Saturday, 19 September 2015

Everyone is Misguided Except for Me

Ibn Taymiyya & Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab Najdi:

Everyone is Misguided Except for Me

Ibn Taymiyya brazenly claims that everyone including himself was upon misguidance until he somehow supposedly happened upon “true” guidance and was guided:

Ibn Taymiyya mentions in his Majmu’at al-Fatawa (6/258) regarding the issue of non-eternal attributes subsisting in Allah’s essence:

However, this issue, the issue of visitation [to the grave of the Prophet sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam] and other issues besides these have emanated from the later scholars (muta’akh’khirun) and there is a lot of confusion therein.
 At first, even myself and others were upon the way of our forefathers in this – we used to advocate the doctrine of the innovators.
Then when it became clear to us what the Messenger [sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam] has brought, the matter became one of either following what Allah has revealed or following what we found our forefathers upon, and what was necessary (wajib) is following the Messenger [sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam].

قال ابن تيمية في مجموع الفتاوى (6/258) عن مسألة حلول الحوادث:
وَلَكِنْ هَذِهِ الْمَسْأَلَةُ وَمَسْأَلَةُ الزِّيَارَةِ وَغَيْرُهُمَا حَدَثَ مِنْ الْمُتَأَخِّرِينَ فِيهَا شُبَهٌ، وَأَنَا وَغَيْرِي كُنَّا عَلَى مَذْهَبِ الْآبَاءِ فِي ذَلِكَ نَقُولُ فِي الْأَصْلَيْنِ بِقَوْلِ أَهْلِ الْبِدَعِ؛ فَلَمَّا تَبَيَّنَ لَنَا مَا جَاءَ بِهِ الرَّسُولُ دَارَ الْأَمْرُ بَيْنَ أَنْ نَتَّبِعَ مَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ أَوْ نَتَّبِعَ مَا وَجَدْنَا عَلَيْهِ آبَاءَنَا، فَكَانَ الْوَاجِبُ هُوَ اتِّبَاعُ الرَّسُولِ.


Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab followed his imam, Ibn Taymiyya, in this respect, while taking it a step further, and based on this perverse understanding, he actually had the audacity to make takfir upon his teachers and all the scholars around him – he basically even made takfir upon himself prior to having supposedly happened upon such “true” guidance:

Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab mentions in his letter to the Qadi of al-Dir’iya, Shaykh ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Isa, (al-Durar al-Saniyya, 10/51):

At that time I did not know the meaning of la ilaha illa Allah, nor did I know the religion of Islam prior to this blessing which Allah has graciously bestowed. It was the exact same thing with my teachers, none of them had any such knowledge. 
Therefore any of the ‘ulama of ‘Arid, who claimed that he knew the meaning of la ilaha illa Allah or that he knew the meaning of Islam, has certainly lied, falsified, and deceived the people.
If he claimed any of his teachers had any such knowledge, then he has certainly lied, falsified, and deceived the people while praising himself with something which he does not possess.

قال ابن عبد الوهاب في “الدرر السنية” (10/51) في رسالة إلى قاضي الدرعية الشيخ عبد الله ابن عيسى:

وأنا ذلك الوقت لا أعرف معنى “لا إله الا الله” ولا أعرف دين الاسلام قبل هذا الخير الذي مَنَّ الله به، وكذلك مشايخي ما منهم رجل عرف ذلك، فمن زعم من علماء العارض أنه عرف معنى “لا اله الا الله” أو عرف معنى الإسلام قبل هذا الوقت، أو زعم عن مشايخه أن أحداً عرف ذلك، فقد كذب وافترى ولبّس على الناس ومدح نفسه بما ليس فيه.


Najdi Dawah

Yasir Qadhi, based on his 20 years of reading of all writings and works by ibn Abdul Wahhab and ibn Taymiyyah, found that Mu-ahmmed ibn Abdul Wahhab's dawah was like the calling of ISIS. Mu-hammed ibn Abdul Wahhab made takfir on everyone in the ummah except his own group.
Mu-hammed ibn Abdul Wahhab said that none of his teachers understood the meaning of tawhid -"la ilaha illallah" before him.

