The twin holy cities of Makkah and Madinah fell to the people of Najd in 1342H/1924 and since then a number of works have been published about Allama Hafiz Ahmad Taqi al-Din Ibn Taymiyya Hanbali Harrani thumma Dimishiqi.
Prior to this, Ulama and noble souls were not pleased about the mention of Ibn Taymiyya.
My father, Hazrat Syed Shah Muhi al-Din Abdullah Abul Khair Farooqi, Mujaddadi Dehlavi never discussed Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn Hazm and others of his ilk.
He had no interest in their writings. His affectionate and kind teacher and the younger brother of his ancestor, Muhhadith Dar al-Hijrah, Shah Abd al-Ghani was the teacher of Syed Ahmad Hasan Arshi Qannuji, brother of Syed Siddiq Hasan Khan.
The latter gave the following documentary advice to the former:
“It is obligatory on him (Syed Ahmad Hasan Arshi) to follow in the footsteps of the noble servants of Allah, the way of Sufis, sound jurists and the Hadith scholars who are on the straight way, unlike Ibn Hazm and Ibn Taymiyya .”
Ibn Taymiyya’s Kitab al-Arsh he (Abu Hayyan) realized that Ibn Taymiyya subscribes to anthropomorphism.
Owing to these reasons he turned so hostile to Ibn Taymiyya that in 734 H when he heard from Ibn al-Muhibb, his own couplets in praise of Ibn Taymiyya, he told him:
“I have deleted these from my collection and do not recall these with any happiness.”
Abu Hayyan made these comments six years after Ibn Taymiyya’s demise. It was not a trivial issue for him.
Ulama loved Ibn Taymiyya out of truth and praised him lavishly.
We have already noted Subki’s letter to Dhahabi .
Even if Ibn Taymiyya excels all the scholars in his accomplishments it does not entitle him to reject any authentic Hadith. In his Minhaj al- Sunnah Ibn Taymiyya stands guilty on this count. Allama Subki has criticized him on the same ground, though subtly.
Hafiz Zumlakani spoke highly of Ibn Taymiyya when he was around 30. His fulsome praise is recounted up to this day. However, as Ibn Taymiyya turned old, the former developed a strong dislike for him.
Mawlana Azad comments on this (Tazkira , p. 254):
“Zumlakani too, opposed Ibn Taymiyya strongly. On both the occasions he was the chief polemicist. Hafiz Ibn al-Bilqini informs that it was only Zumlakani who spoke in the debate with Ibn Taymiyya.
Ibn Hajr opines: “Zumlakani displayed his severe hostility against Ibn Taymiyya and strove to torment him.”
Almost the same may be said about Allama Athir al-Din Abu Hayyan.
He praised Ibn Taymiyya 28 years before his death and bestowed all sorts of honorific titles upon him in extolling him. Then he turned so hostile that he deleted his couplets in Ibn Taymiyya’s praise from his collection and remained hostile to Ibn Taymiyya even after his death.
Ibn Hajr’s al-Durar al- Kaamina (p.153) :
“Ibn Taymiyya
used to deliver sermons from the pulpit, which were admixtures
of tafsir,
jurisprudence and Hadith.
In
a compressed manner he discussed Quranic verses, Ahadith and various
topics.
What
he described in no time could not be covered even in hours by
others.
He
appeared to be in full control over all the subjects.
He
made his own selection. On noting his skills and his all-embracing
gamut, his supporters extolled him, which induced pride in him and he
thought himself superior to others.
He developed the idea that he has become an independent muslim theologias/thinker (Mujtahid). Accordingly he took to criticising both recent and classical Ulama.
No one
was spared, including even Caliph
Umar, whom he criticized
as someone at fault.
When Sheikh
Ibrahim Riqqi (b.647-d.703)
came to know about it he condemned Ibn Taymiyya.
Ibn Taymiyya called on him, sought apology and repented.
