CNN Naively Says Yasir Qadhi & Muslim Matters Teach “Traditional Islamic Teachings”.

CNN’s IGNORANCE: WHO IS MODERATE AND WHO IS EXTREME?

Recently the CNN invited Yasir Qadhi and a few of the staff of Muslim Matters to their studio and presented them as “moderates” who teach “traditional Islamic teachings”. The Muslim Matters staff was able to take advantage of this ignorance by CNN that did not even question them once about their support of Wahhabism and their differences with the majority of Muslims. The title of the video is “Moderates counter Muslim extremists”.

The CNN reporter said:

“Meet the staff of Muslim Matters, a website that answers questions using traditional Islamic teachings to counter arguments made by Islamic extremists.”

Amad of Muslim Matters, known for casting aspersions against Ahl-al-Sunna, said:

“Our goal was to be able to present an orthodox voice online and show that you can be 100% orthodox and 100% American.”

But who besides Wahhabis, neo-Wahhabis, or some manifestation of Salafi-Wahhabism say that Wahhabism and its different shades are “orthodox” and “moderate”? CNN failed to explain the definitions of a “moderate” and “extremist” though one can understand the shallow approach CNN was following.   

CNN naively appeared to define an “orthodox” and “moderate” Muslim as any Muslim who condemned militants (so-called jihadists). This simplistic, bi-polar division of Muslims — condemners of militancy are “moderate” and “orthodox”; supporters of militancy are “extremists” – brushes over and obscures the various shades of extremism and, instead, lumps non-violent extremists with the real moderates: This is exactly what CNN did when they lumped Yasir Qadhi with Imam Hamza Yusuf and Imam Zaid Shakir, the latter two being genuine Sunni moderates while Yasir Qadhi being a rabid, unorthodox Wahhabi.

Had CNN done their homework, they would have invited Imams Hamza Yusuf, Zaid Shakir, and other teachers from Zaytuna College who represent ‘traditional Islamic teachings’ to their studio rather than Yasir Qadhi and Muslim Matters who are a pseudo-Sunni, Wahhabi minority. 

  ARE NON-VIOLENT WAHHABI EXTREMISTS “MODERATES”?

Did it not occur to CNN that a condemner of violence may possibly be contributing to the problem of extremism in other ways? By failing to mention the various shades of Islamic extremism, and mixing apples with oranges,  CNN bestowed accolades on Yasir Qadhi and Muslim Matters as propagaters of “moderation” and “orthodox” Islam.

In actuality, Yasir Qadhi and his entourage are known to represent a minority neo-Wahhabi/Salafi sect of Islam that contradicts the beliefs of the Sunni majority: followers of the Ash’ari/Maturidi/Athari creeds and followers of the Hanafi, Shafi’i, Maliki and Hanbali schools of jurisprudence.

Even if many youngsters support neo-Wahhabi groups like Muslim Matters, Sunni scholars – now and in the past – who represent the Muslim majority have condemned such groups as unorthodox and extreme. This fact completely escaped CNN. This resulted in CNN praising extremist Wahhabis and distorting the image of genuine, orthodox Sunnis. 

Even if Yasir Qadhi does not espouse violence, he is known to make takfeer (condemning Muslims as being out of the fold of Islam) against most Muslims, and accuses them of reprehensible innovation (bid’ah) and polytheism (shirk). In lock-step with Wahhabi teachings, he openly praises Ibn Taymiyah’s unorthodox understanding of creed, uses his categorization to explain creed, and casts aspersions against followers of the Ash’ari creed (and by extension the Maturidi creed) of being outside the fold of Islam.

CNN should have known that those who were being condemned by Yasir Qadhi collectively represent most Muslims in Islam’s history and are the real “moderates” and followers of “orthodox” Islam.

CNN should have known that a long list of orthodox Sunni scholars refuted Wahhabism in their books, treatises, and poems, and warned the Muslim masses from their reprehensible innovations in matters of belief and worship. A sample of these Sunni scholars is provided below.

WAHHABISM FUELS IDEOLOGICAL EXTREMISM

Wahhabism indeed fuels ideological extremism and a bi-polar vision of the world — similar to the keyboard “jihadists” and other pseudo-Sunni militants they set out to condemn. Indeed, one finds parallels in the role models the Wahhabis use. While non-violent Wahhabis and militant “jihadists” interpret the statements of Ibn Taymiyah and Muhammad ibn Abdal-Wahhab differently, they view both as legitimate and valid scholars in almost all accounts. Sunni scholars view these individuals as astray from orthodox Sunni Islam, mainly in matters of creed but also in matters of worship.

Wahhabism was the ideological fuel that inculcated Osama bin Laden, who then turned to a hybrid Wahhabi-Salafi “jihadist”. Those who say Wahhabism was not part of Osama bin Laden’s beliefs and worldview are naive. He was born and raised in Wahhabi Saudi Arabia, had a Wahhabi father who was close to the Saudi Wahhabi monarchy, and whose son Omar bin Laden in a recent book clearly stated that his father is a “Wahhabi”.

DOES CNN KNOW THE FOLLOWING ABOUT YASIR QADHI, MUSLIM MATTERS,
& AL-MAGHRIB INSTITUTE?

ANWAR AL-AWLAKI. Does CNN know that Muslim Matters at one time supported Anwar al-Awlaki, the militant “jihadist”? Does CNN know that “moderate” Muslim Matters was very happy in 2007 when Anwar al-Awlaki was released from prison in Yemen, and devoted an entire article to this? This article was written by the same “Amad” that CNN invited to its studio. Muslim Matters said this of Anwar Awlaki:

“Alhamdulillah this is great news. I urge all the brothers and sisters to send a quick email to Imam Awlaki, telling him how happy we are that he has been released from his unlawful and undeserved imprisonment, back to his family and friends. May Allah protect our scholars and students of knowledge from the oppressors and the dictators of the world.”

SAUDI WAHHABI EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS. Does CNN know that many, if not most, instructors at al-Maghrib Institute (all of whom support Muslim Matters) studied and graduated in Wahhabi educational institutions in Saudi Arabia? Namely, the following instructors: Muhammad alShareef (the founder of al-Maghrib Institute), Yasir Qadhi, Yaser Birjas, AbdulBary Yahya, Shpendim Nadzaku, Navaid Aziz, Ahsan Hanif, and — the latest addition — Abdullah Hakim Quick.

SUNNI SCHOLARS REFUTE WAHHABISM. Does CNN know which moderate, orthodox Sunni scholars wrote against Wahhabis and warned Muslims from them? The following is a sample: 

–Al-`Amrawi, `Abd al-Hayy, and `Abd al-Hakim Murad (Qarawiyyin University, Morocco): Al-tahdhir min al-ightirar bi ma ja’a fi kitab al-hiwar [“Warning Against Being Fooled By the Contents of the Book (by Ibn Mani`) A Debate With al-Maliki (an attack on Ibn `Alawi al-Maliki by a Wahhabi writer)”] (Fes: Qarawiyyin, 1984).

–`Ata’ Allah al-Makki: al-sarim al-hindi fil `unuq al-najdi [“The Indian Scimitar on the Najdi’s Neck”].

–Al-Azhari, `Abd Rabbih ibn Sulayman al-Shafi`i (The author of Sharh Jami’ al-Usul li ahadith al-Rasul, a basic book of Usul al-Fiqh: Fayd al-Wahhab fi Bayan Ahl al-Haqq wa man dalla `an al-sawab, 4 vols. [“Allah’s Outpouring in Differentiating the True Muslims From Those Who Deviated From the Truth”].

