      Very briefly though, the distinction between the Ottoman state and the Saudi state is that the former was exploited by the Europeans financially. The Ottomans ran up huge debts to the loans that they had borrowed from the European states. They established spheres of influence, but the Ottomans nonetheless allied against most of the European powers and fought on 8 fronts in World War I. The Saudi state, as we know it, was directly funded by the British government to fight against Sharif Husayn’s state which was seeking to unify the Arabs under a single Caliphate. The Saudis were also immediately recognized by the USSR and the US. Lets also not forget that they allowed a base to be built to attack fellow Muslims in the Gulf War.

      So, yes, its true that the Ottomans were receiving assistance from the kuffar, but they were not the puppets that the Saudi regime was since its inception. Moreoever, there were a lot of efforts by the last few Khalifahs to actually restore the Khalifate and the Shari’ah.

      The situation with regards to the Ottomans is more complicated than you’re making it out to be. Again, the Ottomans engaged in jihad for 700 years, even up until their demise and took on 8 countries during World War I. The Saudi state has done more for dividing the Ummah then uniting them.

      And more importantly, this is a point you completely ignored, the Salafi dawah spread out of Saudiyyah largely because of the petro-dollar recycling system and also because of control over the Hejaz. The Saudi state had a lot to do with spreading the Salafi dawah and if a person ignores this fact, he’s just being insincere.

      With regards to the spread of Ilm ul Kalam, you and I both know that Maqdisi’s own students have refuted the assertion that the Ashari school spread by force. I’ve posted the journals online before on the forum and I can post them up again.

      The major criticism that people had of Makdisi was that he oversimplified the manner in which Islamic institutions of learning operated. While its true that some of the major maddrassehs in the Ummah had patronage by rulers, in the case of Nizam ul Mulk, the Athari aqeedah was taught side by side with the Ashari aqeedah. State patronage doesn’t explain why the Ashari aqeedah eventually become dominant in the Ummah and the Athari aqeedah became a minority until the rise of the Saudi state. Moreover, the argument proposed by Makdisi doesn’t account for why the dominant institution of learning, the private instructor, didn’t propagate the Athari aqeedah , since it was an independent form of learning. Not all of the ‘Ulema were on a state payroll and Makdisi’s arguments don’t account for the spread of the Ashari aqeedah, and doesn’t even touch upon the sperad of the Maturidi aqeedah. So again, when you’re going to quote an argument from the kuffar, there are other arguments from the kuffar that you need to look at as well. You can’t pick and choose what you like alone.

      Maqdisi et al doesn’t account for the spread of the Ashari aqeedah into sub-saharan, eastern, and Western africa, or Indonesia and even as far as China. Nor does it account for the spread of the Maturidi aqeedah into literally all branches of the Ummah. Moreover, it doesn’t account for why the Athari aqeedah remained centralized largely in the Middle East. If the Athari aqeedah was the “original” aqeedah as the Atharis argue, and the Kalami aqeedahs were late comers, then we should find some areas where Kalam was not taught that were Athari. However, there is no such place.

      Ayte, i gotta run to jum’ah and then i’ve got all these errands to do. InshaAllah, I’ll post either tommorow or Sunday.

      masalama

    88. Omar June 22nd, 2007 at 3:49 pm

      OK, this discussion will continue on Jinnzaman’s forum.

    89. Muhammed June 22nd, 2007 at 6:56 pm

      Absolutely deploring, no wonder your type of people aka “Sufis” (far from being Sunnis) are in such a terrible state of Eman.
      You follow self-righteous men who havent even drank a drop from the ocean of knowledge, going to a University or sitting in a circle for a few years doesn’t even come close to a person who has actual ilm.

      They are a laughing stock amongst the circles of Ilm in Muslim countries, but once they step into the Westernized societies they become ‘Ulima (heheh)!

      There is no Ummah in the West, you people are a lost cause.

    90. UKer June 22nd, 2007 at 8:14 pm

      You have sadened me greatly! May Allah SWT forgive you…
      Im resisting my boiling blood, and shall remain silent so that i will not stoop to ur level. Im leaving it to Allah SWT.
      All i can say is Allah SWT give you hidaya, and that you taste Islam for what it really is.

    91. AbdulRahman June 24th, 2007 at 3:35 am

      Being classified as a “Salafi/Wahhabi”, I still found the video a very good one. Sheikh Hamza as usual proves himself to be quite an intelligent person ma sha’ Allaah. I have great respect and admiration for him.

      Mujahideen Ryder on June 18, 2007 at 12:16 pm said:

      Shaykh ibn Abdul Wahhab did many good. In honesty, even tradionalitists and sufis can’t deny this, he revived Islam in his times and caused a huge movement back towards Islam. After all there were many wahhabis who became sufis. If it wasn’t for Shaykh ibn Abdul Wahhab, there’d be do salafi movement, thus there would have been no MR, becuase it was the salafi dawah that brough be back to Islam, alhamdulillah.

      I’m curious about this comment Bro, as I have never read any praise for him by his “opponents” (for lack of a better word, forgive me I mean no offence). But then my source is merely the Internet.
      If you could provide some citation to that it would be much appreciated!
      Jazak Allah khair.

      P.S. I really like your blog and have been following for some time now.

    92. Mujahideen Ryder June 24th, 2007 at 2:02 pm

      Omar on June 22, 2007 at 11:10 am said:

      My e-mail is anchassiATbtinternetDotcom.

      Can you take whatever debate there? I’m sure MR is already tearing his hair out.

      Bro this is nothing. hahaha. I’ve seen far more harsh and worse threads on my blog. This is actually educational mashaAllah!

      Muhammed on June 22, 2007 at 6:56 pm said:

      Absolutely deploring, no wonder your type of people aka “Sufis” (far from being Sunnis) are in such a terrible state of Eman.
      You follow self-righteous men who havent even drank a drop from the ocean of knowledge, going to a University or sitting in a circle for a few years doesn’t even come close to a person who has actual ilm.

      They are a laughing stock amongst the circles of Ilm in Muslim countries, but once they step into the Westernized societies they become ‘Ulima (heheh)!

      There is no Ummah in the West, you people are a lost cause.

      Bro you do realize the the ummah in the west is dominated by the salafi dawah. also the ummah in the west is wayyy more open and and more peaceful towards difference of opinion rather then the ummah in the east. for exmaple in pakistan people would kill each other over fiqh or aqeedah issues. if you want proof, just go there and see it for yourself. go to karachi. or ask any pakistani brother.

      look at saudi arabia. have you seen the youth? i have some friends who have friends in saudia and talk to them on a weekly basis and i here some really crazy stuff. like the majority of the youth in saudia are lost. the latest hip ho records from america are widely available in saudia, in fact you can hear them blasting it in makkah and madinah. near the haram! if you want proof just go hang out with the “jeddah boyz” or just go to the malls of saudia.

      there is fitna in the west, but its much harder over here to retain your deen, iman and adab living in these non-muslim lands. but in places like saudia, egypt, pakistan, where the government is full of Muslims and the ‘ulema are supposedly respected, the youth should be amazing.

      even madinah university is full of foreign students (non-saudi). in america, the youth are organizing islamic events and conferences during the weekends and during the week they are working and going to school. i have yet to see any islamic conference or event run by youth in saudia. in fact they dont even have those things there. you might say, they don’t need that, but they have hip hop meetings all the time, where saudi “rappers” battle each other.

      Allah knows best.

    93. Aamir June 24th, 2007 at 4:20 pm

      This is funny, he says he doesnt like “Wahhabis” which we all know it’s true since he is an Ashari and the Asharis have been enemies to the Sunnis since they first emerged. Even after he says he doesnt like Sunnis (“Wahhabis”) you see his blind idiotic followers saying he defended them LOL, morons?

      This guy Hamza Doofus is a Munafiq who exposes himself everytime he opens his accursed mouth trying to please the public. He openly works with the Enemies of Islam and comes to ignorant Muslims to preach his crooked form of Islam. Allah calls such people munafiqeen and ordered the Prophet to be harsh against them and fight them once they expose themselves.

      Muhammed your observation is on the money, most of the speakers in the West are completely uneducated in Islam. That is why you see the general Muslims in the West have lost practically all of their Islamic principles and have become slaves of the kuffar dancing like monkeys. Well this also has to do with involving oneself with Tasawwuf which makes one a complete animal.

    94. YoussefAlMasry June 24th, 2007 at 4:21 pm

      Nice response, MR. Way to keep a cool head :)

    95. YoussefAlMasry June 24th, 2007 at 4:30 pm

      To Muhammed and Aamir-

      I wonder, do you actually believe that your comments are beneficial? I mean, I’m sure you realize that any marginally valid points you may have are drowned out by all the venom. No one is saying you can’t criticize, but try to be a lot more constructive when you do.

      Oh, and Aamir, last I checked, adab was still an Islamic principle. So before you go saying that Muslims in the West no longer espouse these principles, make sure that you embody them first. Lest you turn out to be the munafiq.

      W’Allahu Alam

    96. Mujahideen Ryder June 24th, 2007 at 4:33 pm

      Aamir on June 24, 2007 at 4:20 pm said:

      This is funny, he says he doesnt like “Wahhabis” which we all know it’s true since he is an Ashari and the Asharis have been enemies to the Sunnis since they first emerged. Even after he says he doesnt like Sunnis (“Wahhabis”) you see his blind idiotic followers saying he defended them LOL, morons?

      This guy Hamza Doofus is a Munafiq who exposes himself everytime he opens his accursed mouth trying to please the public. He openly works with the Enemies of Islam and comes to ignorant Muslims to preach his crooked form of Islam. Allah calls such people munafiqeen and ordered the Prophet to be harsh against them and fight them once they expose themselves.

      Muhammed your observation is on the money, most of the speakers in the West are completely uneducated in Islam. That is why you see the general Muslims in the West have lost practically all of their Islamic principles and have become slaves of the kuffar dancing like monkeys. Well this also has to do with involving oneself with Tasawwuf which makes one a complete animal.

      LOL.

      salafis: 2
      non-salafis: 0

      look’s like the salafis are winning the most takfirs contest

    97. Mujahideen Ryder’s Blog - Not the average Muslim blog… » MR was down last night and this morning June 25th, 2007 at 6:41 pm

      [...] Shaykh Hamza Yusuf defends the Wahhabi Saudi Ulema [...]

    98. Omar June 26th, 2007 at 6:24 am

      MR…are you planning on having that heart attack any time soon?

    99. Mujahideen Ryder June 26th, 2007 at 8:06 am

      Omar on June 26, 2007 at 6:24 am said:

      MR…are you planning on having that heart attack any time soon?

      My site did, haha. that’s why it went down. It was in the hospital the past day.

    100. AbdulRahman June 26th, 2007 at 3:52 pm

      Again I speak as a “Salafi”, because I fear the damage some idiots do to the name of “Salafism”. I think Aamir and his like should fear Allaah and remember the hadith:
      “Will the people be thrown into Hell on their faces or on their noses for anything other than the harvest of their tongues?”
      Among other Hadiths.
      Give your brothers the benefit of the doubt, even those whom you differ in opinion with. See the fairness in Sheikh Hamza’s speech, even though he disagrees with our aqeeda and manhaj he spoke very fairly and you should do so too.

    101. Ali Qazi June 26th, 2007 at 4:54 pm

      1. No one paid attention to the fact that shaykh never said he dislikes wahabis. He said he doesnt like wahabism. Dont you think if he liked wahabism he would’ve studied in that school? Everyone has a right to dislike any methods, ideologies they want as does shaykh hamza. But we all saw how respectfully he mentioned the names of the wahabi scholars thereby recognizing their right to study and practice their school of thought. That type of recognition of others’ rights to study what they like is missing from our discourse.

      2. When someone boycotts or bashes al-maghrib over something One of the scholars say, they are bashing the whole organization and that is unfair. When the zaytuna program came to southern california, shaykh Muhammad Faqih of al-maghrib came to the program to meet shaykh Hamza and they both exchanged warm greetings. Muhammad Faqih also sat through a whole 2 hour lecture by shaykh Hamza. Who would in their right mind bash an organization that has people like that present?

      Its not a matter of scholars or students saying this or that, what it actually is that, some people are divisive and some people care about unity, and you can always see it in their speech. Its a human phenomenon.

    102. abu ameerah June 26th, 2007 at 8:51 pm

      “Shaykh Ibn Abdul Wahhab – Wahhabis

      It’s not negative at all. It’s just to distinguish the Muslims who adhere to the beliefs, writings and teachings of Shaykh Ibn Abdul Wahhab.

      What’s the big deal?”

      –The “deal” is that Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah opposes the blind following of Shuyookh. Blind following (blind imitation) is common amongst Sufi followers of Tariqas, however. The list of these sects goes on and on and changes with culture and nationality.

      –Also…if a group of people despise the term Wahabi and you still refer to them as Wahabis…is that cool? Is this a part of your Islamic Unity?

      –How about we start referring to the followers of Sidi Hamza Yusuf Hanson as HANSONITES?

      …I personally like that…sounds delicious!

    103. Mujahideen Ryder June 26th, 2007 at 10:45 pm

      abu ameerah on June 26, 2007 at 8:51 pm said:

      “Shaykh Ibn Abdul Wahhab – Wahhabis

      It’s not negative at all. It’s just to distinguish the Muslims who adhere to the beliefs, writings and teachings of Shaykh Ibn Abdul Wahhab.

      What’s the big deal?”

      –The “deal” is that Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah opposes the blind following of Shuyookh. Blind following (blind imitation) is common amongst Sufi followers of Tariqas, however. The list of these sects goes on and on and changes with culture and nationality.

      –Also…if a group of people despise the term Wahabi and you still refer to them as Wahabis…is that cool? Is this a part of your Islamic Unity?

      –How about we start referring to the followers of Sidi Hamza Yusuf Hanson as HANSONITES?

      …I personally like that…sounds delicious!

      Nice! I’m a Hansonite! :-D

    104. UKer June 26th, 2007 at 11:08 pm

      just to comment on the latest replies..
      some1 said something like blindly following a Tareeqah/Sheikh.
      I just wanna try and clear this up. How do you pass ur exams? How does any1 like a subject? Yes…u can revise all alone, and manage to do just fine. But what is the affect of having a powerful teacher who is good at wat he/she does? We usually like a subject cos of the teacher…right?
      The rule follows pretty much the same with having a Sheikh/Tareeqah. Ur not “blindly following”..no! Ur just being aided…given that helping hand to pass that test. Your Sheikh gives you from the masses of knowledge they have, yet at the end of the day, similar to a subject u do…its up to u to revise and work hard.
      Im sure uv been given this example before…but its only because its true! Seriously! Having a good Sheikh does wonders to ur deen. “Ina Allah ma al-Jamaa”…Allah SWT is with the group. Islam is not made for one to do so alone. How do you know what ur doing is right/wrong..how can any1 correct you if the only Islam ur getting is through reading books! Even that…thats technically following the Sheikh who wrote the book. Yet the beauty of having ur own Sheikh is that you get ur own personal advice, not just general advice to all Muslims from a book. Your own personal tutor…for free! Why not?

      And Allah SWT knows best. May Allah SWT guide us and help us so that we may see His Light, and give us eternal peace in this life and the next. Ameen.
      Wasalam.

    105. abu ameerah June 27th, 2007 at 12:33 am

      “The rule follows pretty much the same with having a Sheikh/Tareeqah. Ur not “blindly following”..no! Ur just being aided…given that helping hand to pass that test. Your Sheikh gives you from the masses of knowledge they have, yet at the end of the day, similar to a subject u do…its up to u to revise and work hard.”

      – Uhhh…okay. Whatever “floats your boat” akhi.

      You GAVE IT…you just GAVE IT — Mureed Style!
      Actually……you GAVE IT — Whirling Dervish Style!

    106. jinnzaman June 27th, 2007 at 2:32 am

      Hands down dumbest flame war I’ve seen on the internet in a long time.

      Every time a Salafi speaks, a baby kitten dies.

    107. Omar June 27th, 2007 at 7:14 am

      :) At least I gave it some direction with the Ottoman stuff.

    108. Shoo Shoo June 27th, 2007 at 7:39 am

      Can everyone please seek refuge from Shatan and STOP posting heated comments for the Sake of Allah?!

    109. Mujahideen Ryder June 27th, 2007 at 8:02 am

      Shoo Shoo on June 27, 2007 at 7:39 am said:

      Can everyone please seek refuge from Shatan and STOP posting heated comments for the Sake of Allah?!

      Actually, my intention was to have some nice sarcastic fun with my salafi brothers. I think me and Abu Ameerah have amazing personalities when it comes to these talks.

      Right Abu Ameerah! We should all eat some shia food.

    110. UKer June 27th, 2007 at 8:55 am

      I dnt get the shia food joke?!

    111. Ali Qazi June 27th, 2007 at 1:34 pm

      Isnt Salafism more broad? I mean ikhwanis are basically salafis as well, but they’re different from wahabis. If thats the case, how do you classify a wahabi?

      Wouldnt saying that, “we should call them salafis instead of wahabis” be equivalent to saying that “we should call them sunnis instead of hanafis” or “we should call them shia instead of jafaris”?

    112. Samir June 27th, 2007 at 10:44 pm

      Umm.. Yasir Qadhi did not make takfeer. TO say so would be slander.
      There are many “traditionalist” scholars that accuse Salafi’s of falling into anthropomorphism or leaning towards it. This is basically the same thing as accusing Salafi’s of commiting shirk its just been wrapped up in another word. In my experience there have been just as many close minded people on the otherside of the fence. I have had traditionalists interfere in my Dawah saying how they should be wary of Salafi’s when the topic was’nt even brought up and i was sticking to the basics.

    113. Mujahideen Ryder June 27th, 2007 at 11:01 pm

      Samir on June 27, 2007 at 10:44 pm said:

      Umm.. Yasir Qadhi did not make takfeer. TO say so would be slander.
      There are many “traditionalist” scholars that accuse Salafi’s of falling into anthropomorphism or leaning towards it. This is basically the same thing as accusing Salafi’s of commiting shirk its just been wrapped up in another word. In my experience there have been just as many close minded people on the otherside of the fence. I have had traditionalists interfere in my Dawah saying how they should be wary of Salafi’s when the topic was’nt even brought up and i was sticking to the basics.

      That may be true, but in this blog post, Salafis are winning the takfir count
      Salafis: 2
      Non-Salafis: 0

      :-D

    114. LoveProphet June 28th, 2007 at 7:20 am

      Man i can’t believe whats happened to this thread!
      Sidi MR did a good thing by posting that video but now certain people have decided to create fitnah over it and for little things too!

      Give me a break.

    115. ali June 28th, 2007 at 1:08 pm

      Mujahideen Ryder on June 27, 2007 at 11:01 pm said:

      That may be true, but in this blog post, Salafis are winning the takfir count
      Salafis: 2
      Non-Salafis: 0

      :-D

      LOL .. come on someone make this a hat trick!

    116. Omar June 28th, 2007 at 1:56 pm

      Takfir is nothing to laugh about, brother.

      MR, could you contact me?

    117. Mujahideen Ryder June 28th, 2007 at 4:07 pm

      Omar on June 28, 2007 at 1:56 pm said:

      Takfir is nothing to laugh about, brother.

      MR, could you contact me?

      You are right. AstagfirAllah! May Allah forgive them. Ameen.

    118. abdulhaqq June 29th, 2007 at 10:15 pm

      I’m not a Salafi, I’m a Hanbali, but I’m offended by alot of what “Traditional” scholars say about major historical Hanbali ulema. I’ve seen them label as “anthropomorphists”: al-Qadi Abu Ya’la (one of the greatest Hanbali scholars), Khwajah Abdullah al-Ansari (great Sufi of Afghanistan), and Shaykh al-Islam ibn Taymiyya.

      Like it or not, the traditional Hanbali aqeedah (except ibn al-Jawzi and ibn Aqil) is identical to Salafi aqeedah. I’ve studied this deeply, and that is what I’ve found. If Salafis are “antropomorphists” then so are Hanbalis. If you want to cast Hanbalis out of your understanding of Ahl us-Sunnah, then do so at your own risk, but don’t pretend that Hanbali and Salafi aqeedah are not the same. The only evidence you can present is Ibn al-Jawzi’s book (which was rejected by the Hanabilah), fraudsters like Abu Ja’far “al-Hanbali”, and garbage like “Apples and Oranges”.

    119. jinnzaman June 30th, 2007 at 1:39 am

      Meh, I’ll take that with a grain of salt. The links between the Salafi aqeedah and the Hanbali are clear, undoubtedly. However, to say that they’re identical is misleading. Firstly, because there were a handful of Ashari Hanbalis. Secondly, many of the practices that Salafis condemn with regards to Tasawwuf were acceptable according to many Hanbali scholars. So while the Salafi aqeedah has been strongly influenced by the Hanbali madhab, I doubt that its correct to say they’re identical and claiming so is just a bad faith argument.

      I think the proper approach is to look at the Hadith Sufi Reformists who looked up to people like Shaykh Ibh Taymiyyah and looked at the Sunnah as the primary model for their understanding of Aqeedah, Fiqh, and Tasawwuf.

      Lets not forget that the teacher of Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab who introduced him to the works of Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah was Shaykh Muhammad Haya al-Sindhi who was both an Ashari and a Naqshbandi Sufi.

      The situation is more complicated than people are making it out be in some regards, but also more simple in other regards.