However, later he charged Caliph Ali with seventeen mistakes, including the opposition to what the Quran apparently says. He cited the ruling regarding the longer waiting period for a pregnant wife. Owing to his opposition to Hanbalism Ibn Taymiyya used to criticize Asharites and even reviled Imam Ghazali, which enraged some people so much that they were about to kill him.” [Al-Durar al-Kaamina]
Dhahabi ’s Zaghl al-Ilm:
“For years I tried to understand him and then gave up. Eventually, I saw the fate of his pride and arrogance, his immense lust for fame of being noble scholar and his habit of belittling the masters.”
“…Rather, all this resulted from Ibn Taymiyya’s own sins.” read more Here
Dhahabi and Imam ibn Hajr Asqalani:
Dhahabi says that he has divergence of opinion with Ibn Taymiyya on both major and minor issues. Ibn Taymiyya used to express much fury and wrath in debates. He was censured for his misconduct. He suffered from pride and arrogance and sought supremacy. He was given to belittling leading Ulama and sought their weaknesses. He used to reject authentic Ahadith. He was mired in philosophy. People humiliated him and declared him as the one in error.
According to Dhahabi , it was his estimate while he was sincere to him, what to say of the opinion of those opposed to him.
In Durar al-Kaamina, Allama Asqalani states:
Ibn Taymiyya suffered from pride and he used to look down upon Ulama. He refuted even Caliphs Umar and Ali. He was swayed by Hanbalism and condemned Asharites. He reviled Imam Ghazali, misinterpreted Hadith nuzul while speaking from the pulpit. He would descend to hair-splitting in a debate and was after acquiring religious leadership.
Dhahabi’s critique on Ibn Taymiyya, be it positive or negative, is both first-hand and well-considered.
Asqalani’s writing is taken from the writings of scholars, which he regarded as reliable.
Branding Sheikh Akbar as Devil
Dr Yusuf Kaukani points out ( in Imam Ibn-e-Taymiyya, p. 615.):
“Let this be borne in mind that Ibn Taymiyya did not fear anyone as he reproached someone. He has serious differences with Sheikh Muhi al-Din Ibn Arabi, Imam Ghazali and Imam Raazi. On the issue of wahdat al-wujood he was so hostile to Sheikh Ibn Arabi that he used to label the later as the devil of the community. Such harshness was resented by those given to personality cult. Dhahabi’s statement that he was egotistic projected himself and belittled the authorities. However, he did not have any base motive behind such harshness. It was his extremism in the cause of the truth. Kaukani has given a cross reference to Ibn Taymiyya’s Tafsir Surah al-Ikhlas, regarding the title of devil of the community.
Before Ikrimah, son of Abu Jahal embraced Islam the Prophet (peace be upon him) advised: “Ikrimah is about to accept Islam. Do not hurl abuses at his father. Reviling does not hurt the deceased; however, it offends his relatives. This was the Prophet’s stance regarding the worst enemy of Islam. Given this, what can be said about reviling saints and Ulama?
The Quranic advice is: “Call to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good exhortation and reason with them in the best manner possible.” (Al-Nahl 16: 125)
Ibn Taymiyya neither followed the Quranic nor the Prophetic advice.
Consequently, even his associates parted company with him. Even Dhahabi, his sincere friend, turned hostile to him. Had Ibn Taymiyya acted on the Quranic and Prophetic guidance, even his enemies would have turned into his friends.
In his gloss over Bukhari’s collection, Fath al-Bari (III, 53), Imam Ibn Hajr Asqalani (RA) states the truth thus:
“In sum, these people, in view of Ibn Taymiyya’s view that undertaking a journey for visiting our master, the Prophet’s grave is forbidden, considered Ibn Taymiyya as unbeliever. We do not approve all these. Explaining the position of both the parties on the issue is quite lengthy. It is one of the absha’ rulings of Ibn Taymiyya.”
In Muntaha al-Arab absha’ is defined as something odious, of foul taste which hurts the throat on eating.”
Dhahabi was fan of Ibn Taymiyya.
When he noted such harshness in Ibn-e-Taymiyya’s stance, he had to say (Al-Radd ‘ala al-Akhnai, p.189): “I wish you had spared the Ahadith cited by Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim. You constantly attack these in order to devalue and reject these.”
