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!!

ORIGINS of al-Maghrib Institute: Dar-us-Salam / Al-Huda School.

-ORIGINS OF AL-MAGHRIB INSTITUTE-

What are the origins of the al-Maghrib Institute? One can guess it had nothing to do with moderate Sunni Islam. Rather its origins emanate from an older Wahhabi institute called Dar-us-Salam (or al-Huda) in Maryland, USA.  

The following are excerpts from an announcement made by Muhammad AlShareef,  the founder of al-Maghrib Institute. These statements shed light on the origins of al-Maghrib Institute. Of particular interest is Al-Maghrib Institute’s affiliation with Dar-us-Salam:

“On April 25-26th, 2005, the AlMaghrib Institute Shuyookh, AlMaghrib Institute’s USA management, and this author gathered together in Memphis, TN in an effort to determine the future academic course of action for AlMaghrib Institute.

Firstly: Where did we come from? Since AlMaghrib’s inception in 2001.

  • AlMaghrib Institute was founded in 2001 by Muhammad Alshareef in cooperation with Dar-us-Salaam as the financial/community backbone and the American Open University as the academic backbone.
  • An agreement was made between AlMaghrib Institute and Dar-us-Salaam with the American Open University. The agreement was to acknowledge course credit to students for the courses they took with AlMaghrib Institute.

Secondly: Where are we now? And where are we headed? In the last 6-12 months to present and beyond, in sha Allah.

  • AlMaghrib Institutes founder/director moved back to Canada in October, 2004.
  • Management and Administration of AlMaghrib Institute was moved from College Park, Maryland to Houston, Texas.
  • AlMaghrib Institute became it’s own registered company, legally, under no other registered company/organization.”

(SOURCE: http://forums.almaghrib.org/showthread.php?t=11774)

 

-DAR-US-SALAM-

As stated above, Dar-us-Salam was the “financial/community backbone” of the al-Maghrib Institute where its “Management and Administration” originated. Therefore, to know more about the al-Maghrib Institute, it is important to know more about Dar-us-Salam.

The Washington Post states that Dar-us-Salam practices Salafi/Wahhabi Islam:

“The kind of Islam practiced at Dar-us-Salaam, known as Salafism, once had a significant foothold among area Muslims, in large part because of an aggressive missionary effort by the government of Saudi Arabia. Salafism and its strict Saudi version, known as Wahhabism, struck a chord with many Muslim immigrants who took a dim view of the United States’ sexually saturated pop culture and who were ambivalent about participating in a secular political system. It was also attractive to young Muslims searching for a more “authentic” Islam than what their Westernized immigrant parents offered.”

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

-SAFI KHAN: THE WAHHABI FOUNDER OF DAR-US-SALAM-

Dar-us-Salam (al-Huda School), located in College Park, Maryland (USA), was founded by and currently headed by a Wahhabi named Safi Khan. Safi Khan was educated by Wahhabi scholars in Saudi Arabia. He also attended the Imam Muhammad ibn Saud University in Riyadh and, as is no surprise, teaches Wahhabism. As al-Maghrib Institute is a modern extension of Dar-us-Salam, it no surprise that  the al-Maghrib Institute propagates Wahhabism.

-ALI ASAD CHANDIA: DAR-US-SALAM & TERRORISM-

Just as the al-Maghrib Institute has links to dubious individuals, including known extremists and even an Osama bin Laden supporter, Dar-us-Salam/al-Huda School has had its share of extremist problems as well.  The point is not to implicate the entire school of wrongdoing but simply to show the connections it has to scary individuals. Ali Asad Chandia who taught at the al-Huda School for four years was guilty of terrorism. Maryland’s Gazette states:

“Ali Asad Chandia, 29, a resident of College Park who taught at Al-Huda for four years, was sentenced Friday for aiding Lashkar-e-Taiba, an anti-Indian government organization.

Chandia was charged with assisting Lashkar-e-Taiba member Mohammed Ajmal Khan, who is serving a 9-year prison sentence in Britain for serving as a military procurement official for the group. Prosecutors sought a sentence of 30 years to life for Chandia, but U.S. District Judge Claude M. Hilton gave the Pakistani-born teacher 15 years.”

(SOURCE: www.gazette.net/stories/083106/princou195032_31945.shtml)

-AL-MAGHRIB INSTITUTE = REPACKAGED DAR-US-SALAM-

The al-Maghrib Institute is a repackaged, flashy, state-of-the-art version of Wahhabi Dar-us-Salam (also known as the al-Huda School in College Park, Maryland) that was created to escape the fallout against Dar-us-Salam from the September 11, 2001 attacks. Since Dar-us-Salam was Wahhabi-Salafi, cameras focused in its direction to publicize the unorthodox version of Islam it was preaching. The typical conservative Wahhabi image was a magnet for criticism by many, including the media. Therefore, it had to be ‘redone’ — rebranded — in a modern, “open-minded”, and alluring way. To deflect criticism by Americans and others, the new al-Maghrib Institute discussed issues that were normally taboo, including sex, gay people, and other ‘cool’ topics. Beneath the paraphernalia, colorful purple image, and high-tech make-over, however, is the same ugly Wahhabism. While Dar-us-Salam is more closed, al-Maghrib Institute attempts to accept all who wish to join in an attempt to make their unorthodox Salafism “adapt” to ‘Western’ environments like the United States, Canada, and UK.

The same Washington Post article states:

“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) 

Brothers and sisters, don’t be fooled. Stick with the majority of Muslims and not the dubious al-Maghrib Institute (and Dar-us-Salam) that represents a pseudo-Sunni splinter sect that appeared in the 1700s.  

Allah Guide us on the path of the Muslim majority and Protect us from the scholars of deviation. Aameen!

 

Yasir Qadhi and ‘Istighatha’ (Asking for help).

Though the matter of istighatha (calling for help) has already been discussed elsewhere in this blog, it is important to document as many instances as possible where Yasir Qadhi (and his Wahhabi cronies) mislead the masses on the matter.

In response to a question, Yasir Qadhi said:

“If a person goes to a grave and makes du’a to that grave and says ‘Ya Fulan’, ‘Ya Abdal-Qadir Jeelani’…this is blatant shirk about which there is no difference of opinion amongst the classical scholars of Islam. You cannot make du’a to other than Allah.”  

(Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfDTEf2FWJA&feature=related
Fastforward to 5:42)

YASIR QADHI’S DECEPTION

Yasir Qadhi didn’t explain the fine difference between an act of shirk and the legitimate Sunni act of istighatha in which Muslims say the same statement, “Ya Fulan-bin-Fulan, etc.” What Yasir Qadhi conceals regarding the valid act of istighatha is, in fact, manipulative and deceitful. The reason is that the audience doesn’t have a chance to know that istighatha is a legitimate and valid act in agreement with the Qur’an and Sunnah as explained and accepted by the `ulema of the Hanafi, Shafi’i, Maliki, and Hanbali madhahib. Yasir selectively packages his answer Wahhabi-style and forces it down the throat of his questioner and audience as if the Wahhabi understanding is the only correct understanding.

Contrary to Yasir Qadhi’s (mis)understanding, as is common to all Wahhabis, a statement such as “Oh Abdal-Qadir Jeelani” is insufficient to conclude that the asker is a mushrik. Rather, the intention of the person counts and must be understood before making such a heavy accusation.