–Al-`Azzami, `Allama al-shaykh Salama (d. 1379H): Al-Barahin al-sati`at [“The Radiant Proofs…”].

–Al-Barakat al-Shafi`i al-Ahmadi al-Makki, `Abd al-Wahhab ibn Ahmad: unpublished manuscript of a refutation of the Wahhabi sect.

–Al-Buti, Dr. Muhammad Sa`id Ramadan (University of Damascus): Al-Salafiyyatu marhalatun zamaniyyatun mubarakatun la madhhabun islami [“The Salafiyya is a blessed historical period not an Islamic school of law”] (Damascus: Dar al-fikr, 1988); Al-lamadhhabiyya akhtaru bid`atin tuhaddidu al-shari`a al-islamiyya [“Non-madhhabism is the most dangerous innovation presently menacing Islamic law”] (Damascus: Maktabat al-Farabi, n.d.).

–Al-Dahesh ibn `Abd Allah, Dr. (Arab University of Morocco), ed. Munazara `ilmiyya bayna `Ali ibn Muhammad al-Sharif wa al-Imam Ahmad ibn Idris fi al-radd `ala Wahhabiyyat Najd, Tihama, wa `Asir [“Scholarly Debate Between the Sharif and Ahmad ibn Idris Against the Wahhabis of Najd, Tihama, and `Asir”].

–Dahlan, al-Sayyid Ahmad ibn Zayni (d. 1304/1886). Mufti of Mecca and Shaykh al-Islam (highest religious authority in the Ottoman jurisdiction) for the Hijaz region: al-Durar al-saniyyah fi al-radd ala al-Wahhabiyyah [“The Pure Pearls in Answering the Wahhabis”] pub. Egypt 1319 & 1347 H; Fitnat al-Wahhabiyyah [“The Wahhabi Fitna”]; Khulasat al-Kalam fi bayan Umara’ al-Balad al-Haram [“The Summation Concerning the Leaders of the Sacrosanct Country”], a history of the Wahhabi fitna in Najd and the Hijaz.

Many more Sunni scholars and their works exist that refute Wahhabism.

TEACHING THE WAHHABI FOUNDER’S BOOK.
Does CNN know that Yasir Qadhi teaches Muhammad ibn Abdal-Wahhab’s Kitab ut-Tawheed? Ibn Abdal-Wahhab is the founder of Wahhabism whose followers massacred Sunnis and Shi’ahs and called it “jihad” because they accused them of polytheism (shirk). The orthodox Sunni scholars have refuted Wahhabism’s founder as well as his writings, including the books Yasir Qadhi teaches in Muslim Matters and the al-Maghrib Institute.

SUPPORTING A SHAYKH WHO CONDONES VIOLENCE AGAINST CIVILIANS. Does CNN know that Yasir Qadhi has called Shaykh Salman al-Oudah his “mentor” even though he legitimizes the killing of civilians in Jerusalem? Does CNN know that Shaykh Salman al-Oudah was one of Osama bin Laden’s favorite scholars?

PRAISING AN OSAMA BIN LADEN SUPPORTER. Does CNN know Yasir Qadhi’s praise of an Osama bin Laden supporter — the late Wahhabi scholar, Ibn Jibreen? Yasir Qahdi had this to say of Ibn Jibreen when he died:

“Truly with the death of the Shaykh we have lost the last of the great giants of our era.” 

WAHHABI MENTORS. Does CNN know that Yasir Qadhi’s colleague, Waleed Basyouni, who teaches at al-Maghrib Institute and who is supported by Muslim Matters, studied at the al-Imam Muhammad University in Saudi Arabia that was named after the founder of Wahhabism (Muhammad ibn Abdal-Wahhab)? Does CNN know that Waleed Basyouni was a student of the late Ibn Baz, the former Wahhabi grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, who had forbidden women to drive? Does CNN know that Waleed Basyouni also supported Ibn Jibreen, the Osama bin Laden supporter? 

SUPPORTING ALI AL-TIMIMI. Does CNN know that Yasir Qadhi openly supports a Wahhabi, Ali al-Timimi, who was accused and convicted of being the spiritual guide of the “Virginia jihadists” and is currently serving a life sentence in a US prison?  Yasir Qadhi wrote an entire article praising and defending Ali al-Timimi on the Muslim Matters website.

Here are some words of Yasir Qadhi’s strong support and admiration for al-Timimi, who shaped and directed him in the path he has taken :

“I personally owe a lot to Sh. al-Timimi, and I can say (with pride) that fifteen years ago, back in the early 90’s, he played an instrumental role in shaping and directing me to take the path that has led me to where I am today. I had the opportunity to be of the first batches of his students – in fact he was the first teacher who taught me the realities and intricacies of tawhid and aqidah, which, to this day, remains my primary focus and speciality.”

TEACHING UMAR FAROUK ABDULMUTALLAB. Does CNN know that Umar Farouk AbdulMutallab, also known as the “Underwear Bomber” who tried to blow up a US-bound plane on Christmas in 2009, attended Al-Maghrib Institute’s seminars in both the UK and United States, including a class taught by Yasir Qadhi?

YASIR QADHI CONFESSES TO BEING A SALAFI. Does CNN know that Yasir Qadhi described himself as a Salafi as stated in this Washington Post article?:

“Yasir Qadhi, a lecturer with AlMaghrib Institute, an Islamic educational organization founded by a former prayer leader at Dar-us-Salaam, cited his own experience as an example of how Salafism has adapted in the United States.”

(SOURCE: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/04/AR2006090401107.html) 

Wahhabism-Salafism has never represented orthdodox Sunni Islam. Wahhabism originated in the 1700s while Salafism originated in the late 1800s/early 1900s and branched of into offshots and hybrids later in the century. Orthodox Sunni Islam originated in the early Islamic period of Prophet Muhammad (peace & blessings upon him) and has been represented by scholars of the Ash’ari/Maturidi/Athari creeds and Hanafi, Shafi’i, Maliki, and Hanbali schools of jurisprudence.

YASIR QADHI, AL-MAGHRIB INSTITUTE, AND DAR-US-SALAM. Does CNN know that Yasir Qadhi is a leader and teacher of the Wahhabi Al-Maghrib Institute that has origins in Dar-us-Salam, the Wahhabi institute in Maryland, USA that was founded by Safi Khan who graduated from the Wahhabi Imam Muhammad ibn Saud University in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia? This has been explained in some detail in a separate post in this blog.

CONTACT CNN & TELL THEM THE TRUTH

The above are only selected examples of how Yasir Qadhi, Muslim Matters, and the al-Maghrib Institute contradict moderate, orthodox Sunni Islam. CNN should browse this blog carefully and examine the specific sources and citations noted.  It is common knowledge that any Wahhabi group, including Muslim Matters, can never truly claim the mantle of “moderation” and “orthodoxy” even if they think they do.

The mantle of moderation and orthodoxy has always been represented by the Muslim majority who have condemned Wahhabism, including the likes of Muslim Matters, and similar splinter groups that appeared over the generations.  CNN failed to understand and explain that extremists can still be in the non-violent camp as well — just as Yasir Qadhi and Muslim Matters are. This makes them poisonous to our society ideologically, if not in terms of brute violence. This should concern CNN just as much, if not more, than the orthodox Sunnis who truly practice “traditional Islamic teachings” and who have dealt with the Wahhabi-Salafi menace time and again. CNN should never have invited Yasir Qadhi and other Muslim Matters staff and represented them as promoters of “orthodoxy”, “moderation”, and “traditional Islamic teachings”. Rather, they should have invited the real moderates like Imam Hamza Yusuf, Imam Zaid Shakir, or Shaykh Abdal Hakim Murad. 

