Salafi Aqeeda - THE FLAMING FALCON SWOOPING DOWN ON THE DISSENTERS OF THE HANBALI MADHHAB

Friday, July 27, 2012

Fabrication in Al-Tafhimat al-Ilahiyyah of Shah Waliullah Dahlawi (b.1703AD – d.1762AD)

Fabrication in Al-Tafhimat al-Ilahiyyah of

Shah Waliullah Dahlawi (b.1703AD – d.1762AD)

---

Quote Statement: “All who go to the land of Ajmer or to the grave of Salar Mas’ud or those that resemble them in order to request [to fulfil] a need, it is indeed a sin more grievous than murder and adultery. Its likeness is not but the likeness of those who worship the creation or like those who call on Al-Lat and Al-’Uzza. However, we do not [unequivocally] declare disbelief [upon them] due to the absence of a text from the Lawgiver in this specific matter.”

[Al-Tafhimat al-Ilahiyyah 2/45-Shah Waliullah Dehlawi]

---

Shah Waliullah Muhaddith Naqshbandi (Rh)

View of Experts

Syed Shaykh Zaheeruddin Ahmed (rh)

Shaykh Zayd Faruqi Naqshbandi(rh)

Mawlana Hakeem Sayed Barkati (rh) and Ayyub Qadri

which were all experts on the life and work of Shah Waliullah Muhaddith al Dehlawi (rh)

They have all agreed that the above quote is NOT from Shah Waliullah (rh) but was later added in his book as a part of mass fabrication which was done in the books of Shah Sahib.

The Practices of Shah Waliullah Muhaddith Naqshbandi (Rh)

Shah Waliullah often used to visit the graves of awliya for maraqaba and Baraka.

He used to visit grave of Shaykh Qutubuddin Bakhtiyar Kaki (Rd) regularly.

Shah Sahib also visited the grave of Shaykh Ghaus Gwaliari (rh),

Shah Sahib performed maraqaba at the grave of Sayyedina Abu Dhar Ghaffari ( Radiallahu anhu) and the Martyrs of Badr.

At one instance Shah Sahab was not able to take a decision. While doing maraqaba at the grave of a pious wali of Allah in the town of Phulat, Shah Sahib got the answer for his question.
(Al qawl al jali, p, 232)

From these ( and many more like this) it is seen that Shah Sahab often used to visit the graves of awliya Allah to do maraqaba and get spiritual benefit. To say that Shah Waliullah himself visited the graves of awliya but criticized others will be attributing a policy of dual nature towards the great scholar Shah Waliullah Muhaddith (Rh).

From Fiqh

Murder and adultery is a sin which is established from nass. Anyone who does not consider murder and adultery to be a sin will become a Kafir. But if someone says that travelling to Ajmer to get his needs fulfilled is not a sin, then he will not become a kafir.

Also the fabricated quote reads:

“then he has committed a greater sin than murder and adultery.”

Again, murder and adultery is a sin which is established from nass. How come something which is not established from nass be worse/grave from those things which are proved from nass?

From all these reason it can be seen that fabricator was some Wahabi who didn’t have any understanding of fiqh and knowledge about belief and practices of Shah Waliullah dehlawi (rh).

'Tafhimatul Ilahiyyah (Persian)

See other posts related with Shah Waliullah:

Shah Waliyullah & Istighatha

Practices of Shah Waliullah

About the mass fabrication which was done in the books of Shah Sahib:
Who were behind these?

Shah Abul Hasan Zayd Faruqi (rh) wrote, in his preface to the translation of ‘Al Qawlul Jaliyy’ of Shah Sahib :

“It is a pity that the Followers of Shah Ismail Dehlawi were in the forefront of these changes made into the books and Malfuzat of Shah Waliyullah, Shah Abdul Aziz and also in the Qur’an translation of Shah Abdul Qadir (rh) and also in the topics of Mujaddid e Alf Sani, Shah Ghulam Ali and Hazrat Shah Alamullah Rae Bareli(rh) so as to make the thoughts of these men to look similar to Shah Isma’il and Ibn Adul Wahab Najdi. Allah saved from tem this book, namely ‘al qawlul jaliyy.”