Ibn Taymiyyah is very different from ibn Abdul Wahhab in the way that ibn Taymiyyah didn't make takfir in a similar indiscriminate fashion of ibn Abdul Wahhab


Ibn Taymiyyah used Kharj'ite approach and asked to kill people on a Fiqhi issue.

Ibn Taymiyyah said:

الْجَهْرُ بِلَفْظِ النِّيَّةِ لَيْسَ مَشْرُوعًا عِنْدَ أَحَدٍ مِنْ عُلَمَاءِ الْمُسْلِمِينَ وَلَا فَعَلَهُ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَلَا فَعَلَهُ أَحَدٌ مِنْ خُلَفَائِهِ وَأَصْحَابِهِ وَسَلَفِ الْأُمَّةِ وَأَئِمَّتِهَا وَمَنْ ادَّعَى أَنَّ ذَلِكَ دِينُ اللَّهِ وَأَنَّهُ وَاجِبٌ فَإِنَّهُ يَجِبُ تَعْرِيفُهُ الشَّرِيعَةَ وَاسْتِتَابَتُهُ مِنْ هَذَا الْقَوْلِ فَإِنْ أَصَرَّ عَلَى ذَلِكَ قُتِلَ

Translation: To make recitation of Niyyah (intention) in loud manner is not allowed, this is not the opinion of any of the scholars of Muslims, it is also not done by Prophet, nor is it done by one of the Khulafa, Sahaba, Salaf or Imams. Anyone who claims it to in religion of Allah and to be Wajib, he should be taught the shariah and made to repent from the opinion, “IF HE INSISTS THEN HE SHOULD BE KILLED[Majmua al Fatawa (22/236)]

to make minor sins into major is clear trait of Khawarij.

Monday, 7 September 2015

Mulla ‘Ali al-Qari retracted his statements in praise of ibn Taymiyya

Wahhabi/salafi  said:

“Al-Mulla ‘Ali Qaari (may Allaah have mercy on him), who said, after quoting Ibn Hajar Al-Haythami's accusations against them and his criticism of their ‘aqeedah:

I say: Allaah protected them – i.e., Ibn al-Qayyim and his Shaykh Ibn Taymiyah – from this abhorrent accusation. The one who studies Sharh Manaazil al-Saa’ireen by Nadeem al-Baari al-Shaykh ‘Abd-Allaah al-Ansaari, who is the Shaykh of Islam according to the Sufis, will clearly see that they were among Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah and are indeed among the awliya’ (close friends of Allaah) of this ummah. Among what he said in the book mentioned was the following:

“These words of Shaykh al-Islam highlight his position as a prominent scholar of Ahl al-Sunnah, and his status among scholars, and it demonstrates that he is innocent of what his Jahami enemies accused him of, that he likened Allaah to His creation, as they usually accused the scholars of hadeeth and Sunnah, just as the Raafidis accuse them of being Naasibis, and the Naasibis accuse them of being Raafidis,, and the Mu’tazilah accuse them of being anthropomorphists. That is a legacy of the enemies of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) who accused him and his companions of having invented a new religion. And this is a legacy of the scholars of hadeeth and Sunnah from their Prophet, that the people of falsehood give them offensive labels.

May Allaah sanctify the soul of al-Shaafa’i, who said when he was accused of being a Raafidi:
If being a Raafidi means loving the family of Muhammad, then let the two races (of mankind and jinn) bear witness that I am a Raafidi.

May Allaah be pleased with our Shaykh Abu’l-‘Abbaas ibn Taymiyah when he said:
If being a Naasibi means loving the family of Muhammad, then let the two races (of mankind and jinn) bear witness that I am a Naasibi.

May Allaah forgive the third – Ibn al-Qayyim – when he said:
If being an anthropomorphist means affirming the divine attributes and regarding them as being above the interpretation of a liar,
Then praise be to Allaah, I am an anthropomorphist; bring your witnesses.”

Mirqaah al-Mafaateeh by al-Mulla ‘Ali Qaari (8/146, 147).

Reference(s): Volume 8 Mirqaah al-Mafaateeh by al-Mulla ‘Ali Qaari
Online Version

Mulla ‘Ali al-Qari (d. 1014AH) on ibn Taymiyya’s 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 Taymiyyaas 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 ”.

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)

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.]


