Yasir Qadhi accuses the late Shaykh Muhammad ibn `Alawi al-Maliki of polytheism (shirk).

The following article by the Al-Sunnah Foundation of Canada shows evidence of Yasir Qadhi accusing one of the greatest Sunni scholars of  ‘blatant shirk’ (polytheism). I have included the main excerpts from the article below. Muslims, be warned.

(Picture: The late Shaykh Muhammad ibn `Alawi al-Maliki,
may Allah bless him abundantly and give him Paradise!)

–

Al Sunnah Foundation of Canada       

ASFC Response to Al Maghrib Institute’s Takfir on the Late Muhaddith of Hijaz;

‘Shaykh al-Islam fil-Balad al-Haram’ as-Sayyid Muhammad ibn ‘Alawi al-Makki

By Sayyid Ahmed Amiruddin

Introduction
[...]
Currently, Al Maghrib operates in the United States and in Canada, once claiming on its official website to have “the largest Islamic student body in North America”.  Its activities are beyond doubt a means to convey to hundreds, if not thousands, of unsuspecting North American Sunni Muslim youth the ideas and beliefs of the Wahabi and Salafi sect, who reject moderation in their faith, the following of expert interpretations (Madhabs) of any one of the four Sunni schools of jurisprudence, and label Sunni Muslims and their ‘Ulema as ‘pagans’ and ‘grave worshippers’ (2). 

‘Shaykh al-Islam fil-Balad al-Haram’

For many years I have been trying to warn Muslims and Canadians of all faiths of the dangers of the Al Maghrib Institute, which is a Saudi backed front spreading heresy and hate throughout North America, and a front set up to destroy the traditional Islamic faith of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah(3). 

Today, my attention was drawn upon some more disturbing information on the organization and one its teachers.  After reading over the information and verifying it, I felt it necessary to let history record that I did my best to defend a grandson of the Apostle of Allah (uwbp) and to make an effort to expose Al Maghrib and its heresies once again, so as to warn Muslims to refrain from sending their children to their satanic seminars. 

 The grandson of the Apostle of Allah (uwbp) I am speaking of, upon whom Al Maghrib Institute and its unfortunate instructor Yassir Qadhi, pronounced takfir (labeled an unbeliever) was one of the greatest contemporary scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah in Arabia this century; Shaykh Sayyid Muhammad ibn ‘Alawi al-Maliki, al-Makki (may Allah have mercy on him). 

For those who do not know about the late Muhaddith of Hijaz; Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Alawi ibn ‘Abbas ibn ‘Abd al-’Aziz al-Maliki al-Hasani al-Makki, here is some background information on the respected Shaykh to consider.  The Shaykh was a descendent of the Prophet Muhammad (uwbp).  He was the first “Saudi” to receive a PhD. from Sunni Islam’s foremost seat of learning, Al Azhar.  He held over 200 Ijazah’s in Hadith, Aqedah, Fiqh, Usool etc. Shaykh ibn ‘Alawi’s family taught in the Haram in Makka Al Mukkarama as did the Shaykh himself, from the age of 15. 

He was titled ‘Shaykh al-Islam fil-Balad al-Haram’, the educator of Ahl al-Sunna and light of the House of the Prophet in his time, a major contemporary Scholar of Hadith, commentary of Qur’an, Law, doctrine, tasawwuf, and Prophetic biography (sira), the most highly respected authority of Ahl al-Sunna in the Mother of Cities, and passed away in 1425/2004. Both his father (d. 1971CE) and grandfather were the Imams and head preachers of the Sacred Mosque in Makka, as was al-Sayyid Muhammad himself beginning in 1971 and until 1983. May Allah have mercy on them and continue to benefit us with them.  He single handedly refuted each and every one of the Wahabi/Salafi scholars of Najd.

Al Maghrib’s Takfir on the late Muhaddith of Hijaz

Keeping in line with the practice of their spiritual forefather Hurqus ibn Zuhair, the first of the Khwarijites who offended the Apostle of Allah (upon whom be peace and blessings) by saying, “be just in your distribution O Messenger of Allah” as recorded by both Bukhari and Muslim, Al Maghrib Institute, through its unfortunate instructor Yassir Qadhi, accused the Muhaddith of Hijaz Shaykh ibn ‘Alawi, of ‘being the leader of shirk and kufr of his time’. 

What follows is the quote from Al Maghrib instructor Yassir Qadhi against the Sayyid, Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Alawi al-Maliki; the instructor of Ahl-al Sunnah in the land of the Prophet, and the Mother of Cities, Makka Al Mukkarama:

“While it is the general policy of Al Maghrib not to quote individuals, I make exceptions in certain cases – this being one of them. Alawi al-Maliki is one of the most revered of modern Sufi personas – to speak evil of him is tantamount to apostasy in the eyes of many of his followers. For them, he is the leader of the awliya of Allah.

Yet, it is no exaggeration to state that he was one of the most active proponents in our times of blatant acts of shirk (in all three categories – please read some of the quotes that are in Abu Yusuf’s message in Arabic, and I can assure you that I’ve read them in the original sources and they are accurate). How is it possible that he be of the awliya of Allah when he spent most of his energies directing mankind to worship the ‘awliya’ instead of Allah? Anyone who doubts this statement of mine should read his quotes again – with an open and honest mind.

The sad fact of the matter is that for most Sufis it is simply taboo to mention anything negative about this person. I personally have seen ‘moderate’ Sufis, when quoted ideas and statements that al-Maliki propagated, vehemently deny that Sufiyyah has anything to do with such concepts, yet when they are shown *who* said them they become defensive and try to find excuses for this ‘wali’.

All one needs to refute his concepts is the detailed evidences that we presented that the Jahilliyah Arabs believed in Allah as a Rabb, and committed shirk in their worship. All of al-Maliki’s justifications of shirk in uloohiyyah and asma wa al-sifaat center around his premise that the Jahilliyah Arabs did not in fact believe in Allah as a Rabb (hence he is so concerned in his ‘Mafahim….’ to prove this point – in direct contradiction to explicit Quranic evidences that prove the contrary).