Please write to CNN and request them to qualify and correct their view of who exactly a “moderate” and “extremist” is. CNN has damaged its image and reputation as a trustworthy news source by portraying extremists as moderates, mixing the facts, and wrongly representing the moderate, Sunni majority.

Write to CNN and tell them the truth.

 

Advertisements

Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal & Tawassul — Yasir Qadhi’s Arrogance.

IMAM AHMAD IBN HANBAL ALLOWS TAWASSUL THROUGH THE PROPHET (PBUH)

The following is evidence of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal’s approval of tawassul through our beloved Prophet (peace & blessings upon him):

“Imam Ahmad made tawassul through the Prophet a part of every du`a according to the following report: `Ala’ al-Din al-Mardawi said in his book al-Insaf fi ma`rifat al-rajih min al-khilaf `ala madhhab al-Imam al-mubajjal Ahmad ibn Hanbal (3:456): “The correct position of the [Hanbali] madhhab is that it is permissible in one’s supplication (du`a) to use as one’s means a pious person, and it is said that it is desirable (mustahabb). Imam Ahmad said to Abu Bakr al-Marwazi:

“yatawassalu bi al-nabi fi du`a’ih”
(“Let him use the Prophet as a means in his supplication to Allah.”)

The same report is found in Imam Ahmad’s Manasik as narrated by his student Abu Bakr al-Marwazi. Similarly the lengthy wording of the tawassul according to the Hanbali madhhab as established by the hafiz Ibn `Aqil in his Tadhkira was cited fully by Imam Kawthari in his appendix to Shaykh al-Islam Taqi al-Din al-Subki’s al-Sayf al-saqil included in Kawthari’s edition of the latter.”
(Source: http://www.sunnah.org/publication/encyclopedia/html/tawassul.htm)

YASIR QADHI DISMISSES THE SALAF-US-SALIH

Regarding Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal’s permissibility of doing tawassul through Prophet Muhammad (peace & blessings upon him), Yasir Qadhi said:

“As for the statement attributed to Imam Ahmad, yes some Hanbali books state this. Personally, I haven’t come across the isnaad of this narration (I’m not saying its not authentic, I’m saying I haven’t found it yet), and for such delicate issues I would like to be fully certain before unequivocally attributing such an opinion to Imam Ahmad. Regardless, even if he did allow it, this would be an opinion that we would respect (from him and others), but not necessarily follow.”

(Source: http://forums2.almaghrib.org/showthread.php?t=11291&page=4&pp=10&highlight=Ammar)

The above quote by Yasir Qadhi must not be underestimated. This is explicit evidence from Yasir Qadhi (and by extension al-Maghrib Institute) that he is willing to NOT follow the pious adherents of the Salaf-us-Salih if their views do not conform to the Wahhabi-Salafi perspective. 

In this case, Yasir Qadhi is willing to reject the opinion of a mujtahid mutlaq Imam — the founder of the Hanbali madhab — who  clearly allowed tawassul through Prophet Muhammad (peace & blessings upon him), as clearly illustrated in the evidence above.

This means that Yasir Qadhi’s measure of approval for opinions of the  Salaf-us-Salih depends on whether they agree with his own opinions or not. If they don’t, Yasir Qadhi conveniently dismisses them. Is this the approach of a genuine orthodox Sunni? Obviously not. The Salaf-us-Salih is only useful to Yasir Qadhi inasmuch as they agree with him — that’s it. 

Yasir Qadhi has reversed the matter to mean that the Salaf-us-Salih should follow him instead. This makes Yasir Qadhi a dangerous and arrogant innovater who uses the name of the Salaf us-Salih only to promote his Wahhabi agenda and unorthodox interpretations. This is while knowing well that the Salaf-us-Salih are the ‘best of Muslims’ who we should try our best to emulate. They are our role models. They possess more knowledge than us. We should be humble and follow their understanding of Islam that was deeply rooted in the Qur’an and Sunnah. Our beloved Prophet (peace & blessings upon him) said:

“The best of people is my generation, then those who come after them, then those who come after them.”

(Source: Bukhari and Muslim)

In spite of the Prophet (peace & blessings upon him) specifying the high status of the Salaf-us-Salih, Yasir Qadhi conveniently dismisses them when they differ from his Wahhabi perspective.  Yasir Qadhi should fear Allah and repent for his arrogance. 

YASIR QADHI SAYS TAWASSUL IS “INNOVATION”

As if this was not enough, Yasir Qadhi proclaimed his view of tawassul in complete contradiction to the ijtihad of our beloved mujtahid mutlaq Imam, Ahmad ibn Hanbal. Yasir Qadhi said:

“The issue of asking Allah ‘…by the rank/status/body/honor of the Prophet.’ This is an innovation.”

(Source: http://forums2.almaghrib.org/showthread.php?t=11291&page=4&pp=10&highlight=Ammar)

Does Yasir Qadhi know that Imam Ahmad memorized one million ahadeeth, including all the chains of narration and status of those narrators? What authority does Yasir Qadhi have to reject Imam Ahmad’s ijtihad on the matter when Yasir is clearly not at the rank of being a mujtahid mutlaq? Does Yasir expect us to reject Imam Ahmad’s approval of tawassul through the Prophet (peace & blessings upon him) and embrace his (Yasir’s) opposition to tawassul when Yasir’s understanding is NOT rooted in the Salaf-us-Salih, nor in agreement with what the Hanafi, Shafi’i, Maliki, and Hanbali madhahib said about the matter? 

IMAM AHMAD APPROVES OF TABARRUK

Imam Ahmad even said that the minbar can be used for tabarruk:

“Imam Ahmad’s son `Abd Allah said: I asked my father about the man who touches and kisses the pommel of the Prophet’s minbar to obtain blessing, or touches the grave of the Prophet. [Imam Ahmed] responded by saying:

“There is nothing wrong with it.”

“`Abd Allah also asked Imam Ahmad about the man who touches the Prophet’s minbar and kisses it for blessing, and who does the same with the grave, or something to that effect, intending thereby to draw closer to Allah. [Imam Ahmad] replied:

“There is nothing wrong with it.”

This was narrated by `Abdullah ibn Ahmad ibn Hanbal in his book entitled al-`Ilal fi ma`rifat al-rijal (2:492).
(Source: http://www.sunnah.org/publication/encyclopedia/html/tawassul.htm)

Will Yasir Qadhi dismiss this evidence too? How much evidence will he dismiss to uphold his Wahhabi credentials? 

YASIR QADHI CONTRADICTS AL-ALBANI’S FINDING ON TAWASSUL THROUGH THE PROPHET (PBUH)

It is interesting to note that even the late Wahhabi Naseeruddin al-Albani contradicted Yasir Qadhi when he confirmed that Imam Ahmad allowed tawassul through the Prophet (peace & blessings upon him). It seems like Yasir Qadhi thinks he knows more than all teachers of hadeeth  — even if the hadeeth “teacher” is a Wahhabi! Al-Albani said:

“Imaam Ahmad allowed tawassul by means of the Messenger alone, and others such as Imaam ash-Shawkaanee allowed tawassul by means of him and other Prophets and the Pious.”

(Source: al-Albani, At-Tawassul, p. 38)

Allah Protect us and our children from such misguided “scholars” who lead themselves and those who follow them astray. Aaameen!

Yasir Qadhi’s Anti-Sunni Quotes – a Sample.

YASIR QADHI QUESTIONS ASH’ARI CREED

Yasir Qadhi said:
“As I’ll answer in the other thread, for the Ashairah there is no concept of shirk in uloohiyyah; its ruboobiyyah or nothing. And even that, only one aspect of ruboobiyyah, which is creation and lordship, and not the other two that we mentioned in class.”