If the person saying those words intended worship, then he indeed committed shirk. But if the person did not intend worship by such calling, but simply intended to ask, then this is not polytheism at all. This is the understanding  that the vast majority of Sunni `ulema had. Yasir failed to explain this.

 

-ALL DU’A IS NOT WORSHIP-

Shaykh Tahir-ul-Qadri, the same Sunni Shaykh who gave a great fatwa against terrorism and who was ridiculed by Muslimmatters, explains the lawful practice of istighathah in his excellent book, “Beseeching for Help (Istighathah)”:

Contrary to what Wahhabis say, all du’a is NOT worship.  Shaykh Qadri says that:

“…the word du’a sometimes carries the meaning of address [al-Khitab] or speech. At the occasion of the battle of Uhud, when the Companions seemed to lose heart and were fighting in scattered groups, and only a few of them were concentrated around him, the holy Prophet (pbuh) called those who had scattered away from him. The Qur’an has described his words in these terms:

“When you were running away (in a state of disarray), and never cast a backward glance, and the Messenger (pbuh), who (stood steadfast) among the group behind you, was addressing you.”{Qur’an 3:153}

The word yad’ukum of the verse, that is, he was addressing you, cannot be interpreted in the sense of worship. This interpretation borders on sheer disbelief, which is simply inconceivable for the true believer.”

SAYING THAT ALL DU’A IS WORSHIP LEADS TO MANY PROBLEMS

Saying that du’a can only mean worship will, from a Qur’anic perspective, be extremely problematic and unsensible. Shaykh Qadri further explains:

“If we interpret du’a as simply an act of worship, and the act of begging for help is also merged into the act of worship, then the entire society will be pushed down into the quagmire of disbelief and (God forbid) even the prophets will not be immune to this downward slide.

Therefore, it should be clearly recognized that du’a (calling) is not synonymous with worship in all contexts. If we do not acknowledge this difference between their contextual meanings it will amount to opening Pandora’s box of disbelief, as no one will remain untainted by its rampant proliferation.

The Qur’anic verse itself is a witness to the fact that the holy Prophet (pbuh) himself also called non-God for help, and the Qur’an itself is according permission to call one another for help.

Shaykh Qadri then gives a list of verses that illustrate the problems with understanding all du’a as being worship:

If, as a supposition, we interpret da’a, yad’u, nad’u as worship or as an act of beseeching help in every context of situation indiscriminately, which is regarded by some people as an auxiliary form of worship, then it will be quite problematic to offer a sound explanation of the following Qur’anic verses:

– And, O my people, what is this that I call you to the (path of) salvation and you call me to hell?
 {Qur’an 40:41}

– He said: O my Lord! I call my people night and day (to the right religion) but my call only increased their flight (from the religion).
{Qur’an 71:5-6)

– And Allah calls (people) to the home of peace (Paradise).
{10:25}

– Call (the adopted sons) by the names of their fathers: that is just in the sight of God.
{Qur’an 33:5}

– Then, let him call (for help) his comrades. We shall also, call (our) soldiers soon.
{Qur’an 96:17-8}

– Then they will call on them, and they will not listen to them.
{Qur’an 18:52}

– When we shall call together all factions of human beings with their leaders.
{Qur’an 17:71}

– And if you call them to guidance.
{Qur’an 18:57}

-SHAYKH ABU ADAM’S RESPONSE — “DU’A TO THE DEAD”-

In another post on this blog, Yasir Qadhi repeated the same misunderstanding of the matter. Yasir said:

“The permissibility to make du`a to the dead is of course an import of (late) Sufism and not pure Ash`ari thought…”

Shaykh Abu Adam responded:

The issue here is what does he mean by du`a? If he means prayer, then no Muslim will disagree that it is kufr to make du`a to the dead. If, however, the meaning of du`a here is simply calling, without any sense of worship to the person called, then this is another matter.

Should someone claim that every du’a is worship then how would they understand the following verse in the Holy Qur’an:

لاَّ تَجْعَلُواْ دُعَآءَ الرَّسُولِ بَيْنَكُمْ كَدُعَآءِ بَعْضِكُمْ بَعْضاً

“Make not the addressing (du’a’) of the Prophet among you like your addressing one another…”

So basically we cannot interpret du`a to mean worship in every context. A call without worshipping the called upon is just a call, and it is not shirk. Moreover, calling a person who has died is done every day in every single one of the 5 daily prayers, where a Muslim says, “Ya Ayyuhan-Nabi,” i.e. “O Prophet!” Clearly then, calling a person who has died is not an import of late Sufism.

HOW ABOUT THE SPECIFIC HADITH?-

A hadith states:

“Du’a is worship.” (Sunan Abu Dawood vol.1 p387 no.1474)

A Sunni brother comments:

This hadith does not refer to everydu’a“.

Rather the du’a being referred to is the du’a which is imploring Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala to achieve a better status with Him.

The word du’a which comes from the root word da’a can have different meanings in different contexts.

If someone were to say that every du’a is ibadah then how would they understand the following verse in the Holy Qur’an:

“Make not the addressing (du’a’) of the Prophet among you like your addressing one another…”

لاَّ تَجْعَلُواْ دُعَآءَ الرَّسُولِ بَيْنَكُمْ كَدُعَآءِ بَعْضِكُمْ بَعْضاً

Here the literal word “du’a” is being used! Is this the du’a of worship?

So basically we cannot interpret du’a to mean worship in every context.

There are many other verses from the Qur’an where du’a or its derivatives and words related to it have been used to mean to call or to address.

وَإِذْ قَالَ إِبْرَاهِيمُ رَبِّ أَرِنِي كَيْفَ تُحْيِـي الْمَوْتَى قَالَ أَوَلَمْ تُؤْمِن قَالَ بَلَى وَلَـكِن لِّيَطْمَئِنَّ قَلْبِي قَالَ فَخُذْ أَرْبَعَةً مِّنَ الطَّيْرِ فَصُرْهُنَّ إِلَيْكَ ثُمَّ اجْعَلْ عَلَى كُلِّ جَبَلٍ مِّنْهُنَّ جُزْءًا ثُمَّ ادْعُهُنَّ يَأْتِينَكَ سَعْيًا وَاعْلَمْ أَنَّ اللّهَ عَزِيزٌ حَكِيمٌ

And (remember) when Ibrâhim (Abraham) said, “My Lord! Show me how You give life to the dead.” He (Allâh) said: “Do you not believe?” He [Ibrâhim (Abraham)] said: “Yes (I believe), but to be stronger in Faith.” He said: “Take four birds, then cause them to incline towards you (then slaughter them, cut them into pieces), and then put a portion of them on every hill, and call them, they will come to you in haste. And know that Allâh is All-Mighty, All-Wise.” (Al-Baqarah 2:260)

Here the word “idu’unna” means call them which has the same linguistic meaning as du’a. Ibraheem has made du’a to these birds.

 

فَمَنْ حَآجَّكَ فِيهِ مِن بَعْدِ مَا جَاءكَ مِنَ الْعِلْمِ فَقُلْ تَعَالَوْاْ نَدْعُ أَبْنَاءنَا وَأَبْنَاءكُمْ وَنِسَاءنَا وَنِسَاءكُمْ وَأَنفُسَنَا وأَنفُسَكُمْ ثُمَّ نَبْتَهِلْ فَنَجْعَل لَّعْنَةُ اللّهِ عَلَى الْكَاذِبِينَ

Then whoever disputes with you concerning him [‘Iesa (Jesus)] after (all this) knowledge that has come to you, [i.e. ‘Iesa (Jesus)] being a slave of Allâh, and having no share in Divinity) say: (O Muhammad SAW) “Come, let us call our sons and your sons, our women and your women, ourselves and yourselves – then we pray and invoke (sincerely) the Curse of Allâh upon those who lie.” (Aali Imran 3:61)

Here “nad’au” is being used to mean call.