His book has been refuted in numerous other works – some of them are referenced in these other posts above. It is a further indication of the gap between the people of kalaam (who, in the early part of their history, had nothing to do with such shirk) and the people of the Sunnah that his book is prefaced by almost a hundred ‘tazkiyahs’ by the major Sufis/Mutakalims of our times. As I’ve said over and over again, far more dangerous than the differences in the Sifaat between us and the Mutakilimun is the differences in the understanding of the kalimah.” (4)

In response to this accusation against such a prominent Muhaddith, one who held over 200 Ijazahs to convey the religion of his grandfather (peace and blessings be upon him), and based upon Al Maghrib’s own claim that it has the ‘largest Islamic student body in North America’, I ask those who opposed my stern stance against them, “what can be more harmful to the future of Islam in North America and to Muslim youth than Al Maghrib Institute and it’s proclaiming takfir upon ‘Ulema whose understanding of the traditional Islamic faith has been deemed authentic since the inception of Islam? Why wouldn’t we call Al Maghrib an institute of false innovations and heresy, and one which should be shut down for good, when they are guilty of such heinous crimes against Islam and the Muslims?” It is no wonder then, that the Mercy to the Worlds (peace and blessings be upon him) is reported to have stated, “The Khawarij are the dogs of Hell-fire.”

Conclusion

More and more young North American Muslims are being led astray by Wahabism and its heretical beliefs and interpretations on a daily basis. A leader in the proliferation of such heresies amongst North American Muslim youth is without doubt the Al Maghrib Institute, which according to itself has ‘the largest body of Islamic students in Canada and America’.  This organization is teaching Muslim youth that Allah ‘is (literally) in the heavens, sitting upon His Throne’.  According to a fatwa issued and signed by the leading ‘Ulema of Al Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt, Sunni Islam’s foremost seat of learning, those who ascribe to such beliefs ‘leave the fold of Islam’ and are not to be buried amongst the Muslims after they die (5). 

In addition to being the leader of spreading such heresies amongst North American Muslim youth, Al Maghrib Institute agrees with the Salafi position that the Green Dome (Gunbad-e-Khadra) of the Prophet (uwbp) needs to be destroyed (6), that it is against the “sunnah” to follow a Madhab (7), and that the Ashari and Maturidi aqeedah are false (8).  After themselves being guilty of splitting from the vast majority of Ahl al-Sunnah on virtually all matters of importance, it becomes questionable whether a “kafir” himself is fit to pronounce “takfir” upon an upright scholar and saint, the likes of Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Alawi ibn ‘Abbas ibn ‘Abd al-’Aziz al-Maliki al-Hasani al-Makki? (9).  

Hence, it is our humble request to Muslim parents that they be more vigilant against such heretical organizations working to destroy their faith, prevent their children from attending their satanic seminars and help bring more awareness to other concerned parents of the dangers of the proliferation of the Wahabi/Salafi interpretation of Islam which Al Maghrib Institute and its instructors are working so hard to bring to the forefront as the Islam of Muslim youth in North America.

And Allah is the Greatest Protector.

Sayyid Ahmed Amiruddin                          
Deputy of Shaykh Muhammad Nazim Adil al-Haqqani
Chairman, ASFC  

www.alsunnahfoundation.org

 References:

2.  ‘Advice to Our Brothers, the Scholars of Najd’  by Kuwaiti Minister of State for Cabinet Affairs Sayyid Yusuf ibn Sayyid Hashim al-Rifaie
http://www.rifaieonline.com/advice.htm

3.  Al Maghrib Institute, Islamic Fundamentalism, Madinah University, Al Qaeda, and the                Saudi Connection http://www.alsunnahfoundation.org/AlMaghrib.htm

4.  Yassir Qadhi’s Takfir on Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Alawi al-Maliki, al-Makki
http://forums.almaghrib.org/showthread.php?t=15749

5.   Al Azhar Fatwa on the beliefs of Wahabism

Salman al-Oudah: Yasir Qadhi’s (& Osama bin Laden’s) “mentor”.

Yasir Qadhi had recently posted an article by the notorious Wahhabi Shaykh al-Ouda, or Awda (see picture on left), on the subject of terrorism.
(http://muslimmatters.org/2009/10/12/standing-united-against-terrorism-al-qaeda-salman-al-awdah-with-yasir-qadhi-and-yaser-birjas/)

This Wahhabi scholar was among the “Awakening Shuyukh” who was jailed for his critical views of the Saudi government, but then later released. After leaving the jail, he toned down his criticism of the Saudi monarchy and instead supported them in much of their domestic and foreign policy.

Moving on, the article was supplemented with excerpts by Yasir Qadhi, Yaser Birjas, Tawfique Chowdhury, and Waleed Basyouni.

Though it is ludicrous for a Wahhabi to write against terrorism — because Wahhabis terrorized Sunnis and Shi’ahs throughout much of their history for having different interpretations of the Islamic Sources — it is disturbing to note that contributers to al-Ouda’s article see him as a role model in the subject of terrorism.

Yasir Qadhi says:

“Sh. Salman [al-Ouda] is someone whom I know personally, and consider a mentor.”

What a coincidence. Osama bin Laden — Terrorist #1 – also admired Shaykh al-Ouda! Osama said: 

“When the Saudi government transgressed in oppressing all voices of the scholars and the voices of those who call for Islam, I found myself forced, especially after the government prevented Sheik Salman al-Awdah and Sheik Safar al-Hawali and some other scholars, to carry out a small part of my duty of enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong.”

(Source: http://www.anusha.com/osamaint.htm )

That’s a view Yasir Qadhi and Osama bin Laden have in common, and that’s disturbing for obvious reasons. The problem is that having al-Ouda as a “mentor” is tantamount to supporting a man who considers it okay to kill civilians in Jerusalem. No surprise why Osama bin Laden admires him. To Shaykh al-Ouda, they are not civilians, but occupiers. What does Qadhi think about the ‘civilians’ in Jerusalem?  