Don't forget to read :

Mulla ‘Ali al-Qari’s al-Mawrid al-Rawi fi Mawlid al-Nabi


Mullah Ali Qari (ra) said:
Indeed a whole group of them [the early Muslims], as well as later scholars, said that whoever believes Allah to be in a particular physical direction is an unbeliever, as al-Iraqi has explicitly stated, saying that this was the position of Abu Hanifa, Malik, al-Shafi'i, al-Ashari, and al- Baqillani (Mirqat al-mafatih: sharh Mishkat al-masabih. 5 vols. Cairo 1309/1892. Reprint. Beirut: Dar Ihya al-Turath al-Arabi, n.d., 2.137)


(Edited by ADHM)

Tuesday, 1 September 2015

Ash'aris: Majority of the Ummah Historically

The Ash’aris were always Dominant and notminority as claimed by the orientalist George Makdisi (d.2002), and his futile opinion was spread by some  anti-Ash’aris in our time.

Q: Were most of the Ulama of the past Ashari?

Here is an answer to Makdisi by a former Professor of Arabic at Oxford University by the name of Wilfred Madelung (b. 1930), who said in his  “The Spread of Maturidism” 


“Considering the Islamic world as a whole, it is evident that Ash’arism spread rapidly and was firmly established before the end of the Seljuq age. In all of the east the widespread Hanbalite and other traditionist groups after the time of the geographer al-Maqdisi (writing about 378/988) were gradually absorbed by Shafi’ism. 

Abul Yusr al Bazdawi (usul al-din, ed. H. Linss, p. 242), writing before the year 486/1093, can state that the mass (‘amma) of the Shafi’ites were Ash’arites, evidently in regard to the situation in Transoxania and Khurasan. The Shi’ite Abd al-Jalil al-Razi writing about 565/1170, refers to the Shafi’ite mosque in al-Rayy as that of the Ash’arites (K. al-Naqd, ed. Jalal al-din Husayni Urmawi, p. 598).

In Egypt the Shafi’ite Ayyubid Salah al-Din at the time of the restoration of Sunnism in the late Seljuq age propagated an Ash’arite creed as the official doctrine of orthodoxy.
Since that time, al-Maqrizi (d. 845 AH) states nearly three centuries later, anyone differing from al-Ash’ari in Egypt would be accused of infedility (cf. al-Maqrizi, al-Khitat, 2, 273, 358).

In the far west, the Almohad (Muwahhidun) movement with its militant espousal of Ash’arite Kalam, though of its own brand, swept the Maghrib and Spain in the middle of the 6th/12th century (cf. Madelung, Der Imam al-Qasim b. Ibrahim, p. 213 with n. 407).

In the light of these developments, Makdisi’s far reaching conclusion that Ash’arism was regarded by the majority of the Shafi’ites ‘as a parasite’ and was rejected by Sunnite consensus (SI, XVIII, 37) is untenable.

Even as far as Baghdad and Damascus are concerned, the picture drawn by Makdisi of Ash’arism trying to infiltrate the ranks of the Shafi’ites and ultimately being rejected, does hardly justice to the situation. The very frequency with which Ibn al-Jawzi mentions clashes between Ash’arites and their opponents in Baghdad throughout the Seljuq age indicates the attractiveness and spread of Ash’arism. 

In Damascus Ash’arism was broadly established at least since the time of ibn Asakir (d. 571 AH), despite the prominence of some of its opponents, who, moreover, had to be rather cautious in their criticism of al-Ash’ari in order to avoid trouble with the Mamluk government generally favouring Ash’arism.”  [End of quote]

If anyone reads al-Khitat of al-Maqrizi one can also see him admitting the dominance of the Ash’aris for well over 400 years, that is from 380 AH onwards it moved from Iraq to Syria and then to other Muslim lands, and al-Maqrizi died in 845 AH. 