Imām Jalâl ad-Dīn as-Suyūtī (d. 911/1505; raĥimahullah)
Imām as-Suyūtī wrote in his book Kam’ al-Mu’arid:
Ibn Taymiyyah was arrogant. He was self conceited. It was his habit to represent himself as superior to everybody, to slight the person whom he talked to and to make fun of great Muslims.
Ĥāfidh al-Sakhâwī (d. 902/1497; raĥimahullah)
Ĥāfidh al-Sakhâwī (a student of Ĥāfidh Ibn Ĥajar al-Asqalânī) stated in his
al-I’lan (English translation in ‘A History of Muslim Historiography’, pp. 284, by F. Rosenthal):
There are also those scholars of great learning, austerity, and asceticism whom people avoided and whose knowledge they were careful not to utilize, because of their loose tongue and lack of tact, which caused them to talk and criticize excessively. Such men were Ibn Ĥazm and Ibn Taymiyyah.
---
Note that Shaykh ul Islam Imam Ibn Hajr al-Asqalani thought that Ibn Taymiyyah repented and had become an " Ash'ari " which is why he (Ibn Hajr) praised him, otherwise Shaykh ul Islam annihilated Ibn Taymiyyah in his greatest work called Fath ul Bari on the issue:
"Travelling to visit the grave of Prophet (Peace be upon him)"
Shaykh ul Islam, Imam Ibn Hajr al-Asqalani (ra) destroys Ibn Taymiyyah by saying in his world renowned:
Sharh of Sahih Bukhari called Fath ul Bari in regards to Ibn Taymiyyah's absurd fatwa that It is haram to travel for visiting the grave of Prophet (Peace be upon him)
Shaykh ul Islam Imam Ibn Hajr al-Asqalani (ra) said: " THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST UGLY THINGS REPORTED FROM IBN TAYMIYYAH "
In the end Imam Ibn Hajr al-Asqalani (ra) refuted the viewpoint of Ibn Taymiyyah and his ilk by proving travel for graves of Awliya let alone Anbiya ,Imam Ibn Hajr says:“So the Qawl (saying) of him is proven Batil (فٌبطل) who says it is forbidden to make a journey Towards ‘’Qabr Shareef’’(of Rasul Ullah salallaho alaihi wasalam) and other graves of ‘’Saliheen’’ ( قبورالصالحٌن), and Allah knows the best. [Fath ul Bari, ibid]
Why did Ibn Hajar praise Ibn Taymiyyah?
Quote:
" He (Ibn Taymiyyah) was kept in Jail till Ameer of Aal al Fadhl did Shaf’aat (intercession) for him. In the month of Rabi ul Awwal dated 23rd Ibn Taymiyyah was brought to the fortress where he debated with some scholars, then a report was written that “IBN TAYMIYYAH ADMITTED TO BE AN ASH’ARI” His handwriting is found with what he wrote verbatim, namely: "I believe that the Qur'an is a meaning which exists in Allah's Entity, and that it is an Attribute from the pre-eternal Attributes of His Entity, and that it is uncreated, and that it does not consist in the letter nor the voice, and that His saying: "The Merciful established Himself over the Throne" (20:4) is not taken according to its literal meaning (laysa `ala zahirihi), and I don't know in what consists its meaning, nay only Allah knows it, and one speaks of His 'descent' in the same way as one speaks of His 'establishment.'"
It was written by Ahmad ibn Taymiyya and they witnessed over him that he had repented of his own free will from all that contravened the above. This took place on the 25th of Rabi` al-Awwal 707 and it was witnessed by a huge array of scholars and others. [Ibn Hajr al Asqalani in al-Duraar al Kameena (1/47)]
--
Shaykh ul Islam Imam Taqi al-Din al-Subki (d. 756 AH) said in his book Shifa` al-Saqam on p. 357: "Know, that it is permissable and good to perform Tawassul, Istighathah (seeking aid) and Tashaffu' (seeking intercession) through the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - unto his Lord subhanahu wa ta'ala.