إِذْ تُصْعِدُونَ وَلاَ تَلْوُونَ عَلَى أحَدٍ وَالرَّسُولُ يَدْعُوكُمْ فِي أُخْرَاكُمْ فَأَثَابَكُمْ غُمَّاً بِغَمٍّ لِّكَيْلاَ تَحْزَنُواْ عَلَى مَا فَاتَكُمْ وَلاَ مَا أَصَابَكُمْ وَاللّهُ خَبِيرٌ بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ

(And remember) when you ran away (dreadfully) without even casting a side glance at anyone, and the Messenger (Muhammad SAW) was in your rear calling you back. There did Allâh give you one distress after another by way of requital to teach you not to grieve for that which had escaped you, nor for that which had befallen you. And Allâh is Well*Aware of all that you do. (Aali Imran 3:153)

Here the word “yadu’ukum” is being used to mean to call upon someone.

So, it is clear that not every du’a is ibadah.

The du’a only becomes ibadah if one is imploring Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala humbling himself in subjugation and obedience to achieve a better status with Him.

And Allah knows best.

(Thanks to brother faqir: http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?14611-Supplication-(du-a)-is-itself-worship)

Surely Yasir Qadhi, in his high praise of the Four Mujtahid Imams and followers, must have known about the position of istighatha according to their madhahib. But he clearly chose to conceal this important information from the man asking the question and the audience that was listening. This shows that Yasir Qadhi’s praise of the Four Mujtahid Imams was phony. If his praise was genuine, he wouldn’t have concealed their madhahibs’ positions on the permissibility of istighatha. Below is a brief discussion on the validity of istighatha.

ISTIGHATHA: THE EVIDENCE-

The following are two specific is evidences of the permissibility of istighatha in Islam. It is not “shirk” as the Wahhabis proclaim. I thank “Faqir” for detailed evidence regarding the narration of Malik al-Dar (#1 below). 

EVIDENCE #1: NARRATION OF MALIK AL-DAR

Imam al-Bayhaqi relates with a sound (sahih) chain:

It is related from Malik al-Dar, `Umar’s treasurer, that the people suffered a drought during the successorship of `Umar, whereupon a man came to the grave of the Prophet and said:

“O Messenger of Allah, ask for rain for your Community, for verily they have but perished,” after which the Prophet appeared to him in a dream and told him: “Go to `Umar and give him my greeting, then tell him that they will be watered. Tell him: You must be clever, you must be clever!”

The man went and told `Umar. The latter said: “O my Lord, I spare no effort except in what escapes my power!””

Ibn Kathir cites it thus from Bayhaqi in al-Bidaya wa al-nihaya and says: isnaduhu sahih;[25] Ibn Abi Shayba cites it in his Musannaf with a sound (sahih) chain as confirmed by Ibn Hajar who says: rawa Ibn Abi Shayba bi isnadin sahih and cites the hadith in Fath al-bari.[26] He identifies Malik al-Dar as `Umar’s treasurer (khazin `umar) and says that the man who visited and saw the Prophet in his dream is identified as the Companion Bilal ibn al-Harith, and he counts this hadith among the reasons for Bukhari’s naming of the chapter “The people’s request to their leader for rain if they suffer drought.” He also mentions it in al-Isaba, where he says that Ibn Abi Khaythama cited it.[27]”

What follows is the original Arabic wording of this hadith of tawassul in Umar ibn al Khattab’s time as cited by various major scholars of Hadith:

[kindly provided by Sidi Abul Hasan]

From the Musannaf (12/31-32) of ibn Abi Shayba (d. 235 AH):

مُصَنَّفُ ابْنِ أَبِي شَيْبَةَ >> كِتَابُ الْفَضَائِلِ >> مَا ذُكِرَ فِي فَضْلِ عُمَرَ بْنِ الْخَطَّابِ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ >>
يَا رَبِّ لَا آلُو إِلَّا مَا عَجَزْتُ عَنْهُ *

31380 حدثنا أبو معاوية ، عن الأعمش ، عن أبي صالح ، عن مالك الدار ، قال : وكان خازن عمر على الطعام ، قال : أصاب الناس قحط في زمن عمر ، فجاء رجل إلى قبر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال : يا رسول الله ، استسق لأمتك فإنهم قد هلكوا ، فأتى الرجل في المنام فقيل له : ” ائت عمر فأقرئه السلام ، وأخبره أنكم مستقيمون وقل له : عليك الكيس ، عليك الكيس ” ، فأتى عمر فأخبره فبكى عمر ثم قال : يا رب لا آلو إلا ما عجزت عنه *

From Imam al-Bayhaqi’s Dala’il al-Nubuwwa (7/47):

دَلَائِلُ النُّبُوَّةِ لِلْبَيْهَقِيِّ >> جُمَّاعُ أَبْوَابِ غَزْوَةِ تَبُوكَ >> جُمَّاعُ أَبْوَابِ مَنْ رَأَى فِي مَنَامِهِ شَيْئًا مِنْ آثَارِ نُبُوَّةِ مُحَمَّدٍ >> بَابُ مَا جَاءَ فِي رُؤْيَةِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فِي >>
مَا آلُو إِلَّا مَا عَجَزْتُ عَنْهُ *

2974 أخبرنا أبو نصر بن قتادة ، وأبو بكر الفارسي قالا : أخبرنا أبو عمرو بن مطر ، أخبرنا أبو بكر بن علي الذهلي ، أخبرنا يحيى ، أخبرنا أبو معاوية ، عن الأعمش ، عن أبي صالح ، عن مالك قال : أصاب الناس قحط في زمان عمر بن الخطاب ؛ فجاء رجل إلى قبر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال : يا رسول الله , استسق الله لأمتك فإنهم قد هلكوا ؛ فأتاه رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم في المنام ؛ فقال ائت عمر فأقرئه السلام ، وأخبره أنكم مسقون . وقل له : عليك الكيس الكيس . فأتى الرجل عمر ، فأخبره ، فبكى عمر ثم قال : يا رب ما آلو إلا ما عجزت عنه *

From al-Irshad fi Ma’rifa Ulama al-Hadith of Hafiz al-Khalili (1/313-314):

الْإِرْشَادُ فِي مَعْرِفَةِ عُلَمَاءِ الْحَدِيثِ لِلْخَلِيلِيِّ >>
مَالِكُ الدَّارِ