In al-Ouda’s website (http://islamtoday.com/), one can read the transcript of an interview of al-Ouda by the NY Times at
http://islamtoday.com/showme2.cfm?cat_id=29&sub_cat_id=448

Others who normally comment were unaware that Yasir Qadhi was supporting a man with very extreme and controversial views on civilians in Jerusalem. An astute commentator at Muslim-Matters spills the beans in detail. It is worth quoting his detailed exposition of al-Ouda’s answers to the NY Times reporter:

“Assalam-u-alaykum Amad,

Sorry, I am not being “disingenuous” as you claim and I have no “goal” other than to discuss the facts. I am being as objective as I possibly can and have gone to great lengths to prove my point.

First, the NY Times interview of Shaykh al-Ouda is on his own website, which is under the Shaykh’s “general supervision”, as clearly stated in his website. Therefore, there is reason to believe that he still holds those views.

There is no reason to believe that Shaykh al-Ouda has changed his views, as you said, unless something to the contrary illustrates that. I can find no evidence to the contrary and it seems like nobody else can either. Just because the interview was from 8 years ago does not automatically translate to him no longer holding those views, as you suggest — again, unless evidence to indicate this change is demonstrated. I don’t understand what you mean by “dirty politics”. We are discussing the facts extracted directly from his interview.

Second, when you quoted Shaykh al-Ouda, you missed a very important quote of his in the interview. It was the first one, as follows:

“Regardless of whether the attacks were against civilians, the fact [is] that they were within the realm of resisting occupation, is there any international law that denies the people the right to resist with any means they can?’’

Shaykh al-Ouda then differentiates the Sept. 11 attacks from the suicide bombings of civilians in Jerusalem by saying that the former was unacceptable whereas the latter (the Jerusalem suicide attacks) was a resistance against occupation. The understanding thus far is that he is not against the suicide attacks against ‘civilians’ in Jerusalem because he considers them occupiers.

Later in the interview, when the journalist presses Shaykh al-Ouda to discuss the 18 civilians (non-military) killed in the Jerusalem suicide attack, Shaykh al-Ouda says:

“There are too many things that are unknown dealing with the cause. Are these people who were killed, were they occupiers? And we have to look at solutions. Unless the situation can be removed, and the despair can be removed, we’re not going to solve the problem. A fatwa is not going to solve the problem.’’

Note that Shaykh al-Ouda is explicit about not condemning the victims because he deems them occupiers. When he is pressed by the journalist to answer, Shayk al-Ouda goes back to questioning the journalist: “Are these people who were killed, were they occupiers?” He is asking the journalist a question which he has already given his answer to, and wishes for the journalist to put himself in his shoes to answer the question himself.

Shaykh al-Ouda then makes it clear that it would be odd to explicitly condemn suicide attacks in Palestine/Israel:

“If all the ulemaa got together and condemned this activity, [suicide bombing in Israel] the people who are there will say these people don’t understand what’s going on, and we’re not going to pay attention to them.’’

This is in agreement with his earlier statements in which he says the attack is against occupiers (even if they are ‘civilians’).

Regarding suicide, he did indeed say that classical Islam never supported it. But you failed to notice what he said in his second statement that you quoted. Here it is again:

“If we accept the principle that war has been established and is going on, and the war is justified under Islamic law, and we happen to be in it at this time, in this case if a person gets involved in a suicide attack, then this is part of war, under the condition that innocents and civilians are not killed.’’

He said that “if a person gets involved in a suicide attack, then this is part of war, under the condition that innocents and civilians are not killed.” This means that while condemning the killing of civilians and innocents — not applicable to ‘civilian’ occupiers to Shaykh al-Ouda, as stated earlier — then this is a legitimate part of war.

From the aforementioned, we conclude the following:

(1) He supports suicide attacks against who he sees as “occupiers”. To him, they are not civilians, so it is okay to target them. But what if they are sitting and enjoying lunch or dinner at a restaurant, or if they are in a bus going somewhere? If it is okay to Shaykh al-Ouda to kill them, then he supports terrorism. Sorry.

(2) He supports suicide attacks in war.

I hope I’ve laid out the context clearly by the many quotes.

Let’s not love a scholar on this matter for the sake of loving him, even though he has done and said many good things for Islam.

Again, back to my original point: If we are writing against terrorism, is it sensible to use Shaykh al-Ouda in view of his statements above? I really don’t think so. Any sensible person would agree.

And Allah Knows Best.

Salaams,
Mohammed.”

The Muslim-Matters crew tried their best to prove “Mohammed Khan” wrong, but he stood his ground and seemed to have influenced the views of many who read his comments. One will note that the focus of many was on questioning al-Ouda’s stature as a scholar, and whether it made sense for someone like him to speak out against terrorism. The discussion of terrorism itself was more limited than what Muslim-Matters had anticipated.  

Needless to say, the explicit evidence shows that Yasir Qadhi and his team support a scholar who deems it permissible to kill civilians in Jerusalem. How can such a person logically be used as a “mentor” who speaks against terrorism when he advocates terrorism at the same time?

“Shirk” in Qasida Burdah? Yasir Qadhi’s Repugnant Attack.

 

(Picture: Maqaam of Imam Busiri, Allah bless him
abundantly for his beautiful poem, Al-Burdah)

YASIR QADHI ATTACKS AL-BURDAH

Yasir Qadhi accused the famous and beautiful Qasida Burdah by Imam Busiri (Allah bless him) as being filled with shirk. This is no surprise, of course. He, like other confused Wahhabis, loyally follow the footsteps of the founder of the Wahhabi movement, Muhammad ibn `Abdal-Wahhab, who, according to Shaykh GF Haddad, noted this in the infamous and unscholarly Kitab al-Tawhid:

“Equating the poem al-Burda to setting up an equal to Allah SWT”

(Source: http://www.livingislam.org/wahtwd_e.html)

Of the al-Burdah, Yasir Qadhi said:

Yes, there is much in the poem that is praiseworhty and beautiful. In fact, certain sections will even move you to tears.