The permissibility and desirability of this is from the matters that are well known among all those who have religion, and well known from the actions of the Prophets and Messengers, and the way of the righteous Salaf, the scholars, and the layman among the Muslims.
No one has denied this from the people of religion, nor has anyone heard about [denying] this in any time until Ibn Taymiyyah came:
So he spoke regarding this with words that deceive the weak inexperienced ones and he innovated that which no one from the eras before held.
This
is the reason why he attacked the
story which has been already mentioned from [Imam] Malik -
may Allah have mercy upon him - for it contains the statement of
[Imam] Malik to al-Mansur: "Seek
intercession through him".
And
we've already made its health/correctness clear. And this is why
we've also mentioned Istighathah in this book, because of the attack
against it together with [the attack against] the visiting [of the
grave of the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam -] and it
should be enough for you [to know] that the denunciation of Ibn
Taymiyyah against
[performing] Istighathah and Tawassul is a statement that no
scholar before him had said and he created dissent among
the people of Islam by it."
--
Mulla
‘Ali al-Qari (d. 1014AH) towards
the end of his life changed his stance on Ibn
Taymiyyah
fatwa prohibition of travelling to visit the Prophet’s grave (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam):
“Amongst the Hanbalis, ibn Taymiyya has gone to an extreme by prohibiting travelling to visit the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam), just as others have gone to the opposite extreme in saying: the fact that the visiting is a pious deed is known with certainty and he who denies this is an unbeliever.
Perhaps the second position is closer to the truth, for to prohibit something that scholars by consensus deem commendable is unbelief, since is it worse than prohibiting what is (merely) permissible, in regards to which there is agreement (i.e. there is agreement that the prohibition of what is permissible by consensus is unbelief).” [Mulla ‘Ali al-Qari al-Harawi, Sharh al-Shifa (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyya, 2001), 2:152]
From the above-mentioned words of Mulla ‘Ali al-Qari, it seems he has retracted his statements in praise of ibn Taymiyya, as Jarh Mufassar (Specified Criticism) takes precedence over General Tawthiq/Ta’dil (Praise).
Anyone who wishes to object to the above should know that in his sharh (commentary) on the Shifa of al-Qadhi ‘Iyadh he mentioned his al-Mirqat Sharh al-Mishkat (al-Masabih) in two places – 1/24 and 1/547.
Also, in the same Sharh al-Shifa, he referred to his sharh (commentary) on Shama-il al-Tirmidhi known as Jam’ al-Wasa-il (1/324, 343 and 2/366). This means that his Sharh al-Shifa is later than his sharh (commentary) on Mishkat al-Masabih and his sharh (commentary) on Shama-il al-Tirmidhi, and thus what he mentioned in it, is his last stance on ibn Taymiyya, as it overrides what he thought about him in the earlier two works named, in which he had praiseworthy remarks for ibn Taymiyya.
Imam Mulla ‘Ali al-Qari It is the scholar who commented al-Fiqh al-Akbar by Abu Hanifah, he is a pillar of knowledge, a very famous Hanafi scholar. He used to live in Makkah and this is where he taught and where he died (he was born in what is today known as Afghanistan).
In his commentary entitled Mirqat al-Mafatih, Sharh Mishkat al-Masaabih vol.3 p.300, he says: “A whole group of them [i.e.of the Salaf] as well as of the Khalaf scholars [i.e. the era that followed that of the Salaf, until now], said: “The one who believes in a direction [for Allah] is a blasphemer (kafir), as has been clearly narrated by al-Iraqi when he said “This is the saying of Abu Hanifah, Malik, Ash-Shafii, al-‘Ashari and al-Baqillani””
Imam Mulla ‘Ali al Qari, In his book ‘Ar-Rawdul-‘Azhar fi Sharh al-Fiqh al-‘Akbar’ said: “The “Uluww” of Allah over His creation embedded in the meaning of verse 61 of Surat al-‘An’am is indeed an aboveness in status and domination, as mandated by Ahlus-Sunnah wal Jama’ah and not a physical aboveness ”.