مالك الدار مولى عمر بن الخطاب الرعاء عنه : تابعي , قديم , متفق عليه , أثنى عليه التابعون , وليس بكثير الرواية , روى عن أبي بكر الصديق , وعمر , وقد انتسب ولده إلى جبلان ناحية . حدثني محمد بن أحمد بن عبدوس المزكي أبو بكر النيسابوري , حدثنا عبد الله بن محمد بن الحسن الشرقي , حدثنا محمد بن عبد الوهاب قال : قلت لعلي بن عثام العامري الكوفي : لم سمي مالك الدار ؟ فقال : الداري المتطيب . حدثنا محمد بن الحسن بن الفتح , حدثنا عبد الله بن محمد البغوي , حدثنا أبو خيثمة , حدثنا محمد بن خازم الضرير , حدثنا الأعمش , عن أبي صالح , عن مالك الدار ، قال : أصاب الناس قحط في زمان عمر بن الخطاب , فجاء رجل إلى قبر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال : يا نبي الله , استسق الله لأمتك فرأى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم في المنام فقال : ” ائت عمر , فأقرئه السلام , وقل له : إنكم مسقون , فعليك بالكيس الكيس ” . قال : فبكى عمر , وقال : يا رب , ما آلو إلا ما عجزت عنه يقال : إن أبا صالح سمع مالك الدار هذا الحديث , والباقون أرسلوه

Imam Ibn Kathir in al Bidaya wal Nihaya (7/106):

وقال الحافظ أبو بكر البيهقي: أخبرنا أبو نصر بن قتادة، وأبو بكر الفارسي قالا: حدثنا أبو عمر بن مطر، حدثنا إبراهيم بن علي الذهلي، حدثنا يحيى بن يحيى، حدثنا أبو معاوية، عن الأعمش، عن أبي صالح، عن مالك قال: أصاب الناس قحط في زمن عمر بن الخطاب، فجاء رجل إلى قبر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم.
فقال: يا رسول الله استسق الله لأمتك فإنهم قد هلكوا.
فأتاه رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم في المنام فقال: إيت عمر، فأقرئه مني السلام، وأخبرهم أنه مسقون، وقل له عليك بالكيس الكيس.
فأتى الرجل فأخبر عمر، فقال: يا رب ما آلوا إلا ما عجزت عنه.وهذا إسناد صحيح.

Shaykh al-Islam al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani in al-Isaba fi Tamyiz al-Sahaba (3/484) :

الإصابة – لابن حجر

8362[ص:274] مالك بن عياض مولى عمر هو الذي يقال له مالك الدار له إدراك وسمع من أبي بكر الصديق وروى عن الشيخين ومعاذ وأبي عبيدة روى عنه أبو صالح السمان وابناه عون وعبدالله ابنا مالك وأخرج البخاري في التاريخ من طريق أبي صالح ذكوان عن مالك الدار أن عمر قال في قحوط المطر يا رب لا آلو إلا ما عجزت عنه وأخرجه بن أبي خيثمة من هذا الوجه مطولا قال أصاب الناس قحط في زمن عمر فجاء رجل إلى قبر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال يا رسول الله استسق الله لأمتك فأتاه النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم في المنام فقال له ائت عمر فقل له إنكم مستسقون فعليك الكفين قال فبكى عمر وقال يا رب ما آلوا إلا ما عجزت عنه وروينا في فوائد داود بن عمرو الضبي جمع البغوي من طريق عبدالرحمن بن سعيد بن يربوع المخزومي عن مالك الدار قال دعاني عمر بن الخطاب يوما فإذا عنده صرة من ذهب فيها أربعمائة دينار فقال اذهب بهذه إلى أبي عبيدة فذكر قصته وذكر بن سعد في الطبقة الأولى من التابعين في أهل المدينة قال روى عن أبي بكر وعمر وكان معروفا وقال أبو عبيدة ولاه عمر كيلة عيال عمر فلما قدم عثمان ولاه القسم فسمى مالك الدار وقال إسماعيل القاضي عن علي بن المديني كان مالك الدار خازنا لعمر.

Hafiz ibn Hajar in Fath al Bari (2/495):

وروى ابن أبي شيبة بإسناد صحيح من رواية أبي صالح السمان عن مالك الداري – وكان خازن عمر – قال ” أصاب الناس قحط في زمن عمر فجاء رجل إلى قبر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال: يا رسول الله استسق لأمتك فإنهم قد هلكوا، فأتى الرجل في المنام فقيل له: ائت عمر ” الحديث.
وقد روى سيف في الفتوح أن الذي رأى المنام المذكور هو بلال بن الحارث المزني أحد الصحابة، وظهر بهذا كله مناسبة الترجمة لأصل هذه القصة أيضا والله الموفق.

Imam ibn Abdal Barr in al-Isti’ab (2/464) under the biography of Umar ibn al Khattab (ra) said:

وروى أبو معاوية عن الأعمش عن أبي صالح عن مالك الدار قال‏:‏ أصاب الناس قحط في زمن عمر فجاء رجل إلى قبر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال‏:‏ يا رسول الله استسق لأمتك فإنهم قد هلكوا‏.‏

Sidi Abul Hasan goes on to comment:

“Note: All of these Imams narrated it and not one of them weakened it let alone said it leads to Shirk as some of the innovators of this age claimed!

In fact Imam ibn Hajar and Imam ibn Kathir explicitly declared its Isnad to be Sahih. Ibn Kathir in his recently published: Jami al-Masanid (1/223) – Musnad Umar – declared it as: “Isnaduhu Jayyid Qawi: ITS CHAIN OF TRANSMISSION IS GOOD AND STRONG!”

Let the pseudo-Salafiyya take note – that this is the ruling of ibn Kathir in 2 places, and he was associated with Ibn Taymiyya.”

[Al-Albani attempted to weaken the above authentic narration, but this has been addressed adequately in the following link: http://hadithproofsfortawassul.blogspot.com/2005/11/hadith-3-response-to-al-albanis.html]

EVIDENCE #2: “YA MUHAMMAD!” (peace & blessings upon him)

In Imam Bukhari’s “al-Adab-ul-Mufrad” related the following about Ibn Umar that his leg was numbed and he was told: Mention the name of the most beloved person to you. He then said: “O Muhammad.” The result was as if his leg was untied from a knot. This is specific evidence as related by Imam Bukhari in which “Ya Muhammad” is specifically mentioned. And this proves Yasir Qadhi absolutely wrong when he said: “If a person goes to a grave and makes du’a to that grave and says ‘Ya Fulan’, ‘Ya Abdal-Qadir Jeelani’…this is blatant shirk about which there is no difference of opinion amongst the classical scholars of Islam.”

SHAYKH FARAZ RABBANI APPROVES OF ISTIGHATHA

To top it off, Shaykh Faraz Rabbani — orthodox Sunni scholar and founder of Seeker’s Guidance — explained the validity of istighatha as follows:

In the Name of Allah, Most Merciful & Compassionate

There are a few issues:

a) It is a fundamental belief of Muslims that only Allah benefits or harms; that only Allah gives and takes;

b) It is also a fundamental belief of Muslims that Allah has created means for humans to take;

c) However, the relationship between these created means and their effects is only normative: it is Allah who creates the means, and Allah who creates the results.

This is why Shaykh Abd al-Rahman al-Shaghouri (Allah have mercy on him), the great spiritual guide and master of the sciences of faith (aqida) from Damascus, explained,

“Taking means is necessary, and denying that they are effective is necessary. Whoever negates means is denying the Wisdom of Allah, and whoever relies upon means is associating others with Allah.”

This is the understanding upon which Muslims “call upon other than Allah.” It is no different from taking medicine when sick, or going to a mechanic when your car is giving trouble: if you think that the medicine itself creates the healing, or that the mechanic is the one himself creates the fixing, then you have serious innovation in belief. The sound understanding is that Allah creates the healing when you use the medicine, and He creates the fixing when the mechanic does their job: we affirm these means, but also affirm that it is Allah who created both the means and the resultant effect.