However, that doesn’t change the fact that there is blatant shirk in all three categories of tahweed in that poem: shrik in ruboobiyyah, uloohiyyah and asma wa sifaat.

Therefore, the poem should not and cannot be read except to correct these exceses.

As for the alleged story of how the poem was written, the Prophet (saw) would not appear to anyone and praise him had he written soemthing of shirk. It is only the mystics who base their religion on dreams and fairy-tales; as for the true Muslm, he has the Quran and authentic Sunnah as his only true guides.

BTW, just so no one things I haven’t read the poem or am passing judgments w/o any knoweldge:

An example of shirk in ruboobiyyah is the stanza:
“And of your generosity is the (creation) of the Wolrd and its co-wife (meaning the Hereafter)…” Here it is as if the World and the Hereafter was created from the generosity of the Prophet (SAW).

An example of Shirk in Asma wa sifaat:
“And part of your knowledge is the knowlege of the Tablet and the Pen…” So PART of the knowledge of the Prophet (SAW) is the knoewledge that is encompassed in the LAwh al-Mahufdh – the tablet that has EVERYTHING written on it!! and that is only ‘part’ of his knowledge!! Compare this mystic poem with the authentic hadeeth in Bukhari where a young girl said “And we have a prophet who knows what will happen tommorrow.’ to which the Prophet (SAW) said, “Leave this (bit), and say the rest of it.”

Example of shirk in uloohiyyah:
” And who else there, besides you, who I can call out, at times of distress and problems?” Umm… how about our Creator, the only one the Prophet (SAW) HIMSELF would turn to at times of distress??

The poem is a prime example of over-praising the Prophet (SAW) and putting him ina place where even he himself would not like. We will discuss it more in Aqeedah 101 insha Allah.

Yasir

(Source: http://forums.almaghrib.org/showpost.php?p=381421&postcount=6)

IMAM HAMZA YUSUF & SHAYKH ABDAL HAKIM MURAD PRAISE
AL-BURDAH

  Before giving the refutation against Yasir Qadhi’s (mis) understanding – which is devoid of Islamic intellectual depth or correct understanding – it is worth seeing and listening to the short documentary on youtube on Qasida al-Burdah in which Imam Hamza Yusuf, Shaykh Abdal Hakim Murad, and poet Daniel Moore discuss the immense value and inspiring story of Imam al-Busiri and his beloved poem. The documentary is at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_dOTPWN2-s
Imam Hamza
Yusuf

SHAYKH FARAZ RABBANI RESPONDS

Yasir Qadhi was soundly refuted by Shaykh Faraz Rabbani, a traditional Sunni scholar of the Hanafi madhab, who explained in detail how Yasir had completely missed the point. Shaykh Rabbani is a former instructor at the Sunnipath Academy (www.sunnipath.com) and is currently leading Seekers Guidance (http://seekersguidance.org). Had Yasir read what the author of the poem meant, he would not have relied on his own misleading interpretations of the certain poetic verses he refers to. It is strange that Yasir neglected to do his homework and was willing to conclude and accuse a respected Muslim of shirk. Yasir also contradicts the overwhelming majority of scholars from the Hanafi, Shafi’i, Maliki, and Hanbali madhahib, who  have never hated such a poem, much less accused its author of blatant shirk. Rather, they embraced the poem for its beauty, eloquence, and deep spiritual meaning. Allah’s blessings for this poem are evident as it has been recited and sung in all parts of the world from Africa to the Middle East to South Asia to Southeast Asia. 

Now, let’s read what Shaykh Rabbani says:

In the Name of Allah, Most Merciful and Compassionate

May Allah’s peace and blessings be upon His Beloved Messenger Muhammad, his noble folk, righteous companions, and all followers.

No, the Qasida Burda doesn’t contain “shirk” (associating partners with Allah) or other deviations from sound Islamic belief. Rather, it is a pure expression of deep and passionate love for the Beloved Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), whose love is a condition of faith.

The Qasida Burda has been accepted by the mainstream of Islamic scholarship as one of the greatest statements of love for the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). It is recited across the Muslim world, from East to West, as it has been for centuries. There are dozens of commentaries on it, by many of the greatest scholars of Islam, none of whom saw any “blatant shirk” in its beautiful praise of the Beloved Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). However, given its eloquence and depth, certain verses-such as those criticized by our respected critic-need to be understood as the author meant them. It is unfair to interpret others’ words in ways they did not mean.

[1] The critic cites the opening of the verse as an example of “shirk” in the Oneness of Allah’s Lordship (tawhid al-rububiyya):

“From our generosity is the world and its partner [the Hereafter]…”

Our respected critic claims that this refers to the creation of the world and there hereafter-as if Busiri is claiming that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and his generosity created them! The Arabic text if this verse doesn’t mention “creation” in it.

As Imam Ibrahim al-Bajuri makes clear in his commentary on the Burda, what this means is that the best of this world and the next is from the gift the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) gave-by Allah’s granting-to humanity.

The best of this world is the guidance of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), by which alone this worldly has any meaning; and the best gift of any human to humanity in the Hereafter is the intercession the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) makes-as established in rigorously authentic hadiths, as we will see below.

There is a basic principle in knowledge that, “Ruling on a matter comes after sound understanding of it.” To criticize someone’s words, one must first soundly understand them as the author intended them-not as one’s own understanding determines.

[2] The critic then cites the following verses as example of shirk in Allah’s Names & Attributes,

“And from your knowledge is knowledge of the Pen and Tablet”

It is established that Allah commanded the Pen to write the details of all matters until the Last Day-namely, before the Resurrection and Hereafter-as related in authentic hadiths in Ahmad and Tirmidhi. These hadiths were considered mass-transmitted by al-Amir al-Kabir in his commentary on Laqani’s Jawharat al-Tawhid, as Kattani relates in Nadhm al-Mutanathir.