      I have no problem with the Salafi aqeedah because of I’ve found that many of the Akabir of Hind seemed to take a middle approach between the Asharis and Salafis and the Sufis.

      [Subliminal Message: If you want to unite the Ummah, become Deobandi]

    120. Email June 30th, 2007 at 11:17 am

      wow you folks have soooo much time on your hands and I felt like a loser reading half of this stuff.

      And there are two types of salafees out there: the fake and the real.
      THe real ones are taught NOT to go around making takfeer by the ‘ulemaa. The fake ones like to attach the label and go around making takfeer on everyone(or just about everyone).

      Anyways, my purpose is to ask if “None” and “Omar” are married or single. I am into the matchmaking businessa nd I have prospects lined up.

      My email is belief in taqdeer at hotmail dot com

      I am specifically asking them…and if you are single (preferably, I have not prospects that are willing to enter polygamous relationships….yet), then send me your biodata.

    121. Email June 30th, 2007 at 11:27 am

      you know I remember when Hamza Yusuf about 12 years ago. Girls/Ladies were gaga over him. So he was like the “good looking” shaykh. I remember that clearly, girls would be telling me how women wanted to marry him even though he was married already.

      What do I think of him, I think he is good looking. I like the way he talks. If salafees had someone that spoke in a soft gentle manner with clearly enunciated english and that good looking, we wouldnt be having this debate and bashing of salafees.

    122. abdulhaqq June 30th, 2007 at 12:47 pm

      About this whole “takfeer count” thing:

      I’m a sufi and even I make takfeer of Muhammad al-Alawi al-Maliki. He was the Abu Jahl of his time. I’ll extend that to his student “Shaykh al-Islam” Tahir al-Qadri too.

      That makes the takfeer count 2 for 2.

    123. UKer June 30th, 2007 at 5:43 pm

      btw…this whole deobandi thing…its all abit of a mix up. You cant be half Salafi half Sufi. Thats just confused! Also, Deobanism was before Salafism, and Sufism before Deobandism…so the whole thing is abit of an evolutionary process, if u wanna put it that way. Sufism…Deobandism…Salafism. Wow, notice the ism at the end!

      Anyway, yeh…i dont get why Deobandi’s cant just be either Sufi or Salafi…and stop the confusion. Like they believe in Mawlids but they dont agree with giving out special food. You cant mess like that. Or maybe u can…Allahu Alam.

    124. abdulhaqq June 30th, 2007 at 8:08 pm

      Deobandis are just traditional Hanafis, they’re not really a new group and they’re not “half-sufi half salafi”, they’re just Maturidi Hanafis who follow the four major sufi Tariqahs of the Indian subcontinent.

    125. Email June 30th, 2007 at 8:56 pm

      Yeah,
      Deoband is in India, aint it?

      Also, question, are all the major sufi tariqas from Hind? and the levantine folks (greater syria(jordan and palestine included) just follow one of the tariqas that originated in Hind or do they have their own tariqas?

    126. jinnzaman July 1st, 2007 at 6:44 am

      Abdulhaqq,

      What tariqa are you a part of and whose your murshid and what legal qualifications do you have to make takfeer of him?

      masalama

    127. abdulhaqq July 1st, 2007 at 2:38 pm

      Email on June 30, 2007 at 8:56 pm said:

      Yeah,
      Deoband is in India, aint it?

      Also, question, are all the major sufi tariqas from Hind? and the levantine folks (greater syria(jordan and palestine included) just follow one of the tariqas that originated in Hind or do they have their own tariqas?

      When I said tariqahs of the Indian Subcontinent, I didn’t mean they started there (although the Chisti Tariqah did) I meant the ones predominant there. The four main tariqahs there are the Naqshbandi (from Central Asia), the Qadiri (from Iraq), the Suhrawardi (from Persia, I think), and the Chisti.

    128. sundoc July 1st, 2007 at 4:33 pm

      Assalamualaikum,

      Jinnzaman… bro, don’t waste your time asking for AbdulHaqq’s qualifications (What an honourable name, for such a dishonourable comment!).

      Ones state is rarely known to oneself but often evident to those around… Its amazing how our own tongues can be our greatest enemy. May Allah Azawajal forgive and protect us all, ameen.

    129. abdulhaqq July 1st, 2007 at 8:27 pm

      They both promoted the shirk of calling upon others than Allah (azza wa jal) for help. This is a different issue than asking for intercesstion at someone’s grave, since there is disagreement over whether the dead can hear. But just yelling something like “Ya Gawth Madad!” or something like that is pure shirk (since it implies that the saint is all-hearing).

    130. abdulhaqq July 1st, 2007 at 8:29 pm

      http://www.askimam.org/fatwa/fatwa.php?askid=20b9f5563fb86b9089db85395f1851a4

      This fatwa from Mufti Desai (a Hanafi Chisti) makes that matter clear.

    131. Email July 1st, 2007 at 11:32 pm

      wow,
      even sufis disagree.

      Moral of the story: everyone disagrees, get used to it. Mind your business, eat some lemon merengue pie.

      :)

    132. Email July 1st, 2007 at 11:45 pm

      oops

      the email is

      beliefintaqdeer at hotmail.com

      no spaces between belief in taqdeer

      and no space after beliefintaqdeer and @

    133. abdulhaqq July 2nd, 2007 at 1:10 am

      Also, I’m sick of the fake Hanbalis pandering to the Asharis and Maturidis who overtly consider our aqeedah “antropomorphist”. I’m talking about Abu Ja’far “al-Hanbali” the scam artist behind the “Hanbali Text Society”, Abu Junayda “al-Hanbali” the author of the abysmal “Apples and Oranges”, and Musa Furber, who’s only function seems to be the token “Hanbali” in Nuh Keller’s crowd. If you were to believe the Bidahpath.com crowd, those three people are the only Hanbalis on earth (or at least in the west). Hanbalis are truly “al-ghuraba” (the strangers).

      Yaquluna fi ashabi ahmada qillatun

      Fa qultu lahum inn al-kirama qalilu

      They say of Ahmad’s followers: How few they are!

      Thus, I said to them: The dignified are always few

    134. Samir July 2nd, 2007 at 5:10 am

      Also one last comment from me. Its not our job to clean up the mess of Mr. Takfiri. When I read this post I was like gah that it stupid and felt it was self evident. I didn’t see too many traditionalist condemn it either. Thats because its implicitly stupid and with Sheikh Hamza Yusuf it seems to happen more often.

    135. Nuqtah July 2nd, 2007 at 5:51 am

      Assalamu alaikum,

      I don’t want to engage in the debate but just wanted to make a du3a.

      May Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala curse those who accuse The Imam Ahmad and his followers as being anthropomorphists, ameen ya Rabb.

      Long live Athari (Hanbali) Aqeedah. :)

    136. Mujahideen Ryder July 2nd, 2007 at 8:54 am

      abdulhaqq on June 30, 2007 at 12:47 pm said:

      About this whole “takfeer count” thing:

      I’m a sufi and even I make takfeer of Muhammad al-Alawi al-Maliki. He was the Abu Jahl of his time. I’ll extend that to his student “Shaykh al-Islam” Tahir al-Qadri too.

      That makes the takfeer count 2 for 2.

      hhhmm….

    137. UKer July 2nd, 2007 at 11:42 am

      if u dnt say Ya ______ then u aint Sufi…
      right?

    138. abdulhaqq July 2nd, 2007 at 12:22 pm

      UKer on July 2, 2007 at 11:42 am said:

      if u dnt say Ya ______ then u aint Sufi…
      right?

      No, tasawwuf is self-purification, in the truest sense it has nothing to do with calling on saints, that’s just a folk practice.

    139. UKer July 2nd, 2007 at 7:39 pm

      ur wrong..its the essential of the Oneness of Allah. This is a truly complex matter, which cant be discussed to ppl who dnt wanna hear. When i was explained this idea, i got it..and believed in it. Calling onto a Sheikh is no ‘folk practice’, but more of believing in the aya that Allah SWT has confirmed that the Awliya are descendents of the Prophets. In another aya, Allah SWT mentions the Awliya “Ina Awliya Allah la kawfun alayhim wala hum yahzanoon”. To call onto a Sheikh and say Ya Allah, for the sake of this Sheikh, help me, its confirming in ur belief that these Awliya have been given a special place from Allah SWT.

      May Allah guide us if we are wrong…and even if we are right, may he make our path easy and lit by His light. Ameen.

    140. YoussefAlMasry July 2nd, 2007 at 8:59 pm

      UKer on July 2, 2007 at 7:39 pm said:

      ur wrong..its the essential of the Oneness of Allah. This is a truly complex matter, which cant be discussed to ppl who dnt wanna hear. When i was explained this idea, i got it..and believed in it. Calling onto a Sheikh is no ‘folk practice’, but more of believing in the aya that Allah SWT has confirmed that the Awliya are descendents of the Prophets. In another aya, Allah SWT mentions the Awliya “Ina Awliya Allah la kawfun alayhim wala hum yahzanoon”. To call onto a Sheikh and say Ya Allah, for the sake of this Sheikh, help me, its confirming in ur belief that these Awliya have been given a special place from Allah SWT.

      May Allah guide us if we are wrong…and even if we are right, may he make our path easy and lit by His light. Ameen.

      Alsalamualaikum,

      Now, just so I don’t misunderstand you, are you saying that if one does not call on one of the “awliya” then they have a deficiency in their understanding of the deen?? That to call on others is not only sanctioned, but is “essential” to the oneness of Allah (SWT)????

      Please clarify

    141. abdulhaqq July 2nd, 2007 at 9:05 pm

      UKer on July 2, 2007 at 7:39 pm said:

      ur wrong..its the essential of the Oneness of Allah. This is a truly complex matter, which cant be discussed to ppl who dnt wanna hear. When i was explained this idea, i got it..and believed in it. Calling onto a Sheikh is no ‘folk practice’, but more of believing in the aya that Allah SWT has confirmed that the Awliya are descendents of the Prophets. In another aya, Allah SWT mentions the Awliya “Ina Awliya Allah la kawfun alayhim wala hum yahzanoon”. To call onto a Sheikh and say Ya Allah, for the sake of this Sheikh, help me, its confirming in ur belief that these Awliya have been given a special place from Allah SWT.

      May Allah guide us if we are wrong…and even if we are right, may he make our path easy and lit by His light. Ameen.

      You’re an imbecile. Read Sayyidina Abdul-Qadir al-Jilani’s works if you want to really understand what tasawwuf is.

    142. Mujahideen Ryder July 2nd, 2007 at 9:09 pm

      You don’t have to do tawassul through the Prophet (saas) or the awliya to be a sufi. BUT you have to accept that it is permissible.

      Just like how you accept there are 4 madhabs, but you only adhere to one, the other 3 are also correct.

      Similarily, the 4 wife thing. It’s permissible, but hardly anyone does it.

      Let’s just leave at that guys.

      Let’s just do 5-pillar islam first, then get to the tawassul stuff.

    143. YoussefAlMasry July 2nd, 2007 at 10:14 pm

      Mujahideen Ryder on July 2, 2007 at 9:09 pm said:

      You don’t have to do tawassul through the Prophet (saas) or the awliya to be a sufi. BUT you have to accept that it is permissible.

      Just like how you accept there are 4 madhabs, but you only adhere to one, the other 3 are also correct.

      Similarily, the 4 wife thing. It’s permissible, but hardly anyone does it.

      Let’s just leave at that guys.

      Let’s just do 5-pillar islam first, then get to the tawassul stuff.

      That’s perfectly fine by me. I mean, hey, I’m all for sticking to the basics. Invariably, though, each post seems to evolve into a discussion of not-so-fundamental issues. I often refrain from throwing my hat in the ring, but when someone claims that one of these controversial “secondary” issues is as essential to the deen as it gets, then, well, I can’t help but take him to task.

      Anyway, khalas, I’ve said my piece.

      On another note, I was wondering, when we gonna be hanging out, akhi MR? :P

    144. abdulhaqq July 2nd, 2007 at 11:06 pm

      Of course Tawassul through the Prophet is okay, but calling upon saints from afar is shirk (as opposed to seeking intercession at their graves, which is a different issue). Deobandis are Sufis and even they believe that.

    145. UKer July 3rd, 2007 at 9:25 am

      im only saying its essential when ppl like above say its shirk. Its the opposite of shirk…which is wat? its to confirm the belief in Allah SWT. Thats wat im tryin 2 reply to any1 who says its shirk.

      and like MR is saying…u have to believe in it, even if u dont do it.

    146. UKer July 3rd, 2007 at 9:31 am

      Listen,just to let u all know, i am not knowledgable enough…im just saying what i understand and believe in, and what i have been told from those who are knowledgable. However, forgive me if iv said wrong. Allah SWT knows best. Every1 may think different, but its good to hear each other and respect it.

    147. abdulhaqq July 3rd, 2007 at 1:13 pm

      So Deobandis are disbelievers according to you, for not believing in calling upon saints?

      http://www.askimam.org/fatwa/fatwa.php?askid=20b9f5563fb86b9089db85395f1851a4

      You people might as well be Roman Catholics. What’s the difference between you mushrikeen and those mushrikeen?

    148. Deobandi July 3rd, 2007 at 1:22 pm

      Abdulhaqq – I’m not sure if you really are a deobandi, especially since you called SunniPath ‘biddapath’ and you make takfir on people who are still respected by deobandis, although they have different beliefs.

      Deobandis are against many forms of tawassul but they do not act like you in making takfir on there ulema. Just look at Mufti Taqi Usmani or any of the great current Deoband Muftis. They have not make any takfir on reverred ulema by others like Shaykh alawi or Shaykh Qadri or even Shaykh Hamza Yusuf, like the salafis do.

      Deobandis may be very strict in Islam, but they aren’t takfiri like the Salafis.

      Allah knows best.

    149. abdulhaqq July 3rd, 2007 at 1:32 pm

      If you make du’a to anyone other than Allah (subhanu wa ta’ala) even Rasulullah (salallahu alayhi wa salaam), you are not a Muslim, you are a mushrik. Pure and simple. This is the ijmaa of the madhhab I follow (Hanbali) and I’m not going to change it because a bunch of Islamic Catholics think otherwise. Stop following your inane Aristotelian aqeedah and read the Kitaabullah instead of philosophical Ashari garbage. Listen to Allah’s words:

      Iyyaaka na’abudu wa iyyaaka nasta’een

      You alone do we worship, and You alone do we ask for help.

      When we stand before Allah (azza wa jal) on the Day of Judgement, who will he judge as believers? Will it be those of us who worshipped him alone, who kept our aqeedah pure from outside influences, and who held only to what His Prophet was upon? Or will it be you who prayed to saints, who mixed up your aqeedah with Aristotle’s metaphysics (substances and accidents), and who invented new ways of worship (singing, dancing, and musical instruments)?

      Shirk is worshipping anything other than Allah. All of us (myself included) must look at ourselves and ask “am I guilty?”

      If you want to truly understand what tasawwuf is, then study the words of Sayyidi Abdul-Qadir al-Jilani (may Allah sanctify his secret) who said:

      “You are in fact in the house of a King (Allah) whose command is far-reaching, whose power is immense, whose army is vast, whose will is effective, whose authority is irresistible, whose kingdom is everlasting, whose sovereignty is enduring, whose knowledge is precise, whose wisdom is profound and whose judgment is just. Not an atom’s weight on earth or in heaven eludes Him, nor does the wrong of the wrong-doer escape His notice. You are the biggest wrong-doer and the worst offender, because you have set up a partner to Him (Almighty and Glorious is He) by your self-willed behavior in dealing with yourself and His creation. Allah (Exalted is He) has said:

      Ascribe no partners to Allah; ascribing partners to Him is a tremendous wrong. (31:13)

      He also says (Exalted is He):

      Allah does not forgive that any partner be ascribed to Him; less than that He forgives to whom He will. (4:116)

      Be very wary of associating anything with Allah; do not come anywhere near it. Avoid it in all your behavior, both active and passive, by night and day, in private and in public. Beware of disobedience altogether, in your limbs and organs as well as in your heart. Abandon all sin, both outwardly and inwardly. Do not run away from Him (Almighty and Glorious is He), for He will overtake you. Do not quarrel with Him over His decision; He will demolish you. Do not question the wisdom of His judgment; He will put you to shame. Do not treat Him negligently; He will bring you to your senses and put you to the test. Do not start innovations in His house; He will destroy you. Do not speak of His religion to suit your own whim; He will ruin you and darken your heart, rob you of your faith and understanding, and make you subject to your devil, your lower self, your passions and desires, your family, your neighbors, your companions, your friends and all the rest of His creatures, even your domestic scorpions, snakes, jinn and other vermin. Thus He will upset your life in this world and prolong your punishment in the hereafter.”

      -Futuh al-Ghaib, 23rd discourse

    150. abdulhaqq July 3rd, 2007 at 1:34 pm

      Deobandi on July 3, 2007 at 1:22 pm said:

      Abdulhaqq – I’m not sure if you really are a deobandi, especially since you called SunniPath ‘biddapath’ and you make takfir on people who are still respected by deobandis, although they have different beliefs.

      Deobandis are against many forms of tawassul but they do not act like you in making takfir on there ulema. Just look at Mufti Taqi Usmani or any of the great current Deoband Muftis. They have not make any takfir on reverred ulema by others like Shaykh alawi or Shaykh Qadri or even Shaykh Hamza Yusuf, like the salafis do.

      Deobandis may be very strict in Islam, but they aren’t takfiri like the Salafis.

      Allah knows best.

      I’m not a Deobandi, I’m a Hanbali. I was just referring people to a Deobandi fatwa that backed up what I said.

    151. Mujahideen Ryder July 3rd, 2007 at 3:49 pm

      Abdulhaqq your hanbali! Check this post out.

    152. abdulhaqq July 3rd, 2007 at 4:53 pm

      I’m well aware of Hanbali Sufis, I’ve been referring to them constantly. One of the greatest Sufis, Shaykh al-Islam Khwajah Abdullah al-Ansari of Herat (may Allah sanctify his secret) was referred to as an “anthropomorphist” by GF Haddad al-Jahmi. The Qutb al-Arifeen, the Sultan al-Awliya, Sayyidina Abdul-Qadir al-Jilani (may Allah illuminate his resting place) was no friend of Asharis or sufi-claimants either, and was considered an “anthropomorphist” as well. He believed that no Wali of Allah would ever be on any creed other than that of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (radiallahu anhu).

    153. abdulhaqq July 3rd, 2007 at 5:18 pm

      Imam Ibn Qudamah’s censure of the Asharis:

      http://aqeedah.wordpress.com/2006/10/01/ibn-qudamas-censure-of-the-asharis/

      How will you dispute now? No one on earth disputes the standing of Imam Ibn Qudamah (rahmatullah alaih) in the Hanbali Madhhab. He was and is one of the greatest scholars of the Hanabilah.

    154. UKer July 3rd, 2007 at 7:09 pm

      You do realise that the beautiful quote from Shayk Abd Al Qadir Al Jilani does not go against tawassul..neither does the Ayas.

      the Shaykhs quote is talking about the nafs, and how we worship it. I remember he says how when we sometimes say ‘subhanAllah’ its magnifying our nafs, and not our Lord.

      And the Ayas, no1 denys that associating any1 with Allah SWT is not shirk! Ofcourse it is! But tawasul is not associating with Allah SWT…and iv already explained above…just go up and see.

    155. Samir July 3rd, 2007 at 8:00 pm

      Wow can you dead this post already MR? Number one your turning takfir into a game. Number Two you are causing people that have no knowledge to speak about very deep issues. Number three you are causing brothers to argue amongst one another and its not even being done in a productive manner.

      I hope we do not meet at ICNA cuz u deserve a beating of ur life :).

    156. abdulhaqq July 3rd, 2007 at 8:59 pm

      UKer on July 3, 2007 at 7:09 pm said:

      You do realise that the beautiful quote from Shayk Abd Al Qadir Al Jilani does not go against tawassul..neither does the Ayas.

      the Shaykhs quote is talking about the nafs, and how we worship it. I remember he says how when we sometimes say ‘subhanAllah’ its magnifying our nafs, and not our Lord.

      And the Ayas, no1 denys that associating any1 with Allah SWT is not shirk! Ofcourse it is! But tawasul is not associating with Allah SWT…and iv already explained above…just go up and see.

      If you think a Wali can hear all and see all, then you most certainly have associated partners with Allah (azza wa jal). He alone can hear all and see all.

    157. Mujahideen Ryder July 3rd, 2007 at 9:16 pm

      Samir on July 3, 2007 at 8:00 pm said:

      Wow can you dead this post already MR? Number one your turning takfir into a game. Number Two you are causing people that have no knowledge to speak about very deep issues. Number three you are causing brothers to argue amongst one another and its not even being done in a productive manner.

      I hope we do not meet at ICNA cuz u deserve a beating of ur life :).

      InshaAllah, brother I hope I meet you say I can give my salams to you and make dua for you and give you a big hug.

      Also, I have no control over what people type, thus I am not the reason why people are discussing deep issues. I already stated that we shouldn’t be talking about this. It is up to them if they want to continue.

      Allah knows best.

    158. Khadija July 3rd, 2007 at 10:06 pm

      assalamu alaikom,

      one salafi called Shaykh Hamza Yusuf- May Allah preserve him and Grant him Janna- a kafir, and another person called Hamza Doofus and a Munafiq,
      I think the words of the Prophet saws are enough here…
      The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: “A believer does not taunt, curse, abuse, or talk indecently.