This is pure affirmation of Divine Oneness. How can it “smack of shirk.” […]

Wassalam,

Faraz Rabbani

(Source: http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=7&ID=3752&CATE=24 )

Allah protect us from pseudo-scholars who are many today and Guide us on Sirat-ul-MustaQeem! Aameen!

Yasir Qadhi Teaches Wahhabism Founder’s “Kitab Tawheed”, the Islam Channel, & More.

-WAHHABISM’S FOUNDER AND WAHHABISM-

The Wahhabi movement was created by Muhammad ibn Abdal-Wahhab in the 1700s. The Wahhabis are notorious for making takfir against masses of Sunnis and Shi’ah and accusing them of not understanding their religion properly — even though both Sunnis and Shi’ah existed before the Wahhabi founder was born.

Wahhabis massacred thousands of Muslims because they accused them of doing “shirk” (polytheism). Wahhabis desecrate the relics of Islam’s heritage, including the graves of noble Companions of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Fatawa were given by numerous Sunni scholars against Wahhabis, including that of the Mufti of Mecca Ahmad ibn Zayni Dahlan. The Wahhabi founder extolled Ibn Taymiyah, considered an outcast in matters of `aqeedah (creed) and `ibadaat (worship), and was even refuted by members of his own family who were scholars.

Ibn Abdal Wahhab allowed the monarchy of al-Sa’ud to reign supreme politically, even though monarchies are unIslamic. The Wahhabis are notorious for spreading extremism worldwide, even to this day, and have influenced criminals and terrorists of all colors, including Osama bin Laden. Omar bin Laden (the son of Osama bin Laden) in his recent book (co-authored with his mother, Najwa bin Laden), “Growing up Bin Laden”, explicity said that his father was a “Wahhabi”. Whether this description is fully accurate or not is a matter of debate. What is agreed upon, however, is that Wahhabism facilitated and contributed to his terroristic outlook.

-YASIR QADHI TEACHES THE WAHHABISM FOUNDER’S  “KITAB TAWHEED”-

The al-Maghrib Institute, and specifically Yasir Qadhi, taught a class on the explanation of Muhammad ibn Abdal-Wahhab’s “Kitab Tawheed” — a book condemned by orthodox Sunni scholars and a book filled with unorthodox understandings of the Qur’an and Sunnah. It is these grossly incorrect interpretations that provide the Wahhabi justification to accuse Muslims who practice the legitimate Islamic forms of tawassul (such as istighaatha) of doing “shirk” (polytheism). 

Yasir Qadhi’s classes on the explanation of the Wahhabi Founder’s ridiculous book can be heard here:

http://www.halaltube.com/kitab-at-tawheed

Transcripts of Qadhi’s classes can be read at the al-Maghrib Institute’s forum:

http://forums.almaghrib.org/showthread.php?t=8148

No orthodox Sunni would ever teach such an unscholarly and perfidious book that was used to ostracize, condemn, and kill thousands of well meaning Muslims. Only Wahhabis promote such discredited work by unscholarly individuals like Ibn Abdal-Wahhab. 

 –YASIR QADHI’S BOOK: “A CRITICAL STUDY OF SHIRK”-

Yasir Qadhi has, in fact, published a book on explaining Muhammad ibn Abdal-Wahhab’s interpretation of shirk. The title of the book is “A Critical Study of Shirk: An Explanation of Muhammad ibn Abdal-Wahhab’s ‘Kash al-Shubuhat'”. The following are publication details and a brief description of the book by the publisher:

“This work, which is a detailed explanation of one of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab’s most important works, deals with explaning and refuting the evidences that were used by certain Muslim groups of his time to justify acts of shirk (the act of associating partners with Allah). It is entitled Kash al-Shubuhat, which literally translates as: ‘the clearing of doubts.’ Ibn Abd al-Wahhab intended in this work to expose the falsity and speciousness of these arguments by proving that the pagans whom the Prophet (pbuh) fought utilized the exact same arguments and fell prey to the same reasoning as these modern practitioners of shirk did. It is one of the most advanced works on the subject, and over a dozen different arguments and evidences used to justify shirk are presented and then refuted.

In order to maximize the benefit of this work, introductory sections concerning other aspects of shirk not mentioned by Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab have been added by the author. To this end, the work discusses the definitions of shirk, the importance of knowing shirk, the difference between shirk and kufr, the types and categories of shirk, the history of shirk, the evils and futility of shirk, the causes of shirk, and other related topics. In addition, a brief biography of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab is included as a preface to the text of this book.

This work is undoubtedly the most comprehensive study in the English language of shirk, and hence an essential book for thoes who wish to understand this great evil known to man.”

(SOURCE: http://www.islamicbookstore.com/b7632.html)

The book attempts to portray certain Islamic acts as acts of polytheism. What it doesn’t explain is that the Islamic acts — tawassul, istighaatha, tabarruk — that they condemn as polytheistic acts have always been orthodox Sunni (and Shi’ah) practices accepted by the four Sunni schools of jurisprudence (Hanafi, Shafi’i, Maliki, Hanafi) and the Shi’ah Jaafariyya school for the past 1,000+ years.  

This is what makes Wahhabis and Wahhabism a takfiri splinter sect unrepresentative of Sunni Islam.

-YASIR QADHI DEFENDS WAHHABISM-

 

 

Yasir Qadhi on the notorious Islam Channel (above at 2:12) spoke about a program called “Dispatchers” in which Wahhabi ‘scholars’ were secretly videotaped and exposed by a journalist. Qadhi lashed out against the program and defended the extremists who were exposed:

They are labeling this group of people with a label. And they are telling as if the other Muslims oh you must disassociate yourself from this group of people. And they have chosen this label – they call it ‘Wahhabi’, or they call it ‘Salafi’ – and they say, ‘This is what the Wahhabis teach…this is what the Salafis teach’. Now if you look at what they are teaching and what they are saying, much of it is something which is general to Islam.” 

Qadhi also foolishly says that the word ‘Wahhabi’ is an “invented label” used by non-Muslims to divide Muslims. On the contrary, Sunni and Shi’ah Muslims, starting with their eminent scholars (`ulema), condemned Wahhabis for their heretical understanding of belief and worship that contradicted the orthodox Sunni understanding. You may listen to Qadhi’s defense of Wahhabism here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcOKzcPQkGY

-YASIR QADHI & THE SALAFI “ISLAM CHANNEL”-

Mohamed Ali Harrath
(SOURCE:  http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article5342730.ece)

For those who are wondering, yes, this is the same Islam Channel whose CEO, Mohamed Ali Harrath, was recently arrested in South Africa for terrorism related charges. Surely Yasir Qadhi can tell us more about this. A January 2010 article from the Guardian states:

The head of the UK-based Islam Channel has been arrested in South Africa and faces deportation to Tunisia over terrorism charges.

Mohamed Ali Harrath, who has advised Scotland Yard on Islamic extremism, had been sought by Interpol and authorities in Tunisia over claims that he was linked to an alleged terror organisation in his homeland…. He was convicted in absentia of numerous criminal and terrorism-related offences by Tunisian courts and sentenced to 56 years in prison.”