In this hadith, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “The first of Allah’s creation was the pen.” Then he mentioned that Allah commanded it to, “Write everything that will occur, until the Last Hour.” [Ahmad 21649, from Ubada ibn Samit (Allah be pleased with him)]

It is authentically established that Allah granted His Beloved Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) knowledge of the events of this worldly life.

There is no “shirk” in this: (1) it is authentically established in the sunna; (2) it is by Allah’s granting, so there is no point of comparison between the Absolute, Infinite, and unacquired Knowledge of Allah and the acquired, and limited (though inimaginably vast) knowledge of the Best of Creation (Allah bless him and give him peace).

The knowledge of the Pen and Tablet-being this knowledge of worldly events until the Last Day-is “from” the knowledge of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) because he was also granted tremendous knowledge of matters of the hereafter, and of Allah and His Attributes-the greatest of all knowledge.

What we need to understand is that Allah granted His Beloved Messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace) tremendous knowledge of the Unseen, including details of matters of this life and the next; and He granted His Beloved (Allah bless him and give him peace) greater knowledge of Himself than any of His creation.

Thus, there is no element of shirk in this verse. It simply affirms what the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) himself affirmed, not more and not less.

[3] Our respected critic then cites the following verse as an example of “shirk” in Allah’s Oneness in Divinity (tawhid al-uluhiyya):

” And who else there, besides you, who I can call out, at times of distress and problems?”

This is our critic’s suggested translation. A sounder translation is:

“O Most Honored of Creation! Whom can I turn to

But you when the Encompassing Event befalls?”

The “Encompassing Event” (wrongly translated us “times of distress and problems”) refers specifically to the distress that befalls all creation on the Day of Resurrection. As authentic hadiths in Bukhari [3092], Muslim [287], and elsewhere affirm, all of creation will go from one prophet to another, each of whom is busy with themselves-out of absolute awe of Allah-and tells them to go to another prophet. Finally, all of creation goes to our Beloved Messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace), seeking respite from the tremendous tribulation and distress of that Day. The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) answers their call, affirming that this is from what Allah granted him, and turns to Allah seeking respite for creation, and this is granted to him by Allah.

There is no suggestion in this verse that a believer shouldn’t turn to Allah Himself when distress and problems occur. Rather, it is simply affirming something the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) affirmed: that Allah has granted His Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) general intercession for all creation from the intensity of the tribulations of the Day of Judgment, and that on that Day all creation will find none in creation to turn to for assistance but Allah’s Beloved (Allah bless him and give him peace).

This also shows that seeking the assistance of creation-whether in material or spiritual matters-does in no way negate one’s understanding that Allah alone is the ultimate granter. But our Giving Lord has shown us that there are both material and spiritual means one seeks, while fully aware that the Giver and Granter is none but Allah.

This is the aqida of the mainstream of Muslims: we affirm the taking of material and spiritual means, and affirm that the granter is only Allah Himself. This is the understanding of the great Companion of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), Rabi`ah ibn Ka`b al-Aslami (Allah be pleased with him), who said, “O Messenger of Allah! I ask you for your company in Paradise!” The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) replied, “Assist me concerning yourself with much prostration.” [Muslim (754)]

[ref: The commentaries on Busiri's Burda by Bajuri, Hamzawi, Ibn Hajar, and Shaykh Zada]

And Allah alone gives success.

Faraz Rabbani

(Source: http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?id=11961)

SHAYKH WAHBA AL-ZUHAYLI’S
RESPONSE TO THE IGNORANT

The poem states:

“[O most generous of creation,] who but you can I turn to When the Universal Cataclysm occurs?…”

Shaykh al-Zuhayli explains:

“The first line contains faith and affirmation of the Prophet’s intercession (pbuh). His intercession is two types: the greater  intercession for all of the creation in being relieved of the terrors of the standing and going forward to their accounts and the second intercession for the disobedient among the Muslims.” 

The poem states:

“From your largess flows the good of this world and its counterpart in the next, And from your knowledge is knowledge of the Tablet and the Pen…”

Shaykh al-Zuhayli explains:

“The second line does not imply independent creation and bringing into existence, rather, it means that that the bounty of the this world and the next is through faith in the message of the greatest Messenger (pbuh). As for what is meant by knowledge here, it refers to the knowledge that Allah taught him via revelation only, and not peering into the matters of the unseen that were not learned through the revelation.”

The poem states:

“By the pre-eminance of the one whose house is in the Pure Land, And whose name is an oath among the greatest of oaths” 

 

Shaykh al-Zuhayli explains: 

“The meaning of the third line is that Allah swore an oath by the Prophet when He said: “And by your life, they are blind in their drunkenness.” 

After warning from this [incorrect] understanding, I warn from the confusion of the confused and taking advantage of the foolish ones who do not understand al-Busiri’s intent or that of others. We are the most keen of people in having sound doctrine; the ill understanding of the ignorant will not harm us the least.”

(Source: http://marifah.net/articles/burdah-alzuhayli.pdf)    

Myth of the “Wahhabi Myth: The Wahhabi Bogeyman”.

This post and others to follow aim to expose the pseudo-Sunni statements and deception in the article entitled “The Wahhabi Myth: Debunking the Bogeyman” by a little known “Amad”.  This article was also acknowledged by “Yasir Qadhi, Ruth Nasrullah, and Omar Usman for reviewing and providing valuable comments.” The article, then, is understood as the final product achieved through the collective agreement of the primary author (Amad) and those acknowledged. Therefore, all of them are responsible for the contents in the article, and all harm and confusion that accrue from it to unknowing Muslims who have chosen them as their religious role models.  