(Source:  http://forums2.almaghrib.org/showthread.php?t=14062&highlight=Wahhab)

Yasir Qadhi also said:
“When one peruses the famous source books of the Ashʿaris throughout the centuries, one finds that the primary emphasis is always proving the existence of Allah, and then proving that He has seven attributes. There is hardly any mention of Allah’s right to be worshipped (even in later books).
Picking on faults of Ash’aris is picking faults against Ahl-al-Sunnah wa’al Jama’ah. Who besides Wahhabis criticize and condemn Ash’aris as being innovaters and, worse, kuffar? Only one who wants to divide Muslims. Orthodox Sunni scholar, Ibn Hajar al-Haytami, said in his book, Fath al-jawad:
“A mubtadi (innovator) is the person who does not have the faith (aqid’ah) conveyed unanimously by the Ahl as-Sunnah. This unanimity was transmitted by the two great Imam’s Abu’l Hasan al-Ashari (d.324/936; Rahimahullah) and Abu Mansur al-Maturidi (d.333/944; Rahimahullah) and the scholars who followed their path.” 
“Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Haytami also said in his book al-Fatawa al-Hadithiyya (pg. 205):”
“Man of bid’ah means one whose beliefs are different from the Ahl as-Sunnah faith. The Ahl as-Sunnah faith, is the faith of Abu’l Hasan al-Ashari, Abu Mansur al-Maturidi and those who followed them. One who brings forth something which is not approved by Islam becomes a man of bid’ah.”
It is a fact that 99.9% of Muslim scholars (`ulema) throughout Islam’s history have either been Ash’ari or Maturidi in creed — the latter being virtually the same as the Ash’ari creed with few minor differences. Because Ash’aris and Maturidis make up the majority and main mass of Muslims, they are Islam’s “Saved Sect” or  Ahl al-Sunna wa’al Jama’ah that should be followed. Rejecting them takes one on a different path from the Muslim mass which is forbidden according to the Qur’an and Sunnah.
Yet, this is exactly what Yasir Qadhi has been doing. He, like other Wahhabis, has no problem turning his back on the “Saved Sect” and accusing them of terrible things. Somehow it is conceivable to him that the majority of Muslims since the time of our beloved Prophet (peace & blessings upon him) — learned and layfolk — have not understood their creed properly.

But questioning the Ash’aris and accusing them of not understanding their creed is to question the creed of the “heirs of the Prophets”. Well known Ash’ari scholars include: Imam Nawawi,  Shaykh Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalani, Imam Qurtubi, Imam Abu Bakr al-Baqillani, and many others. Who is likely a deviant? Yasir Qadhi and his Wahhabi entourage or the majority of Muslim scholars?  
Sadly, the conclusion of Yasir Qadhi  of ‘improper understanding of creed’ is that Ash’aris are kuffar. Yasir Qadhi’s `uluhiyya and rububiyya hulabaloo and circus with words which has non-Salaf origins is taken from Ibn Taymiyah who did not live in the Salaf period. This creative categorization of tawheed and its anti-Sunni results were a bid’ah that found its way into Muhammad ibn Abdal-Wahhab’s writings and hence the writings of today’s Wahhabis, including Yasir Qadhi.

The most disgusting aspect of this categorization is its conclusion and outcome: the Ash’aris — and by extension the majority of Muslims — are kuffar.  How can anyone think the Ahl al-Sunna wa’al Jama’ah is kuffar? As bizarre as it sounds, a few outcasts in Islam’s history did make that conclusion. Shaykh Abu Haamed Ibn Marzooq explains:

“The (division of tawHeed into) Oneness of Godhead (tawHeed al-uloohiyya) and Oneness of Lordship (tawHeed al-ruboobiyya) was invented by Ibn Taymiyya who claimed that all Muslims among the (Ash`ari) theologians (al-mutakallimeen) worshipped other than Allah due to their ignorance of ‘tawHeed al-uloohiyya,’ and he claimed that they only knew, of tawHeed, the ‘tawHeed al-ruboobiyya’ which consists in affirming that Allah is the Creator of all things, and he claims that the polytheists (al-mushrikoon) admitted it also. He therefore declared all Muslims to be unbelievers (kaafir), and Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab imitated him in this, and others imitated Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab in it.(Source: http://www.sunnah.org/fiqh/ibntay08.html)

So, Ibn Taymiyah and his Wahhabi admirers compare Ash’aris (=Ahl al-Sunna wa’al Jama’ah) to the polytheists of Mecca. No Muslim has ever done this before. Those who differed with Ash’aris in a scholary fashion, such as some Atharis, never accused them of kufr. This is a Taymiyan invention accepted and propagated by Wahhabis today. 

But the Taymiyan-Wahhabi conception of tawheed and its dreadful result of takfeer against the masses has no origins in the Salaf. The categorization is not from the Qur’an or the Sunnah. It is not Hanbali. It is not from our beloved Prophet (peace & blessings upon him), the Sahaba, the Tabi’een, or even the Taba al-Tabe’een. So why should we follow it?  Shaykh Abu Haamed Ibn Marzooq explains this matter in detail:

1. Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, to whom Ibn Taymiyya falsely affiliated himself in front of Hanbalis, never said that tawheed consisted in two parts, one being tawheed al-ruboobiyya and the other tawheed al- uloohiyya, nor did he ever say that “whoever does not know tawheed al-uloohiyya, his knowledge of tawheed al-ruboobiyya is not taken into account because the idolaters also had such knowledge.” Anyone can check that Imam Ahmad never said such a thing in his doctrine (`aqida) as recorded in the compilations of his followers such as Ibn al-Jawzi’s ‘Manaaqib‘ and other books, none of which contain this drivel.

2. None of the followers of the Followers (atba`a` al-taabi`een) ever said to his companions (i.e. students of younger generations) that tawheed consisted in two parts, one being tawheed al-ruboobiyya and the other tawheed al-uloohiyya, nor did any of them ever say that “whoever does not know tawheed al-uloohiyya, his knowledge of tawheed al- ruboobiyya is not taken into account.” If humankind and jinn joined together to prove that one of the atbaa` al-taabi`een ever said such a thing, they would not succeed!

3. None of the Followers (al-taabi`een) ever said to their companions (i.e. students of younger generations) that tawheed consisted in two parts, one being tawheed al-ruboobiyya and the other tawheed al- uloohiyya, and if humankind and jinn joined together to establish that one of them ever said such a thing, they would not succeed!

4. None of the Companions of the Prophet (s) ever said that tawheed consisted in two parts, one being tawheed al-ruboobiyya and the other tawheed al-uloohiyya, nor did any of them ever say that “whoever does not know tawheed al-uloohiyya, his knowledge of tawheed al-ruboobiyya is not taken into account because the idolaters also had such knowledge.” And I defy whoever stakes a claim that he has knowledge, to try and trace for us such a fabricated division back to the Companions — even with an inauthentic narration (wa law bi riwaayatin waahiya)!

5. Nowhere in the extensive Sunna of the Prophet (s), which is the exposition of the Book of Allah the Mighty and the Majestic, whether in the books of ‘sahih‘, the ‘sunnan‘, the ‘masaanid‘, or the ‘ma`aajim‘, is it related that the Prophet (s) ever said to his Companions or ever taught them that tawheed consisted in two parts, one being tawheed al-ruboobiyya and the other tawheed al-uloohiyya, nor that “whoever does not know tawheed al-uloohiyya, his knowledge of tawheed al-ruboobiyya is not taken into account because the idolaters also had such knowledge.” If humankind and jinn joined together to establish that the Prophet (s) ever said such a thing, even with an inauthentic chain of transmission, they would not succeed!