      Al-Tirmidhi, Hadith 544

    159. Disappointed July 4th, 2007 at 1:18 am

      salaam

      yo bro, samir is right.

      u do have control over what people type – u can censor them.

      These issues have been debated for centuries and will not be resolved on a forum. Moreover, there is some serious slander going on regarding some of our greatest scholars. And like Samir said, It is really sad for you to be making accusations of takfir into a contest.

      I know these posts bring about alot of hits and traffic, and thats great – but have some respect for the scholars being bashed and for our deen.

      We will all be held accountable for what we say, what we type, how we spend our time… was there any benefit at all in these past 158 posts?

    160. UKer July 4th, 2007 at 6:21 am

      I dont think MR should be blamed for the posts people make. If evry1 was to not post up his lecture, how would you have watched Shaykh Hamza?
      Its not the thing being posted, its the people. I think we need 2 blame ourselves and think its not worth the argument..but it gets u annoyed wen ppl start making takfir etc.

      Peace.

    161. Khadija July 4th, 2007 at 1:12 pm

      Should MR be rebuked for making the takfeer thing into a contest? Maybe, but should the people that actually made takfeer be rebuked even more?

      yes

    162. Khadija July 4th, 2007 at 1:13 pm

      “we don’t need a Muslim movement. What we need right now is a Muslim stillness.”

      MashaAllah I loved that.

    163. Mujahideen Ryder July 4th, 2007 at 1:20 pm

      May Allah (swt) forgive me for anything wrong I have said and caused. May Allah (swt) forgive everyone who has said anything wrong. May Allah (swt) accept our duas and grant us all jannah.

      I have a policy due to previous posts and having to delete them to not moderate Muslims discussing topics on my site, becuase it’ll be totally bias towards the pro-shaykh hamza yusuf or pro-tasawwuf comments. It’s true I do have a bias towards the salafi way of thinking. This is why I refuse to moderate the conversation. Psychologically speaking, some people get out there frustration through debating others.

      Anyways all in all, this post is no longer on the recent post list, so it won’t get that much attention, unless if it is searched through Google or the archives of this site.

    164. This Ummah, Arguments and Semantic Games « Tradicionalista August 20th, 2007 at 3:08 pm

      [...] Non-Muslims seem to make it even worse as a lot of them have it in their head that salafis and wahhabis are to blame for terrorism which is not true. We all know that wahhabi ulema have denounced terrorism: Look at MR’s post. [...]

    165. rashad August 26th, 2007 at 2:52 am

      Mujahideen Ryder on June 17, 2007 at 8:49 pm said:

      Imam Abu Hanafi – Hanafis
      Imam Malik – Malikis
      Imam Shafi – Shafis
      Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbali – Hanbalis

      Shaykh Ibn Abdul Wahhab – Wahhabis

      It’s not negative at all. It’s just to distinguish the Muslims who adhere to the beliefs, writings and teachings of Shaykh Ibn Abdul Wahhab.

      What’s the big deal?

      Allah tell us in the Qur’an to not call each other by nick names.

      Now if someone calls himself wahabi then call him wahabi. But those who follow kitabul sunna have not called themselves wahabi so anyone who does including Hamza Yusef is sinning.

    166. MUhammed Sheraz Ali September 16th, 2007 at 9:28 pm

      May Allah subhana wa tallah bless Imam Hamzah he has given a very balanced view on Wahabi-religion. I personally am full beleiver in KILLING EVERY SINGLE WAHABI MALE ON THE SPOT, I PRAY TO ALLAH THAT HE MAKES ME PRESIDENT OF PAKISTAN … AND I SWEAR BY ALLAH TALLAH THAT I WOULD ORDER KILLING OF WAHABIS ON THE FIRST DAY.

      Ali

    167. sherif mahmoud December 4th, 2007 at 6:15 pm

      Muslims are dying and all you people can do fight between each other. Please go volunter or feed some people trust me the average lay man is more interested in feeding his family and getting by then this nonsense wake up oh muslims. The real enemy is saytan not each other.

    168. east london brother December 4th, 2007 at 7:23 pm

      yh MR bak to da less serios fings !!!!! i gt a new question for u lot

    169. east london brother December 4th, 2007 at 7:24 pm

      u no u sed dt u allowed 4 wives say dt a few of dem die can u marry anuffa 4?????

    170. east london brother December 4th, 2007 at 7:26 pm

      p.s cos its ma question u all da answers have to b errrr simple non offensive and do da point and not start going in breeeeee deep ok

    171. Mujahideen Ryder December 4th, 2007 at 7:49 pm

      east london brother on December 4, 2007 at 7:26 pm said:

      p.s cos its ma question u all da answers have to b errrr simple non offensive and do da point and not start going in breeeeee deep ok

      I can’t really read what you type. Please type a little bit better. Thanks!

    172. east london brother December 5th, 2007 at 6:10 pm

      lol myna

    173. tawheedullah December 10th, 2007 at 6:30 pm

      MUhammed Sheraz Ali on September 16, 2007 at 9:28 pm said:

      May Allah subhana wa tallah bless Imam Hamzah he has given a very balanced view on Wahabi-religion. I personally am full beleiver in KILLING EVERY SINGLE WAHABI MALE ON THE SPOT, I PRAY TO ALLAH THAT HE MAKES ME PRESIDENT OF PAKISTAN … AND I SWEAR BY ALLAH TALLAH THAT I WOULD ORDER KILLING OF WAHABIS ON THE FIRST DAY.

      Ali

      If I was a ruler, I would make Barelvis pay the Jizyah.

    174. al Mihbara ila al Maqbara February 8th, 2008 at 11:40 pm

      How can the blind lead the hearing or the dumb speak to the deaf.

      This is how all the coments on the fourm is . No ilm, but every one think they are scholars. fourms like this, dont benfit the people. It show how the people with no knowledge behave. go seek ilm on correct aqeedah and stop worshiping these so call speakers from the West. Just to make you mad YES I AM A WAHBI I AM A SLAVE OF AL WAHAB. Stop using the name of Allah to slander muslims who follow the sunnah. The Sahab, when people came ask them questions, they use to fear to speak, because they did not want to give wrong answer, Because they fear to misgude people. But the people today we talk with out knowledge and dont fear what we say. If you look of sahab they where people with knowledge they fear words to say. When some one came ask them question they would say go to so and so. Then they would go and the other Sahab would say go so and so, until the seen this person asking a question really need a answer. They fear speaking about islam without knowledge. ALL OF YOU ON THIS SITE WHO SAY THEY DONT LIKE WAHBI. WHY?
      WHY?
      WHY?
      Half of you dont even know why you dislike Wahabi. GO TO THE BOOKS OF MUHAMMAD ABDUL WAHHAB AND BRING ME ONE PROOF SHOW ME THE MISTAKES IN HIS BOOKS?
      Half of you just hear other people say stuff and you run and carry these false tails, but fear to even know about this man. But quick to slander him. He did not come with nonthing new
      ALL HIS BOOKS ARE ON TAWHEED, STAYING AWAY FROM SHIRK.

      Those who hate him are from the SUFI, and SHIA. The term Wahabi dont come from the shaykh or his follower or even the students from his family. The peoole from his family have the name al shaykh like the Mufi of saudi now Abdul Azeez al shaykh al means here the family of the shaykh. Meaning shaykh Muhammad Abdul Wahab rahimallah. who call the people to taweed, who call the sufi and other people of inovation to tawheed.
      He call the Muslim stop worshing graves. Stop worshiping grave of sahba and other people and he destroy the tombs where they build upon it place to worship and the Sufi and Shia call the people who took the Truth from WAHABI.

      May Allah brake this website and other website like this because all I see is filth, talking about kiling muslims in this fourm. For the fool talk about President of Pakistan kill all the Wahabi, you a fool because many big scholars of ahul hadeeth came from Pakistan and inda and you talk about prident of pakistan kill all the wahib, you crying over a woman who was killed you want a women to be your leader. Do you not know the saying of Muhammad sallahu wa alayhe wa sallam about women who is a ruler over the people all their afairs is misguide. as ruling over the people. May Allah Brake and Destroy all Practice that not from the islam. When you talk about sect so many divent sects came out of pakistani and india, Deobondi, Qarani, Ismaale, Ahmadi and the list goes on. Fear Allah from your desir.

      Just for you, I give you all the big scholars from Pakistan who had same aqeedah of Shaykh al islam Muhammad Abdul Wahab rahimallah.

      Here a list and books all scholars from India and Pakistan who have same aqeedah as Muhammad Abdul Wahab rahimallah

      al allamah Abdullah Ghaznawee . Imam Sideeq hassan Khaan, al Muhaddith Abdur Rahmaan al Mubaarakpooree, Shaykh Abdul Azeez Munaazar Multaane, Shaykh Ubaydullah al Mubaarakpooree, Shaykh Muhammad Ghonadalawee, Shakykh Badee undeen Shaa as Sindhee, Shaykh Sultaan Mahmood jalaaporee, Present shykh Abdul Ghaffaar hassan Rehmaaneee, Shaykh Wasee Ullaah ibn Muhammad Abbaas, Shaykh Imam Muwaffaqudeen ibn Qudaamah al Maqdisee. Shaykh Abdul Qaadir Arnaoot. shaykh Abdul Mukaraam ibn abdul Jaleel, Imam Abu Muhammad Hassan in Alee ibn Khalaf al Barbahareee, Shakykh Khaalid ar Radaadee.

      Here is a Website where you can see their works and books judge for your self do not let these foolish people misquide. Allah gave us a brain and gave the the means to read and undertand. Iqra bism these first two words reveal to Muhammad sallahu wa alayhe wa sallam. So please read. jazakum allahu khair.

    175. al Mihbara ila al Maqbara February 8th, 2008 at 11:46 pm

      here the Website

      Here another student of knowledge from India
      Shaikh Shameem Ahmed Khaleel Salafi was born in the Indian state U.P, district Basti (Presently : Siddharth Nagar). He obtained his preliminary education in his own area. In 1969 he left to Banaras for Islamic education. And in 1978 he accomplished the certification for the 10 year Jamia Course. The same year he reached Qatar for further education. In Qatar , he continued with Dawah and Tableegh activities along with his own education. In 1979 he was employed as a preacher by Raasa Al Mahkam al sharaiah wa al shouin deeniyah (Presently : Wazarat-ul-Awqaf). And in 1982 he was appointed as a Daee by Dawah wal Irshad – Qatar . Since then he is busy in the center in Teaching, Lecturing and Dawah activities.

      He is the author and translator of more than 20 books. And with his efforts were formed Islamic organisations such as Nadwat-ul-Sana Education and Welfare society in India and Markaz-E-Ibn-e-Taimia li-Dawah-tut-Jaaliyaat in Qatar . These are effectively operational under his leadership
      Website http://www.islamurdu.com/

    176. Najam ibn Abdul-Haqq March 18th, 2008 at 11:50 pm

      Ahmed , A on June 17, 2007 at 8:21 pm said:

      salam alaykum , Listen brother do you think its appropriate to use the word wahabi on your video title even though its mentioned in the video! im not going to applaud the hamza yusuf , but it was wrong of him to even use it because its the wrong term! why cant he say salafis which is the correct term! im really sick to the core of ppl specialy Sufis who constantly use that word in a negative way to describe salafis!

      yes bro the name wahhabi was given by the enemies, so the Muslim should never call himself or another muslim wahhabi… The correct termis indeed salafi