Amad (understood as him and his acknowledgers from now onwards) attempts to refute those who oppose Wahhabis/Salafis by attempting to portray the term Wahhabi as meaningless.  His poorly displayed semantics attempt to wiggle away from and sideline the truth to deceive their followers and readers. But as long as Muslims like me exist, they won’t get away with it. The truth is that this article is an attempt to raise the banner of Wahhabism against what its detractors say. It is foolish to attempt such an impossible feat as it can only be done through an exercise of semantic acrobatics and cherry-picking marred by lies, half-truths, ommission of context, and opposition to all who oppose Wahhabism (for good or not-so-good reasons).  Amad’s article can be read at: http://muslimmatters.org/2007/04/01/the-wahhabi-myth-debunking-the-bogeyman/

#1  —  MUSLIM-MATTERS SUPPORTS THE SLANDERING OF THE COMPANION ABU BAKR BY MUHAMMAD IBN ABDAL WAHHAB

Amad said:

“An absolute must-read is a book by Natana DeLong-Bas, called “Wahhabi Islam: From Revival and Reform to Global Jihad”, excerpts here, and buy it here. “

Natana DeLong-Bas’s book was partially funded by Wahhabis so it is no surprise that she had resorted to apologetics for Wahhabism. But Amad’s support for the book is disturbing.

I find it odd that Amad sees DeLong-Bas’s book as, in his words, an “absolute must-read” when it is well known that Muhammad Ibn Abdal Wahhab said some despicable things about our beloved Imam Abu Bakr (peace be upon him).

As one observer correctly noted, “Abu Bakr had been the first caliph of the Islamic community, and during his tenure…he had established the practice of the caliph serving as a paid guardian over the people. Shaykh Ibn Abdul Wahhab expressed vehement disagreement with the decision saying that Abu Bakr had mis-applied vague Quranic verses to justify the ruling. The Shaykh goes on to label Abu Bakr’s decision as:

“…the most astonishing part of his ignorance.”

The astute observer continues: “In the same edict, Ibn Abdul Wahhab described Abu Bakr’s claim that such spending was for public good as:

“…an awesome lie.”

The astute observer later correctly concludes that “Ibn Abdul Wahhab’s harsh criticism of Abu Bakr is a radical departure from the reverence that mainstream Muslims typically have of the Companions of the Prophet.”

Amad, I will let you do a bit of reading so you can tell all of us the exact page numbers where those quotes are found in DeLong-Bas’s book — the book you praise and ask people to purchase. In any case, it is shameful for obvious reasons to publicize a book that speaks ill of our beloved Companions.

It is even more shameful that those who read this excerpt of yours as stated in your “Acknowledgements” quickly endorsed your die-hard support of it. I ask: Yasir Qadhi, Ruth Nasrullah, and Omar Usman: How can you endorse such slander against Abu Bakr? Your desperation to support Wahhabism and its founder has made you stoop to so low a level that the Prophet Muhammad’s (Salla Allahu `alayhi wa salaam) Companion in the cave is being championed as a greedy thug. I’m not sure you’ll find any real Sunni who supports you in this matter. But you’ll certainly find a few Shi’ah. Nevertheless, Muhammad ibn Abdal-Wahhab’s slandering of Companions speaks for itself. It reflects his anti-Sunni character and shows beyond any shadow of a doubt that he is as far from Ahl al-Sunna wa’al Jama’ah as the earth is from the sun.

It also makes me curious why Amad is recommending a book that puts much of the blame for terrorism on Ibn Taymiyah (and Syed Qutb, though he doesn’t concern us at this time). Isn’t Ibn Taymiyah esteemed to be one of the few favorites of Wahhabis, along with his foremost student, Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah?  Perhaps you missed this too in your hurry to put the stamp of approval on what seemed to be a categorical defense of Wahhabism’s founder and his teachings.  

#2 — DISCARD THE TERM WAHHABI BECAUSE IT DOESN’T MEAN ANYTHING REAL AT ALL?

After exerting an inordinate amount of effort rambling about various people and organizations describing and accusing the Wahhabis, this is what Amad had to say: 

“And the top reason is that Wahhabis has different meaning to different people. The data collected here proves that Wahhabis means so many different things for different people, that in the end, it doesn’t mean anything real at all….With an origin inaccurate, with usage incoherent, and with connotations divisive and slanderous, is it not time to bury this term, once and for all?” 

Let’s see how Amad’s logic flows. Here it goes:

 

 Premise: Wahhabis mean different things to different people.
Conclusion: Therefore, Wahhabis doesn’t mean anything real at all.

 

 This is a beautiful example of a non-sequitur. For those unfamiliar with this term, dictionary.com defines it as:

 

 (1) “an inference or a conclusion that does not follow from the premises.”

 (2)  “a statement containing an illogical conclusion.”

 

To understand Amad’s strange reasoning, let’s discuss the word Sufi. People have defined Sufis in many different ways, some correctly and others incorrectly. Some define Sufis and Sufism, or a part of it, as alien to Islam. This is the line commonly heard by Orientalists. Others say Sufis are the pacificists of Islam. Though they stress the internal, they certainly cannot be deemed pacifisits because many participated in physical jihad. Yet, others say that Sufis are reprehensible innovaters who have hijacked Islam and introduced all sorts of unIslamic practices. Similar to the Orientalist accusation, supporters of this view attempt to denigrate Sufism wholesale. Others, in confusion, surrender to the conclusion that there are “good Sufis” and “bad Sufis” and not all are bad. These are confused or renegade Wahhabis who lean just a tad bit closer to Ibn Taymiyah who never condemned Sufism wholesale, though he was never fully representative of it either. And, of course, you have the traditional Sunnis consisting of the vast majority of Muslims who have always accepted Sufism (`ilm ul-tasawwuf) as a legitimate Islamic science. The biggest evidence in favor of the legitimacy of Sufism as an Islamic science is that no reputable Muslim scholar ever condemened it wholesale in Islam’s history. Because it was supported by Muslims who lived before us, it is clear that this was a practice of Ahl al-Sunna wa’al Jama’ah. What’s also clear, then, is that those who condemn Sufis wholesale are not from Ahl al-Sunna wa’al Jama’ah. Too bad for the Wahhabis – I ’m not counting the renegade Wahhabis here who accept good and bad Sufis. Their confusion, however, still persists. I digress. Let’s return to Amad’s great reasoning.  

 

Now, following Amad’s logic (read: non-sequitur), Sufism/Sufis (like Wahhabism/Wahhabis) are described in so many ways that the safe conclusion we inevitably reach is!: ”Sufism/Sufis really do not mean anything real at all! It techically doesn’t exist!” (smile).