Imam Mulla Ali al-Qari states: “It is obligatory that you believe that your God…is not contained in any place or direction”. (Sharh ayn al-ilm)
He states elsewhere: “Allah is not located in a place, whether above or below, or any other than these, and time is inapplicable to Him, unlike what the mushabbiha and mujassima and hululiyya or incarnationists believe”. (sharh al-fiqh al-akbar)
He also cites al-hafiz Zayn al-din al-Iraqi’s statements that all four imams agree that anyone who believes Allah lies in a specific direction has committed disbelief. (al-qari, sharh ayn al-ilm wa zayn al-hilm 1:34; sharh al-fiqh al-akbar Beirut: Dar al-kutub al-ilmiyya 1404/1984 p57; al-mirqat, cited by kawthari, maqalat p. 321,362)
Imam Mulla ‘Ali Qari states; “فمن أظلم ممن كذب على الله أو ادعى ادعاء معينا مشتملا علىاثبات المكان والهيئة والجهة من مقابلة وثبوت مسافة وأمثال تلك الحالة، فيصير كافرا لا محالة)اهـ.“Who is more unjust than the one that lied about Allah, or claimed something that included affirming (to Him) a place, shape or direction such as facing, distance and the like… Such a person becomes a kaafir (non-Muslim) without doubt (P. 355).” [Sharh Al-Fiqh Al-Akbar, Ali Al-Qari, Dar Al-Basħa’ir Al-Islamiyah, Beirut, 1998.]
--------------------------------Deobandi Elder's
Quote:
Shaykh Muhammad Idris al-Kandehlawi (d. 1394AH)
on ibn Taymiyya and his companions, as mentioned by Shaykh Zakariyya al-Kandehlawi (d. 1402AH):
“Most of the anthropomorphists (mujassima) were literalists; followers of the apparent (dhahir) of the Book and Sunnah, and most of these (mujassima) were Muhaddithin. And ibn Taymiyya and his companions had a great inclination to establish direction (for Allah) and exaggerated in attacking those who negated it (direction)…”
[Zakariyya al-Khandehlawi, al-Kanz al-Mutawārī, 24/7-9]
--
Hadhrat Shaykh al-Islām Husain Ahmad Madanī (d. 1377AH),
the
Shaykh al-Hadith of Dar al-’Ulūm Deoband (may Allāh illuminate
his grave) on ibn Taymiyya as mentioned by MUFTI TAQI
AL-'UTHMANI:
‘During the Bukhārī and Tirmidhī lectures
at Dar al-’Ulūm Deoband he would strongly refute Hafiz ibn
Taymiyya’s lone opinions on ‘aqā-id and masā-il. He also said,
“While I was residing in Madīnah al-Munawwarah I read his books
and literature, some are such that you would be lucky to find it in a
bookshop in India. After studying all these books, I have come
to the conclusion through wisdom and foresight that there is a
blatant turn away found in him from the way of ahl al-sunnah wa
al-jamā’ah”.’
[Mufti Taqī al-'Uthmānī, In'ām al-Bārī Sharh Sahīh al-Bukhārī 463/13; published by Idāra Tālīfāt Ashrafiyyah, Multān, Pakistān]
On
certain issues he has exercised ijtihad.
Ulama
have classified these acts of his into four categories:
1. The
ones in which he has disregarded the more familiar view of Imam Ahmad
Hanabal, opting for his (Imam Ahmad) less known views. In doing so,
however, he followed Imam Ahmad.
There are 26 such
issues.
2. The ones in which he has abandoned his Imam and opted for the view of any of three leading Imams.
It has 16 instances.
3. The
ones in which he has disregarded the views of all the four schools
(i.e. Hanafi, Shaf‘ai, Maliki & Hanbali).
There
are 17 such
issues.
4. The
ones in which he has abandoned the majority (jamhur)
viewpoint, disregarding the consensus (ijma‘a) view of
Muslim community. There are 39 such
issues, of which ten are related to divorce.