(SOURCE: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/jan/26/mohamed-ali-harrath)

Apparently Mohamed Ali Harrath was recently “vindicated” according to the Islam Channel website. However, his Wahhabi-Salafi propagation and support still prevail through the Islam Channel. A recent interview on BBC’s Hardtalk exposes the extremist nature of the Islam Channel which can be seen and heard here:

–BBC Hardtalk (Part-1): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6iSgs7GmIg

–BBC Hardtalk (Part-2): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2vFbWpoVAw&NR=1

–BBC Hardtalk (Part-3): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4SZyBAFzlc&feature=related

Yasir Qadhi was also a guest speaker at the Global Unity Conference (April 3-4, 2005) in the ExCel arena in London, alongside Mohamed Ali Harrath who was also invited to speak, as were other Salafi-Wahhabis, including journalist Yvonne Ridley and Yusuf Estes.

One can see that Yasir Qadhi has/had associated himself with very controversial individuals. As the main page of this blog states, the al-Maghrib Institute as an organization has had links, in one way or another, with:

-SALMAN AL-OUDAH: a Saudi Shaykh loved by Osama bin Laden.

IBN JIBREEN: the late Saudi Shaykh who loved Osama bin Laden.

-ALI AL-TIMIMI:
currently serving a life sentence in a US prison for a plethora of anti-American charges.

-ANWAR AL-AWLAKI:
an al-Qa’eda member in hiding who tells Muslims to kill Americans, and who is suspected of being NIDAL MALIK HASSAN’S mentor. 

NIDAL MALIK HASSAN was the murderer of the Fort Hood soldiers. Recently Yasir Qadhi wrote an article on Muslim Matters on why it is right NOT to target Anwar al-Awlaki.

-UMAR FAROUK ABDULMUTALLAB:
the “UNDERWEAR BOMBER” who tried to blow up a US-bound plane in December 2009.

-And many more: MOHAMED ALI HARRATH, YVONNE RIDLEY, YUSUF ESTES, etc.

-MUSLIM SCHOLARS REFUTE WAHHABISM-

The following is a list of some Muslim scholars who have refuted Wahhabism. This is by no means a comprehensive list, but sufficiently long to make the point.

It is interesting that Yasir Qadhi has not mentioned any of these scholarly refutations against Wahhabism even once in all of his lectures, classes, and presentations. He has the audacity of saying that Wahhabism is a non-Muslim invention to divide Muslims, whereas Muslim scholars have always been at the forefront of opposing Wahhabism in historical and contemporary times. Al-Maghrib Institute students, ask Yasir Qadhi about these Islamic refutations against Wahhabism — each and every one of them:

–Al-Ahsa’i Al-Misri, Ahmad (1753-1826): Unpublished manuscript of a refutation of the Wahhabi sect. His son Shaykh Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn `Abd al-Latif al-Ahsa’i also wrote a book refuting them.

–Al-Ahsa’i, Al-Sayyid `Abd al-Rahman: wrote a sixty-seven verse poem which begins with the verse:

Badat fitnatun kal layli qad ghattatil aafaaqa
wa sha“at fa kadat tublighul gharba wash sharaqa

 [A confusion came about like nightfall covering the skies
and became widespread almost reaching the whole world]

–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-Bulaqi, Mustafa al-Masri wrote a refutation to San`a’i’s poem in which the latter had praised Ibn `Abd al-Wahhab. It is in Samnudi’s “Sa`adat al-Darayn” and consists in 126 verses beginning thus:

Bi hamdi wali al-hamdi la al-dhammi astabdi
Wa bil haqqi la bil khalqi lil haqqi astahdi

[By the glory of the Owner of glory, not baseness, do I overcome;
And by Allah, not by creatures, do I seek guidance to Allah]

–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.

–al-Dajwi, Hamd Allah: al-Basa’ir li Munkiri al-tawassul ka amthal Muhd. Ibn `Abdul Wahhab [“The Evident Proofs Against Those Who Deny the Seeking of Intercession Like Muhammad Ibn `Abdul Wahhab”].

–Shaykh al-Islam Dawud ibn Sulayman al-Baghdadi al-Hanafi (1815-1881 CE): al-Minha al-Wahbiyya fi radd al-Wahhabiyya [“The Divine Dispensation Concerning the Wahhabi Deviation”]; Ashadd al-Jihad fi Ibtal Da`wa al-Ijtihad [“The Most Violent Jihad in Proving False Those Who Falsely Claim Ijtihad”].

–Al-Falani al-Maghribi, al-Muhaddith Salih: authored a large volume collating the answers of scholars of the Four Schools to Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Wahhab.

–Al-Habibi, Muhammad `Ashiq al-Rahman: `Adhab Allah al-Mujdi li Junun al-Munkir al-Najdi [“Allah’s Terrible Punishment for the Mad Rejector From Najd”].

–Al-Haddad, al-Sayyid al-`Alawi ibn Ahmad ibn Hasan ibn al-Qutb

–Sayyidi `Abd Allah ibn `Alawi al-Haddad al-Shafi`i: al-Sayf al-batir li `unq al-munkir `ala al-akabir [“The Sharp Sword for the Neck of the Assailant of Great Scholars”]. Unpublished manuscript of about 100 folios; Misbah al-anam wa jala’ al-zalam fi radd shubah al-bid`i al-najdi al-lati adalla biha al-`awamm [“The Lamp of Mankind and the Illumination of Darkness Concerning the Refutation of the Errors of the Innovator From Najd by Which He Had Misled the Common People”]. Published 1325H.

–Al-Hamami al-Misri, Shaykh Mustafa: Ghawth al-`ibad bi bayan al-rashad [“The Helper of Allah’s Servants According to the Affirmation of Guidance”].

–Al-Hilmi al-Qadiri al-Iskandari, Shaykh Ibrahim: Jalal al-haqq fi kashf ahwal ashrar al-khalq [“The Splendor of Truth in Exposing the Worst of People] (pub. 1355H).

–Al-Husayni, `Amili, Muhsin (1865-1952). Kashf al-irtiyab fi atba` Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Wahhab [“The Dispelling of Doubt Concerning the Followers of Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Wahhab”]. [Yemen?]: Maktabat al-Yaman al-Kubra, 198?.

–Al-Kabbani, Muhammad Hisham, Encyclopedia of Islamic Doctrine, vol. 1-7, As-Sunnah Foundation of America, 1998.

_____, Islamic Beliefs and Doctrine According to Ahl as-Sunna – A Repudiation of “Salafi” Innovations,  ASFA, 1996.

_____, Innovation and True Belief: the Celebration of Mawlid According to the Qur’an and Sunna and the Scholars of Islam, ASFA, 1995.

_____, Salafi Movement Unveiled, ASFA, 1997.

–Ibn `Abd al-Latif al-Shafi`i, `Abd Allah: Tajrid sayf al-jihad `ala mudda`i al-ijtihad [“The drawing of the sword of jihad against the false claimants to ijtihad”].

–The family of Ibn `Abd al-Razzaq al-Hanbali in Zubara and Bahrayn possess both manuscript and printed refutations by scholars of the Four Schools from Mecca, Madina, al-Ahsa’, al-Basra, Baghdad, Aleppo, Yemen and other Islamic regions.