This state of dominance continued and is still the case in our time.
  One only needs to list all of the famous Islamic institutes of knowledge to see where the global Sunni scholarship is linked to in terms of Sunni-creedal affiliation for well over 1000 years.
Shaykh al-Islam Ahmad ibn Hajar 'Asqalani (d. 852/1449), the mentor of Hadith scholars and author of the book "Fath al-Bari bi sharh Sahih al-Bukhari", which not a single Islamic scholar can dispense with, was Ash'ari. 
The shaykh of the scholars of Sunni Islam, Imam Nawawi (d. 676/1277), author of "Sharh Sahih Muslim" and many other famous works, was Ash'ari. 
The master of Qur'anic exegetes, Imam Qurtubi (d. 671/1273), author of "al-Jami' li ahkan al-Qur'an", was Ash'ari. 
Shaykh al-Islam ibn Hajar Haytami (d. 974/1567), who wrote "al-Zawajir 'an iqtiraf al-kaba'ir", was Ash'ari. 
The Shaykh of Sacred Law and Hadith, the conclusive definitive Zakariyya Ansari (d. 926/1520), was Ash'ari. 
Imam Abu Bakr Baqillani (d. 403/1013), 
Imam 'Asqalani
Imam Nasafi (d. 710/1310); 
Imam Shirbini (d. 977/1570); 
Abu Hayyan Tawhidi, author of the Qur'anic commentary "al-Bahr al-muhit"; 
Imam ibn Juzayy (d. 741/1340); author of "al-Tashil fi 'ulum al-Tanzil"; 
and others - all of these were Imams of the Ash'aris.

If we wanted to name all of the top scholars of Hadith, Qur'anic exegesis, and Sacred Law who were Imams of the Ash'aris, we would be hard put to do so and would require volumes merely to list these illustrious figures whose wisdom has filled the Earth from East to West. 

I ask you, is there a single Islamic scholar of the present day, among all the PhD.'s and geniuses, who has done what Ibn Hajar 'Asqalani or Imam Nawawi have, of the service rendered by these two noble Imams (May Allah enfold them in His mercy and bliss) to the pure Prophetic Sunnah? 
How should we charge them and all Ash'aris with abberancy when it is we who are in need of their scholarship? Or how can we take knowledge from them if they were in error?

For as Imam Zuhri (d.124/742) says,
"This knowledge is religion, so look well to whom you are taking your religion from."  
Is it not sufficient for someone opposed to the Ash'aris to say, "Allah have mercy on them, they used reasoning (ijtihad) in figuratively interpreting the divine attributes, which it would have been fitter for them not to do"; instead of accusing them of deviance and misguidance, or displaying anger towards whoever considers them to be of the Sunni Community?

 If Imams Nawawi, 'Asqalani, Qurtubi, Baqillani, al-Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, Haytami, Zakariyyah Ansari, and many others were not among the most brilliant scholars and illustrious geniuses, or of the Sunni Community, then who are the Sunnis?  


The Prophet praised the Ash`aris in numerous narrations concerning which al-Qushayri said that they bore not only the external meaning of the tribe of the Companion Abu Musa al-Ash`ari, but also the additional meaning of the followers of his descendant Abu al-Hasan al-Ash`ari, meaning the Ash`ari school.
Among these narrations:
"O you who believe! Whoever among you turns back from his Religion, know that in his stead Allah will bring a people whom He loves and who love Him, humble toward believers, stern toward disbelievers, striving in the way of Allah, and fearing not the blame of any blamer. Such is the grace of Allah which He gives to whom He will. Allah is All-Embracing, All-Knowing." (5:54) When Allah revealed this verse, the Prophet pointed to Abu Musa al-Ash`ari and said: "They are that man's People."[39]

Imam Abu al-Qasim al-Qushayri said: "Therefore, the followers of Abu al-Hasan al-Ash`ari are also among his [Abu Musa's] People. For in every place that a people are affiliated to a Prophet, what is meant is the followers of that Prophet."[40]
This is also the position of Ibn `Asakir, al-Bayhaqi, al-Subki, and others of the Ash`ari school.[41]

"'Tomorrow shall come to you a people more sensitive in their hearts towards Islam than you.' Then the Ash`aris came, among them Abu Musa al-Ash`ari. As they approached Madina they sang poetry, saying: 'Tomorrow we meet our beloved ones, Muhammad and his group!' When they arrived they began to shake hands with the people, and they were the first to innovate hand-shaking."[42]

"The people of Yemen have come to you, most sensitive in their souls, softest of hearts! Belief is from Yemen, wisdom is from Yemen! Pride and arrogance are found among the camel-owners; tranquility and dignity among the sheep-owners."[43]