    177. Abu Muslim March 19th, 2008 at 3:46 pm

      The Life, Teachings and Influence of Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab
      3
      I
      The Motivation Behind This Work
      This book is not one with a political agenda. It is meant neither
      to support nor to critique any contemporary regimes or policies.1
      Indeed, the driving force behind this work is much greater and more
      important than that. It has to do with, first, the religion of Islam as
      preached by the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)
      himself and, second, with the honor and rights of an individual
      Muslim, Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab.
      The name Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab (and
      correspondingly “Wahhabis” and “Wahhabism”) has been heard quite
      often throughout both the Muslim and non-Muslim worlds during the
      past two centuries. In reality, ibn Abdul-Wahhaab is not a man who is
      “shrouded in mystery.” His writings, as well as the writings of his
      closest students and descendents, are well-known and easily available
      today in virtually any part of the world. Although he is not shrouded
      in mystery what has been said about him over the years has definitely
      been filled with both fact and fiction.
      Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab was both a fellow human
      being and a fellow Muslim. As such, he has the right to be studied in
      an impartial and objective manner. That is, he has the right to a “fair
      trial.” No matter how much one may oppose his teachings, one does
      1 This means that many issues that are bandied about today must be considered
      beyond the scope of this particular work. However, once the critique of certain
      policies is tied into Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab and what is called
      “Wahhabism,” then one is no longer speaking about the critique of a certain
      country, people or group today. Now one is speaking about principles related to
      the religion. One then has to study whether those principles are truly part of
      Islam or not. If it is concluded that Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab was truly
      following the way of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him),
      then the attacks upon ibn Abdul-Wahhaab are also attacks on the Prophet
      (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and the way of life he preached. For
      a Muslim, obviously, this makes this topic of utmost importance. In fact, it is
      incumbent upon Muslims to defend the honor and truth of their religion, their
      prophet and their brethren.
      The Life, Teachings and Influence of Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab
      4
      not have the right to wrong him. Indeed, the Prophet (peace and
      blessings of Allah be upon him) has warned,
      ??????? ? ? ??????? ? ? ?????? ????????????
      “Wrongdoing [shall be] darkness on the Day of Resurrection.”
      (Recorded by al-Bukhari and Muslim.) When speaking about another
      person, such as ibn Abdul-Wahhaab or his followers, one should
      remember the Prophet’s teaching,
      ? ???? ????????? ? ? ? ???? ????????? ? ? ??????? ?????? ????????? ? ? ? ???????
      “All of a Muslim is inviolable to every other Muslim, with respect to
      his blood, wealth and honor.” (Recorded by Muslim.) One must also
      be cautious of the Prophet’s warning,
      ??? ? ? ????? ??? ???????????? ???????? ???? ? ? ???????? ? ????? ? ? ??????? ????? ? ?
      “Beware of the supplication of the wronged for between him and
      Allah there is no barrier.” (Recorded by al-Bukhari and Muslim.)
      Even if one wants to argue that ibn Abdul-Wahhaab and his followers
      are not to be considered Muslims, one should be wary of speaking
      untruths about them. A narration recorded by Ahmad specifically
      states,
      ??????? ????? ??? ??? ? ? ? ?????? ? ????? ??? ? ? ? ??????? ???????? ???? ? ? ????? ? ?? ????? ? ?
      “Beware of the supplication of the wronged, even if he be a
      disbeliever, for before it there is no barrier [that is, between it and
      Allah].”1
      In all cases, impartiality, objectivity, scholarly integrity and
      fairness are to be expected from any Muslim. This must be true even
      1 Record by Ahmad. According to al-Albaani, this hadith is hasan. According to
      Hamzah Ahmad al-Zain, its chain is hasan. However, it should be noted that
      Shuaib al-Arnaaoot, et al., simply say that its chain is weak. See Muhammad
      Naasir al-Deen al-Albaani, Saheeh al-Jaami al-Sagheer (Beirut: al-Maktab al-
      Islaami, 1988), vol. 1, p. 84; Hamzah Ahmad al-Zain, footnotes to Ahmad ibn
      Hanbal, al-Musnad (Cairo: Daar al-Hadeeth, 1995), vol. 10, p. 495; Shuaib al-
      Arnaaoot, et al., footnotes to Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Musnad al-Imaam Ahmad
      (Beirut: Muassasah al-Risaalah, 1997), vol. 20, pp. 22-23.
      The Life, Teachings and Influence of Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab
      5
      when dealing with one’s enemies or one’s opponents. Allah has
      clearly instructed,
      ?¬?|????????ð???– ‚???? ??÷????<??†??Š ƒ?:…?Ÿ?™?? ?©????? ?????.?????? ?…??????® ?…?????…ƒ? ???ÿ??????… †?™???ÿ??†;?????ÿ
      ð??/?… ?????… ð??&/?… ?…????????…?? ?????????????? ?‡????????… ???? ?…?????Ÿ???… ?&…?????Ÿ????? ‚?????… ??????? ]?????? ??†?????????
      ????????????? †????Š =????‰??
      “O you who believe! Stand out firmly for Allah, as just witnesses; and
      let not the enmity and hatred of others make you avoid justice. Be just:
      that is nearer to piety. And fear Allah, for Allah is well-acquainted
      with all that you do” (al-Maaidah 8). Allah also says,
      ?¬?????????… ??????? ?????? ?©????? ƒ?:…ƒŸ?™?? ?÷????<??†?Š ?????.?????? ?…??????® ?…?????…ƒ? ??ÿ??????… †?™???ÿ??†;????ÿ
      ?…????‰?????? ð„???? †? ???™?Š ????????… ?©?????†??? …_??????? ????… †?????????? ?????ÿ ???… ?&????Š????????‚??…?? ????ÿ?Ÿ??.??<??… ????…
      …_???‰?? ???????????? †???Š ??†?® ð??/?… ?????†??? ?…?????????? ????… ?…,???<???? ???…?? ?&…????Ÿ????? ???… ??????™<??…
      “O you who believe! Stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to
      Allah, even as against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, and
      whether it be (against) rich or poor. Allah is a better protector to both
      (than you). So follow not the lusts (of your hearts), lest you avoid
      justice. And if you distort your witness or decline to give it, verily
      Allah is ever well-acquainted with all that you do” (al-Nisaa 135).
      The above hadiths and verses should make any true believer
      shiver from speaking about others with words that are based on
      falsehood or filled with unfair or unjust statements.
      In this work, an attempt has been made to present a fair and
      accurate presentation of the life and teachings of Muhammad ibn
      Abdul-Wahhaab. To accomplish this goal, conclusions were derived
      based only on the most historically and logically reliable, accurate,
      substantiated and proof-based sources -be they from Muslims or non-
      Muslims.
      The Life, Teachings and Influence of Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab
      6
      The Life, Teachings and Influence of Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab
      7
      II
      The Life of Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab
      Najd from the Time of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be
      upon him) until the Time of Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab1
      Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab hailed from the land known
      as the Najd of al-Yamaamah. There is a difference of opinion
      concerning the exact limits of this Najd. Most commonly, though, it is
      described as being bordered by the Mountains of Shammar or by the
      Great Nafood Desert to the North, Hijaaz to the West, the desert land
      known as the “Empty Quarter” to the South and al-Dahnaa and al-
      Ahsaa to the East.2
      Two other terms of note concerning that area are al-Aaridh and
      al-Yamaamah. (1) The term al-Aaridh ( ?????? ) has an old and a new
      meaning to it. The old meaning is that it refers to the Mountain of al-
      Yamaamah (Tuwaiq) lengthwise, which stretches from the North of
      Najd to its south, more than one thousand kilometers. The more
      modern usage is the area of al-Shuaib in Huraimilaa to the North until
      al-Kharaj or Riyadh and its surrounding areas to the South. This is the
      meaning of it when used by Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab. Hence,
      it is simply one portion of Najd.
      (2) Al-Yamaamah ( ??????? ) is the heart of the entire Arabian
      Peninsula. Najd forms only a part of it. It includes what is currently
      called Najd as well as the land of Sudair (which includes al-Ghaat and
      al-Zilfi), the land of al-Washm, the land of al-Hautah and al-Hareeq,
      the land of al-Aflaaj and the land of Waadi al-Duwaasir.3 (In previous
      times in Islamic history, this term included even more area than that.)
      1 The religious situation in Najd at the time of Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab
      will be dealt with in detail in the following chapter.
      2 Abdul-Muhsin ibn Baaz, Rasaail al-Imaam Muhammad ibn Abdil-Wahhaab al-
      Shakhsiyyah: Diraasah Daawiyyah (Riyadh:Daar Ishbeeliyaa,2000),vol.1,p. 36.
      3 See Abdul-Muhsin al-Baaz, vol. 1, pp. 39-40.
      The Life, Teachings and Influence of Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab
      8
      The political situation since the time of the Prophet (peace and
      blessings of Allah be upon him): At the time of the appearance of
      Islam, the leadership of al-Yamaamah was in the hands of Hoodhah
      ibn Ali al-Hanafi and Thumaamah ibn Athaal al-Hanafi. The Prophet
      (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), while sending letters to
      different rulers calling them to embrace Islam, sent Sulait ibn Amr to
      these two rulers. These two had a very strong negative reaction to the
      invitation. In fact, Hoodhah continued to reject the message and died
      as a disbeliever. On the other hand, Thumaamah seems to have
      embraced Islam sincerely.
      During “the Year of the Delegations”, the delegation of the
      Tribe of Haneefah came to the Messenger of Allah (peace and
      blessings of Allah be upon him) and embraced Islam. With respect to
      their wealth and their people, they were a source of strength for Islam.
      However, Musailamah al-Hanafi apostatized and claimed to be a
      prophet. Abu Bakr sent an expedition against them, headed by Khaalid
      ibn al-Waleed. They were able to defeat Musailamah and his
      supporters, thus restoring the land to the control of the Muslim state.
      Islam spread in the land. The Islamic governments gave it proper care
      and attention during the time of the rightly-guided caliphs, the
      Umayyads and the beginning of the Abbasids.1
      The later Abbasids paid very little attention to this land,
      perhaps due to its lack of economic resources. Over time, it was part
      of the Abbasid caliphate in name only, with virtually no influence
      exerted by the caliphate over Najd. This phenomenon was also true for
      other parts of the Muslim world. This led to political separation and
      even revolutions. In 252 A.H.2, Ismaaeel ibn Yoosuf revolted in the
      Hijaaz. The followers of Ismaael and his brother Muhammad al-
      Ukhaidhir were known as the Ukhaidhiriyoon ( ?????????? ). They were
      of the “moderate Shiite,” known as Zaidis.3 They ruled over Najd until
      they were defeated by the extremists Baatinite Qaraamitah in 317
      A.H.
      1 Abdul Muhsin ibn Baaz, vol. 1, pp. 50-51.
      2 Concerning the dates, “A.H.” stands for “after Hijrah,” while “C.E.” stands for
      “Christian Era.”
      3 In their call to prayers, they would say, “Muhammad and Ali are the best of
      men. Come to the best of deeds.” See Mirfat bint Kaamil Usrah, Ihtisaab al-
      Shaikh Muhammad ibn Abdil-Wahhaab (Riyadh: Daar al-Watan, 1998), p. 24.
      The Life, Teachings and Influence of Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab
      9
      After the defeat of the Ukhaidhiriyoon until the time of
      Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab, there appeared no unified rule over
      the land of Najd, such that historians paid that land but scarce
      attention. During the Ninth and Tenth Hijri Centuries, the Tribe of
      Jabar, the rulers of the Eastern part of the Peninsula, continually
      fought against the Bedouin tribes of Najd, mostly due to those tribes’
      raids on tribes loyal to the Tribe of Najar or attacks on trade caravans.
      The Tribe of Jabar did exert enough control over parts of Najd that the
      historian al-Samhoodi referred to them as the “chiefs” of Najd.1
      However, after the killing of Muqrin ibn Zaamil al-Jabari at the hands
      of the Portuguese in 928 A.H., each small local ameer would control
      his own people with no greater or more unified force in place.2 Thus,
      by the time of Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab, Najd fell under the
      control of the small states and rulers coming out of Bahrain or small
      emirates in the area.
      The Ottomans had been the seat of the Islamic Caliphate for
      some time by the Twelfth Hijri Century. In 923 A.H., when the
      Ottomans conquered Egypt, the Hijaz was added to their control,
      having been under the control of Egypt. The Ottomans wanted to
      spread their control further, partially to counter the expansion of the
      Portuguese. They gained control over Yemen and al-Ahsaa. Najd then
      became virtually surrounded by areas under Ottoman control.
      In reality, though, the Ottomans never gave much thought to
      Najd and had no influence over Najd. In fact, an Ottoman government
      document recorded by Yameen Ali Effendi in 1018 A.H. (1609 C.E.)
      shows that the Ottoman state was divided into thirty-two “states” or
      “provinces.” Of those, fourteen were Arab “states”; however, Najd
      was not included among them.3 The historian Ameen Saeed wrote,
      “Every Shaikh or Ameer [in Najd] had complete independence in
      1 See Abdullah al-Saalih al-Uthaimeen, Al-Shaikh Muhammad ibn Abdul-
      Wahhaab: Hayaatuhu wa Fikruhu (Riyadh: Dar al-Uloom, n.d.), p. 9. This work
      is based on al-Uthaimeen’s Ph.D. thesis from Edinburgh University in 1972.
      2 Abdul Muhsin ibn Baaz, vol. 1, p. 51.
      3 Saalih ibn Abdullah al-Abood, Aqeedah al-Shaikh Muhammad ibn Abdil-
      Wahhaab al-Salafiyyah wa Atharuhaa fi al-Alim al-Islaami (Madinah:
      Maktabah al-Ghurabaa al-Athariyyah, 1996), vol. 1, p. 41.
      The Life, Teachings and Influence of Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab
      10
      running his land. He would not recognize the Turks nor would the
      Turks recognize him.”1
      It is true that in some parts of Najd, the names of the Ottoman
      caliphs would be invoked in the Friday Sermons, but beyond that there
      was virtually no contact between the two. In fact, due to other internal
      and external problems, the Ottomans had to give up control of both
      Yemen and al-Ahsaa. (In al-Ahsaa, the Tribe of Khaalid revolted
      against them in the year 1050 A.H.2) In sum, as Vassiliev described it,
      “Central and eastern Arabia became virtually independent from the
      Turks at the beginning of the seventeenth century when riots and
      sedition spread throughout the Ottoman empire.”3 Concerning foreign
      intervention and control (such as by the Persians, Portuguese, British
      and French), he later states, “Thus around the time that Wahhabism
      emerged, Arabia had largely been left to itself for several decades.”4
      There were other attempts to bring Najd under political
      control. In particular, the Sharifs of the Hijaaz and the Tribe of
      Khaalid in al-Ahsaa attempted to dominate the land. They were able to
      sometimes gain control over portions of Najd. In particular, the Tribe
      of Khaalid had a stronghold in the Mount of Shammar in the North
      and also the Ameer of al-Uyainah seemed to recognize their authority
      in a small way. However, as a whole, these attempts were essentially
      unsuccessful and Najd continued without any strong governing force.5
      By the Twelfth Hijri Century, Najd was divided into many
      small and independent “city-states,” each having their own ameer
      (passed down through the family) and being completely independent
      of the other states.6 Al-Uyainah was under the control of the Family of
      1 Quoted in Abdul-Azeez al-Abdul-Lateef, Daawaa al-Munawieen li-Dawah al-
      Shaikh Muhammad ibn Abdil-Wahhaab: Ardh wa Naqd (Riyadh: Daar al-
      Watan, 1412 A.H.), p. 236.
      2 Al-Uthaimeen, Al-Shaikh Muhammad, p. 11. Abu-Hakima gives the year as
      1080 A.H. and states that in reality Ottoman rule in al-Ahsaa also had been
      only nominal. See Ahmad Mustafa Abu-Hakima, History of Eastern Arabia:
      The Rise and Development of Bahrain, Kuwait and Wahhabi Saudi Arabia
      (London: Probsthain, 1988), p. 39.
      3 Alexei Vassiliev, The History of Saudi Arabia (New York: New York University
      Press, 2000), p. 59.
      4 Vassiliev, p. 60.
      5 Abdul-Muhsin ibn Baaz, vol. 1, pp. 53-54.
      6 In addition, many cities had their own mutawwas ( ?? ? ?? ). This is a word that
      has been bandied about quite a bit in the Western press of late, especially since
      the Gulf War. This was a common term and position that existed before the
      The Life, Teachings and Influence of Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab
      11
      Muammar (probably the strongest family in the region), al-Diriyyah
      under the Family of Saud, Riyadh under the Family of Dawaas, Haail
      under the Family of Ali, al-Qaseem under the Family of Hujailaan and
      the north of Najd under the Family of Shubaib. As a whole, the larger
      Tribe of Tameem was the strongest as many of its family branches just
      mentioned ruled many cities. Unfortunately, these different “citystates”
      often engaged in merciless feuds, devastating raids, plunder,
      battles and skirmishes, many times for very trivial reasons.1
      The social situation: The Najdi society had Bedouins and city
      dwellers, with Bedouins making up the majority of the inhabitants.2
      Most of the people were from Arab tribes. Some were originally non-
      Arabs (coming through slavery or via Hajj caravans). Najd was still
      very much a tribal society. It was also, to a great extent, a lawless
      society, wherein blood feuds and raids were commonplace. The
      Bedouin tribes had their chiefs, often times chosen for his ability to
      preserve the tribe under harsh desert conditions. These tribes would, in
      general, look down upon the city dwellers. The city folk had their
      ameers (or rulers). Although hereditary, this position was usually
      taken by force or assassination and held via oppression.3
      The economic situation: Economically the area was very poor
      in comparison with many other parts of the Muslim world at that time.
      time of Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab. Different cities, such as al-Diriyyah,
      Tharmadaa, al-Majmaa and elsewhere were known to have their mutawwas
      and on occasion Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab would write to them. In fact,
      Sulaimaan ibn Suhaim, ibn Abdul-Wahhaab’s staunch opponent, was a
      mutawwa of Riyadh. This term referred to the educated or semi-educated
      person who taught the general masses and ignorant people although he himself
      may not have been a scholar. It also refers to anyone who adheres to obedience
      to Allah and has taken on a position of a religious nature, such as Imam, caller
      to prayer, judge and so forth. It comes from a root meaning, “volunteering,”
      wherein the person voluntarily takes on these responsibilities. See Abdul-
      Muhsin ibn Baaz, vol. 1, p. 137.
      1 Al-Uthaimeen, Al-Shaikh Muhammad, pp. 13-15; Abdul Muhsin ibn Baaz, vol.
      1, p. 52; Vassiliev, pp. 60-63.
      2 Abdul-Muhsin ibn Baaz, vol. 1, p. 56.
      3 Al-Uthaimeen, Al-Shaikh Muhammad, pp. 11-12; Abdul-Muhsin ibn Baaz, vol.
      1, pp. 41-42. Al-Uthaimeen (p. 15) describes the Bedouin tribes who chose their
      leaders based on ability as being more “democratic” than the city dwellers. He
      also notes that, for many reasons, the Bedouin chiefs were fairer and more just
      than the city ameers. One possible reason for that was the fact that the citydwellers’
      wealth is stationary and therefore he has to or is willing to put up
      with more injustice than the Bedouin, who can move with all of his possessions
      easily.
      The Life, Teachings and Influence of Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab
      12
      The land itself had very little to offer (although farming and livestock
      were their main sources of income). Furthermore, the harshness of the
      area did not lend itself to being a great trade route, although some
      trade routes did pass through it (such as the route from Yemen to
      Iraq). Difficult economic conditions can contribute greatly to
      problems of political stability, as different groups resort to various
      means to support themselves, such as raids against other tribes or
      against any caravans that may be passing through the area. The
      situation was made worse in the face of small or unequal amounts of
      rain driving people to look for other sources of income.1
      The Family of Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab
      Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab comes from the well-known tribe
      of Tameem, mentioned in the hadith:
      ? ? ? ? ?? ??? ?????????? ??? ? ? ??? ? ????? ?????? ????? ????? ? ? ???? ? ? ???? ? ? ? ? ? ????? ?? ? ? ?? ? ?? ? ? ??????? ? ?????
      ??????? ? ??????? ? ? ? ???? ? ? ????? ? ? ??? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????? ????? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ??????? ? ???? ?? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ??? ? ? ? ? ? ???? ? ?
      ????????? ? ??? ????? ? ? ????? ? ? ??????? ? ????? ??????? ? ? ?????? ? ? ? ???? ? ? ? ? ? ??? ??????? ? ? ?? ? ?????? ? ? ? ???? ? ? ? ???????
      ???? ? ? ? ? ? ??? ? ? ????? ? ??? ????? ? ? ???????????? ?????? ? ?? ?? ? ? ? ??? ? ? ???? ? ????? ? ?
      Abu Hurairah said, “I have continued to love the Tribe of Tameem
      ever since I heard three statements from the Messenger of Allah
      (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) about them. I heard him
      say, ‘They are the strongest of my Nation against the dajjaal (anti-
      Christ).’ When their Zakat came, the Messenger of Allah (peace and
      blessings of Allah be upon him) said, ‘This is the zakat of my people.’
      Aishah had a slave-girl from them and he said, ‘Free her for she is
      from the descendants of Ismaaeel.’” (Recorded by al-Bukhari and
      Muslim.)
      Many authors trace Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab’s lineage
      all the way back to the early Arab Adnaan. For the purposes here, it is
      1 Al-Uthaimeen, Al-Shaikh Muhammad, pp. 12-13; Abdul-Muhsin ibn Baaz, vol.
      1, p. 49.
      The Life, Teachings and Influence of Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab
      13
      sufficient to state that he was Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab ibn
      Sulaimaan ibn Ali.1
      Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab was born in al-Uyainah in
      1115 A.H. (1703 or 1704 C.E.)2 into the Family of Musharraf of the
      tribe of Tameem. Since the Tenth Hijri Century, this family was
      known for its religious scholars and leaders.3
      Muhammad’s grandfather Sulaimaan ibn Ali was probably the
      greatest scholar in Najd during the Eleventh Century. He was the
      judge of al-Uyainah and the religious reference concerning disputed
      fiqh issues for the other scholars in the area. His students included his
      sons Abdul Wahhaab, Ibraheem and Ahmad.4 Ibraaheem was a
      scholar in his own right, writing a number of works and traveling to
      different areas to give religious rulings. However, he lived most of his
      life close to his brother Abdul Wahhaab.5 Ahmad ibn Sulaiman and
      Ibraaheem’s son Abdul Rahmaan were also known to be scholars.6
      Finally, Muhammad’s father Abdul-Wahhaab was also a
      scholar and a judge in al-Uyainah. He was specialized in fiqh and
      wrote some books on various fiqh topics. However, his status as a
      scholar never reached the level of his father Sulaimaan.7 Muhammad
      ibn Abdul-Wahhaab’s older brother Sulaimaan was also known to be a
      serious student.
      Al-Uthaimeen notes that not much is stated in the early
      writings concerning the economic situation of Muhammad’s family.
      He states that since Muhammad’s father and grandfather were both
      judges, they should have been receiving decent wages, most likely
      being among the “upper middle class,” having enough wealth for
      Muhammad’s needs to be met and to allow him to concentrate on
      1 For a discussion of some of the mistakes concerning the lineage of Muhammad
      ibn Abdul-Wahhaab, see al-Uthaimeen, Al-Shaikh Muhammad, p. 23.
      2 Many authors, especially many Western authors, made errors concerning both
      the date and the place of Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab’s birth. For a review
      of their statements, see al-Uthaimeen, Al-Shaikh Muhammad, p. 25, fn. 3.
      3 For examples of such scholars, see al-Uthaimeen, Al-Shaikh Muhammad, p. 24.
      4 Al-Uthaimeen, Al-Shaikh Muhammad, pp. 24-25. Also see Abdullah al-
      Bassaam, Ulamaa Najd Khilaal Sitta Quroon (Makkah: Maktabah al-Nahdhah
      al-Hadeethah, 1398 A.H.) vol. 1, p. 26.
      5 Al-Bassaam, vol. 1, p. 26.
      6 Abdul-Muhsin ibn Baaz, vol. 1, p. 71.
      7 Al-Uthaimeen, Al-Shaikh Muhammad, p. 25.
      The Life, Teachings and Influence of Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab
      14
      learning at an early age.1 Abdul-Muhsin ibn Baaz further noted that,
      since Muhammad grew up in a family with religious prestige, he
      probably also benefited from those who came to the house from
      outside areas to discuss issues of a religious matter and the students
      who came to learn from the local judge.2
      Thus Muhammad was born into a family well-known for its
      devotion to knowledge and learning. Most likely, this laid down a firm
      foundation for his future advances in learning and his dedication to the
      faith. In addition, the sources also state that he was very intelligent
      and had a strong memory. They describe him as not liking to waste his
      time in the games that the other children played. He memorized the
      Quran by the age of ten.3 He studied with his father who was very
      impressed with his abilities, saying that he has benefited from his son
      Muhammad on some points.4 He reached puberty around the age of
      twelve and his father found him qualified to be the Imam for the
      prayers and appointed him as such. His father then married him off at
      the age of twelve (not an uncommon age at that time and place) and
      gave him permission to perform the Hajj.5 (He performed the Hajj,
      went to Madina, where he stayed for two months, and then returned to
      al-Uyainah.)
      Ibn Abdul-Wahhaab studied Hanbali fiqh with his father. In
      addition, he used to study books of tafseer (Quranic commentary) and
      hadith, as well as books on tauheed (Islamic monotheism).6 He was
      known both to have a good memory as well as being quick in
      1 Al-Uthaimeen, Al-Shaikh Muhammad, p. 25.
      2 Abdul-Muhsin ibn Baaz, vol. 1, p. 72; al-Uthaimeen, Al-Shaikh Muhammad, p.
      27.
      3 Hussain ibn Ghannaam, Tareekh Najd (Naasir al-Deen al-Asad, ed., 1982), vol.
      1, p. 75. Husain ibn Ghannaam (d. 1225 A.H./1810 C.E.) was a Maliki scholar
      originally from al-Ahsaa region. He observed the development of Muhammad
      ibn Abdul-Wahhaab’s call from its inception and was a follower of ibn Abdul-
      Wahhaab. The first volume of his work on the history of Najd, Raudhah al-
      Afkaar wa al-Afhaam, reproduces many of ibn Abdul-Wahhaab’s own writings
      and letters. The second details the battles that took place from 1159 A.H. (1746
      CE) to 1797. This work provides the best first-hand information concerning the
      life of Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab. The edition used here is that edited by
      Naasir al-Deen al-Asad, wherein he has modernized ibn Ghannaam’s flowery
      wording and has also rearranged some of the work’s parts.
      4 This statement from Muhammad’s father has been reported on the authority of
      Muhammad’s brother Sulaimaan in ibn Ghannaam, vol. 1, p. 75.
      5 About the letter that his father wrote about him,see ibn Ghannaam, vol.1, p.75.
      6 Al-Uthaimeen, Al-Shaikh Muhammad, p. 28.
      The Life, Teachings and Influence of Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab
      15
      transcribing.1 In particular, he was drawn to the books of Ibn
      Taimiyyah and ibn al-Qayyim.2 He personally transcribed many of the
      books of ibn Taimiyyah, and some of those manuscripts are still in
      existence at the British Museum.3 The influence of those two great
      scholars on him became very obvious in his own writings and letters.
      Most likely it was through their works that he developed his great
      insight into the meaning of tauheed (Islamic monotheism) and the
      other aspects of beliefs, an insight that many who simply study fiqh
      may be lacking. This study must have made it very clear to him that
      the affairs of the Muslims around him were not proper in the light of
      the clear teachings of the Quran and Sunnah. However, the time was
      not yet for him to openly rebuke the wrongs that he had seen. That
      would have to come after he matured as a scholar and an individual.
      Hence, there is no clear sign that he took any major steps of reform in
      al-Uyainah during those early years.4 Instead, he first sought to
      1 Ibn Ghannaam, vol. 1, p. 76.
      2 The early sources are not clear as to exactly when ibn Abdul-Wahhaab was first
      exposed to and influenced by the teachings of ibn Taimiyyah and ibn al-
      Qayyim. Some say it was early in his life while in Najd while others state that
      it was after venturing to Hijaz or Basra. Abu Sulaimaan discusses this
      question in detail and concludes that he was first exposed to them in his youth
      while in Najd, as they were greatly respected scholars of the Hanbali past and
      the Najdi scholars had good connections with the Hanbali scholars of Syria. See
      Abdul-Wahhaab Abu Sulaimaan, “Khasaais al-Tafkeer al-Fiqhi ind al-Shaikh
      Muhammad ibn Abdil-Wahhaab,” in Buhooth Nadwah Dawah al-Shaikh
      Muhammad ibn Abdil-Wahhaab (Riyadh: Muhammad ibn Saud Islamic
      University, 1991), vol. 1, 383-390. In any case, the influence of ibn Taimiyyah
      upon ibn Abdul-Wahhaab can be seen in many ways, in particular in ibn
      Abdul-Wahhaab’s writings. Much of ibn Abdul-Wahhaab’s abridgement of al-
      Insaaf is actually ibn Taimiyyah’s conclusions. Furthermore, in volume
      thirteen of ibn Abdul-Wahhaab’s collected writings, there is an entire work
      (which has been recently published on its own) consisting of the issues in which
      Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab summarized ibn Taimiyyahs’s views from ibn
      Taimiyyah’s various writings. This work touches upon topics such as tafseer,
      aqeedah, fiqh and so forth. See See Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab,
      Muallifaat al-Shaikh al-Imaam Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab (Collected by
      Abdul-Azeez al-Roomi, et al. Maktabah ibn Taimiyyah), vol. 13, pp. 11-199.
      Note that although this anthology of Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab’s was not
      collected by him, it shall be herein referred to as “Muhammad ibn Abdul-
      Wahhaab, Muallifaat.”Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab, Muallifaat,. Also see
      Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab, 135 Faaidah Lakhasuhaa Shaikh al-Islaam
      Muhammad ibn Abdil-Wahhaab min Fataawa Shaikh al-Islaam ibn Taimiyyah
      (Riyadh: Daar al-Qaasim, 1421 A.H.), passim.
      3 Usrah, p. 93.
      4 Cf., Al-Uthaimeen, Al-Shaikh Muhammad, p. 29.
      The Life, Teachings and Influence of Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab
      16
      increase his knowledge by following the established custom of
      traveling from one’s area for the purpose of attaining knowledge.
      Travels to Attain Knowledge
      Traveling for the purpose of attaining knowledge has been a
      practice of Muslim scholars since the earliest days of Islam.
      Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab was no exception. These travels
      probably had a great impact on Muhammad’s thinking and intellectual
      development. It opened his mind to other areas, other practices and
      maybe even other ways of thinking. At the same time, though, it
      allowed him to witness firsthand the extent to which Muslim
      populations had strayed from the way of the Prophet (peace and
      blessings of Allah be upon him).1
      Al-Uthaimeen notes that two questions remain unanswered in
      the historical works about Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab. The first
      concerns the exact year whence Muhammad began his travels. The
      second concerns exactly how long Muhammad stayed in different
      locations. He notes, for example, that no work states Muhammad’s
      age when he left al-Uyainah. In any case, al-Uthaimeen concludes that
      he must have left al-Uyainah before reaching the age of twenty.2
      After returning from his first Hajj and then studying with the
      scholars of his hometown, Muhammad again set out for Hijaaz.3
      1 Uthmaan Ibn Bishr, Unwaan al-Majd fi Tareekh Najd (Riyadh: Daar al-Habeeb,
      1999), vol. 1, p. 28, notes that ibn Abdul-Wahhaab had already started to object
      to some of the innovations and heresies that he had seen but with no affect.
      Hence, he decided to travel to increase his knowledge and be in a better
      position to counter the evils in his society. Note that along with ibn Ghannam’s
      work, Ibn Bishr’s work forms the most important early and direct reference for
      the life of ibn Abdul-Wahhaab. The author Uthmaan ibn Abdullah ibn Bishr
      (1210-1290 A.H./1793-1873 C.E.) was a prominent scholar and historian
      originally from Julaajil. His teachers include Ibraaheem ibn Muhammad ibn
      Abdul-Wahhaab. He was an eyewitness to many of the events he covered after
      the time of ibn Abdul-Wahhaab. Vassiliev (p. 13) believes that ibn Bishr
      possibly never saw ibn Ghannaam’s chronicle, although he was well aware of
      ibn Ghannaam himself. If this conclusion is true, it means that ibn Ghannaam
      and ibn Bishr provide two independent, historically-close sources for the life of
      Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab.
      2 Al-Uthaimeen, Al-Shaikh Muhammad, p. 29.
      3 There is a clear discrepancy between what Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab’s
      grandson Abdul-Rahmaan ibn Hasan wrote and what ibn Bishr and ibn
      Ghanaam wrote concerning the route of Muhammad’s travels. According to his
      The Life, Teachings and Influence of Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab
      17
      Perhaps, he still had memories of his pilgrimage and he wished to
      return to that land to increase his knowledge. He set out for Makkah
      and performed the Hajj again. It is said that he studied with the
      scholars of Makkah.1 However, there seems to be no mention of
      whom he studied with while in Makkah.2 This gives the impression
      that he did not study long there and, instead, he moved on to Madinah.
      In Madinah, he was faced with an academic environment that
      was very much different from that of al-Uyainah. For example, in al-
      Uyainah, the emphasis of study was on Hanbali fiqh. In Madinah, on
      the other hand, scholars and students from all over the world were
      present. Different schools of fiqh as well as all of the other branches
      of Islamic sciences were taught there.
      Muhammad studied under a number of scholars present in
      Madinah at that time. These scholars included Ali al-Daaghistaani and
      Ismaeel al-Ajalooni.3 However, the scholars that Muhammad was
      definitely closest to were first Abdullah ibn Ibraaheem ibn Saif4 and
      then later Muhammad Hayaat al-Sindi5 (who, according to algrandson,
      he first went to Basra, then to al-Ahsaa, then back to Basra and then
      to Madinah, making Madinah his last stop. Ibn Ghanaam and Ibn Bishr stated
      that he first went to Hijaaz. This seems to be strongest opinion and the view
      followed by the majority of the scholars. Cf., Al-Uthaimeen, Al-Shaikh
      Muhammad, pp. 29-30.
      1 Ibn Bishr, vol. 1, pp. 20-21; Al-Uthaimeen, Al-Shaikh Muhammad, p. 30.
      2 It seems that he did study with Abdullah ibn Saalim al-Basri. He was a Shafi’ee
      scholar who was the leading scholar of hadith at his time in the Hijaaz. Cf.,
      Abdul-Muhsin ibn Baaz, vol. 1, p. 75.
      3 Later writers also stated that Muhammad studied with the great Hanbali jurist
      Abu al-Muwaahib al-Baali. However, according to al-Uthaimeen (Shaikh, p. 31)
      that does not seem to be correct since al-Baali died in 1126 A.H. Furthermore,
      al-Nadwi and others doubt whether ibn Abdul-Wahhaab studied with al-
      Daaghistaani, since al-Daaghistaani would have been quite young when ibn
      Abdul-Wahhaab was in Madinah. However, that is assuming that ibn Abdul-
      Wahhaab met with him on his first journey to Madinah, which may not have
      been the case. Cf., Masood al-Nadwi, Muhammad ibn Abdil-Wahhaab Muslih
      Madhloom wa Muftara alaih (1977), p. 39. On the other hand, Abood (vol. 1, p.
      163-164) argues with evidence that the encounter was very possible between al-
      Daaghistaani and ibn Abdul-Wahhaab. Allah knows best.
      4 Abdullah was of the Shamari tribe. His father had moved from al-Majmah to al-
      Madinah were Abdullah grew up and studied under its scholars. Abdullah also
      traveled to Damascus to study there and then he returned to teach in Madinah.
      He had a large and beneficial library, from which Muhammad ibn Abdul-
      Wahhaab benefited. He died in Madinah in 1140 A.H.See al-
      Bassaam,vol.2,p.505.
      5 Muhammad Hayaat ibn Ibraaheem al-Sindi was born in Sind province in the
      Indo-Pak subcontinent. After studying in Sind, he moved to Madinah to
      The Life, Teachings and Influence of Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab
      18
      Uthaimeen, had the greater impact on Muhammad ibn Abdul-
      Wahhaab). Al-Uthaimeen notes that these two had a great impact on
      Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab’s thinking at a time when he was
      still very impressionable. These two not only conveyed knowledge to
      Muhammad but they set him on his path as a reformer.1
      The first one mentioned above, Abdullah ibn Ibraaheem, was a
      Hanbali jurist and a scholar of hadith. He passed on all of his works
      from al-Bali to Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab, including all of the
      standard works of hadith and hadith commentaries traced back via
      chains to their original authors.2 Both Abdullah and al-Bali were very
      much impressed with Ibn Taimiyyah and it is more than likely that
      Abdullah encouraged Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab to read ibn
      Taimiyyah’s works. Furthermore, Abdullah was well aware of the
      situation in Najd, having originally come from that area. He was able
      to discuss with Muhammad the many evil practices that the people of
      that land had fallen into. In fact, one time he asked ibn Abdul-
      Wahhaab, “Do you want to see the weapons that I have prepared for
      al-Majmaa [his family’s original hometown]?” When ibn Abdul-
      Wahhaab replied, “Yes,” Abdullah took him to a house wherein many
      books were stored and he said, “These are the weapons I have
      prepared.”3 This incident demonstrates that Abdullah, ibn Abdul-
      Wahhaab’s early teacher, knew that “weapons” were needed for the
      people of al-Majmaa in Najd, meaning that they had strayed and a
      strong tool would be needed to correct them. In a way, he showed ibn
      Abdul-Wahhaab that the strongest tool against their evil practices was
      continue his studies, later teaching there. He was a great scholar of hadith. He
      was also a Hanafi jurist and legal theorist. He authored a number of books,
      including Sharh al-Targheeb wa al-Tarheeb as well as a commentary on the
      Forty Hadith of al-Nawawi. He died in Madinah in 1163 A.H. See Khair al-
      Deen al-Zirkili, al-Alaam: Qaamoos Taraajim li-Ashhur al-Rijaal wa al-Nisaa
      min al-Arab wa al-Mustamareen wa al-Mustashriqeen (Beirut: Dar al-Ilm al-
      Malayeen), vol. 6, p. 111. Al-Sindi had a number of students who became great
      scholars and callers to Islam throughout the Muslim world (al-Uthaimeen,
      Shaikh, p. 34). (Note that some authors stated that he was the author of a
      brief commentary on Sahih al-Bukhari. Actually, that work was compiled by
      his teacher Muhammad ibn Abdul-Haadi al-Sindi.)
      1 Al-Uthaimeen, Al-Shaikh Muhammad, p. 31.
      2 Ahmad ibn Hajar Ali-Bootaami, Al-Shaikh Muhammad ibn Abdil-Wahhaab:
      Aqeedatuhu al-Salafiyyah wa Dawatuhu al-Islaahiyyah wa Thana al-Ulamaa
      alaih (Kuwait: al-Daar al-Salafiyyah, 1983), p. 16.
      3 Ibn Bishr, vol. 1, pp. 28-29.
      The Life, Teachings and Influence of Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab
      19
      the true knowledge that should make clear to them the falsehood they
      were on and show them the way to the straight path.
      It was Abdullah who introduced ibn Abdul-Wahhaab to al-
      Sindi and recommended him as a student. Ibn Abdul-Wahhaab and al-
      Sindi became very close and ibn Abdul-Wahhaab stayed with him for
      some time. Al-Sindi was a great scholar of hadith. He was also well
      known for repudiating innovations, objecting to polytheistic practices
      and calling to ijtihaad1 (scholarly juristic reasoning)—all salient
      features of Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab’s later teachings.2 In fact,
      ibn Abdul-Wahhaab’s great grandson Abdul-Lateef ibn Abdul-
      Rahmaan said that al-Sindi had the greatest influence on ibn Abdul-
      Wahhaab with respect to tauheed of worship, freeing oneself from
      blind obedience (taqleed) and preoccupying oneself with the study of
      the Book and the Sunnah.3
      Ibn Bishr records that one time Muhammad ibn Abdul-
      Wahhaab was at the tomb of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah
      be upon him), witnessing the people supplicating there and seeking
      refuge with the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him).
      He then saw al-Sindi coming and he said to him, “What do you say
      about these people?” Al-Sindi responded with Allah’s words,
      ????????????ÿ ?…????†?® †??? ?™??????Š?? ?©??? ?¬?? †??? ?????????? ??:‚????;ð??? ?????…
      “[Moses said,] ‘Verily, these people will be destroyed for that which
      they are engaged in (idol-worship). And all that they are doing is in
      vain” (al-Araaf 139).4
      1 For example, he lamented that the people were leaving authentic, nonabrogated
      hadith in favor of their schools of fiqh that had no sanad [chain of
      authority] for their views. He is quoted in Abdul-Muhsin ibn Baaz, vol. 1, p. 78.
      2 Al-Uthaimeen, Al-Shaikh Muhammad, pp. 31-32; Abdul-Muhsin ibn Baaz, vol.
      1, p. 77.
      3 Abdul-Lateef is quoted in Ismaaeel Muhamamd Al-Ansaari, “Hayaat al-Shaikh
      Muhammad ibn Abdil-Wahhaab wa Athaaruhu al-Ilmiyyah,” in Buhooth
      Nadwah Dawah al-Shaikh Muhammad ibn Abdil-Wahhaab (Riyadh:
      Muhammad ibn Saud Islamic University, 1991), vol. 1, p. 127.
      4 Ibn Bishr, vol. 1, p. 29. Due to the use of the pronouns, both scholars being
      referred to as “Shaikh” and both scholars being named Muhammad, who
      quoted that verse in this incident is not completely clear. Most authors simply
      record the report in its original vague form. However, some writers understood
      these words as being said by Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab and others by al-
      Sindi. For example, Naseer explicitly states that it was al-Sindi who responded
      with that verse of the Quran while al-Umar and al-Ruwaishid explicitly states
      The Life, Teachings and Influence of Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab
      20
      Return to al-Uyainah and Travels to Basra and al-Ahsaa
      After spending some time in Hijaz, acquiring knowledge at the
      feet of its great scholars, ibn Abdul-Wahhaab returned to al-Uyainah.
      At that time, he must have still been fairly young (in his early or mid
      twenties perhaps) and he was still not in a position of influence and
      stature wherein he could eradicate the evils that he saw around him.
      He could offer his views on some occasions but not much more than
      that was available to him. Instead he further concentrated on his
      studies, especially the writings of ibn Taimiyyah. (It seems that ibn
      Abdul-Wahhaab was very attracted to reading—again, especially the
      writings of ibn Taimiyyah and ibn al-Qayyim. Al-Ajilaani even said
      that most of his knowledge was self-taught, coming directly from the
      Quran, the Sunnah and such writings.1 However, it cannot be doubted
      that he studied under a number of scholars and was very close and
      greatly influenced by many of them, such as his father.)
      According to one report, he stayed in al-Uyainah for one year
      before setting out again for the purpose of study, perhaps realizing that
      he needed more study and maturation before truly being able to
      reform his people.2
      Damascus was the center for the Hanbali school. With his
      background in Hanbali fiqh and his desire to learn more of the
      writings of ibn Taimiyyah (who lived most of his life in Damascus), it
      is natural that ibn Abdul-Wahhaab would desire to go to Damascus.
      However, his journey to Damascus would first take him to Basra,
      where he remained for some time.3
      Basra was a prosperous, metropolitan trade center. In addition,
      it was home to many Shiites. It probably exposed ibn Abdul-Wahhaab
      that it was ibn Abdul-Wahhaab. See Aminah Muhammad Nusair, Al-Shaikh
      Muhammad ibn Abdil-Wahhaab wa Minhajuhu fi Mubaahith al-Aqeedah
      (Beirut: Daar al-Shurooq, 1983), p. 35; Abdul-Rahmaan al-Umar, Haqeeqah
      Dawah al-Imaam Muhammad ibn Abdil-Wahhaab (Riyadh: Daar al-Aasimah,
      2001), p. 13; Abdullah al-Ruwaishid, al-Imaam al-Shaikh Muhammad ibn
      Abdil-Wahhaab fi Tareekh (Cairo: Raabitah al-Adab al-Hadeeth, 1984), vol. 1,
      p. 34.
      1 See Nusair, p. 36.
      2 Cf., al-Uthaimeen, Al-Shaikh Muhammad, p. 33.
      3 Al-Uthaimeen (al-Shaikh, p. 33) says that perhaps he could not find a caravan
      heading to Damascus but found one heading to Basra. From Basra, a major
      trading town, it should not have been difficult to find a caravan heading to
      Damascus.
      The Life, Teachings and Influence of Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab
      21
      to many things that he had not witnessed in his native Najd (although
      he probably would have witnessed some aspects in Hijaaz).
      In Basra, he studied fiqh, hadith and Arabic language. He
      studied with Shaikh Muhammad al-Majmoo’ee. It was in Basra that
      Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab began to object to some of the
      innovations, heresies and polytheistic acts that he saw around him. In
      particular, he stressed that all worship must be directed to Allah alone.
      (In fact, according to one report, he wrote his Kitaab al-Tauheed
      during this stay in Basra.) It seems, that al-Majmoo’ee supported him
      in those efforts. However, those who supported him were greatly
      outnumbered by those who opposed him and often times the debates
      between them would become heated.1
      Ibn Ghannaam narrates that on one occasion a man mentioned
      the supplications to the pious and saints and Muhammad ibn Abdul-
      Wahhaab objected to what he said, explaining the correct position.
      The man responded by saying, “If what this man says is true, the
      people have not been upon anything for quite some time.” Many in
      Basra did not like what ibn Abdul-Wahhaab was preaching and tried
      to confound him in the mosque. Ibn Ghannaam narrates that
      Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab stated, “Some of the polytheists of
      Basra would come to me and throw doubts and questions at me. I
      would say to them while they were sitting in front of me, ‘All worship
      is proper only to Allah.’ This would confound them and then they
      would not say a thing.”2
      Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab tried to advise the people
      with gentleness and kindness but such was not fruitful. Al-Nadwi
      notes that it was in Basra that ibn Abdul-Wahhaab truly started to
      repel evil without any fear except the fear of Allah. Thus he was met
      with great opposition and even his teacher Muhammad al-Majmoo’ee
      experienced hardship due to his association and support for
      Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab.3
      It is not clear how long ibn Abdul-Wahhaab stayed in Basra but ibn
      Ghannaam states that he stayed there longer than in any other place
      1 Al-Uthaimeen, Al-Shaikh Muhammad, p. 34.
      2 Ibn Ghannaam, vol. 1, pp. 76.
      3 Al-Nadwi, p. 42.
      The Life, Teachings and Influence of Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab
      22
      that he had traveled to.1 Perhaps, this is what gave him the confidence
      to begin to speak out against the heresies and innovations that he was
      witnessing. Even though, his efforts and preaching were not enough
      for him to have a strong enough base to make any real change in
      Basra.
      Al-Uthaimeen notes that Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab
      greatly benefited from his stay in Basra in three ways: (1) He
      increased his level of knowledge, especially in fiqh, hadith and Arabic
      language; (2) He became exposed on a very close basis to the beliefs
      and practices of the Shiites; (3) The opposition and arguments he
      faced gave him some training in how to answer and repel the doubts
      and questioners.
      Ibn Abdul-Wahhaab was met with much opposition, to the
      point that he was forced to leave Basra in the heat of the midday,
      walking barefoot.2 While on the road between Basra and al-Zubair, ibn
      1 Ibn Ghannaam, vol. 1, p. 77. There is also evidence showing that during his
      residence in Basra, ibn Abdul-Wahhaab may have paid a visit to Mosul to the
      North. Khattaab argues that his trip to Mosul is largely unreported because
      the work that records it (Gharaaib al-Athar) was published relatively late and
      was unknown to most of the biographers of ibn Abdul-Wahhaab. At that time,
      there were two important groups of Muslims in Mosul: Sufis who were
      inundated with grave-cult worship and Salafis who were opposing such
      practices. The struggle seems to have been great between the two groups. It is
      possible that ibn Abdul-Wahhaab saw this going on and this obviously could
      have furthered his impetus to change the ways of the Muslims—as well as
      make him realize what a true jihad or struggle it was going to be. See
      Mahmood Shait Khattaab, “Al-Imaam Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab fi
      Madeenah al-Mausil,” in Bahooth Nadwah Dawah al-Shaikh Muhammad ibn
      Abdul-Wahhaab (Riyadh: Jaamiah al-Imaam Muhammad ibn Saood al-
      Islaamiyyah, 1991), vol. 1, pp. 73-90. As a whole, though, it must be stated that
      Khattaab’s evidence that ibn Abdul-Wahhaab visited Mosul is not completely
      convincing. And Allah alone knows best.
      2 Ibn Bishr, vol. 1, p. 30. Al-Uthaimeen (Al-Shaikh, p. 35) doubts the authenticity
      of the story concerning ibn Abdul-Wahhaab being driven out of Basra. He does
      so on two accounts. First, ibn Ghannaam, who lived earlier than ibn Bishr
      (and, according to al-Uthaimeen forms the basis for ibn Bishr’s work), did not
      mention this incident. Second, Abdul-Rahmaan ibn Hasan, ibn Abdul-
      Wahhaab’s grandson, mentions that after going to al-Ahsaa, ibn Abdul-
      Wahhaab returned to Basra on his way to Madinah. Thus, his departure from
      Basra must have been a normal one. To this author, al-Uthaimeen’s arguments
      do not seem convincing. First, ibn Ghannaam may not have mentioned the
      incident because he was unaware of it or he simply neglected to record it while
      ibn Bishr had this report through other reliable sources. Second, Abdul-
      Rahmaan ibn Hasan’s accounts of ibn Abdul-Wahhaab’s travels are not
      corroborated by any other known source. (He might have relied upon someone
      The Life, Teachings and Influence of Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab
      23
      Abdul-Wahhaab was about to die of thirst. A resident of al-Zubair,
      known as Abu Humaidaan, found him. Feeling that ibn Abdul-
      Wahhaab was a very respectable looking person, he gave him water
      and led him to al-Zubair. Muhammad stayed there a few days but
      wanted to depart to Syria. However, he had somehow lost the needed
      money for such a trip (perhaps it had been stolen from him). Hence,
      he decided to return to Najd via the eastern province of al-Ahsaa.1
      At that time, al-Ahsaa was a center of learning for all of the
      four schools of fiqh. Many students from Najd flocked to that area.
      Ibn Abdul-Wahhaab studied there with a number of scholars from
      different schools. He studied and stayed with Abdullah ibn
      Muhammad ibn Abdul-Lateef al-Shafi’ee (discussing with him some
      of the issues of Ashari belief as found in ibn Hajar’s commentary on
      Sahih al-Bukhari).2 He also studied with Muhammad ibn Afaaliq3 and
      Abdullah ibn Fairooz al-Kafeef.4
      After spending some time in al-Ahsaa, ibn Abdul-Wahhaab
      left to Huraimilaa in Najd, where his father had now moved to.
      Before discussing Huraimilaa, it is important to note that the
      most trustworthy and relied upon works concerning Muhammad ibn
      Abdul-Wahhaab state that he only traveled to Hijaz, Basra, al-Zubair
      and al-Ahsaa (all shown in Figure 1).5 There are a number of other
      whose memory of the details may have failed him.) On its own, his account of
      ibn Abdul-Wahhaab’s travels cannot be considered strong enough to reject
      something ibn Bishr recorded.
      1 Ibn Bishr, vol. 1, p. 30; Abdul-Muhsin ibn Baaz, vol. 1, p. 83.
      2 Ibn Bishr, vol. 1, p. 30. See Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab, Muallifaat, vol. 7,
      p. 250. In this letter, ibn Abdul-Wahhaab praises Muhammad for choosing
      opinions related to faith that contradicted his traditional Ashari thoughts.
      3 Muhammad ibn Afaaliq had studied for some time in Madinah with Abdullah
      ibn Ibraaheem ibn Saif. Later, he would become one of ibn Abdul-Wahhaab’s
      opponents, challenging ibn Abdul-Wahhaab in a letter by asking him to explain
      a number of grammatical and stylistic points in soorah al-Aadiyaat. He also
      actively encouraged Uthmaan ibn Muammar to abandon his support of ibn
      Abdul-Wahhaab. Cf., Abdul-Muhsin ibn Baaz, vol. 1, p. 86; al-Bassaam, vol. 3,
      p. 818.
      4 Al-Kafeef was originally from Najd and was salafi in his beliefs, being attracted
      to the teachings of Ahmad ibn Hanbal and ibn Taimiyyah. He was very pleased
      with Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab. Cf., Abdul-Muhsin ibn Baaz, vol. 1, p.
      86; al-Bassaam, vol. 2, p. 627.
      5 Journeying to different parts of the world to increase one’s knowledge is
      considered a virtuous act. Hence, it is expected that those writers who were
      closest to Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab and who were also his followers
      would be happy to list all of his travels. Since they all only mentioned these
      The Life, Teachings and Influence of Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab
      24
      less reliable works1 that state that ibn Abdul-Wahhaab ventured to a
      number of other areas. For example, the European traveler Niebuhr
      stated that ibn Abdul-Wahhaab traveled to Baghdad and Persia. Al-
      Shashtari said that he also went to Isfahan.2
      The unidentified author of Lam’ al-Shihaab fi Seerah
      Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab (“The Brilliance of the Meteor in the
      Life of Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab”)3 states that ibn Abdulfour
      areas, it is safe to conclude that these are the only areas that ibn Abdul-
      Wahhaab visited in his journeys.
      1 They are less reliable because they relied on second hand information or
      “rumors” about Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab, as opposed to the works of,
      for example, ibn Bishr and ibn Ghannaam. Furthermore, some of those works
      contain much information that is definitely incorrect. For example, Niebuhr
      stated that ibn Abdul-Wahhaab did not consider the Prophet Muhammad
      (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) a prophet but simply a great sage.
      2 Cf., Al-Uthaimeen, Al-Shaikh Muhammad, pp. 36-37.
      3 This is a rather famous work written by, according to most scholars, an
      anonymous author. (According to al-Ajilaani, the manuscript bears the name
      Hasan al-Ribki, who may have been its author.) It covers the history of the
      “Wahhabis” from their beginnings until 1233 A.H. (1817 C.E.). Naseer (pp. 30-
      31) notes that it was the major work of reference for the majority of the
      Orientalists who wrote about ibn Abdul-Wahhaab. She states that many of the
      Arabs who later wrote about ibn Abdul-Wahhaab relied upon what the
      Orientalists wrote and thus indirectly took from this work. She concludes that
      although the Orientalists may be excused for using such a work, since they
      may not have had access to better works in the Western museums and
      universities (in earlier times), no such excuse is available for the Arab writers
      who just followed in their paths. Abu Hakeemah (pp. 9-11) has rather kind
      words to say about this book. He stated that the author does a good job of
      analyzing events, had no prejudices against Wahhabism and seemed to have
      been an eyewitness to the expedition somewhere near Basra. In this author’s
      view, though, the problem with this work is three-fold. First, the author is not
      known. Hence, one cannot tell how reliable or honest he was or what were his
      biases. Although not overtly unkind to ibn Abdul-Wahhaab, he does consider
      his teachings to be heresy. Second, the work contains a great deal of
      information that is contradicted by other stronger sources (such as on the
      lineage of Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab, his travels and so forth). Hence, if
      the information in this work is not corroborated through some known and
      reliable source, it must be dealt with very skeptically. Third, it seems clear
      from the work that the author spent no time in Najd itself. Thus, his sources of
      information were those outside of the land of the followers of Muhammad ibn
      Abdul-Wahhaab. As is known, much false information and many rumors were
      being spread about Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab in those lands and it
      seems that this unknown author used that type of information as, at least
      partially, the basis for his work. Hence, Vassiliev (p. 14) states that it is “a
      series of sketches, based on accounts by participants in the events in question,
      together with rumours and legends.” Later (p. 66), he states, “The author of
      The Brilliance of the Meteor was hostile to the Wahhabis.” Unfortunately, some
      The Life, Teachings and Influence of Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab
      25
      Wahhaab also traveled to Baghdad (wherein he married a rich woman
      who later died and left him a good fortune), Kurdistan, Hamadhan,
      Isfahan, Rayy, Qum, Aleppo, Damascus, Jerusalem and Egypt,
      returning via the Suez through Yanbu, Madinah and Makkah. It also
      states that he studied Aristotelian philosophy and Sufism in Isfahan
      and that he was also proficient in Turkish and possibly Farsi. He later
      went to Qom where he became a follower of the Hanbali school.
      Furthermore, it states that he did not begin his travels until he was
      thirty-seven years old. That work also claims that Muhammad ibn
      Abdul-Wahhaab changed his name many times during those travels
      (being Abdullah in Basra, Ahmad in Baghdad and so forth).1
      Al-Uthaimeen notes that this means that ibn Abdul-Wahhaab
      did not leave Najd before 1152 A.H. while it is confirmed that he had
      completed all of his journeys long before that time. Furthermore, the
      anonymous author implies that ibn Abdul-Wahhaab remained
      traveling for some twenty-five years. Thus ibn Abdul-Wahhaab would
      not have returned to Najd before 1177 A.H.—in fact, the author
      actually implies that he returned in 1186 A.H. while Sharif Suroor was
      ruling Makkah. It is an established fact that the new state in al-
      Diriyyah was founded by Muhammad ibn Saud and ibn Abdul-
      Wahhaab a good thirty years before that time. Furthermore, no one
      makes any mention of ibn Abdul-Wahhaab knowing Turkish or Farsi.
      Similarly, none of them mention him having studied philosophy or
      Sufism.2
      later writers, such as the Orientalist Margoliouth (in writing his article for the
      first edition of the Encyclopedia of Islam), rely heavily on this work by an
      unknown author. (Later editions of the Encyclopedia of Islam replaced
      Margoliouth’s article with one written by the French Orientalist Laoust.) Even
      Vassiliev who noted such reservations about this work relied on it for some
      uncorroborated, outlandish statements concerning ibn Abdul-Wahhaab. For
      example, based on this work, Vassiliev (p. 90) states that Muhammad ibn
      Abdul-Wahhaab, “was fond of women, had 20 wives and begot 18 children.”
      Vassiliev simply notes that this may be an exaggeration. In reality, the
      chroniclers who were very keen on chronicling many details of ibn Abdul-
      Wahhaab’s life, including whom he was married to and what children he had,
      mention nothing resembling this at all. The same is true for other statements
      Vassiliev makes on the same page based on Lam’ al-Shihaab.
      1 Cf., Al-Uthaimeen, Al-Shaikh Muhammad, p. 37. A refutation in English of
      these claims may be found in Vassiliev, pp. 65-66.
      2 Al-Uthaimeen, Al-Shaikh Muhammad, pp. 37-38.
      The Life, Teachings and Influence of Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab
      26
      A number of authorities mention that ibn Abdul-Wahhaab
      visited Baghdad. Al-Uthaimeen lists the European travelers and
      writers Niebuhr, Waring, Rouseau, Hogarth and Rehatsek who
      mention this. In addition, al-Haidari states that his father told him that
      ibn Abdul-Wahhaab visited Baghdad and studied with the eminent
      Sibghatullah al-Haidari. Again, it seems that this trip cannot be
      confirmed from any close source although there would have been
      good reason to mention ibn Abdul-Wahhaab’s study with such a
      prominent scholar.1
      Huraimila and the Beginning of the Call (Dawah)
      During Muhammad’s travels, his father, Abdul-Wahhaab, was
      relieved of his duties of judge in al-Uyainah due to a dispute with the
      new Ameer, Muhammad ibn Hamad ibn Muammar. Hence, he left al-
      Uyainah and took on the position of judge in Huraimila.2 Thus, when
      his son returned from his journeys, he headed to his father’s new
      home. This return took place between 1144 and 1149 A.H.3
      Ibn Bishr mentions that upon his return, Muhammad studied
      under his father.4 Al-Uthaimeen says that that may be correct but by
      that time, Muhammad’s own level of knowledge had probably
      exceeded that of his father.5 If so, he could have done this simply out
      of respect for his parent.
      In any case, it was in Huraimila that Muhammad began his
      public dawah activities. He began to give lessons in the mosque.
      These included lectures on hadith, fiqh and Quranic commentary. A
      large number of people attended these lectures and greatly added to
      his prestige.6 This was a practice that ibn Abdul-Wahhaab would
      continue throughout his entire life, even when he was one of the
      leaders of a state. He also started to object to the heresies and
      polytheistic practices of the people around him. From the beginning,
      1 Al-Uthaimeen, Al-Shaikh Muhammad, p. 38. Al-Uthaimeen (p. 39) makes the
      same point concerning ibn Abdul-Wahhaab’s supposed trip to Damascus. Al-
      Zirkily in al-Alaam is among those who mentioned the trip to Syria.
      2 Abdul-Muhsin ibn Baaz, vol. 1, p. 87.
      3 See al-Uthaimeen, Al-Shaikh Muhammad, pp. 39-40, for the different views on
      the year he came to al-Ahsaa and why this is the strongest view.
      4 Ibn Bishr, vol. 1, p. 31.
      5 Al-Uthaimeen, Al-Shaikh Muhammad, pp. 40-41.
      6 Ibn Ghannaam, vol. 1, p. 77.
      The Life, Teachings and Influence of Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab
      27
      he had supporters (who, it seems, were relatively small in number at
      first) and opponents. This would be a pattern that would continue
      throughout his life—and still continues today.
      It was during this time that some words were exchanged or a
      dispute arose between Muhammad and his father.1 Unfortunately,
      none of the sources state the exact nature of this disagreement. Al-
      Uthaimeen notes that it probably was not concerning an issue of
      aqeedah (beliefs) as Abdul-Wahhaab, Muhammad’s father, did not
      lend any support to the saint-cults and other false practices that
      existed.2 One explanation given is that it concerned the payment that
      some judges received for solving disputes. Although it is not known
      that Abdul-Wahhaab ever accepted such payments, it is clear that he
      did not consider it wrong for the other judges to accept payments of
      this nature. However, his son Muhammad considered this a type of
      bribe that is forbidden in Islam.3 Perhaps a stronger difference of
      opinion between them was concerned with the manner of making
      dawah and spreading the true teachings (and not the content of the
      teachings itself). In any case, what is certain is that while his father
      was still alive, Muhammad, out of deference to his father, was not
      overly active and public in his dawah (propagation) efforts as he was
      to become after his father’s death in 1153 A.H.4
      Muhammad spent much of this time concentrating on his
      studies in fiqh, hadith and tafseer. He wrote Kitaab al-Tauheed during
      1 Ibn Bishr, vol. 1, p. 31.
      2 For an example of Abdul-Wahhaab’s thinking, see Majmooah al-Rasaail wa al-
      Masaail al-Najdiyyah li-bad Ulamaa Najd al-Alaam (Riyadh: Daar al-Aasimah,
      1409 A.H.), vol. 1, pp. 523-525. The tone and content is very much similar to
      what his son says.
      3 Cf., al-Uthaimeen, Al-Shaikh Muhammad, p. 41.
      4 Ahmad ibn Hajar Aali-Bootaami says that his father did eventually come
      around to ibn Abdul-Wahhaab’s way of thinking. See Ahmad ibn Hajar Aali-
      Bootaami, Al-Shaikh Muhammad ibn Abdil-Wahhaab: Aqeedatuhu al-
      Salafiyyah wa Dawatuhu al-Islaahiyyah wa Thana al-Ulamaa alaih (Kuwait:
      al-Daar al-Salafiyyah, 1983), p. 26. Furthermore, the French author Jean
      Raymond wrote that ibn Abdul-Wahhaab’s father was in complete agreement
      with his son but he only disclosed that fact to his closest associates that he
      could completely trust. Allah knows best the authenticity of that claim.
      Raymond is quoted in Muhammad Kaamil Dhaahir, al-Dawah al-
      Wahhaabiyyah wa Atharuhaa fi al-Fikr al-Islaami al-Hadeeth (Beirut: Daar al-
      Salaam, 1993), p. 47.
      The Life, Teachings and Influence of Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab
      28
      this time1 (or he may have “rewritten and revised” it if the report that
      he actually wrote that book while in Basra is correct).
      When Abdul-Wahhaab died, Muhammad was about thirtyeight
      years old. With the death of his father, he became the leading
      scholar in the area. He became more open in his teaching and calling
      of others to the straight path. He openly criticized the abundant
      innovations and heresies. He began to order what is good and
      eradicate what is evil. His reputation spread to the surrounding areas.
      Students began to flock to Huraimila to study with him. Even some of
      the surrounding ameers began to be influenced by or attracted to him,
      including Uthmaan ibn Muammar, the Ameer of al-Uyainah.2
      Ibn Bishr stated that Huraimila was under the control of two
      tribes which were originally one. The slaves3 of one of the two tribes
      plotted to murder Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab at night but one of
      his neighbors was able to warn ibn Abdul-Wahhaab and he managed
      to flee.4 They wanted to do this because ibn Abdul-Wahhaab was
      trying to bring an end to the debauchery and evils that they in
      particular were committing.5
      Al-Uthaimeen states that although that story may be true, it
      was probably not the only reason why Muhammad ibn Abdul-
      Wahhaab decided to leave for al-Uyainah. As noted above, the ameer
      of al-Uyainah was already attracted to and impressed by ibn Abdul-
      Wahhaab’s teachings.