–Ibn `Abd al-Wahhab al-Najdi, `Allama al-Shaykh Sulayman, elder brother of Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Wahhab: al-Sawa’iq al-Ilahiyya fi al-radd ‘ala al-Wahhabiyya [“Divine Lightnings in Answering the Wahhabis”]. Ed. Ibrahim Muhammad al-Batawi. Cairo: Dar al-insan, 1987. Offset reprint by Waqf Ikhlas, Istanbul: Hakikat Kitabevi, 1994. Prefaces by Shaykh Muhammad ibn Sulayman al-Kurdi al-Shafi`i and Shaykh Muhammad Hayyan al-Sindi (Muhammad Ibn `Abd al-Wahhab’s shaykh) to the effect that Ibn `Abd al-Wahhab is “dall mudill” (“misguided and misguiding”).

–Ibn `Abidin al-Hanafi, al-Sayyid Muhammad Amin: Radd al-muhtar `ala al-durr al-mukhtar, Vol. 3, Kitab al-Iman, Bab al-bughat [“Answer to the Perplexed: A Commentary on “The Chosen Pearl,”” Book of Belief, Chapter on Rebels]. Cairo: Dar al-Tiba`a al-Misriyya, 1272 H.

–Ibn `Afaliq al-Hanbali, Muhammad Ibn `Abdul Rahman: Tahakkum al-muqallidin bi man idda`a tajdid al-din [Sarcasm of the muqallids against the false claimants to the Renewal of Religion]. A very comprehensive book refuting the Wahhabi heresy and posting questions which Ibn `Abdul Wahhab and his followers were unable to answer for the most part.

–Ibn Dawud al-Hanbali, `Afif al-Din `Abd Allah: as-sawa`iq wa al-ru`ud [“Lightnings and thunder”], a very important book in 20 chapters. According to the Mufti of Yemen Shaykh al-`Alawi ibn Ahmad al-Haddad, the mufti of Yemen, “This book has received the approval of the `ulama of Basra, Baghdad, Aleppo, and Ahsa’ [Arabian peninsula]. It was summarized by Muhammad ibn Bashir the qadi of Ra’s al-Khayma in Oman.”

–Ibn Ghalbun al-Libi also wrote a refutation in forty verses of al-San`ani’s poem in which the latter had praised Ibn `Abd al-Wahhab. It is in Samnudi’s Sa`adat al-darayn and begins thus:

Salami `ala ahlil isabati wal-rushdi
Wa laysa `ala najdi wa man halla fi najdi

[My salutation is upon the people of truth and guidance
And not upon Najd nor the one who settled in Najd]

–Ibn Khalifa `Ulyawi al-Azhari: Hadhihi `aqidatu al-salaf wa al-khalaf fi dhat Allahi ta`ala wa sifatihi wa af`alihi wa al-jawab al-sahih li ma waqa`a fihi al-khilaf min al-furu` bayna al-da`in li al-Salafiyya wa atba` al-madhahib al-arba`a al-islamiyya [“This is the doctrine of the Predecessors and the Descendants concerning the divergences in the branches between those who call to al-Salafiyya and the followers of the Four Islamic Schools of Law”] (Damascus: Matba`at Zayd ibn Thabit, 1398/1977.

–Kawthari al-Hanafi, Muhammad Zahid. Maqalat al-Kawthari. (Cairo: al-Maktabah al-Azhariyah li al-Turath, 1994).

–Al-Kawwash al-Tunisi, `Allama Al-Shaykh Salih: his refutation of the Wahhabi sect is contained in Samnudi’s volume: “Sa`adat al-darayn fi al-radd `ala al-firqatayn.”

–Khazbek, Shaykh Hasan: Al-maqalat al-wafiyyat fi al-radd `ala al-wahhabiyyah [“Complete Treatise in Refuting the Wahhabis”].

–Makhluf, Muhammad Hasanayn: Risalat fi hukm al-tawassul bil-anbiya wal-awliya [“Treatise on the Ruling Concerning the Use of Prophets and Saints as Intermediaries”].

–Al-Maliki al-Husayni, Al-muhaddith Muhammad al-Hasan ibn `Alawi: Mafahimu yajibu an tusahhah [“Notions that should be corrected”] 4th ed. (Dubai: Hashr ibn Muhammad Dalmuk, 1986); Muhammad al-insanu al-kamil [“Muhammad, the Perfect Human Being”] 3rd ed. (Jeddah: Dar al-Shuruq, 1404/1984).

–Al-Mashrifi al-Maliki al-Jaza’iri: Izhar al-`uquq mimman mana`a al-tawassul bil nabi wa al-wali al-saduq [“The Exposure of the Disobedience of Those Who Forbid Using the Intermediary of the Prophets and the Truthful Saints].

–Al-Mirghani al-Ta’ifi, `Allama `Abd Allah ibn Ibrahim (d. 1793): Tahrid al-aghbiya’ `ala al-Istighatha bil-anbiya’ wal-awliya [“The Provocations of the Ignorant Against Seeking the Help of Prophets and Saints”] (Cairo: al-Halabi, 1939).

–Mu’in al-Haqq al-Dehlawi (d. 1289): Sayf al-Jabbar al-maslul `ala a`da’ al-Abrar [“The Sword of the Almighty Drawn Against the Enemies of the Pure Ones”].

–Al-Muwaysi al-Yamani, `Abd Allah ibn `Isa: Unpublished manuscript of a refutation of the Wahhabi sect.

–Al-Nabahani al-Shafi`i, al-qadi al-muhaddith Yusuf ibn Isma`il (1850-1932): Shawahid al-Haqq fi al-istighatha bi sayyid al-Khalq (s) [“The Proofs of Truth in the Seeking of the Intercession of the Prophet”].

–Al-Qabbani al-Basri al-Shafi`i, Allama Ahmad ibn `Ali: A manuscript treatise in approximately 10 chapters.

–Al-Qadumi al-Nabulusi al-Hanbali: `AbdAllah: Rihlat [“Journey”].

–Al-Qazwini, Muhammad Hasan, (d. 1825). Al-Barahin al-jaliyyah fi raf` tashkikat al-Wahhabiyah [“The Plain Demonstrations That Dispel the Aspersions of the Wahhabis”]. Ed. Muhammad Munir al-Husayni al-Milani. 1st ed. Beirut: Mu’assasat al-Wafa’, 1987.

–Al-Qudsi: al-Suyuf al-Siqal fi A`naq man ankara `ala al-awliya ba`d al-intiqal [“The Burnished Swords on the Necks of Those Who Deny the Role of Saints After Their Leaving This World”].

–Al-Rifa`i, Yusuf al-Sayyid Hashim, President of the World Union of Islamic Propagation and Information: Adillat Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama`at aw al-radd al-muhkam al-mani` `ala munkarat wa shubuhat Ibn Mani` fi tahajjumihi `ala al-sayyid Muhammad `Alawi al-Maliki al-Makki [“The Proofs of the People of the Way of the Prophet and the Muslim Community: or, the Strong and Decisive Refutation of Ibn Mani`’s Aberrations and Aspersions in his Assault on Muhammad `Alawi al-Maliki al-Makki”] (Kuwait: Dar al-siyasa, 1984).

–Al-Samnudi al-Mansuri, al-`Allama al-Shaykh Ibrahim: Sa`adat al-darayn fi al-radd `ala al-firqatayn al-wahhabiyya wa muqallidat al-zahiriyyah [“Bliss in the Two Abodes: Refutation of the Two Sects, Wahhabis and Zahiri Followers”].