Mawlana Ansar shah Kashmiri, son of Anwar Shah Kashmiri of Deoband wrote:

“...I feel real and clear differences between Shah Sahib’s thoughts and those of Deobandis. So I doubt viewing deobandi ideology as a part of Waliyullahi’s thoughts.

(Al Balagh.Karachi.p49.DhulHijja.1388)

---

Imam Ahmed Raza Khan (rh) did not disagree with Shah Waliullah Muhaddith Dehlawi (rh) , neither he called him a wahabi.

All the later scholars also accepted most of the teachings of Shah Waliullah Muhaddith (rh) .

In view of this, what others wrote does not hold any weight.

On the other hand, there are certain contents in the books of Shah Waliullah (rh) which is not accepted by most of the Sunni scholars.

For example, in one book of Shah Sahib he has allowed doing tawaf of graves of awliya , in some other book he has accepted effect of 'stars' on human life!

[ I do not give the names of these book due to some reason. Those who know these books can check and those who don't need not bother]

These teachings of Shah Sahab were rejected by the sufi minded scholars as well.

But all the major scholars of Ahlus Sunnah from the subcontinent accept Shah Sahab to be a scholar from Ahlus Sunnah.

His books are not suggested for general public because of three reasons:

1. His books were tampered to a very large extant. Only those who have done research on this subject can differentiate the original quotes from the fabricated one.

2. Some of the books of Shah Sahab ( and his father’s view also) has quotes in which he does not stick to Hanafi fiqh. For example, his father Shah Abdur Raheem (rh) did not stick to Hanafi fiqh in some matters ( like recitation in salat al janaza). Similary Shah Sahab's book has some quotes in which he shows disagreement in some matters from Hanafi fiqh. Some scholars say these are fabricated quotes , others say, he died as a hanafi ( his last ijaza which he gave is signed as " Shah waliullah hanafi) but in some matters he had different opinion.

3. Some of his sufi teachings are not accepted by most of the scholars and is very difficult to understand. ( see his discussion of wujud and shahud)

So if any one says Shah Sahab was a 'wahabi' it might be because in some of his books Shah Sahab has shown preference of hadith over fiqh. At other place it is written that he tilted towards Shafi'i fiqh because of his close relationship with shafi'i scholars during his stay at Haramain.

These are all fabricated quotes.

In India, all the leading Sunni institutes like Mubarakpur, Barelly, Kachucha, pilibhit etc accept Shah Sahab as a great Sunni scholar.

In view of all this, any single view which is not accepted by Sunnis themselves does not hold any weight.

1. Shah Waliullah Muhaddith (rh) used to recite " Ya Shaykh Abdal Qadir Shaian Lilllah".

Since this proves istighatha, it would be a solid blow to those who are bent on spoiling the name of Shah Sahab . (We have dealt this issue of Istighatha with scans and is avaibale on internet).

2. The deobandi poster has also shyed away from mentioning a couplet in which Shah Sahab seeks imdad (help/ support) from Prophet ( sal allahu alayhi wa sallam).

Both these quotes are available on p 575 on the scan link posted by brother faqir:

What do you make of these scans from Miqyas Hanafiyyat (p.575-578) by Molwi Muhammad ‘Umar Icharwi (d: 1971H) which were posted elsewhere?

http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i7...575-Miqyas.jpg
http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i7...576-Miqyas.jpg
http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i7...577-Miqyas.jpg

Also, with shallow research on the books of Shah Waliullah , the deobandi has failed to notice one very important thing, which is mentioned on page 576.