6. Indeed the books of the Sunna of the Prophet (s) overflow with the fact that the call (da`wa) of the Prophet (s) to the people unto Allah was in order that they witness that there is no god except God alone and that Muhammad is the Messenger of God, and in order that they repudiate idol-worship. One of the most famous illustrations of this is the (sound) narration of Mu`adh ibn Jabal when the Prophet (s) sent him to (govern) Yemen and said to him: “Invite them to the witnessing that {there is no god but God and Muhammad is the Messenger of God}. If they obey this, at that time tell them that they are obligated to pray five prayers in every twenty-four hours…” And it is narrated in five of the six books of authentic traditions, and Ibn Hibbaan declared it sound, that a beduin Arab reported the sighting of the new moon to the Prophet (s) and the latter ordered the people to fast without asking this man other than to confirm the two witnessings. According to this drivel of Ibn Taymiyya, it would have been necessary for the Prophet (s) to call all people to the tawheed al-uloohiyya of which they were ignorant, for as for tawheed al-ruboobiyya they knew it already; and he should have said to Mu`aadh (according to this drivel): “Invite them to tawheed al-uloohiyya“; and he should have asked the beduin who had sighted the new moon of Ramadan (according to this drivel): “Do you know tawheed al-uloohiyya?

7. In His precious Book which falsehood cannot approach whether from the front or from the back, Allah never ordered “tawheed al-uloohiyya” to His servants, nor did He ever say that “whoever does not know this tawheed, his knowledge of tawheed al-ruboobiyya is not taken into account.”

8. Rather, Allah ordered the utterance of an Absolute Word of Oneness (kalimat al-tawHeed muTlaqa), for He said as He addressed His Prophet (s): “Know that there is no other god except God alone” (‘fa`lam annahu la ilaaha illallaah’). And He spoke similarly in all of the verses of oneness (tawheed) that are mentioned in the Qur’an including surat al-ikhlas which is equivalent to one third of the Qur’an.

9. It would have been necessary for Allah, if we were to believe this drivel (of Ibn Taymiyya), that since His servants all knew about tawheed al-ruboobiyya and did not know about tawheed al-uloohiyya, He should have made it explicitly clear to them and not misguided them and not punished them for their ignorance of half of tawheed, nor said to them: “Today I have perfected for you your Religion and I have completed My blessing upon you and I have accepted for you islaam as a religion.” And we seek refuge in Allah from the treacheries of the tongue and the corruption of folly.

Peace and Blessings upon the Prophet, his Family, and

(Source: http://www.sunnah.org/fiqh/ibntay09.html)

When the simple testification of faith is sufficient to become a Muslim as clearly stated by our Islamic Sources, why is Yasir Qadhi continuing to parrot what Ibn Taymiyah (and later Muhammad ibn Abdal-Wahhab) said that has no roots in the Qur’anic or Sunnic discourse? Through this categorization, why is he content in implicitly accusing the majority of Muslims of being kuffar? Is this not takfeer and an ugly attack on Muslim unity laid bare? In case anyone has doubts about this, here is an explicit denunciation of the Ash’aris by Yasir Qadhi who says:

“We affirm the attributes but do not delve into the kayfiyyah; this is NOT a denial of the kayfiyyah, but rather an acknowledgment that only Allah is aware of it. As for the people of kalaam, as you correctly quoted them, they deny the actual existence of any kayfiyyah, which of course is one more way of actually denying the existence of the attribute.”

(Source: http://forums2.almaghrib.org/showthread.php?t=20443&highlight=Asharis)

Leaving no stone unturned in accusing Ash’aris of being outside Islam, Yasir Qadhi accuses the Ash’aris of, in his own words, “denying the existence of [Allah’s] attribute.” If this is not an accusation of kufr, what is it? Would Yasir and his al-Maghrib Institute care to explain? 
Yasir Qadhi’s accusation that Ash’aris hardly mention anything about “Allah’s right to be worshipped” is pure calumny against our eminent scholars and supports the same ugly takfeeri accusation against them: they never worshipped Allah; they negate His Attributes; they had a religion similar to that of pre-Islamic polytheists. As stated, it is based on Ibn Taymiyah’s understanding that is not rooted in the Salaf, and is an accusation of kufr against the majority of `ulema and Muslims who were Ash’ari-Maturidi. 

These reasons are precisely why Wahhabis are out of the Sunni circle  — their takfeer against the Ummah of our beloved Prophet (peace & blessings upon him). Wahhabi arrogance truly has no bounds. Shaykh Salah al-Din al-Idlibi in the following article refuted the attack on Ash’aris in detail: http://marifah.net/articles/Asharisonshirk-AlIdlibi.pdf
 
YASIR QADHI ATTACKS SUFIS
Yasir Qadhi said:
“The point is that Sufis have their own understanding of tawhid, and of course they are far more prone to shirk than the Asharis (due to their exaltation of saints).”

(Source:
This is typical Wahhabi  nonsense. First, accusing Ash’aris of “negating” the Attributes of Allah, and now accusing Sufis of “shirk” because of their “exaltation of saints”. This undoubtedly refers to the high respect Sufis have for people of knowledge, and their support of istighatha (asking for help) and tawassul (asking Allah for something through a pious intermediary in the grave) — two orthodox Sunni practices accepted by the four schools of Sunni jurisprudence. One sees that Yasir Qadhi and his blind Wahhabi footsoldiers have multiple means of stabbing the heart of the Ummah with their multi-pronged dagger of takfeer.
 
YASIR QADHI ATTACKS SHAYKH IBN ALAWI  AL-MALIKI

Yasir Qadhi said:

“Of course, those who took the class (unlike some of the brothers who seem to be so eager in participating on the forums but did not seem so eager to take the knowledge when it was presented to them) will completely understand why al-Maliki is so zealously trying to defend his version of the religion of the Jahiliyyah Arabs.”

(Source: http://forums2.almaghrib.org/showthread.php?t=13790&page=5&pp=10&highlight=Asharis)

Another post in this blog already elaborates on this vicious attack by Yasir Qadhi on Shaykh al-Maliki (Allah bless him immensely). This is yet further evidence to substantiate the point. Instead of saying, “We have differences in the matter” and leaving it at that, Yasir Qadhi feels the need to hurl takfeeri insults against one of the late giants of Sunni Islam who was considered by many as the “renewer (mujaddid)” of the twentieth century. How does al-Maghrib Institute expect to bring unity to the Islamic community with such derogatory and extremist behavior?  

YASIR QADHI CRITICIZES SHAYKH IBN AL-JAWZI

Yasir Qadhi said:

“The theology of Imam Ahmad is easily seen in the dozens of classical works that contain his direct quotes (in addition to his own works and the work of his son Abdullah and direct students). A mere claim on the part of Ibn al-Jawzi to be representing Imam Ahmad needs to be backed up with proof; and the proof overwhelmingly refutes such a position.

Yasir Qadhi also said:

“Ibn al-Jawzi’s work on the Attributes is indeed heralded by the people of kalaam to buttress their ideology (and this is why it was translated into English with the introduction and inserted comments that are found in the translated work), but as is typical with such matters, there is much more to the issue than this one work. The very fact that no other work in this vein exists except for Ibn al-Jawzi’s is sufficient proof that his views were eclectic, and went against the vast majority of those who ascribed themselves to Imam Ahmad.”

