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


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 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).”

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 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 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?


“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 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.


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!  


One response to “Yasir Qadhi’s Anti-Sunni Quotes – a Sample.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s