The author, Mawlana Icharwi ( d.1971 CE) writes : " Shah Waliullah wrote books like al- balagh ul- mubeen in which he showed disrespect to prophets ( alayhimus salam ) and awliaya"

Any one can pick up al-balagh ul -mubeen and see that it has words against prophets ( alayhimus salam) and awliya. It also has quotes which prophibit tawassul. We know these are typical wahabi trait, because a Muslim can die but can never show disrespect to prophets ( alayhimus salam).

Mawlana Icharwi (rh) died in 1971 and till that time there was no research which listed the names of books falsely attributed to Shah waliullah (rh).

The first book dealing with this issue was published in 1976 by Mawlana Hakeem Barkati (rh) in which he listed all the books which were falsely attributed to Shah Waliullah (rh) and also the those books which were fabricated by adding / deleting quotes in the books of Shah Waliullah (rh).

Al-balag al -mubeen stands on the top of the list among books which are falsely attributed to Shah Sahab.

This was confirmed when Shaykh Zayd Faruqi al Azhari (rh) published the first ever Urdu translation of Al qawl al Jamil in 1988.

In short , when Mawlana Icharwi wrote Miqyase Hanafiyat he didn't know that al balagh ul mubeen is not the work of Shah Sahab.

What is more important is the stand taken by the scholars of Ahlus sunnah wal jamah. They always reject any thing which is not accepted by the jamhoor. In this case , it was totally because of lack of research which was available in 1971.

At present every year sunni scholars organize Shah Waliullah Conference in which it is told that Shah Sahab was a PURE SUNNI scholar, this is proved by showing how Shah Waliullah practiced istightha , celeberated Mawlid, did fatiha on food , visited graves of awliya for maraqaba etc.

I would like to add that all these scholars are respected by everyone.

Prof Ayyub Qadri was not a "Barelwi".

Mawlana Syed Hakeem Ahmed Barkati (rh) had no relation with barelly. He is respected by wahabis also because of his deep research.

Shaykh Zayd Farooqi al Azhari (rh) is also respected by wahabis .

Those interested can read books by Suleiman Nadavi ( a staunch wahabi) where he has also accepted about these fabrications in the books of Shah waliullah Muhaddith al Dehlawi (rh).

If someone wants to call Shaykh Zayd Farooqi (rh) as barelwi because he celeberated Mawlid then, we have to call Imam Ibn Hajar, Imam Suyuti and others also as ' barelwi".!

For those who don't know , please note:

1. Shah Abdur Raheem Naqshbandi (Rh) ( Father of Shah Waliullah) :
Used to celeberate Mawlid every year, celeberated 'urs , Visited graves of awliya for maraqaba, used to do Fatiha on food , had no problem in using words of Istighatha, did fatiha for the deceased on 40th , held special meetings in the month of muharram .

2 Shah Waliullah Muhaddith al Dehlawi al Naqshbandi (Rh) :
Celeberated mawlid, visited graves of awliya often for maraqaba, used to recite dua ( supplication) having words of Istighatha, did fatiha on food , used to give amulets containing verses from Qu'ran and Hadith.

3. Shah Abdul Aziz Muhaddith al Dehlawi (Rh) :
He was the son of Shah Waliullah muhaddith al dehlawi (rh). He gained more fame than his father with in his life time. He was well versed in zahiri and batini sciences. He used to celeberate mawlid, did fatiha on food ,used to recite dua containing words of Istighatha, had no problem with Quran khwani, used to hold special speeches in the month of muharram.

4. Shah Ishaq Muhaddith al Dehlawi (rh) :
His books were fabricated by wahabis. A detail analysis can be read here. And Here

5. Ismail Dehlawi la madhabi:

Notorious for starting the wahabi fitna in subcontinent. Not even one student took any Islamic teachings from him. ( Hayate Shah Ishaq )

He^ (Ismail Dehlawi) was once making fun of Shah Abdul Aziz Muhaddith al Dehlawi (rh), without knowing that the latter was in room. Shah Abdul Aziz (rh) felt very bad realizing that Ismail Dehlawi makes fun of teachers and mashaykh. So Shah Abdul Aziz (rh) told Ismail Dehlawi not to attend his classes from that day onwards (Arwahe Salasa).