 

Surely by now my point is clear to the reader. Such choppy reasoning and the faulty conclusion derived from it cannot be called good logic at all (except to a Wahhabi, of course). Makes me wonder why Amad is so eager to throw the term Wahhabi in the heapbin of history when so many other such terms exist to describe Muslims: Sufis, Hanafis, Deobandis, Barelwis, Naqshbandis, … The list goes on and on. These terms have been used by Muslims positively and negatively, depending on whether they support their particular interpretations of certain Islamic matters or not. Using Amad’s reasoning, these terms should also be discarded because of their negativity when they’re used as such. Moreover, they should be discarded because they mean different things to different people. But why isn’t Amad advocating this and being consistent with his argument (no matter how flawed it is)? The answer is simple: He is a rabid Wahhabi. Any other name calling, including the “Sufi” accusation heaped on Muslim masses as if it was a curse word, doesn’t count in Amad’s (or any Wahhabi’s) books.

 

Amad could have saved lots of his time and energy by simply saying that Wahhabi is a term used mainly by the detractors of Wahhabis (read: Sunnis and Shi’ahs, though the late Abdal Aziz Ibn Baaz didn’t mind using the term either as he was proud of being one himself). Muslims who disagreed with the Wahhabi interpretation of Islam called them Wahhabis to identify them with that unorthodox, pseudo-Sunni understanding of Islam — an understanding of many issues through an approach that the Kharijites had used long before them, i.e. misinterpreting verses by refering verses meant for non-Muslims to Muslims. That is, accusing Muslims of doing tawassul (through a pious, deceased intermediary) and tabarruk  of committing polytheism. Never mind the fact that the late Al-Albani confessed that Imam Ahmed Ibn Hanbal allowed Muslims to do tawassul through our beloved Prophet Muhammad (Salla Allahu `alayhi wa sallam) only. I suppose Al-Albani was an…unorthodox Wahhabi to Wahhabis? Interesting how there are so many strains of Wahhabism. Innovaters seem to multiply like a variety of cancerous strains.

Amad’s attempt to kill the word Wahhabi is futile. As long as Wahhabis exist, so will their detractors who most often call them by that name to warn Muslims from their unorthodox, pseudo-Sunni interpretations of the Qur’an and Sunnah. Cease such fanatical interpretations and only then will Wahhabism’s dectractors stop using the term. Sorry, you can’t have it both ways. Simple as that.

#3 — DELIBERATELY HIDING THE CONTEXT OF RASHID AHMED GANGOHI’S PRAISE OF MUHAMMAD IBN ABDAL WAHHAB

Amad said:

“Respect for Shaykh Muhammad among Muslims varies as with any scholar. While there is a greater respect in areas where he had greater impact (i.e. Arabian Peninsula), he still garnered respect in the non-Arab world, such as among the Deobandis in Pakistan, for instance Rashid Ahmed Gangohi’s praise of the Shaykh.” 

In an unclever attempt to portray that the Deobandi scholar, Rashid Ahmed Gangohi, praised the Founder of Wahhabism and thus the teachings of Wahhabism, Amad fails to explain the context of Rashid Ahmed Gangohi’s words. The context is best known through other learned Deobandi scholars — a group in which Amad does not belong. (Rashid Ahmed Gangohi is not from “Pakistan” as Amad alleges, but from British India.)

It is worth reading at length the words of Shaykh Muhammad ibn Adham al-Kawthari, a learned Deobandi scholar, who sheds light on the matter and provides the context needed for his “support” of Muhammad ibn Abdal Wahhab:

“The above clearly demonstrates that Shaykh Rashid Ahmad al-Gangohi was a great scholar of traditional Sunni Islam, follower of the Matrudi Aqidah and the Hanafi School of Islamic law. He was in no way a follower of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab al-Najdi and was not in any way from those who reject the four Schools of Sunni Islamic law and condone Taqlid.

“As far as what you have quoted from his Fatawa regarding Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab al-Najdi, it is true indeed. He answers two questions with regards to him. Below is the translation of each of the two questions and their answers:

“Question: What kind of a person was (Muhammad ibn) Abd al-Wahhab al-Najdi?”

“Answer: People call Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab a Wahhabi. He was a good person, and I have heard that he was a follower of the Hanbali School of Islamic law and acted upon the Hadith. He used to prevent people from Shirk and innovation (bid’a), but he was harsh (shadid) in his attitude.”

“Question: Who are the Wahhabis and what was the belief of Abd al-Wahhab al-Najdi? What was his Madhhab and what type of person was he? What is the difference in belief between the people of Najd and Sunni Hanafis?”

“Answer: The followers of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab are called Wahhabis. They had good (umdah) beliefs and their school of thought was Hanbali. However, they were very stringent in their attitude but he and his followers were good people. But, yes, those who exceeded the limits were overcome by wrongness (fasad). And basic beliefs of everyone are united. The difference they have in actions is (like that) of Hanafi, Shafi’i, Maliki and Hanbali.” (Fatawa Rashidiyya, P. 241-242)

“The above is what the respected Shaykh wrote about Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab al-Najdi and his followers. However, one must understand the background of the Shaykh’s statements.

“The great Faqih of recent times in the Indian Subcontinent, Shaykh Mufti Mahmud al-Hasan al-Gangohi (Allah have mercy on him) who passed away in 1994 A.D, the grand Mufti of India whose Fatawa are gathered and compiled in 17 volumes discusses the reason behind Shaykh Rashid Ahmad (Allah have mercy on him) mentioning this in his Fatawa.

“Note that, these two scholars are two different people and not related to one another, though they both have the same last name, namely Gangohi, which is an attribution to a village known as Gangoh in India. Shaykh Rashid Ahmad (Allah have mercy on him) was the great grand-teacher of the more recent Mufti Mahmud al-Hasan (Allah have mercy on him), hence the latter holds the former in great regard and respect. This humble writer was also privileged to have received Ijazah in Hadith from Mufti Mahmud al-Hasan al-Gangohi.