    178. Siddik March 21st, 2008 at 11:07 am

      Wahhabis, Salafies, Ahle-Hadith=Disease

    179. Najam Ibn Abdul-Haqq March 22nd, 2008 at 12:06 am

      Mujahideen Ryder on June 17, 2007 at 8:49 pm said:

      Imam Abu Hanafi – Hanafis
      Imam Malik – Malikis
      Imam Shafi – Shafis
      Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbali – Hanbalis

      Shaykh Ibn Abdul Wahhab – Wahhabis

      It’s not negative at all. It’s just to distinguish the Muslims who adhere to the beliefs, writings and teachings of Shaykh Ibn Abdul Wahhab.

      What’s the big deal?

      Brother, Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul-Wahhab did not have his own school of thought like the 4 Imams and I think you will find that many of the so called wahhabi’s follow one of the 4 Imams. mainly Ahmed ibn Hanbal

      It is impossibe to follow any of the 4 Imams 100% because any scholar will tell you that they all made small mistakes and they all said if any of my fatwa’s have errors throw them away, we should also remember that Sahih Bukhrai, Sahih Muslim was written after the 4 great Imams.

      we love the 4 Imams they are the founding fathers of Ahlul-sunnah wal jammah but we believe that Muslims should give the Sahih Hadiths a higher priority, that doesnt make you a Wahhabi

      also we as muslims should not forget that Al-Wahhab is one of the attributes of Allah ta’ala

      also the name Wahhabi was given by the enemies who were innovaters and grave worshippers

      The correct name is Salafi

      Alhamdulillah I ‘m a salafi but I never say it out of ignorance and pride, I only say that when I have to distinguish myself from the innovaters

    180. Abu Muslim March 26th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
    181. Rasheed Moore May 19th, 2008 at 8:18 pm

      I think the interaction between Zaytuna and Al Maghrib have produced positive results and have elevated the debate to a higher level of maturity. Credit to Hamza for being honest.

    182. habeeb June 28th, 2008 at 10:18 pm

      before u do anythig learn islam u all arabs !! u dont know nothing about islam .. sick heads talking about jihad how can u kill and abuse other muslim and how can u think tht non arab muslims are inferior to you all .. u all jack ass arabs u all not on right path racist b*****d

    183. habeeb June 28th, 2008 at 10:28 pm

      i am indian muslim i love islam more then my life but when ever i met arab in middle east and in us in uk they show me f****n attitude, and they talk about islam jihad sunna how ironic i am devoted muslim but when i see arabs i hate them, they are the worst people and talk about jihad .. sick heads they hate or dont like non arab muslims or discriminate them why? if u ask them they will tell you not every arab is like tht they r few nooooo few are good most of them not most of them all of them are #1 racist they r the most racist people in world ….if u ask any one they will tell u arabs are racist, arrogant.. taliban lot better then arabs indina muslims lot better then arabs .. all arabs are jahilll!!

    184. Gill July 8th, 2008 at 3:49 pm

      Many Salafis (Wahabbis are a sub-sect of Salafis) have ‘Aqeedah (creed) which makes them different from Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaat. Some Salafis though, claim to be Hanbali Sunnis and will usually say they follow this ambiguous ‘third’ school of Sunni ‘Aqeedah, the Athari school (the two accepted ones are Ashari and Maturidi).

      In case of the former, you cannot call them Sunnis. In case of the latter, we should give them the benefit of the doubt and consider them Sunnis.

    185. Rasheed Moore July 8th, 2008 at 9:58 pm

      Wahabbis sub sect of Salafis hmm that is a new one you speak with the absolutism of someone new to the deen. Maturidi accepted by who??? Hanbali Sunnis follow a different Aqeedah…LOL

      This thing reads like one of those weird spam messages that you get that makes no sense what so ever… MR would you please delete your spam instead of posting it…

    186. Syed Saad Ahsan July 11th, 2008 at 12:51 am

      Salam guys,

      I want to remind all of you to the verse ofthe Qur’an in Surah Al-Imran that reads “And hold on to the rope of Allah, all of you, and do not differentiate and remember the blessing of Allah upon you when you were enemies and (He) joined your hearts so you became by his blessing brothers and you were on the brink of the pit of the Fire and he saved you from it, Thus does Allah make clear his verses that you maybe guided.”

      Brothers, what I don’t understand is that who is posting this material. Honestly, sometimes I feel that this is nothing but something that is instigated, started by people outside our faith (i.e. people of the book/ atheists, choose your pick) and then the muslims come in and start fighting. Its not our fight brothers. This really is not our fight. Look at what Allah has told us to do…look how far away from it we are.

      A group from us calls people kafir without giving any reason. Look brothers, there are certain things that should be said. I don’t agree with Hamza Yusuf’s ideology either. No far from it. But to call the guy a kafir without knowing him is simply not right. If what I find on the internet is truly what he says, then I might not agree with it, but to call someone a kafir would require more than just a post on the internet. Rather one would have to give valid reasons. It’s not something that can be said on the internet by ordinary laymen.

      The other group incites certain people (myself included in these people) by giving them a name that is linked to Allah. Brothers…why would you give anybody a name that is linked to a Name of Allah. Especially, when the people you are calling don’t want to be given that name. How does that make any sense? Then you say stuff about people that you have no right to say stuff about.

      Then you confuse people by bringing in all this theological arguments that are so dangerous. Do you know why ibn Hanbal was against the rationalists? Because people were being lead away from the Quran by the philosophy of kalam. Hanbal explicity told his students NEVER to deal with kalam. It is because of that that you find most Hanbalis, and the ones that don’t fit this belief are rejected, to be Atharis who never mess with this kalam philosophy. The Ash’aris on the other hand believe in using it to some extent but not so much as the rationalists.

      The fact that most Hanbalis are actually, and have been historically, Atharis is acknowledged on various sites that are not themsleves Athari,sunnipath for example. I applaud them for being honest enough to say that yes, most Hanbalis have always been Atharis. Myself being one, I don’t understand how Asharis can cry out against us for speaking out against them. Brothers (and I really do believe youto be brothers), ibn Hanbal (one of the founders of the madhabs) told us specifically what our belief system should be. He wrote books on it, not books on fiqh, but books on belief. His fiqh was recorded by his students but his belief is what is special to the Hanbali madhab. It is the only madhab of the four that has a belief system which is athari.

      To the Asharis: look, you may choose to be Ashari, and Ill respect that because Im no one to judge. But how can you raise a point against us when we are following the teachings of ibn Hanbal, a founder of one of the four madhabs. His arguments with the rationalists is history that we both commemorat…his struggle to keep the faith pure. Would you not follow and read what he had to say then going and following men who came much after him (Ashari and MAturidi)? Would you abuse us for trying to tell you that ibn Hanbal would have disagreed with some of the things you are doing, such as your belief in kalam?

      To the non-muslims who will visit the site, trust me…islam is not this sectarian as it seems. My muslim brothers may have screwed up your image of this faith but these sort of arguments only happen on intenret websites like these and im pretty sure that atleast half of the discussion here is put on by a party that is not from amongst us. Such are the tricks of the enemies of islam to try to make our hearts seperated after Allah has made them one.

      To MR, brother I dont know what you are trying to do, but this site is not good for any thing but fitna. People probably visit this site a lot and non Muslims, I guarantee, will get nothing but a bad image of our faith. If you have faith in Allah and our deen, then I would recommend you to please bring this forum down and kill it.

      And by the way for the brother who posted that he thought Arabs were condescending, Ill tell you brother, I being a PAkistani a KArachite, having lived in Saudi can tell you that yes some are racist, but the ones amongst them that are not, are truly some of the best people on earth in terms of practicing muslims. This so that I your Pakistani brother tells you no they’re not all that bad.

      Allah knows best, ofcourse.
      Salam

    187. 5-Pillar Scribe July 24th, 2008 at 8:00 pm

      I disagree with him that the people in the West have the opportunity to practice their religion. Among many examples of people in the West restricted from remaining within the U.S. by means of immigration; there are other clearly issues of people being arrested, deported, prevented from immigrating; preventing from getting the true message of Islam in most countries of the West.