---

Mawlvi Ashraf ali Thanvi makes fun of 'naqshabndis" saying: " I have seen people doing porostations to the grave of Imam Rabbani Sirhindi ( Rd) and some people object at Chishti's only". ( al ifadat al Yawmiya)

Ismaeel Dehlawi wrote:" All this Sufi tariqah like Chishti, Qadri, Naqshbandi and Suharwardi is bid'ah.” [Taqwiyatul Iman]

Maulvi Rashid Gangohi said : " This book ( Taqwiyatul Iman) is the Ayn Islam ( core of islam).” It means as per deobandi sect, the ruling in this book supercedes all other ruling given in any of their other books.

---

Belief of Ismail Dehlawi :

1. Mawlid, Urs, Quran Khwani , all this is Biddah.
2. Istighatha is Shirk.
3. Prophet ( sal allahu alayhi wa sallam) should not be respected more than a land lord .
4. Allahu ta'la is in a direction...etc

Original scans: Here

---

Read About Shah Waliullah al Dehlawi

---

Al-Tafhimat al-Ilahiyyah - Shah Waliullah Dahlawi

---

^{(Edited by ADHM)}

Sunday, July 15, 2012

Letters from Najd

Letters from Najd

A few years back the Saud University in Riyad made available a number of letters written by ibn Abdul Wahhab Najdi that appear to contradict the excessive nature of his declarations of kufr and shirk on those who do not espouse his cause or views.

The culprit - according to the letters of Ibn Abdul Wahhab Najdi - who spread these nefarious views, was one called Sulaiman b. Suhaim.

I will recount one of the letters in full as it is quoted by Sayyid Muhammad Alawi al-Maliki in his book Mafahim Yajib an Tusahhah.

Abdul Wahhab Najdi states:

"Let it not be unknown to you (the people of Qasim) that the letter of Sulaiman b. Suhaim has reached your hands and that some people who profess to be Ulama have indeed accepted and believed the contents of the letter. Allah knows that that person has fabricated and invented a number of lies against me. I have never said those things and most of those opinions have not even occurred to me.

Amongst the views appearing in that letter are the following:

- That I have invalidated the four Madhabs
- That for 600 years all Muslims have been unbelievers
- That I have appropriated the right of absolute ijtihad to myself
- That I am against taqlid (adopting the opinions of other schools of thought)
- That I have stated that "differences of opinion amongst the Ulama is a curse"
- That I have made Kafir those who practice intercession with the Salihin (people known for their piety)
- That I have pronounced a verdict of kufr on al-Busiri (of Qasida Burdah fame) because he has referred to the Prophet in his Qasida as "O most venerated of creation"
- That I have said: "Had I had the opportunity then I would have destroyed the shrine over the Prophet (s)
- That had I had the opportunity then I would have removed the Mizab (spout) of the Kaba and replaced it with a wooden one
- That I have declared haram visitations to the grave of the Prophet (s)
- That I find reprehensible visitations to the graves of the parents of Muhammad (s)
- That I have made Kafir those who swear in the name of other than Allah
- That I charged with kufr both Ibn al-Farid and Ibn Arabi
- That I have burnt the Dalail al-Khayrat and the Rawd al-Riyahin and that I have referred to the Rawd al-Riyahin as the Rawd al-Shayatin.

My response to all of these allegations is the Quranic verse: 'Glory to Allah. This is indeed a serious

slander! (24:16)."

These statements of Ibn Abdul Wahhab Najdi appear to fly in the face of the contents of his book mentioned in a previous segment of this series Kashf al-Shubahat. In the interests of scholarly fairness one would like to accept this. But there are a number of things that demand explanation.