(Source for both quotes: http://forums2.almaghrib.org/showthread.php?t=19638&highlight=Asharis)

Because Shaykh Ibn al-Jawzi did ta’weel and refuted the anthropomorphists who wrongly spoke in the “Hanbali” madhab’s name, Yasir Qadhi feels compelled to defend the anthropomorphists against Shaykh Ibn al-Jawzi. Like a true extremist, whatever does not conform to the Wahhabi perspective is thrown out the window by Yasir Qadhi, no matter which “heir of the Prophets” we quote from in Sunni Islam’s defense.

Below, in the matter of tawassul through Prophet Muhammad (peace & blessings upon him), Yasir Qadhi openly confesses that he is more than willing to reject the saying of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal in this regard. Is this genuine following of the Salaf or the deviant act of cherry-picking among their statements?

YASIR QADHI PARROTS IBN TAYMIYAH’S MISTAKE

“The issue of undertaking a journey to ‘pay respects’ to a grave, regardless of who is buried in that grave. This is an innovation, and as evidence we have the authentic, muttafaq alayhi hadeeth of the prohibition to travel except to the three masjids.”

(Source: http://forums2.almaghrib.org/showthread.php?t=11291&page=4&pp=10&highlight=Ammar)

Shaykh Haddad explains the origins of Ibn Taymiyah’s distorted understanding of the matter and its refutation by Ahl al-Sunna wa’al Jama’ah, including the Hanbali rejection of it:

“After spending the years 719-721 in jail, he was jailed again in 726 until his death two years later amid charges of kufr for declaring that one who travels to visit the Prophet [pbuh] commits a prohibition (harâm), a sin (ma`siya), and an innovation (bid`a).”

Hanbali Rejection of Ibn Taymiyah’s Fatwa

“Al-Mardâwî, Ibn Hubayra, and others stated that the entirety of the early and late authorities in the Hanbalî Madhhab stipulate the desirability (istihbâb) of visiting the grave of the Prophet [pbuh] in Madîna, most especially after Hajj, and/or travelling to do so. Ibn Muflih., al-Mardâwî, and Mar`î ibn Yûsuf in Ghâyat al-Muntahâ stated the Sunnî character of visiting the graves of the Muslims and the permissibility (ibâha) of travelling to do so. Mar`î reiterates this ruling in his unpublished monograph on the ethics of graves and visitation, Shifâ’ al-Sudûr fî Ziyârat al-Mashâhid wal-Qubûr.”

Shaykh Taqi al-Din al-Subki Rejects Ibn Taymiyah’s Fatwa

“This most notorious of all fatwas was refuted by his contemporary the hadîth Master and Shaykh al-Islâm Taqî al-Dîn al-Subkî in his landmark book Shifâ’ al-Siqâm fî Ziyârati Khayri al-Anam (“The Healing of Sickness Concerning the Visitation to the Best of Creatures”) , also titled Shann al-Ghâra `alâ man Ankara al-Safar li al-Ziyâra (“The Raid Against Him Who Denied the Lawfulness of Travel for the Purpose of Visitation”). Shaykh al-Islâm adduced the h.adîth “Whoever visits my grave, my intercession will be guaranteed for him” as proof against Ibn Taymiyya’s claim that “all the hadîths that concern the merit of visitation are weak or rather forged” and denounced Ibn Taymiyya’s unprecedented fatwâ as a flagrant innovation.”

Shaykh Zayn al-Din al-`Iraqi Rejects Ibn Taymiyah’s Fatwa

Imâm Abû al-Fadl Zayn al-Dîn `Abd al-Rahim ibn al-Husayn al-`Irâqî al-Mis.rî (725-806), Shaykh al-Islâm, the Imâm, Qâdî of Cairo, hadîth Master of his time, and principal teacher to the hadîth Master Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalânî, said in al-Ajwiba al-Makkiyya, a refutation of Ibn Taymiyya’s fatwâ claiming the prohibition of travel to visit the Prophet [pbuh] : “There is no tahrîm (prohibition) of an act of travel in the hadîth [“Mounts are not to be saddled except to travel to three mosques”]; rather, it is an emphasis on the importance of traveling to these three mosques in particular, and the emphasis becomes an obligation in case of vow (nadhr), which is not the case for a vow to pray in any mosque other than these three.” […]

Shaykh Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalani Rejects Ibn Taymiyah’s Fatwa

Imâm Ibn H.ajar al-`Asqalânî in Fath al-Bârî said of Ibn Taymiyya’s fatwa prohibition to travel in order to visit the Prophet [pbuh] : “This is one of the ugliest matters ever reported from him.”

(Source of all scholarly quotes against Ibn Taymiyah’s fatwa: http://www.livingislam.org/n/itay_e.html#11)

Like a devoted Wahhabi and blind Ibn Taymiyah supporter Yasir Qadhi defends Ibn Taymiyah and ignores the correction of the absurd fatwa from the many illustrious scholars as stated above. This includes Shaykh Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalani and his teacher!

YASIR QADHI SAYS TAWASSUL IS “INNOVATION”

Yasir Qadhi said:

“The issue of asking Allah ‘…by the rank/status/body/honor of the Prophet.’ This is an innovation.”

(Source: http://forums2.almaghrib.org/showthread.php?t=11291&page=4&pp=10&highlight=Ammar)

This is in direct contradiction to the position of tawassul held by the four Sunni schools of jurisprudence, including Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal himself — see below.

YASIR QADHI SAYS HE WOULD NOT AGREE WITH MUJTAHID AHMED IBN HANBAL EVEN IF HE WAS CORRECT

Regarding Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal’s permissibility of doing tawassul through Prophet Muhammad (peace & blessings upon him), Yasir Qadhi said:

“As for the statement attributed to Imam Ahmad, yes some Hanbali books state this. Personally, I haven’t come across the isnaad of this narration (I’m not saying its not authentic, I’m saying I haven’t found it yet), and for such delicate issues I would like to be fully certain before unequivocally attributing such an opinion to Imam Ahmad. Regardless, even if he did allow it, this would be an opinion that we would respect (from him and others), but not necessarily follow.”

(Source: http://forums2.almaghrib.org/showthread.php?t=11291&page=4&pp=10&highlight=Ammar)

The above quote by Yasir Qadhi must not be underestimated. This is explicit evidence from Yasir Qadhi (and by extension al-Maghrib Institute) that he is willing to NOT follow the pious adherents of the Salaf-us-Salih if their views do not conform to the Wahhabi-Salafi perspective. In this case, Yasir Qadhi is willing to reject the opinion of a mujtahid mutlaq Imam — the founder of the Hanbali madhab — who  clearly allowed tawassul through Prophet Muhammad (peace & blessings upon him).

The following is evidence of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal’s approval of tawassul through our beloved Prophet (peace & blessings upon him):

“Imam Ahmad made tawassul through the Prophet a part of every du`a according to the following report: `Ala’ al-Din al-Mardawi said in his book al-Insaf fi ma`rifat al-rajih min al-khilaf `ala madhhab al-Imam al-mubajjal Ahmad ibn Hanbal (3:456): “The correct position of the [Hanbali] madhhab is that it is permissible in one’s supplication (du`a) to use as one’s means a pious person, and it is said that it is desirable (mustahabb). Imam Ahmad said to Abu Bakr al-Marwazi:

“yatawassalu bi al-nabi fi du`a’ih”
(“Let him use the Prophet as a means in his supplication to Allah.”)