      Another example of a democracy, Argentina, that had a Muslim who was to be elected president, and was forced to change his religion from being a Muslim to being Catholic.

      Most of the abuses that do take place in the U.S. are actually done to prevent Islam from entering (politics, school history book accuracy, immigration laws, corruption, secret-evidence, and such).

      http://www.5pillar.wordpress.com

    188. harxxn July 24th, 2008 at 8:51 pm

      I was born and brought in a Muslim-Arab country, and now I am studying in the ‘West’.
      Though we may have ‘freedom of speech’ etc in here, its still good back in, atleast most of the Muslim countries (for the time being atleast).

      Btw, does ANYONE call himself a wahhabi??
      Sheikh Bin Baz never called himself that….. !@#$

    189. Abu Tayubah September 4th, 2008 at 8:04 pm

      Asalamuwa alaykum warahmatallaahi wabarakatahu to all my muslims here,

      I am a Muslim who simply tries to refer to the salafu saliheen of this ummah for my understanding of the Qur’an and ahadith.

      The Four more famous and well known Imaams were from amongst the scholars that referred back to the salaf uSalih / our pious predecesors in Islam with regards to their beliefs, actions, methodology, positions and walaa and baraa. Infact some from the four Imaams were parts of those very first 3 generations of Muslims i.e the salaf. Allaah subhanawa at ta’ala Himself praises the first generations of Muslims / the Prophet salalaho alayhiwasalams companions in the Qur’an and the Prophets also refer us to them and also in other narrations to the (pious from the) first 3 generations of Muslims too.

      Then in each generation there have been Scholars upon that same way of refering back for the earliest understaning for our beliefs, actions, methooloy, actions/ worship, the positions we hold and our walaa and baraah. Some were more successfull than others in calling to this way an became more famous due to that. This includes many but for example first it was the Companions themselves who were the first scholars, then those who learnt directly from them then the four Imaams, their teachers and also their students too. Then for example in the 7th cent we have Ibn taymeeya, Ibn Katheer, Ibnul Qayim rahimuallaah ta’ala. We muslims trying to adhere to the sunnah and known for refering to the salaf for our Islam i.e staying away from the new groups and sects…we are known to follow all the a’imma / Scholars which includes Shaykh Muhammad (son of Ibn Abul Wahhaab / Ibn Abdul Wahhaab) rahimuallaah.

      He is one of those imaam of the sunnah refering to the salafusaliheen that were successful (Through Allaah mercy) in hi dawah, and so we refer to him alot. HOWEVER, we do not exclusivley follow him! So although we know it is ok to follow one particular scholar to learn and as a student and teacher relationship and to learn the fique, however as long as it isnt blindly and or exclusivle for life, rigidly sticking to our regular schollars rulling even when u have progressed in ilm a lttle and a huge amount of other schollars have an authentic saying of Allaahs messenger salalaho alayhiwasalam and your regular scholars rulling was based on a temporary qiyaas / analogy.

      So for those following one of the four imaams or any others in the un healthy and extreme manner, then it might make sense to refer to them as bravaliees after ‘imaam’ bravalee or hanafee or shafee or malikee, but no one follows Shaykh Muhammad (Ibn Abul Wahaab) exclusivley … <<1. that is why it doesnt make sense to refer to people of the sunnah / salafies as “wahhaabies” 2. It is using one of the names of Allaah (Wahhaab) in a negative manner as wahhaabi is usually a term thrown at someone in a negative way. 3. Its funny how the dont use the term “Muhamadee” when the Shaykh actual name was Muhamad not wahaab!

      I am united with all Muslims, but the strength of my unity with each Muslim is depemdant upon their closness to the sunnah/ truth. tawheed. May Allaah unite all the ummah upon the way of the first Muslims, aameen.

    190. Asim September 16th, 2008 at 6:48 pm

      One year later, what is your position MR?

      Do you still take such a harsh stance against salafis and refuse to denounce the term wahabi?

    191. Revolutionmuslim.com September 17th, 2008 at 5:49 pm

      Go to Revolutionmuslim.com and listen to the Devil’s Deception of the Saudi Salafi. If you want to hear the truth about these deviants. If you have a problem with what is said than bring your shaikh to debate. Khalaas

    192. Nameless September 17th, 2008 at 7:50 pm

      As-Salam Alaikum

      Brother, you shouldn’t spread disunity among the Muslims, especially during this month. It’s amazing how we do exactly what the kuffar want us to do. SubhanAllah.

      Salam Alaikum

    193. Abu Hossan September 29th, 2008 at 5:09 pm

      Assalaamu ‘alaykum,
      I haven’t read all the previous posts (that would be a marathon effort), but I would like to point out why the term ‘Wahhabi’ should be offensive to all Muslims. That is because ‘Wahhab’ is one of the unique names of Allaah. To say ‘Wahhabi’ is then kind of meaningless and degrading a beautiful name of Allaah by using it to label people. Let says the if Imam Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab’s name had been ibn Abdullah or AbdurRahman, would we then be calling his followers ‘Allaahis’ or ‘Rahmaanis’?
      If you want to compare the usage of ‘Wahhabi’ to ‘Hambali’ or ‘Hanafi’, then the appropriate comparision should be either ‘Abdul-Wahhabi’, ‘Muhammadi’ or something else.
      Just my 2 cents. May Allaah unite this ummah on the sunnah of the Muhammad (saw).

    194. Ismaeel October 9th, 2008 at 8:01 am

      786
      AA

      Hmmm then Jabbariyyah and Qadariyyah the names of the two earliest sects (the latter given by the Prophet (Salla Allahu alayhi wa alahi wa salim) should offend you too because they are both derived from divine names as well. In fact they are not they are derived from the deviant beliefs of those sects and Wahhabis are named after the founder of their sect end of story. Hanafis are not called Abu Hanafis and are not a sect. And for the record Bilal Philips stood up the Queen Mary College (east london) annual dinner in 2002 and said it used to be a good thing to be called a Wahhabi, so he clearly doesn’t have a problem with the designation.

      wasalaam

    195. Nawawi619 October 9th, 2008 at 1:57 pm

      “It is impossibe to follow any of the 4 Imams 100% because any scholar will tell you that they all made small mistakes and they all said if any of my fatwa’s have errors throw them away, we should also remember that Sahih Bukhrai, Sahih Muslim was written after the 4 great Imams.

      we love the 4 Imams they are the founding fathers of Ahlul-sunnah wal jammah but we believe that Muslims should give the Sahih Hadiths a higher priority, that doesnt make you a Wahhabi

      also we as muslims should not forget that Al-Wahhab is one of the attributes of Allah ta’ala

      also the name Wahhabi was given by the enemies who were innovaters and grave worshippers

      The correct name is Salafi

      Alhamdulillah I ‘m a salafi but I never say it out of ignorance and pride, I only say that when I have to distinguish myself from the innovaters”

      As Salamu Alaykum

      Since when was a madhhab the opinion of one Imam? A madhhab is not the opinions of the founding Imam but rather an entire school of top rank scholars that followed the usul or methodology of the founding Imam but also reevaluated, upgraded, revised the rulings of the madhhab over many generations.

      Example in the Shafi’i school, Imam Shafi’i taught his students the usul of his madhhab (both the qadim and jadid of his madhhab) they included people like Imam Muzani, Buwati, Abu Thawr, etc etc

      The generation of the companions of Imam Shafi’i then taught the next generation like Imam Bayhaqi who then revised madhhab and reevaluated.

      Bayhaqi’s generation then transmitted it to the generation of the likes of Imam Baghawi who’s generation did the same as the first, reevaluated, upgraded, revised the madhhab

      Their generation then taught the generation of Imam al Haramayn al Juwayni who did the same thing as the previous generation

      Juwayni’s generation then taught the generation of Imam Abu Hamid al Ghazali who revised, upgraded the madhhab

      Ghazali and his generation then taught the generation of Imam Rafi’. Imam Rafi’ is considered to be a scholar of Tarjih, a Recessionist who gathered all the rulings of the previous generation and sifted out the sound rulings from the weak ones based on the methodology of the Shafii school

      Rafi’i generation then taught the generation of Imam Nawawi who like Rafi’ was a person of Tarjih, who along with Imam Rafi’ represent the principle reference of the mu’tamad positions of the Shafi’i school

      Later generations like Imam ibn Hajar Haytami and Imam Ramli further refined the school to the point that both represented the soundest positions in regards to fatawa of the school.

      As you can see, the madhhab isnt the work of a single scholar but rather the work of hundreds if not thousands of scholars of the highest level, further refining and revising the school through the centuries.

      So now to say that Bukhari and Muslim existed after the Imams is making a quite ignorant assumption that only Bukhari and Muslim had the hadiths. The hadiths have been in existence way before bukhari and muslim.

      The mujtahid imams had those very same hadith, and ironically bukhari and muslim transmit from those various mujtahidun. That shows the typical lay salafi who does not understand the nature of the hadith, evidence and the role of a madhhab.

      The proofs of the madhahib are long and voluminous. If you think the Shafi’i positions are weak, I suggest you get Nawawi’s al Majmu’ which numbers in over 20 volumes in Arabic or Mawardi’s al Hawi al Kabir and others.

    196. Nawawi619 October 9th, 2008 at 2:21 pm

      “we love the 4 Imams they are the founding fathers of Ahlul-sunnah wal jammah but we believe that Muslims should give the Sahih Hadiths a higher priority, that doesnt make you a Wahhabi”

      I wanted to devote my comments particularly on this post. My previous comments referred to this person’s grave mistakes on what a madhhab is and what it consists of. Now we look at the fallacy of this Salafi in the post above.

      The comment above makes the mistaken assumption that the four madhhabs dont use sahih hadiths. The comment also shows that this person has not studied usul al fiqh or the nature of evidence and the science of khilaf and why it happens.

      To make slogans like “follow the sahih hadith and not the madhhab” is not only irresponsible but ludicrous to say the least.

      Every madhhab is based on sound evidence according to the usul or methodology of their particular madhhab. All four schools agree that the foundational evidences of Ahl Sunnah is Quran, Sunnah, ijma, Qiyas. The remaining usuli principles are debated.

      Now for evidence and the nature of evidence in the shariah.

      First it deals with transmission. Evidence in Islam in this aspect can either be Qati’ al Thubut (absolute certainty in transmission) and Dhanni al Thubut (probable transmission).

      Everyone agrees that the Quran and the hadith mutawatir are Qati’i al thubut, both are absolute certainty in transmission because both have been transmitted groups upon groups in several chains, many generations, etc etc.

      The remaining evidence is Dhanni al Thubut or probably transmission. This is the Ahad hadith which may be sahih but need to be verified by human agency to see if its sahih, hasan, da’if, mawdu’ etc. So even if its classified as sahih, because its not at the level of mutawatir, there is a slight chance that it may not be.

      The second aspect of evidence is meaning. Evidence can either be Qati’ al Dalalah (unambiguous in meaning) or Dhanni al Dalalah (ambiguous or bearing more than one meaning)

      Much of the differences of opinion come from this second aspect. Example of this is found in the Quran when it talks about how long a divorced woman should wait.

      The Quran is qati’i al thubut meaning unquestionably established in transmission but in the ayat in question, the arabic word quru’ is dhanni al dalalah meaning its ambiguous and there is difference of opinion on the meaning. Ali, ibn Masud, Umar say this word means the actual hayd or menstrual cycle. Aisha, ibn Umar hold it to be tuhur or the purity between two menstrual cycles. This eventually went to the four imams who the ones residing primarily in Iraq (Abu Hanifa and Ahmad) took hayd as the meaning of quru’ whereas Malik and Shafii took the word to mean tuhur.

      There is many more examples that can be illustrated. So in essence, it has nothing to do whether or not we follow sahih hadith or sahih evidences, the differences is because of the second aspect of understanding evidence.

      This kind of nuanced analysis is a lot more sound than the typical slogan mentioned above about we take sahih hadith over the opinions of the madhhabs. This is a false assumption that madhhabs follow weak evidence and it shows this person has not studied usul al fiqh, khilaf, and what madhhabs consist of.

      Wa Llahu Alim

    197. Abu Hossan October 13th, 2008 at 1:29 pm

      Re: Ismaeel October 9th, 2008 at 8:01 am
      Assalaamu ‘alaykum,
      I’m sorry but I think your argument is weak and I feel its argumentation for the sake of argumentation.
      But in any case, I don’t know why people even argue about this. If someone dislikes being called by a certain name, then your insistence to use that particular word does nothing but prove that you’re bent on causing ill-feeling and do not sincerely care about the unity of the ummah or in bringing muslims together.
      If that the case, then may Allaah guide you and me.
      Assalaamu ‘alaykum

    198. Fathi Slimi November 30th, 2008 at 6:30 pm

      I call them Wahhabis, not Salafis, BECAUSE:

      1) If I truly believed them to be SALAFI aka “followers of the Salaf” then I would BE ONE OF THEM….

      But this is not what they are.

      After examining their claims, it is obvious to me that they do not follow the Salaf, but the teachings of ABDUL WAHHAB. What they call “The Ways Of The Salaf” is actually a strange amalgamation of selected parts of Ibn Taymeeyah’s teachings mixed in with Abdul Wahhab’s home grown Najdi special sauce, with additions over time by Bin Baaz, Uthaymeen, and the rest…..

      Therefore they are WAHHABIS so that’s what we call them. At best, their validity as “Salafis” is disputable, BUT no one can deny that they follow the teachings of Abdul Wahhab. Cold clear logic there, the wahhabi’s worst enemy I guess….

      I can call myself a Doctor, but if I have no medical degree and not even a basic knowledge of medicine, is it right for me to expect you to call me a Dr as well? If you refuse to call me a Dr. in this case, should I be angry and outraged?? Same with the term “Salafi”.

      2) Get off this whole thing about “Wahab” being a name of Allah. “Malik” “Shahid” “Kareem” and many other Muslim names are Names Of Allah as well, but we use them. Muslim scholars discussed the permissibility of this centuries ago. Wahhabis as usual don’t even know the arguments, and instead actually change Muslim’s names when they enter the Saudi kingdom. The sooner Allah rids the world of this foolish ideology the better off we’ll all be. Ameen.

    199. You guys are idiots February 27th, 2009 at 4:02 pm

      No offense, but all you guys are idiots – non of you are qualified scholars but you discuss matters that only qualified scholars disucss.

      Did you ever ask any one of these scholars that you mention if they wanted you to on their behalf, defend their name on an internet blog?

      Why don’t you just do what your supposed to – ask your parents what to do, go to work, try to raise your family and study Islam for several years and gain some wisdom before you talk.

      Everyone needs to stay quiet for a little while – just relax and sit back and stop arguing about things you sound stupid arguing about.

    200. nahvi March 19th, 2009 at 1:44 am

      may allah bless shiyk hamza

    201. nahvi March 19th, 2009 at 1:52 am

      there is no right to wahhabees to use the holy name salafi , because they 100% oppse of salaf , like , abu hanifa, malik , thwri , awzayi , shafi and ahamed , and like that all imams ,

      only they follow ibn tymiya , even it not fully , only if the things are smae as ibn abdul wahhab told , otherwise dont., like he is follower of hanbali madhab , they ,wahhabees are not muqqllideens, ‘ their thawheed is very comedy , with thjseem , nawzbillah .

    202. Akhira March 21st, 2009 at 6:36 am

      its like a fight going on here. here you lot have a spliff and chill

    203. Akhira March 21st, 2009 at 6:38 am

      damn men alot of muslims have tags these days.

      am sure is not mention in the quran about tags… but only muslim

      SUNNI
      SHIA
      WAHABI
      SALAFI
      SUFI
      etc etc etc and another more 70 sects and such blah blah blah
      confuse cockraoches.

      relax your batty big up tabligh man them ONE ISLAM

    204. Brother from India March 28th, 2009 at 1:15 pm

      Salaams everybody.
      I feel this as an wonderful opportunity for the Ummah to come close for a common cause.Will we never learn?Why don’t we rank behind the scholars like Yasir Qadhi,Hamza Yusuf and unite together?Yeah we have differnces .But let the scholars discuss that and let us follow them IA.

    205. Phil April 29th, 2009 at 12:39 am

      “damn men alot of muslims have tags these days.

      am sure is not mention in the quran about tags… but only muslim

      SUNNI
      SHIA
      WAHABI
      SALAFI
      SUFI
      etc etc etc and another more 70 sects and such blah blah blah
      confuse cockraoches.

      relax your batty big up tabligh man them ONE ISLAM”

      1. Sufi is not a sect
      2. Wahabi is not a sect

    206. concerned April 29th, 2009 at 5:53 am

      As-Salaamu Alaikykum

      What is happening to the Scholars?

      more interesting stuff on humza yusuf:

      http://revolution.thabaat.net/?p=1218

      http://revolutionmuslim.com/component/content/article/1057-ahmad-zarrini-gives-khutbah-at-masjid-tassawaffiyya

      Whilst a journalist non-Islamic scholar throws a shoe at George W. Bush, Yasir Qaadi went to study religious studies at YORK University under his taghut awliyah TONY BLAIR, the butcher of 1000′s of Muslims. At the same time, TAWFEEQ CHAUDRY licks the boots of the Tawagheet Intelligence Officers who are responsible for throwing Muslims in Jail and the rapings of Abu Ghrayb, by pleading to them “WE THE MUSLIMS SCHOLARS ARE YOUR NATURALY AWLIYAH (allies) AGAINST ISLAMIC FUNDAMETALISM”.

      ALLAH SAYS ABOUT THIS in Surah Al-Baqara 2:257: “WALLADZEENA KAFAROO AWLIYAHUM AT-TAGHUT” [And those who make KUFR, there ALLIES are the TAGHUT [leaders who rule gainst ALLAH's laws or who compete against ALLAH in is HUKM (legislature) and their helpers]

      ALLAHU MUSTA ‘AAN!

    207. Journal: Seasons, Spring 2007 May 19th, 2009 at 6:33 pm

      Quote

      The Qur’an says, Ask the people of knowledge if you do not know, and criticizes those who bring controversial matters into public discourse instead of deferring to those in authority:

      And when some matter of security and alarm comes to them, they broadcast it; whereas had they only referred the affair to the Messenger and those with authority among them who are able to derive the appropriate response, they would have found out about it. And if not for the blessing and mercy of God on you, most of you would have followed Satan.

      While this verse refers to wartime situations, the principle is applicable in other areas: matters important to the community must be turned over to those able to discern the right responses, i.e., the rightly-guided scholars of our tradition and the living scholars who remain connected to them by their licensing chains.

      End Quote

      MR, please, please, please, please, please, please consider the consequences of these blog posts.

    208. Sincere seeker June 14th, 2009 at 1:07 am

      Ok, here is a question that is purely born of sincerity, and earnest desire to seek the truth.

      I am an average Muslim. I alhamdulillah know the basics of my deen, but I wish to learn more. I need to either go to print material (books, internet, etc) and learn it on my own, or seek a teacher/course/university to do so in. In either case, picking up a book, or seeking an institution, I will inherit the biases in addition to the knowledge.

      So now, it behooves me to go pick up the right material or join the right institution, before immersing myself in their content and teachings.

      My question is how are we supposed to know who the ‘rightly guided scholars’ are? If you’re going to say, “follow the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah”…well, ok, to me that means the Hanafis. But wait, the Salafis say that’s not right…in fact, the Salafi’s are the Ahlus Sunnah. Hmmm, ok, perhaps I should go pick up a book by…wait! What’s that? Ok now, the Sufis have said that the Salafis are NOT in fact the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamah…the sufis are.

      What’s going on here? How are we, they laypeople, supposed to know what to study, and what to avoid?

      I really sincerely wish to know the answer to this. I want to just pick a methodology now, and increase in my spirituality and getting closer to Allah…but I can’t do that because everytime I pick a path and work in it, some happy dude from the other camp comes around and says something to plant doubts in my mind.

      It’s frustrating and puzzling. What do I do?!

    209. H June 14th, 2009 at 1:17 am

      Simple, stick to the Quran with a well-known translation and exegesis. Stick to the hadeeth books (agreed upon) with known explanations.
      I dont think the groups would argue on that.
      Then you can make up your own decision and fight it out in these blogs :) (sarcasm)

      Its best not to visit any blogs for Islamic knowledge like fiqh (its all in the books); you’d just see argument over argument.

    210. Sincere seeker June 14th, 2009 at 1:35 am

      Thank you for answering. But to me, it really doesn’t seem that simple…:S

      If I wanted to know about a particular fiqh issue, certainly I can’t read the translation nor the exegesis of the Qur’an to pick out my answer, nor hadith translations either…

      …which goes back to the same question. Whom to take the deen from (the Qur’an says for us to ask the knowledgeable when our knowledge itself is limited)?

      Like I said, just wanted to pick one thing, and put my full weight behind it and use that methodology to climb the spiritual ladder, insha’allah. But it’s so hard climbing ladders when, as you get higher, you keep getting thrown into doubt whether you’re leaning against the right wall!

    211. H June 14th, 2009 at 2:14 am

      True, yeah..

      But Allah guides us through the Quran, and with a good understanding of it bi’idnillah, you’ll be guided to whose understanding is correct.
      Take from those who talk Quran and Sunnah (though, everyone says that), then you’ll prune a lot….

      Dua is your weapon…

    212. KL June 14th, 2009 at 6:42 am

      yeah,feel like n wonder in the world,when u see true signs in head and sattelites

    213. KL June 14th, 2009 at 6:43 am

      i mean no wonder if no truth,so no truth if people kept lies every all days without searching the real facts.