“Nevertheless, Mufti Mahmud al-Hasan al-Gangohi (Allah have mercy on him) states in his Fatawa that, Shaykh Rashid Ahmad (Allah have mercy on him) was initially unaware of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab al-Najdi’s position, because al-Najdi was initially known in the Subcontinent as a reformer of Sunnah, and the one who strived greatly in rejecting Bid’a and establishing the Sunnah. As such, the respected Shaykh also said what he had heard, for a Muslim should always hold good opinions about other Muslims until it is proven otherwise.

“Thereafter, the respected Shaykh’s mentor and teacher sent him the copy of Radd al-Muhtar wherein Allama Ibn Abidin (Allah have mercy on him) clearly refuted Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab. Allama Ibn Abidin states:

“…As it has occurred in our times with the followers of Abd al-Wahhab al-Najdi, who appeared from Najd and imposed their control over the two sacred Harams. They used to attribute themselves to the Hanbali School but they believed that only they were Muslims and that who ever opposed their beliefs were polytheists (mushrik), thus they considered the killing of those who were from the Ahl al-Sunnah and their scholars to be legitimate, until Allah Most High destroyed their might and power.” (Radd al-Muhtar, 3/339-340, chapter regarding the followers of Abd al-Wahhab, the Khawarij of our times)

“Mufti Mahmud al-Hasan states that had Shaykh Rashid Ahmad read what Allama Ibn Abidin stated in his Radd al-Muhtar regarding the Wahhabis, he would surely not have stated what he had in his Fatawa.

“He states that this does not in any way demean the status and rank of Shaykh Mawlana Rashid Ahmad al-Gangohi, for he had said what he had heard. He did not have knowledge of the unseen, thus he cannot be blamed. Allama Ibn Abidin (Allah have mercy on him) was geographically closer to Najd, thus he was aware at first hand of what Shaykh Rashid Ahmad, who was living in India, was unaware of. (See: Fatawa Mahmudiyya, 13/411-412)

“I would like to add here that this is clearly the case when we look at Shaykh Rashid Ahmad’s first Fatwa wherein he states “I have heard that he was a follower of the Hanbali School…..” stipulating that his information was purely based on what he had heard. This was not a matter of Fiqh or Shariah as such in which he needed to investigate, and anyway, a Muslim should always have good opinion (husn al-Zann) about fellow Muslims until the contrary is proven.

“Moreover, the students of Shaykh Rashid Ahmad al-Gangohi (Allah have mercy on them all) clearly refuted the ideologies and actions of the Najdis. Shaykh Khalil Ahmad al-Saharanfuri (Allah have mercy on him), a student of the Shaykh, stated in his renowned al-Muhannad ala al-Mufannad that he and his teachers hold the same view as Allama Ibn Abidin regarding Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab al-Najdi and his followers. This was agreed upon and signed by almost all of the major scholars of the Indian subcontinent.”
(SOURCE: http://www.daruliftaa.com/question.asp?txt_QuestionID=q-18272411)

So, it is clear that Deobandis definitely do not support Wahhabism. Deobandis are Hanafi in fiqh, Ash’ari in `aqeedah, and they also embrace Sufism as a legitimate Islamic science. Wahhabis do not embrace any fiqh seriously (though some claim to be Hanbali) and they repudiate the Ash’ari creed as deviant. Moreover, Wahhabis have never accepted `ilm ul-tasawwuf (Sufism) as a valid Islamic science as the majority of Muslims in Islam’s history have.

It is also interesting to note that Rashid Ahmad Gangohi’s students

“clearly refuted the ideologies and actions of the Najdis.”

 This shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that Rashid Ahmad Gangohi simply had a good opinion as he would of any Muslim who he had only heard about. It was not an approval of his anthropomorphic `aqeedah and his reprehensible innovations in `ibadat. 

Had Rashid Ahmad Gangohi accessed the sayings of other reputable scholars on the matter, he would certainly have refuted Muhammad ibn Abdal Wahhab and his teachings. If this was not true, his students would not have refuted the Najdis but instead embraced them based on their Shaykh’s “supportive” statements for Muhammad ibn Abdal Wahhab. This was clearly not the case. After all, the students know their Shaykh better than those who do not associate with the Shaykh. It would be bizzare and outrageous to accuse all of Rashid Ahmad Gangohi’s students of being ignorant about their own Shaykh’s statements, would it not? 

 

Now, take a few steps back from the analysis and wonder: The continued desperation of Amad and his cohorts to find alleged Muslim supporters of Wahhabism makes them quote those whom they have already condemned as innovaters and outcasts: Ash’aris and Sufis! This is a common tactic of Wahhabis and other Salafis. Masterful cherry-picking, as if nobody else knows about the people quoted but themselves. They have been exposed time and again by quoting eminent scholars of Islam selectively to fit their anti-Sunni interpretations. 

 

A famous scholar is Imam Nawawi, may Allah bless him abundantly. Wahhabis print his books on hadeeth, tout him as a reputable scholar, and make money from his works — all while hiding from the less informed the fact that he was a staunch supporter of Sufism, as clearly explained in his own works, “Bustan al `Arifin” and “al-Maqasid”. Furthermore, Imam Nawawi followed the Ash’ari creed — a creed accused of being deviant by Wahhabis. So, while championing his books on hadeeth, they hide the fact that he was a Sufi supporter and Ash’ari. Wahhabis will be responsible for these sleight-of-hand deceptions they smear eminent Muslims with on a daily basis and confuse well-meaning but less informed Muslims through them.

 

Amad and Co.’s selective and deceptive use of Rashid Ahmad Gangohi’s statements minus the necessary context, and failure to mention his own students’ anti-Wahhabi positions clearly shows that Muslim-Matters is attempting to portray as true what is actually false. 

 

So, brothers and sisters, those who are being taken for a ride by Amad and Co., including Yasir Qadhi, should be shunned and exposed for their trickery.