The same report is found in Imam Ahmad’s Manasik as narrated by his student Abu Bakr al-Marwazi. Similarly the lengthy wording of the tawassul according to the Hanbali madhhab as established by the hafiz Ibn `Aqil in his Tadhkira was cited fully by Imam Kawthari in his appendix to Shaykh al-Islam Taqi al-Din al-Subki’s al-Sayf al-saqil included in Kawthari’s edition of the latter.”
(Source: http://www.sunnah.org/publication/encyclopedia/html/tawassul.htm)


This means that Yasir Qadhi’s measure of approval for opinions of the  Salaf-us-Salih depends on whether they agree with his own opinions or not. If they don’t, Yasir Qadhi conveniently dismisses them.  Is this the approach of a genuine orthodox Sunni? Obviously not. The Salaf-us-Salih is only useful to Yasir Qadhi inasmuch as they agree with him — that’s it. This makes Yasir Qadhi a dangerous arch-innovater who uses the name of the Salaf us-Salih only to promote his agenda and unorthodox interpretations. In view of this, how can he consider himself to be a truthful, genuine Sunni?

Apparently in this instance Yasir Qadhi even rejects the Wahhabi Naseeruddin al-Albani who said:

“Imaam Ahmad allowed tawassul by means of the Messenger alone, and others such as Imaam ash-Shawkaanee allowed tawassul by means of him and other Prophets and the Pious.”

(Source: al-Albani, At-Tawassul, p. 38)

The above are only a sample of Yasir Qadhi’s teachings that destroy the unity of the Ummah. He accuses Ash’aris of having an incomplete tawheed, says Ash’aris deny the Attributes of Allah (Is this not an accusation of kufr?), says Sufis are more prone to shirk than Ash’aris are (read: both are prone to shirk), says Shaykh ibn Alawi al-Maliki defends a version of religion of the “Jahiliyyah Arabs”, criticizes Shaykh Ibn al-Jawzi (the great Sunni scholar) of not being truly representative of the Hanbali madhab, says that he would reject Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal’s view even if he was right (!), says traveling to respect someone at his/her grave is an “innovation”, says tawassul (when the intermediary is in the grave) is an “innovation”, among other despicable, anti-Sunni rubbish.

Allah protect us from such “scholars” of misguidance and give us truthful guides from Ahl al-Sunna wa’al Jama’ah! Aaameen!  

Muhammad AlShareef’s Tap Dance Around Wahhabism.

-ASKING THE WRONG QUESTION-

Someone with the nickname “ahmemon”  in the Al-Maghrib Institute forum asked a legitimate question regarding the “brand” of Islam taught by the Al-Maghrib Institute. The subject in “ahmemon’s” message was “why r all scholars from madinah univ?” Imagine what was going on in the minds of Al-Maghrib Institute’s Salafi instructors! The entire message by ahmemnon, in full, is stated below:

Assalamu Alaikum,

I’m trying to help bring AlMaghrib to Irvine (my ‘hood), but some people here are having objections.

They are suspecting AlMaghrib of having a “salafi agenda” (whatever that exactly is, what is it?) and point out how all scholars that teach here are exclusively from madinah university. They are basically saying that we don’t want such a strong overwhelming ‘salafi’ or ‘sufi’ (not that almaghrib is suspected of being sufi) influence.

… and honestly, this has always seemed fishy to me, on the one hand AlMaghrib advertised to bring all muslims together under the shahada, but yet there is such a strong bias towards one flavor of scholarship — a flavor that is, at least stereotypically, on one far side of the spectrum.

How do AlMaghrib scholars feel about the Saudi government? (i don’t know too much about the saudi govt but this is one issue of controvercy that I am encountering)

I’ve listened to A LOT of Ust. Muhammad AlShareef stuff, and I love it, don’t get me wrong… I just want to know how to get over this issue.

Do these concerns have validity? has anybody else encountered such obstacles when bringing almaghrib to their area? How do I overcome such obstacles, are they overcome-able?

jazzakAllah Khair

(Source: http://forums.almaghrib.org/showthread.php?t=5816&page=1&pp=10&highlight=wahhabi)

The intention of the asker seemed genuine. It is clear that all “ahmemon” was asking for were straight answers to what he had rightly heard regarding the Salafi painted agenda of the Al-Maghrib Institute. Many responded to his message with a wide manifestation of utter ignorance. Who at first silently watched this ignorance and slyly chose to remain silent? The founder of Al-Maghrib Institute himself: Muhammad AlShareef
 
-MUHAMMAD ALSHAREEF’S TAP-DANCE AROUND WAHHABISM-
 
Muhammad AlShareef at first kept quiet as he observed the ignorant responses from his followers. But “ahmemon” was on the mark with his concern and questions. Muhammad AlShareef obviously knew about this which explains his initial silence.
He chose to keep silent because of the truthful and sensitive nature of the question. He was surely pondering over how he could masterfully evade point-blank answers to the point-blank questions that would have clearly exposed Al-Maghrib Institute, including himself. His first response was a childish one that attempted to deflect the legitimate concerns with poor humor.
Finally, however, came the serious ‘Muhammad AlShareef tap-dance’ around Wahhabism. His response, in full, was as follows:
“For the record, the premise of this whole discussion is false and inaccurate: Mohammad Faqeeh did NOT study a single day in Madinah University. He is not a Madinah graduate. Does it get any more clearer?

[My parents are from Egypt, Yasir from Palestine, Yaser Q from Pakistan, AbdulBary Vietnam, M Faqeeh east Africa ~ I don’t think there is a more diverse instructor background program at this level.]

Never in a single day did I say, “Hmm..let me hire ‘only’ Madinah grads. Believe me, there are hundreds of grads accross the USA and Canada, had that been the case, we would have anyone teaching.

Nay, my focus was: Who has strong knowledge, good command of the English language, a higher education degree, has upright character, and is able to adjust to AlMaghrib’s teaching style. Those were the only filters in my mind.

In sha Allah, therefore I think there should be another topic for those who want to disccuss the topic: “Is it Haram and a conspiracy when Saudi Arabia tries to educate Muslims?”

(wAllahi, I’m fine with discussing it, I just got my issues with false accusations. And in sha Allah I would request that this issue be dis-associated from AlMaghrib, especially from us who are supposed to know our institute. Us just carrying on just adds to the misconception.)

wAllahu ‘alam.

Barak Allahu feekum.

PS: Did anyone notice that almost all the Ameers are Desi IT people? Except Mostafa (who is coincidentally in IT)? No one said, “Hey, is this a conspiracy to make people eat Biryani while checking their email?”

In sha Allah, let’s move on. If you’d like to continue a related discussion, you are welcome to open a new thread.”

 –
 
– 
-ANALYZING MUHAMMAD ALSHAREEF’S TAP-DANCE- 
 
It’s unfortunate that instead of being honest, Muhammad AlShareef chose to dodge the question and swamp the questioner with irrelevance. Instead of clarifying the matter to the questioner, Muhammad AlShareef buried the entire matter. This tap-dance has to be explained in more detail so others like ahmemon don’t get deceived.
(1) Muhammad AlShareef said:
“For the record, the premise of this whole discussion is false and inaccurate: Mohammad Faqeeh did NOT study a single day in Madinah University. He is not a Madinah graduate. Does it get any more clearer?”
Muhammad AlShareef refuted the premise of the questioner, i.e. why are all scholars from Madinah University? By refuting the premise and proving that not all instructors graduated from Madinah University, he thought he made his point very clearly. End of discussion.
The problem is he never addressed the heart of the real discussion at all. What Muhammad AlShareef ignored was the fact that even though “all” al-Maghrib instuctors didn’t graduate from Madinah University, MANY al-Maghrib instructors DID indeed graduate from Madinah University. Namely, the following instructors: himself, Yasir Qadhi, Yaser Birjas, AbdulBary Yahya, Shpendim Nadzaku, Navaid Aziz, Ahsan Hanif, and — the latest addition — Abdullah Hakim Quick.