First - even if we remove Ibn Abdul Wahhab from the equation - is Wahhabism's historical unfolding. Their approach, which is largely determined by their takfir of others, has resulted in massive dislocations of Muslims and the shedding of Muslim blood. This approach, coupled with the severity and extremism with which they deal with others, confirms the thesis that they are fundamentally a neo-Kharajite movement.

Second is the reality of Wahhabism as represented by their institutions today. At Madinah University, for example - and I do not imply by this that all their graduates are people who lack critical discernment - it is virtually impossible to express the views as they are apparently articulated by ibn Abdul Wahhab Najdi in the above-quoted letter.

Third is the non-availability of these letters in published form in Saudi Arabia. Even the Mafahim of Sayyid Muhammad is not available for public consumption.

The natural question is why?

For whose sake and towards what end is such intellectual suppression being perpetrated?

There are, however, many who believe that it is not the present-day Saudi government that is the dominant influence in the suppression of these types of literature. Given the representative nature of lecturers at Umm al-Qura University (where I graduated) there might be some credibility in this view.

In fact Dr Safar al-Hawali was vehemently opposed to the appointment of many of these lecturers. They even tried to organise a protest against the textbooks prescribed at the College of Shariah. It is apparent, therefore, that there is a growing schism between those who want to espouse a moderated and modified version of Wahhabism - which is difficult since the roots of this movement are extremist - and those amongst the Wahhabite 'ulema and their followers who espouse the original and more paranoid versions. The socio-political forces in that country are somewhat more complex, as I mentioned previously, than they apparently appear.

Nonetheless, and despite the nature of the debates surrounding Ibn Abdul Wahhab's views, his position seemed to have been sufficiently extremist, or deviant, to ignite the worst concerns of his father, brother, and teachers.

One of his teachers, mentioned earlier, Shaikh Muhammad ibn Sulaiman al-Kurdi had the following to say:

O Ibn Abdul Wahhab, I advise you, for the sake of Allahu Ta'aala, to hold your tongue against the Muslims…You have no right to label the majority of Muslims as blasphemers while you yourself have deviated from the majority of Muslims. In fact it is more reasonable to regard the one who deviates from the majority as a blasphemer than to regard the Muslims as a nation as blasphemers...

The catastrophe that has been Wahhabism, and the extensive manner in which it came to dominate Islamic discourse throughout the 20th century, stand in stark vindication of those who expressed their concerns during his time.

It is against this reality as a backdrop that we will examine the impact of Wahhabism on 20th century Islam.

In this regard Faruqi was quite correct when he observed that the movement of Mu-hammed Abdul Wahhab "spread like wildfire throughout the Muslim world. Practically every corner was affected, but the movement assumed different names and forms in different parts of the world.”

-------------

The Divine Lightning

Imam Sulaiman ibn `Abdul Wahhab (Author)

Al-Hajj Abu Ja`far Al-Hanbali (Translator)

Thank you for the books and the blog. I had some questions about divine lightning because I am speaking with some salafis and they have made some statements.

They claim that Mu-hammed bin abdel wahhab never used to make takfir on everyone and he even denied that he did.

They quote:

“And Allah knows that the man has fabricated statements from me that I never said nor that ever occurred to my mind. This includes his statement that I said that the people have not been on anything [of the truth] for six hundred years or that I declare as disbeliever the one who seeks closeness to Allah via the pious or that I declared al-Boosairi a disbeliever or that I declare the one who swears by other than Allah a disbeliever… My response to those issues is that I say, ‘Exalted be You [O Allah] this is great slander.’” Muallifaat, vol. 7, pp. 11-12.

They also say that he did not denounce the madhhabs and agreed with them and followed one.

The salafi gave me a quote where he said

“We, and all praise be to Allah, are followers and not innovators, upon the school of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal.” Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab, Muallifaat, vol. 7, p. 40.