Thus,
these are 98 such
issues in total.
There may be some more; however, these belong to any of the above four categories.
Ulama have not criticized Allama Ibn-e-Taymiyya for the issues of the first two categories, because he did not disregard the major community; however, leading Ulama have condemned him for the issues of the last two categories. Doing so, they are prompted by the Prophet’s following sayings (Miraat al-Janan, p. 86 ):
1. “Adhere to the majority viewpoint. For one who is isolated strays from the community and gets into Hell.”
2. “Certainly Allah will not let my community (ummat), or (in other reference) Muhammad’s community (ummat), unite on some error. Allah’s hand is on the group. Whoever cuts off from the group, will be hurled into Hell lonely.”
In the days of Allama Ibn-e-Taymiyya, Ahl Sunnah wal-Jama‘a followed any of the four Imams and this represented the major community (sawad-e-a‘azam).
---
Tatars destroyed Islamic caliphate while Ibn Taymiyya tore into pieces the respect and dignity of major community & the consensus view of Muslims.
Ulama deeply regretted
it.
THE REALITY OF IBN
TAYMIYYA
Why was Ibn Taymiyya’s dawah/teachings/books hidden for 400 years and not revived soon after his death by his close students especially those that were not Hostile to him such as Ibn Kathir and Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah… ???
However this disciple did try but failed miserably.
Why were his teachings not revived by a Mujaddid after his death, at the head of every 100 years as the Hadith specifies?
A Mujaddid according to the popular Muslim tradition refers to a person who appears at the turn of every century of the Islamic calendar to revive Islam, remove from it any extraneous elements and restore it to its pristine purity.
A Mujaddid might be a caliph, a saint (wali), a prominent teacher, a scholar or some other kind of influential person.
The concept is based on the following Prophetic tradition (hadith):
Abu Hurairah narrated that the Holy Prophet (S) said, “Allah shall raise for this Ummah at the head of every century a man who shall renew (or revive) for it its religion.” – Sunan Abu Dawood, Book 37: Kitab al-Malahim [Battles], Hadith Number 4278.
There can be more, and there has already been more than one Mujaddid to a Century. In the Hadith, the Arabic word that is used to explain the coming of the Mujaddid is in the singular tense, but according to the meaning, it is a plural as it has been explained in the Kitaabs of Usool-e-Fiqh.
Sayyiduna
Abu-Hurayrah (RA) narrates that Sayyiduna
Rasoolullah Sallallaho Alaihi wa Sallam said:
Verily
Allah will send at the beginning
of every century (100 years)
such a person for this Ummah who will rejuvenate
and restore their
religion (Deen).
Above
stated Hadith is recorded by the following Hadith Masters:
Imam
Abu-Dawood, and Imam Hakim in his Mustadrak, Imam Bayhaqee in his
Al-Ma'rifah, reported by the great Hadith Master Imam Jalal al-Deen
Suyootee in his al-Jama'e al-Sagheer fi Hadith al-Basheer wal-Nazeer,
Imam Bayhaqee also narrates in his Al-Mudkhal and Imam Hasan bin
Sufyan and Imam Bazar both in their Musnads, Imam Tabranee in his
al-Mu'jam al-al-Awsat, Imam Ibn 'Adee in his Kamil and Imam
Abu-Na'eem in his al-Hil'ya
Commenting on the
authenticity of the above Hadith Shareef, Allama Imam
Isma'il Haqqi records in his marginal notes of Siraj al-Muneer Sharh
Jame'h al-Sagheer:
"My Shaykh said that there is a consensus of the Hadith Masters that this Hadith is Sahih."
Amongst the later Hadith Masters that verified this Hadith Sharif as Sahih are Imam Allama Abul-Fadl Iraqi and Imam Allama ibn Hajr and amongst the predecessor Masters, Imam Hakim author of Sahih al-Mustadrak and Imam Bayhaqee author of al-Mudkhal.