Refuting the premise doesn’t change the fact that Madinah University education is an integral part of al-Maghrib’s instructors’ profile. This was the questioner’s concern that Muhammad AlShareef evaded. Even if all instructors didn’t graduate from Madinah University, they still have strong links to Saudi Arabia’s educational institutions, within the country and abroad, that teach Wahhabism.
Therefore, the concern remains. But Muhammad AlShareef chose to tap-dance instead. He said Mohammed Faqeeh didn’t graduate from Madinah University. But Mohammed Faqeeh did graduate from King Abdul Azeez University in Saudi Arabia in ‘Quranic Recitation and Memorization’. Moreover, Mohammed Faqeeh completed a B.A. degree  in ‘Islamic Studies’ from the Institute of Islamic and Arabic Sciences in the United States — which was affiliated with the Al-Imam Muhammad ibn Saud Islamic University in Saudi Arabia. Why did Muhammad AlShareef deceptively conceal this essential information from the questioner who was, as clearly illustrated, sincere in his question? 
Apart from Mohammed Faqeeh’s Saudi connection, al-Maghrib instructor Ali Shehata’s teacher, Muhammad S. Adly, used to teach at Masjid al-Harram, and Waleed Basyouni received a Bachelor’s degree in ‘Islamic Sciences’ from Al-Imam Muhammad University — both obviously in Saudi Arabia. 
Anyone want to guess who “Al-Imam Muhammad” is? He is Muhammad ibn Abdal-Wahhab — founder of the Wahhabi movement! I’m ahead of myself. But you surely understand the point. Now let’s complete untapping Muhammad AlShareef’s tap-dance.

(2) Muhammad AlShareef said:

“[My parents are from Egypt, Yasir from Palestine, Yaser Q from Pakistan, AbdulBary Vietnam, M Faqeeh east Africa ~ I don’t think there is a more diverse instructor background program at this level.]”

This is a response of irrelevance. Whether al-Maghrib Institute has a “diverse instructor background” or not is a digression of the matter and unrelated to the question and concerns of the questioner. By discussing ‘instructor diversity’, Muhammad AlShareef tries to impress the questioner as a tactic to fudge the real issue at hand and escape the responsibility of explaining it. But showering al-Maghrib Institute with irrelevant praise doesn’t change the concerns of the questioner: ‘Diversity’ is NOT the issue here. Wahhabi-Salafi ‘commonality’ is. And that’s what Muhammad AlShareef has been evading. 
–  


(3) Muhammad AlShareef later explains his criteria for selecting al-Maghrib’s instructors:

“Nay, my focus was: Who has strong knowledge, good command of the English language, a higher education degree, has upright character, and is able to adjust to AlMaghrib’s teaching style. Those were the only filters in my mind.”

Quite a miracle, isn’t it? I mean, what are the odds of choosing an instructor with “strong knowledge, good command of the English language, a higher education degree,” who “has upright character”, and “is able to adjust to AlMaghrib’s teaching style” — and yet have ALL of them follow and teach Wahhabi-Salafi Islam? A coincidence? Sorry, I’m not trying to insult your intelligence like Muhammad AlShareef is.

It is as clear as daylight that the common denominator that cuts across all al-Maghrib instructors is their unorthodox Wahhabism. Because Saudi educational institutions teach Wahhabism, and because most (if not all) al-Maghrib instructors graduated from these institutions, this logically makes al-Maghrib Institute a Wahhabi organization. And a Wahhabi organization, by definition, rejects all other interpretations of Islam — including the Islam that most Muslims have been following through the generations since the time of Prophet Muhammad (peace & blessings upon him). 

Make no mistake about it. Muhammad AlShareef concealed the Wahhabi issue from the questioner for a reason. Countless Sunni scholars have opposed Wahhabism from all four Sunni schools of jurisprudence in matters of `aqeedah and `ibadat. Because Muhammad AlShareef didn’t want the questioner to know about this makes him, at least, ingenuine to his questioner, and a hideous promoter of the Wahhabi agenda.     


(4) Muhammad AlShareef then broaches the issue of Saudi Arabia:

“In sha Allah, therefore I think there should be another topic for those who want to disccuss the topic: “Is it Haram and a conspiracy when Saudi Arabia tries to educate Muslims?””

You ask, “Is it Haram and a conspiracy when Saudi Arabia tries to educate Muslims?” Well, the problem is that Saudi Arabia educates its Muslims in only ‘one’ brand of Islam: Wahhabism.

It isn’t a “conspiracy” by Saudi Arabia but a deliberate and, must I say, organized and financially effective effort to spread a version of Islam that was, and still is, rejected by all genuine Sunni scholars who follow the Ash’ari, Maturidi, and Athari creeds and Hanafi, Shafi’i, Maliki, and Hanbali schools of jurisprudence. 

You ask, is it “Haram”? If someone asked you if it was “Haram” to teach a Khawarij-like Islam that was rejected by masses of Muslims in their time, what would you say?   

(5) Muhammad AlShareef then says:

“(wAllahi, I’m fine with discussing it, I just got my issues with false accusations. And in sha Allah I would request that this issue be dis-associated from AlMaghrib, especially from us who are supposed to know our institute. Us just carrying on just adds to the misconception.)”

You said “wAllahi” you are fine with discussing the Saudi connection to al-Maghrib Institute. But then you contradicted yourself in the very next line by saying you “request that this issue be dis-associated from AlMaghrib” and that “Us just carrying on just adds to the misconception”.  “Wallahi”? In reality you are really NOT fine with discussing the issue. Your tap-dancing around the issue the entire time makes that crystal clear.    

(6) After Muhammad AlShareef dodges the crux of the matter, and leaves the questioner hanging and surely dumbfounded, he then says:

“PS: Did anyone notice that almost all the Ameers are Desi IT people? Except Mostafa (who is coincidentally in IT)? No one said, “Hey, is this a conspiracy to make people eat Biryani while checking their email?””

Your obfuscation of truth has no bounds, Muhammad AlShareef. Youngsters aren’t fools as you wish them to be, and your misleading analogies are not going to make them stop asking the important questions. Muslims, and especially our young ones, deserve more respect than you give them. They deserve honesty. They deserve the truth, and the FULL truth. They don’t want a tap dance and they don’t ask for unnecessary digressions. Now that your tap-dance has been untapped, you can say the truth now  —  no-holds-barred. 

Muhammad AlShareef, if you are the true Islamic model you wish to be, it is time to be honest with ahemom and other Muslims about the matter by saying:
“As the founder of al-Maghrib Institute, I say: Yes, al-Maghrib Institute is a Salafi-Wahhabi Institute. My criteria for selecting instructors is primarily because of their acceptance of Wahhabi teachings. That’s why most of them come from Saudi educational institutions. Saudi Arabia’s policy obligates these insitutions to teach Wahhabism, whether it is Madinah University, Imam al-Muhammad University, King Abul Azeez University, or any other university in Saudi Arabia. They are paid to teach Wahhabism and condemn all other understandings of Islam as heresy, bid’ah, and shirk. This includes what the majority of Muslims follow. It includes Ash’aris and Maturidis. It includes the sawad al-azam, or mass of Muslims who have adhered to and followed one of the four Sunni schools of jurisprudence. We are indeed a minority group of Muslims and we give our allegiance to Muhammad ibn Abdal-Wahhab, whether the Saudi government sincerely does so or not. This is the “Biryani” al-Maghrib Institute is made of. And this is the “Biryani” you and all other students of al-Maghrib will eat — like it or not. Sincerely – Muhammad AlShareef.”
Ya Allah! Please Guide us through the scholars of knowledge! Save us from the scholars of misguidance who lead themselves and those who follow them astray! Aaaameen! Ya Rabbil `Aalameen!!