“We are followers of the Book, the Sunnah, and the pious predecessors of the Nation and what is supported in the opinions of the four Imams, Abu Hanifah al-Numaan ibn Thaabit, Malik ibn Anas, Muhammad ibn Idrees [al-Shafi’ee] and Ahmad ibn Hanbal, may Allah have mercy on them.”

[...]

Now let us look at the quotes.

All of these are coming from al-Mu’allafat, which means, “The authored works.”

These are supposed to be collected writings that were put together after his death by his followers.

The problem is that these quotes were 100 years after the author. There are even other issues if we want to be specific.

Let us look at each quote:

Let’s put this next to statements that he has made that buttress this point.

He said at one point,

“The best spoken word that could be said was the case of a Bedouin coming to us one day saying he had heard something about Islam. He said, ‘I bear witness that we were kuffar (he meant all the desert Arabs) and I bear witness that the guard who came to tell us about things is of the People of Islam’.So the man bore witness that he was an unbeliever.”

Majmu`at ut-Tawhid: Sharh Sittah Mawadi` min as-Sirah, pp.25-26.

This indeed shows that this creed was taught to the people. Further could be said by his son and first successor, `Abdullah Ala Shaikh, who stated:

“Indeed, major shirk has become the norm for most of these people due to ignorance spreading and knowledge disappearing.”

Al-Kalimat un-Nafi`atu fil Mukaffirat il-Waqi`ah, pp.15-16.

There is further evidence for Muhammad ibn `Abdul Wahhab’s theology and beliefs when we mention a few more points.

It was mentioned by Muhammad ibn `Abdul Wahhab:

“It has been explicitly stated that idolatry would happen in this Ummah to the vast throngs of the people. The good news is that the truth will always be present, even as it has been in the past. There will always be a small group upon it. The great sign is that even though people may oppose, abandon or kill them, it will not harm them, and this state will remain until the Hour is established. It was prophesied that there would be a Victorious and Aided Group upon the truth, which has already happened, just as was foretold.” Kitab at-Tawhid (Ar.), pp.48-49, mas’alahs 7-12.

`Abdur-Rahman ibn Hasan, one of the successors of The Brotherhood movement, made this clear when he gathered the opinions of his grandfather and uncles together then commented:

“So this tribulation of worship of idols was brought about, to the point that no one in these later ages knew that they were supposed to reject it. This was the case until shaykh ul-Islam Muhammad ibn `Abdul Wahhab, may Allah have mercy on him, established that worship of idols was to be repudiated and forbidden. He forbade idol worship. He then called the people to leave it, to worship Allah alone in His Lordship, Divinity, Names and Attributes.” Qurrat `Uyun il-Muwahhidin, pp.125-126.

We thus know for a fact that Muhammad ibn `Abdul Wahhab taught the theology regarding the Ummah, their being in idolatry, how long they have been in idolatry, that one must bear witness against himself and his ancestors have committed idolatry and so forth.

We know this from the works quoted above which encompass his works, those of his sons and grandsons, those who took from him directly or took from those who took from him. This counts as primary and secondary evidence. There are also those who were enemies of his that state virtually the same thing.

This therefore counts as proof and establishes a historical reality for the time period. There is the second quote:

“We, and all praise be to Allah, are followers and not innovators, upon the school of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal.” Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab, Muallifaat, vol. 7, p. 40.

But what does he mean by this following?

How is he respecting the Imams and revering them?

How does he go about doing this?

We can go to the one who said the aforementioned words himself. Please read the following:

Also remember this statement of his,

“Most of what is in The Satisfaction and The Uttermost Boundary contradicts and opposes the madhhab of Imam Ahmad and his explicit statements and more so the explicit statements of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, so whoever knows that indeed knows it and whoever does not, does not know.”

He said at another point,

“The same holds true for the books of the latter day scholars of the other madhhabs.”

Hashiyat ur-Rawd il-Murbi`, vol.1, pp. 17-18.