    214. SniperGaza July 12th, 2009 at 1:23 pm

      WAHAB IS ALLAH’S NAME DONT USE IT TO LABEL PEOPLE PLEASE……….JAZAK ALLAH KHAIR!

    215. Aaisha August 15th, 2009 at 7:34 pm

      there is no such thing as Wahabi they use this to Insult the Salafiyoon, And The Salafiyoon are the ones who are commit acts of Stupidty. And don’ t need a Sufi to defend them Proof Defends them if any one takes the Time to Listen to it and Fear there Lord. Saudi that have to be on there game is following the Deen As the Modrates whould say ” Strict Islam” but your Prophet Sallah alayhi wa salaam Did not cut Corners in the Deen He followed the Middle Path thats is what being a Muslim who adheres to Islam Should do. rther u say yr Salafi or sunni Same thing is the Course They Took. REad, investigate , and Learn.

      FEar ALlah

      May Allah Guide Us and forgive us or sins Ameen

    216. Aaisha August 15th, 2009 at 7:35 pm

      I meant ot say or not Commiting the Acts of Stupidty May allah forgive my errored Speech. ……

    217. The Ghazzali Blogger August 22nd, 2009 at 3:37 pm

      The “Hanbali fiqh” the Wahabis teach is inaccurate. First of all I wouls like to say I am of the Aqeedah of Imam Hanbal (same as ibn taymiyah). BUT I also believe one needs to study the 4 schools of law. What universities in Saudia do is that they copy and paste form each of the four schools creating a new school and then call it the hanbali school, OR they will say you should not follow a madhab because it is taqleed. If you really want to know the difference between what is taught in saudi and REAL hanbali fiqh study in DUMA SYRIA where they teach the SAME aqeedah and are very much against sufism and asharism BUT teach the proper Hanabali fiqh and also refute w.e is being taught in SAUDIA.

    218. Aaisha August 22nd, 2009 at 6:30 pm

      Well Wahab is this not a Attribite of Allah So this not Correct to say Next, They follow All schoools of Thought.you Should not do a Blind Following, What Does not go along with the sunnah should not Be followed no matter what Mathab and . Sufism is a Devaint and not The true islam. Follow the Truth and leave the Sad cases alone

    219. The Ghazzali Blogger August 22nd, 2009 at 7:13 pm

      The Madhabs get their rulings FROM the sunnah. So saying you should follow the sunnah regardless of madhab makes no sense. You need the chain of teachers to understand what the Salaf said. Meaning we need to ask the generation b4 us and they then gen b4 them and so on. And the only way to do that is from the 4 schools. So some blind/faith following is necessary.
      For example people pray as described in the book of Shaykh Al-Albani. so you are following him. I rather choose one of the 4 madhabs because they were formulated by people who belonged to the 2nd 2 generations (still the salaf) and their schools have been ANALYZED AND REVIEWED AND CORRECTED by every generation to come after them.

    220. Aaisha August 23rd, 2009 at 2:30 am

      I want Argue with u I don”t disgaree the best genration is the First 3 and Next . your Ignorant thank for Trying. and Please beware whom you take yout Deen. its Ramadhan i need peace

    221. The Ghazzali Blogger September 13th, 2009 at 2:47 am

      You wont argue with me but you will insult me??

      And if you follow EVERY school of thought. Then which Usul will you follow when something new arises and people need to know if it is halal or haram? YES you will go back to teh Quran and Sunnah but what Usul ul fiqh approach would you take. You cannot take all of them. And you SPECIALLY cannot do the whole “i’ll listen to my heart” thing cuz thatz what sufis do and they do messed up things.

    222. ignorant September 13th, 2009 at 3:46 am

      ghazalli blogger, please shut your mouth already. it’s ramadan. and change your name–you’re seriously an embarrassment to the great thinker. peace be with you.

    223. Sara September 13th, 2009 at 11:23 pm

      Bismillah Al-Rahman Al-Raheem

      @Aaisha: First and foremost sister, if you wish to participate in a debate focus on the issue of debate rather than pointing at a person. It is only fair to do such when the person has not attacked you. Furthermore, even if they attacked you, as a Muslim you should maintain a level of decorum and respect so that Insha’Allah that person may learn from you. You made a point you disagree and the brother (Ghazzali Blogger) did not participate in an ad hominem attack on you, however you went so far as to do that to him. If you wish to have some peace during your Ramadan, you should participate in it as well, it is not enough to want peace without giving it first. Insha’Allah kheir, I know it’s hard sometimes while fasting not to get riled up easily and that was probably the case, you were just tired and not paying attention. And hopefully the brother did not hold it against you–I only say this to you as advice from one sister to another.

      @ignorant: I don’t appreciate how you are responding to the brother either.

      And most of all–from what I understand, a madhab is not a “religion” as what some people are making it out to be. It’s more of a methodology to determining rulings from the Sunnah. The four main madhahib set a criteria for scholars to derive a valid and sound ruling. And more importantly, all four of them recognize each other as a valid methodology. It is a way to keep things simpler, because not everyone can memorize thousands of Hadith and their chain of relations, or go through and study the Quran for years. It is a way for scholars to explain to regular people, like all of us here, how they came up with a ruling. Like MR, I actually had no clue what a madhab was until I came to college and was truly overwhelmed with it. I think unless we’ve each done extensive research into the subject matter and learned a specific methodology as a scholar we have no place to pass judgement or to make claims.

      If I have said anything wrong it was from me, and any good coming out of this is from Allah. Insha’allah khair and I hope all of you have a blessed Ramadan.

    224. Sister September 20th, 2009 at 11:47 am

      BismillahiRahmaniRahim
      Asalatu wa Salamu Alaika Ya RasulAllah

      Salaam Alaikum all,
      May Allah Subhana wa Ta’ala preserve our Sheikhs and protect them from the evils of the enemies of our Beloved RasulAllah (peace be upon him)

      All I am going to say is this:

    225. ahmed October 26th, 2009 at 7:12 pm

      lol, the caller is the same guy who comes on george galloways talk radio, the guys a non muslim and always coems on the radio slamming muslims

    226. ahmed October 26th, 2009 at 7:16 pm

      lol again a modern westernised shaikh, dont even grow his beard, what kind of shaikh is he, and dont say he cant grow a beard as ive seen him in a video with his beard growing

    227. ahmed October 26th, 2009 at 7:19 pm

      ghazali blogger, so do you pray with your hands on your chest as 3 out of the 4 imams did, lol

    228. Sara October 26th, 2009 at 10:29 pm

      @ ahmed

      “ghazali blogger, so do you pray with your hands on your chest as 3 out of the 4 imams did, lol”

      hahahaha….where did that come from?

    229. Muslim October 27th, 2009 at 2:38 pm

      BismillahirRahmanirRahim
      Selamun aleykum,

      Wahabis promise to burn down the house of the baby with Koran sayings on his skin

      http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=6581

    230. Muslim October 27th, 2009 at 2:40 pm

      @ Ahmed

      ”lol again a modern westernised shaikh, dont even grow his beard, what kind of shaikh is he, and dont say he cant grow a beard as ive seen him in a video with his beard growing”

      Dude…as you know SIKHS grow their beards, so is it about the beard or about the CORRECT aqeda??? A TRUE Believer would know the correct answer

    231. Muslim October 27th, 2009 at 2:42 pm

      Lanat on Wahabi kafirs

    232. wow.. October 27th, 2009 at 3:19 pm

      Wow what a hot mess of a thread. May Allah forgive us.
      If you guys truly knew what la’nah was you wouldn’t wish it on anyone. And fi you truly knew what sufi meant you wouldn’t use it to describe yourself lol, and if you really knew what kufr was, you wouldn’t wish it upon anyone or accuse anyone of being it. If you call someone a kafir, one thing becomes certain, and that is that ONE of you IS a kafir. No one knows who the real kafirs and the real believers are until Yawm al Qiyamah when our hearts and our tongues will testify. Until then, have a good opinion of people and be merciful so that Allah may be merciful to us.

      p.s. please learn the opinions of other schools of thought before hating on people. things are very rarely as they seem. the outward is not the full picture.

      assalaamu ‘alaikum warehmatullahi wabarakatuh ajm’aeen.

    233. Muslim October 27th, 2009 at 3:25 pm

      Sorry, bro I cannot have a good opinion of those who don’t have a good, true and respectful opinion of RasulAllah (peace be upon him).
      We have been warned about these najdis over 1400 years ago, Alhamdullilah, so there’s no need for us to pretend they are believers. They are NOT and Allah is my witness

      I cannot call myself a SUFI either because I am have not reached that pure state. I am just a regular out there and will expose wahabis anywhere and everywhere…

    234. sheikh gilani October 27th, 2009 at 7:59 pm

      most of u people are making takfeer on people for the simple fact they come from a certain area, most pakistanis make bidah and think its islam, and when u dont do it they call u a wahabi , I dont celebrate the prophets birthday , am I a wahabi ? Nope I am a muslim. do I dance around graves ? nope am I a wahabi ? nope..do I pray 5 times a day ? do I read quran? do I work hard? do I do the 5 pillars ? Yes I do , am I a wahabi ? you fool al-wahab is a name of Allaah and u use it as a curse word….shame on you

    235. AhleSunnah October 27th, 2009 at 8:18 pm

      @ sheikh gilani……You do your 5 prayers, but do you Sunnah prayers????? How many rakat for Tarawih???

      We cannot call wahabis muslim because (astaghfirullah) they have given a form & place to ALLAH SUBHANA WA TA’ALA.

      Albani (wahabi dead ‘sheikh’) says: He invented a location to Allah Most High above the Throne which he named al-makân al-`adamî – “the non-existent place.”

      He claims in Tamam al-Minna that masturbation does not annul one’s fast.

      He considers it an innovation to visit relatives, neighbors, or friends on the day of `Eid and prohibits it. Fatawa (p. 61-63).

      He gave the fatwa that Muslims should exit Palestine en masse and leave it to the Jews as it is part the Abode of War (dâr al-harb). Fatawa (p. 18).

      ‘al-wahab is a name of Allah’
      OBVIOUSLY!!! BUT ‘Abdul Wahab’ an-najdi is a horn of shaitan.

      I don’t know any Muslims who dance around graves, if they do then YES that is bidah, but we visit graves because it is SUNNAH! Holy Quran allows us, but we are not allowed to visit graves of kafirs: Surah 9-84. Nor do thou ever pray for any of them that dies, nor stand at his grave; FOR THEY REJECTED Allah and His Messenger, and died in a state of perverse rebellion.”

      ASTAGHFIRALLAH! MAY ALLAH PROTECT US FROM THE WAHABI FITNAH

      Fitnatu-l-Wahhabiyyah!

    236. Fathi Slimi October 27th, 2009 at 9:01 pm

      “He claims in Tamam al-Minna that masturbation does not annul one’s fast.”

      Speaking of masturbation, you all need to stop this little religious jerk -off session you’re having. Your discussions have nothing to do with seeking any kind of truth, At this point you’re having it for self-pleasuring your nafs, aka ‘masturbation”….So Oh holy warriors of truth please zip up your metaphorical pants, go get a room with each other, and stop bothering the rest of us…

      And before you tell me “Oh Astaghfiuallah brother! Such haraam language!” please realize that I’m only saying it. What you’re doing up here, and in the name of Allah no less, is far more insidious and disgusting. Stop this theological masturbation please, I’m trying to eat my dinner….

    237. The Ghazzali Blogger October 27th, 2009 at 11:22 pm

      1) Don’t make takfeer against anyone
      2) Don’t wish Lan’at on anyone

      I do have a problem with the USUL UL FIQH studies in Saudi Arabia however when forbidding bidah and kufr they are RIGHT. Some STUDENTS (and this goes for ALL students learning ANY of the Islamic sciences) unfortunately aren’t trained to explain things with good character and then end up doing something that is bad even though their intentions were correct. You can’t call EVERY young adult or Teen with no character a “wahabi” I;ve seen plenty of arrogant yelling “sufi” youth also.

    238. The Ghazzali Blogger October 27th, 2009 at 11:23 pm

      @ahmed
      The point of your question was??? And umm the reason it has an ‘lol” at the end??

    239. AhleSunnah October 28th, 2009 at 9:08 am

      @ Fathi Slimi

      My apologies……I know the post was disgusting, but it’s straight out of the fetwa book of al-albani (whom the najdis and their heirs follow). It was not my intention to gross you out, BUT the info is what’s taken out of their book, therefore we cannot hide facts even if it will make some of us sick to our stomach. It’s better to know the truth about their fetwas and avoid shaking hands with them

      May The Almighty protect us from such evil practices

    240. America’s First Islamic College? « The Conservative Papers December 7th, 2009 at 2:11 pm

      [...] the show by a British Muslim named Mohammed Sami by claiming to dislike Wahhabism (at minute 8:00, here). Yet Hanson then insisted that the Wahhabi clerics in Saudi Arabia have “consistently [...]

    241. Abu Abbas al-Ridawi December 7th, 2009 at 9:17 pm

      Typical response from a mouthpiece of the Wahhabis like Hamza Yusuf!!

    242. al-suyuufi December 7th, 2009 at 10:09 pm

      Did you just call Hamza Yusuf “a mouthpiece of the Wahhabis”?

    243. Muslim December 8th, 2009 at 9:24 am

      You called our respected Sheikh Hamza Yusuf a /mouthpeice for wahabis???????????? Ahahhahah…that is the funniest thing I have ever heard!

      Bro/Sis I’d recommend you look deeper and see who Sheikh Hamza really is then you will realize he is a pure true Muslim…far from being a wahabi or a mouthpiece for wahabis. Watch the ‘Al Chemist’ and attend some of Sheikh Hamza’s lectures. He is a noble man who LOVES and fears Allah Subhana Wa Ta’ala and has great LOVE for RasulAllah (peace be upon him)

    244. Abdur Rasul Al-Qadiri December 9th, 2009 at 12:53 am

      It’s only funny to fanatics, isn’t it? Let’s see:

      1) Worked with the “Muslim” Community Association, a Wahhabi institution

      2) Supports ISNA and ICNA
      3) Defends Wahhabis and openly quotes Bin Baz in an “aqida” program and on two BBC programs
      4) Uses Al-Albani and Bin Baz (Wahhabi mubtad`is) as sources in his translation of Al-Aqidat al-Tahawiya

      5) Praises Khurram Murad, a Wahhabi, and calls him “the Pakistani scholar” and says “rahmatullahi alayh” for him.

      6) Claims the hearing of the dead is a matter of difference of opinion, in contradiction of Ahl`e Sunnat belief that the dead can hear. without a doubt Even your own Molvis, Ibn`e Taymiyya supports this in his Majmu`a al-Fatawa.

      7) Supports and is taught by `Abdullah bin Bayyah, who promotes the idea of minority fisq, and who openly praises Abul Fitnah Muhammad bin `Abd al-Wahhab, a kafir murtadd.

      Not a mouthpiece for the Wahhabis, huh? Yeah right.

    245. Abdur Rasul Al-Qadiri December 9th, 2009 at 12:57 am

      Really, mr. “muslim”, you and your HY crew need to stop lecturing everybody about unity. Neither do I nor any Sunni want to hear your “unity” rants nor about how great your Molvi, “Shaikh” Hamza Abdul Wahid Yusuf is.

      A little story. Once there was a man who would bang his head against the wall when Hamza Yusuf or his students came. Once, Hamza Yusuf and his students, passed by this man who was banging his head against the wall. His students asked Hamza Yusuf, “Ya Shaykh, why is he banging his head against the wall.” Hamza Yusuf replied, “It’s a valid difference of opinion.”

    246. Abdur Rasul Al-Qadiri December 9th, 2009 at 12:58 am

      and another thing, your “respected” hamza yusuf is a mubtadi`i

    247. The Ghazzali Blogger December 9th, 2009 at 1:01 am

      @Abdur
      “Muslim” Community Association??? ummm never heard of it

      Khurram Murad – is jammaatal islamiya and NOT a wahabi

      minority fiqh- umm many people who do follow a madhab or supporters of following a madhab (Wahhabis do not follow a madhab they contravene it) KNOW there is something called minority fiqh and its been around since the formulation of the madhabs. know your history.

      Bin Baaz was a great man and just because he is a “wahabi” or a “salafi” does not mean everythin he said is void. infact he made great progress towards Muslim tolerance towards difference of opinion. (given many who SAY they follow him in reality never read a single piece of literature from him)

    248. Abdullah Aale Mahbub December 9th, 2009 at 1:02 am

      @abdulhaqq: y our elders are KAAFIR.

      and you’ve commited a big dhulm for doing takfir of shaykh al-`alawi al-maliki especially since shaykh al-`alawi studied under your own molvi zakariya kandhelvi and molvi rasheed gangohi malu`n.

      but then shaykh al-`alawi declared these molvis kafir after he realized their true belief system against Islam.

    249. Mansoor Razwi Ashrafi December 9th, 2009 at 1:30 am

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8B_N2uBTr6Y

      BIN BAZ, THE NAJDI MUJASSIM!!

    250. Mansoor Ali December 9th, 2009 at 1:35 am

      Khurram Murad was influenced by Mawdudi, who founded Jam`at-e-Islami (I call it Jama`at-e-Shaytaani), that was influenced by Abul Fitnah Ibn `Abd al-Wahhab al-Mal`un and who influenced Wahhabi terrorists all over the world, including Sayyid Qutb al-Najdi, may Allah curse him.

    251. Fathi Slimi December 9th, 2009 at 1:49 am

      Barelwi fanatics are just as nasty as wahhabi ones it seems…..I’m neither, so before you barking dogs start up again know that….

      Either way I just came up here to tell you all to kindly shut the fuck up. Everytime one of you dimwits makes a comment I get an email in my inbox. Knock it off you religious charlatains. I’m CERTAIN that all the people up here loudly proclaiming their beliefs and making taqfeer on others leave ALOT to be desired in their personal lives as far as their Islam is concerned…..Try saying all your prayers at their scheduled times, deal kindly and mercifully with your family and friends, and be an honest human being. Then you can come up here and talk shit with whatever time you have left, you hypocritical assholes….And btw I don’t make any claims to be a super muslim. I’m not clearly. But I definitely know hypocrisy when I smell it….

    252. SniperGaza December 10th, 2009 at 9:30 am

      lol…..i agree with Fathi Slimi, my inbox is full of Emails from this blog, just stop it now please!………..and to “east london muslim” (or whatever your names was) if your 4 wives die you can marry another 4, but just dont go killing your wives to marry another 4!!…….lol…….it’s 4 wives at any 1 time.

    253. SniperGaza December 10th, 2009 at 9:32 am

      sorry it was east london brother…..my fault

    254. al-suyuufi December 10th, 2009 at 3:48 pm

      “Khurram Murad was influenced by Mawdudi, who founded Jam`at-e-Islami (I call it Jama`at-e-Shaytaani), that was influenced by Abul Fitnah Ibn `Abd al-Wahhab al-Mal`un and who influenced Wahhabi terrorists all over the world, including Sayyid Qutb al-Najdi, may Allah curse him.”

      1. Maududi was not “wahhabi” and in fact many “wahhabis” denounce him and his party today.

      2. Those same “wahhabis” denounce the “wahhabi” terrorists, showing that not all “wahhabis” are on the same line of thinking.

      3. Sayyid Qutb was not a “wahhabi”.

      4. Sayyid Qutb al-Najdi? Qutb was from Egypt.

      Looks like you need bad facts to have bad opinions, huh?

    255. America’s First Islamic College? « International News: Political top stories December 23rd, 2009 at 8:10 pm

      [...] the show by a British Muslim named Mohammed Sami by claiming to dislike Wahhabism (at minute 8:00, here). Yet Hanson then insisted that the Wahhabi clerics in Saudi Arabia have “consistently [...]

    256. eks February 14th, 2010 at 9:13 pm

      Islam celebrates the fact that there are differences of opinions just so as long those opinions do not contradict the teachings. I don’t care if you are salafi, sufi or sal-ufi (made that up). The salafi is my brother, and the sufi is my brother. I once had someone tell me “we cannot accept the sufi because they do certain things that lead to shirk”. unless you know for certain that it does and not just because so and so “brother” tells you so, then leave it alone. show love for one another and do your best to help guide one another. when doing so, always assume that you yourself can be wrong in what you say. keep that humbleness. I for one believe there is good in both what sufis do and what salafis do. this is a broad statement because all sufis are not the same and all salafis do not share the same exact thought. learn to live with one another and be certain that there will be differences. Allah loves those who show mercy to others. He in return will show these people mercy inshaAllah. Our Prophet (sas) was not a divider amongst his ummah.

    257. eks February 14th, 2010 at 9:29 pm

      i am a (Sa-lufi ®) part Sufi part Salafi. :) the middle way is the best. I get to yell at myself exclaiming bida bida bida ! with the response of you extremist !   I like to use my bida-beads. does anyone else? :)

    258. The Ghazzali Blogger February 15th, 2010 at 9:41 pm

      If you disagree with someone then respectfully debate/argue with him. Don’t act like a 2 year old. Oh and Look at the fatwa book from Darusalam publishing house and in it there is the fatwa of Shaykh Uthaymeen on the prayer beads.

Your Ad Here

MRecent Talk

MRecent Posts

MRespected

MRecognize

MReads

Syndication

Recent comments