Please note once again not 400 years later by ibn abdul wahab najdi, whom wahhabi/salafis consider a “mujaddid” they have no record of mujaddid's for the period of 400 years, why?
You must note here:
It was Not revived after 4 weeks nor 4 months or for argument sake even after a few years...(e.g 4 years or even 40 years, it was revived after 400 years! Why?
How come not a single Mujaddid in the period of 400 years not revive this so called "Salafi Dawah", Until (226 years ago) which began with a Bloody blood-thirst and hatred for the Muslims and now in our time been blindly shoved down over throats ...?
Do not forget :
“Verily Allah will send at the beginning of every century (100 years) such a person for this Ummah who will rejuvenate and restore their religion (Deen)”
Imran ibn Hussain from the Blessed Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, who said:
“There will always be a group from my Ummah, fighting for the truth until the last of them fights the False Messiah.”
Jabir ibn Samura from the Blessed Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, “There will never cease to be a group of Muslims fighting for the establishment of this religion until the coming of the Hour.”
Muslim has related from `Uqbah ibn `Aamir who said that he heard the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, saying, “There will always be a group from my Ummah fighting for the truth, victorious over their enemies. They will not be harmed by those who oppose them until the Hour is established and they are upon that way.”
Also the reviver will revive the Sunnah, call people back to the sunnah and remind them of what they have forgotten and warn them of the evil innovations.
Ahadeeth again refute the claim of M. Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab Najdi that Islam has been lost for 600 years before him and a further 400 years before Ibn Taymiyyah.
His own brother Shaykh ul-Islam, Sulaymaan Ibn Abdul Wahhab (ra) wasted not time in refuting this false notion saying:
“Out of the 73 sects is one guided sect and they are the Saved Sect. This represents Muslim Orthodoxy from the Companions of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, to the end of time and it is that Sect which will always be established on the truth, Allah suffice us to be their followers by His Strength and Power. [ see: as-Sawaa’iq al-Ilahiyyah, the Divine Lightning divine lightening p. 148 ]
Yasir Qadhi wrote:
“A Mujaaddid is one who guides the people back to Islam after they have deviated from it. So he calls them to return to the beliefs of the Prophet sal Allahu alayhi wasallam and Companions radiy Allahu anhum, and warns them against innovation.”
See footnote 3 of his translation of M. Ibn ‘abd ul-Wahhab’s work al-Qawaa’id al-Arbah – An explanation of the Four Principles of Shirk, p. 10
Yasir Qadhi further butters his master with the title of being a "Mujaaddid" when he discusses the alleged “rampant shirk in ‘Arabia” boldly claiming “Such was the situation in which Allah sent a reviver, a mujaaddid, who called the people back once again to the pristine Islam and the pure monotheism that the Prophet sal Allahu alayhi wasallam came with… this man was M. Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab” p. 10
You may ask "PhD" excuse me sir, but?
What happened to the 400 years of Revival?
"(ok, I see what you mean...)"
The
Blessed Prophet(s) said:
“This knowledge will be carried by the trustworthy ones of every generation – they will expel from it the alterations made by those going beyond bounds, the false claims of the liars, and the false interpretations of the ignorant” [Mishkaat ul-Masaabeeh, hadeeth no. 248 and classified as authentic]
The Messenger of Allah sal Allahu alayhi wasallam said:
“My
Ummah shall never agree upon misguidance,
so when you see differences, then it is an obligation upon you to
stick to the as-Sawaad
al-Azam” [ Imaam
Abu Bakr al-Aajuri’s Kitaab ash-Shari’ah, vol. 2, p. 130]
---
His Greatest Opponents?
From Dr. Yasir Qadhi see from 1:00:00 to 1:03:00 Here "... even later athari aqeedah is a development the Sahaba did not have the types of beliefs that the later athari aqeedah "... If imam al-Barbahari read Ibn taymiyyah, imam al-Barbahari would have rejected ibn taymiyyah..." please remember... ibn taymiyyahs greatest opponents in the beginning was his fellow Hanabaliyyah then Subki and others came along..."
---
---