This man has nothing to do with the madhhabs, Hanbali or otherwise. If he does not accept the books, then he also will not accept their authorities, living or dead.

This was made absolutely clear when Muhammad ibn `Abdul Wahhab told two of his harshest critics,

Imams `Abdullah ibn Dawud al-Basri and `Alawi al-Haddad:

“The Shari`ah is one. What is wrong with these people who have made it into four madhhabs? Here we have the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah. We do not act except by these two things. We do not take our orders or obey the judgements of the people of Sham, Egypt, India or anyone else for that matter.”

Imam `Abdullah ibn Dawud al-Basri said:

“He was referring to the scholars of the Hanbali School and the other schools as well.”

As-Sawa`iq war-Ra`ud fir-Raddi `al ash-Shaqi `Abdul `Aziz ibn Sa`ud, chapter 2; Misbah ul-Anam, pp.129-130, respectively. This same claim was repeated to Imam Zayni Dahlan (1232-1308 AH (AD 1816-1890) only some years later by the successors of the movement’s founder. Please see Imam ad-Dahlan’s ad-Durar as-Sanniyah fir-Radd `al al-Wahhabiyyah, pp.44-45.

And further to this, if we take the apocryphal statements attributed to Muhammad ibn `Abdul Wahhab as proof and disregard what is historically established, how do the advocates of Salafiyyah reconcile the mu’allafat that they quote as proof with another text where Muhammad ibn `Abdul Wahhab remarks,

“I, praises be to Allah—neither calling to a Sufi way, fiqh or theological school. Nor am I calling to any of the Imams that I hold in high regard, be it Ibn al-Qayyim, adh-Dhahabi, ibn Kathir or others for that matter. Rather, I call to Allah alone, who has no partners, and I am calling to the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, which he advised his Ummah from the beginning to end to follow and hold onto strictly.

I hope that I never reject any truth that should come to me. In fact, I call to witness Allah, His angels and all of His creation that if any word of truth should come to me from him I should then accept it with a complete submission.I should completely discard any statement from my Imams that contradicts it—this is the same for everyone except the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, who only spoke the truth.” Al-Mu’allafat, vol7, pp. 250-252

That he sees himself as an absolute mujtahid to independently interpret the texts is discernible both from his writing style and how he saw himself. And what is more, merely claim to something does not mean someone’s membership to it.

Early Ahmadiyyah and Ahl ul-Hadith (the jama`ah in Patna) both claimed to be real Hanafis as did the Salafi Bengalis Hajj Shariatullah and Titu Mir. However we know that their theology and actions had nothing to do with the Hanafi school.

Sources cited: The Wahhabi Movement in India, pp. 21-32; 42-45; Muslim Societies in Transition, pp. 44-45; History of the Fara’idi Movement in Bengal, pp. 1-5; 6-12; 13-15; also see pp. xxxvii-liii of History of the Fara’idi Movement in Bengal

Abu Bakr Bashir and the Jameah Islameah in Indonesia (a splinter from the first Salafis who came in the beginning of the 20^th century) claim to be the real Shafi`iis yet we know that they have more in common with Betty Crocker than the fiqh of Imam Ash-Shafi`ii or his school.

Sources cited: Buhuth Nadwah Da`wat ish-shaykh Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab, vol. 2, pp. 391-422, Riyadh: Muhammad ibn Sa`ud University, 1991,

As-Sa`iqah (the Lightning Bolt) and SGPC (Salafi Group for Propagation and Combat), Salafi groups from Morocco and Algeria respectively, both claim to be the proper Malikis.

Source cited: Ramadan 1423 comminique on Our `Aqeedah (Ar. `Aqidatuna) and also As-Saif ul-Battar (written by the GIA-Armed Islamic Group, which SGPC splintered off from)

Yet they know nothing of the school of Imam Malik except what their imaginations tell them. They don’t study accurately, memorise or implement yet they are entitled, nay obliged to give opinions.