"I went in to see the Prophet after tying my camel at the gate. People from the Banu Tamim came in to see him. He said: 'Accept the glad tidings, O Banu Tamim!' They said: 'You gave us glad tidings; now give us something tangible.' This exchange took place twice. Then some from the people of Yemen came in to see him. He said: 'Accept the glad tidings, O people of Yemen! for the Banu Tamim did not accept them.' They said: 'We accept, O Messenger of Allah!' Then they said: 'We came to ask you of this Great Matter.' He said: 'Allah was when nothing was other than Him. His Throne stood over the water. He wrote all things in the Remembrance. He created the heavens and the earth.' Then someone called out: 'Your camel has fled, O Ibn al-Husayn!' I darted out and between me and my camel I could see a mirage. By Allah! How I wish that I had left it alone."[44]

Al-Subki said: "Our scholars have said that the Prophet did not speak to anyone of the foundations of the Religion (usul al-dEEn) in such a way as he has spoken to the Ash`aris in this hadith."[45]

"They [the Ash`aris] are part of me and I am part of them."[46]
"The Ash`aris among people are like a precious parcel containing musk."[47]


[39] Narrated from `Iyad by Ibn Abi Shayba and al-Hakim who said it is sahEEh by Muslim's criterion, and by al-Tabarani with a sound chain as stated by al-Haythami.
[40] As quoted in al-Qurtubi's Tafsir (verse 5:54).
[41] As cited in Tabyin Kadhib al-Muftari and Tabaqat al-Shafi`iyya al-Kubra (3:362-363).
[42] Hadith of the Prophet narrated from Anas ibn Malik with a sound (sahih) chain by Ahmad in his Musnad.
[43] Hadith of the Prophet narrated from Abu Hurayra by Bukhari and Muslim in their Sahihs.
[44] Hadith of the Prophet narrated from `Imran ibn Husayn by Bukhari in his Sahih.
[45] Al-Subki, Tabaqat al-Shafi`iyya al-Kubra (3:364).
[46] Hadith of the Prophet narrated from Abu Musa al-Ash`ari by Bukhari and Muslim.
[47] Hadith of the Prophet narrated from Hasan al-Basri in the mode of mursal (missing the Companion link) by Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri in Ibn Sa`d's Tabaqat. Among those who explained the Ash`aris mentioned in the hadith to include reference to latter-day Ash`aris are Imam Abu al-Qasim al-Qushayri, al-Subki, and Ibn `Asakir.


So this Wahhabi wants to follow the mass of commoners, because they are many, but as you can see from these aayahs, there is no proof in numbers alone. Quite the contrary. Moreover, he wants to do this instead of following the vast majority of leading scholars, even though Aļļaah says:
"إِنَّمَا يَخْشَى اللَّهَ مِنْ عِبَادِهِ الْعُلَمَاءُ"
Meaning: "The only created beings that truly fear Aļļaah are the scholars." (Faaţir, 28)
There is still another point, which is that Ibn ˆAsaakir did not actually say that most commoners are in disagreement with Asħˆariyys. The Wahabi did not get this, because his ilk are the furthest away from understanding and reason. It was the person that argued with Ibn ˆAsaakir that said this. 

Let us reconstruct his argument as follows:
1. The majority of people is the correct fraction,
2. commoners are the majority,
3. commoners disagree with Al-‘Asħˆariyy,
4. therefore Al-‘Asħˆariyy is wrong.

If you review Ibn ˆAsaakir’s answer to this argument, you will notice that he did not address premise 3. He only addressed premise 1. Why? Because one only needs to show one of the premises of an argument wrong for it to fall apart, so there is no point in addressing the others. This is especially the case when the major premise is shown false, which is the case here. It is here also the premise that is most easily shown wrong, so it would be a waste of time to address any of the others, not the least because it makes no difference anymore whether it is right or wrong.

Read full article here:


al-Albani admitted that there's NO 'Salafi' Commentary on Bukhari
Albani admitted that there has never been a completely "salaficommentary on sahih al Bukhari and al Nawawi and Ibn Hajar were Asharis ! read more :Here


Abd Allah ibn Umar narrates that the Messenger of Allah said:
 "Verily Allah does not gather my Ummah-or he said, the Ummah of the Messenger of Allah-upon deviation, and Allah’s hand (assistance, protection and mercy) is over the group, and whoever diverges from them diverges to hellfire.” 
(Sunan Tirmidhi, No. 2167)