The Mu`tazilah, including those that tortured scholars like Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, from Ibn Du’ad all the way to the executioners and inquisitors in the Inquisition, claimed to be Hanafis, so much so that the Imams denounced them as having disgraced their madhhab.

Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, may Allah be pleased with him, said of the Hanafis in his time,

“The People of Ra’ii are a group of astray innovators and enemies to the Sunnah and Authentic Narrations. They negate the Hadith and refute the Messenger, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him.They have taken claim of Abu Hanifah and whoever speaks with his words as an Imam for them and judge by their religion. Every astrayness is clear from the one who spoke in this way.

So the one who has done this, has he then truly left the words of the Messenger and his Companions and gone to the words of Abu Hanifah and his companions. Sufficient is the state of such a person to show their wrong doing, evil and transgression.”

Source cited: Tabaqat ul-Hanabilah, vol.1, pp. 36-37

Jarullah Az-Zamakhshari claimed to be Hanafi and said that parts of the Qur’an were from the Angel Jibril, peace be upon him; but he is denounced today.

Mansur al-Hallaj, executed by the command of Imam Junaid al-Baghdadi, may Allah be pleased with him, for idolatry, claimed the Hanafi madhhab; but they recognised no part of him at all in connection to themselves.

Imam `Abdul Qadir al-Jilani, may Allah be pleased with him, denounced the Hanafis in his area in his time, as they were all Mu`tazilah. He said of them,

“As far as the Hanafiyyah are concerned, they were a group among the followers of Abu Hanifah An-Nu`man ibn Thabit. They professed the doctrine that faith is the recognition and acknowledgement of Allah and His Messenger, and of everything, as a totality, that has come to us from His Presence.”

Source cited: Al-Ghunya Li-Talibi Tariq il-Haqq, vol.1, under the chapter, Al-Murji’ah (Ar.); Sufficient Provision for Seekers of the Path of Truth, vol.1, pp. 425-426

The reason for this is that up until the early Ottoman period, in the Muslim west, Hanafis were almost always Mu`tazilah; but in the Muslim east, they were upon the Orthodox creed due to the valour and bravery of Imam Abu Mansur al-Maturidi and other scholars of repute.

Those cultists who claimed the madhhab were not from it for the most upright advocates did not accept their pledges and claims. The same holds true for any cult.

Yusuf al-Qardawi claims to be Hanafi but he is denounced continually as he has nothing to do with the fiqh. The same counts for Mahmud Shaltut who said that the Prophet `Isa is dead and will not return, mortgages are compulsory and that democracy is from Islam.

Source cited: Al-Fatawa, pp. 58-60 under the chapter, Was `Isa Raised or Is he Dead?

So in ending, it is not always important what you claim, but what you truly are in reality. If you claim to belong to something and the people who are the heads and leaders of that outfit state that you are not, then you simply are not.

Mu-hammed ibn `Abdul Wahhab’s name only appears in Salafi literature. Any of the literature in Arabic that is an independent eye witness account, his name does not appear under any scholar lists. The few times it does appear in literature, it is negative.

So to state again, Mu-hammed ibn `Abdul Wahhab, as mentioned by 60 scholars in their response literature, is a false teacher, false prophet and the scholars rightly fought him.

Salafiyyah, to buttress its claims, needs to bring independently verifiable proof of his credentials.

Salafiyyah is unable to do this; but why should they. It should be every Salafi’s goal to stop following and being devoted to the wrong Mu-hammed and follow the right one.

And with Allah is every success,

Brother in Islam,

Al-Hajj

Jurjis's Blog- jurjis.wordpress.com

---

(Edited by ADHM)

---

THE CROWN

"LORD OF SHIRK"

THE BELIEFS OF SHEIKH-UL-NAJD

THE RISE OF DARKNESS

THE FORBIDDEN KINGDOM