–Al-Saqqaf al-Shafi`i, Hasan ibn `Ali, Islamic Research Intitute, Amman, Jordan: al-Ighatha bi adillat al-istighatha wa al-radd al-mubin `ala munkiri al-tawassul [“The Mercy of Allah in the Proofs of Seeking Intercession and the Clear Answer to Those who Reject it”]; Ilqam al hajar li al-mutatawil `ala al-Asha`ira min al-Bashar [“The Stoning of All Those Who Attack Ash’aris”]; Qamus shata’im al-Albani wa al-alfaz al-munkara al-lati yatluquha fi haqq ulama al-ummah wa fudalai’ha wa ghayrihim… [“Encyclopedia of al-Albani’s Abhorrent Expressions Which He Uses Against the Scholars of the Community, its Eminent Men, and Others…”] Amman : Dar al-Imam al-Nawawi, 1993.

–Al-Sawi al-Misri: Hashiyat `ala al-jalalayn [“Commentary on the Tafsir of the Two Jalal al-Din”].

–Sayf al-Din Ahmed ibn Muhammad: Al-Albani Unveiled: An Exposition of His Errors and Other Important Issues, 2nd ed. (London: s.n., 1994).

–Al-Shatti al-Athari al-Hanbali, al-Sayyid Mustafa ibn Ahmad ibn Hasan, Mufti of Syria: al-Nuqul al-shar’iyyah fi al-radd ‘ala al-Wahhabiyya [“The Legal Proofs in Answering the Wahhabis”].

–Al-Subki, al-hafiz Taqi al-Din (d. 756/1355): Al-durra al-mudiyya fi al-radd `ala Ibn Taymiyya, ed. Muhammad Zahid al-Kawthari [“The Luminous Pearl: A Refutation of Ibn Taymiyya”]; Al-rasa’il al-subkiyya fi al-radd `ala Ibn Taymiyya wa tilmidhihi Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, ed. Kamal al-Hut [“Subki’s treatises in Answer to Ibn Taymiyya and his pupil Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya”] (Beirut: `Alam al-Kutub, 1983); Al-sayf al-saqil fi al-radd `ala Ibn Zafil [“The Burnished Sword in Refuting Ibn Zafil (Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya)” Cairo: Matba`at al-Sa`ada, 1937; Shifa’ al-siqam fi ziyarat khayr al-anam [“The healing of the sick in visiting the Best of Creation”].

–Sunbul al-Hanafi al-Ta’ifi, Allama Tahir: Sima al-Intisar lil awliya’ al-abrar [“The Mark of Victory Belongs to Allah’s Pure Friends”].

–Al-Tabataba’i al-Basri, al-Sayyid: also wrote a reply to San`a’i’s poem which was excerpted in Samnudi’s Sa`adat al-Darayn. After reading it, San`a’i reversed his position and said: “I have repented from what I said concerning the Najdi.”

–Al-Tamimi al-Maliki, `Allama Isma`il (d. 1248), Shaykh al-Islam in Tunis: wrote a refutation of a treatise of Ibn `Abd al-Wahhab.

–Al-Wazzani, al-Shaykh al-Mahdi, Mufti of Fes, Morocco: Wrote a refutation of Muhammad `Abduh’s prohibition of tawassul. 

–al-Zahawi al-Baghdadi, Jamil Effendi Sidqi (d. 1355/1936): al-Fajr al-Sadiq fi al-radd ‘ala munkiri al-tawassul wa al-khawariq [“The True Dawn in Refuting Those Who Deny the Seeking of Intercession and the Miracles of Saints”] Pub. 1323/1905 in Egypt.

–Al-Zamzami al-Shafi`i, Muhammad Salih, Imam of the Maqam Ibrahim in Mecca, wrote a book in 20 chapters against them according to al-Sayyid al-Haddad.

-CONCLUSION-

This post proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that Yasir Qadhi (and al-Maghrib Institute) are propagaters and supporters of Wahhabism. He teaches and explains books by the founder of Wahhabism, defends Wahhabis against rightful accusations of extremism against them, and slyly hides the fact that countless Sunni (and Shi’ah) scholars have written entire books, poems, and other treatises opposing and refuting Wahhabis for their anti-Sunni, heretical beliefs and acts of worship. 

Allah Protect our children from misguidance and from taking a path separate from the Muslim majority that never practiced polytheism or anything resembling it as the Wahhabis falsely accuse!  Aaameen.

Shaykh Abdullah bin Hamid Ali of Zaytuna Institute Refutes Qadhi’s anti-Ash’ari Views.

Shaykh Abdullah bin Hamid Ali of Zaytuna responds to Yasir Qadhi’s article in Muslim Matters that demeaned Ash’aris and misconstrued their authentic positions. The following are some of his excerpts that shed light on the view held by Ahl al-Sunna wa’l Jama’ah and their differences with the distorted — in many cases, malevolent — understanding of the Salafi-Wahhabis. Allah make this of benefit to all of us!   

Shaykh bin Hamid Ali is a teacher at the Zaytuna Institute that provides the following biography of the Shaykh:

Abdullah bin Hamid Ali began the study of Arabic and Islamic Studies at the age of 17 with his first Arabic teacher, Imam Aberra—-may Allah show him mercy—-of Eritrea, a well-known private teacher in Philadelphia. He later studied Arabic, Qur’anic recitation (tajwid) and memorization (hifz), and other introductory topics with Imam Anwar bin Nafea Muhaimin and his brother Anas. He studied privately and as an undergraduate student with Dr. Khalid Yahya Blankinship of Temple University, and at the former Institute of Arabic and Islamic Sciences in Fairfax, Virginia. In 1997, he left the United States and began more intensive studies in the Islamic sciences at the University of Qarawiyyin of Fes, Morocco. In 2001, he graduated with a license from the Faculty of Shariah to teach the Islamic Sciences (al-ijazah al-‘ulya), and then returned to Philadelphia. Since his return, he has written a number of articles on various Islamic topics (www.lamppostproductions.com), taught numerous classes, workshops, and seminars, and translated and annotated The Attributes of God (Amal Press), a work by the great scholar, ‘Abd Al-Rahman ibn al-Jawzi. In October, Abdullah left a full-time position as chaplain with the State Correctional Institution of Chester, Pennsylvania, after five years, and joined the Zaytuna staff as a resident scholar. He lives with his wife and daughter in the Bay Area.
 

SHAYKH ABDULLAH BIN HAMID ALI

“As Salamu ‘alaykum wa rahmatullah, Shaykh Yasir

“This is your brother, Abdullah bin Hamid Ali. How are things? I’d like to congratulate you on your excellently worded article related to the matter of atomism and its relationship to Ash’ari and Mutazili doctrine. I really enjoyed reading it. But, as you can expect I do have a couple of questions that I’d like for you to clarify for me. Before that, I’d like to first state as you would expect that I do not agree that you were able to prove your thesis that the Ash’ari doctrine of the attributes originate primarily from Hellenistic thought and philosophy. Rather, it is primarily originated from the Qur’an itself by inference, of course. If it then agrees with many aspects of Hellenistic thought, that should not be a problem, but of course you are free to hold whatever view that you like. Secondly, what puzzles me is that you do not see the rational origins of your own thought or even the rational origins of Ahl al-Hadith thought in doctrine generally speaking. All of us are making inferences from the sources, so why should the Ash’aris be implicated as those who have departed from the text? Furthermore, Ash’ari doctrine of the attributes is rooted in the language of the Arabs as understood during the time of the Salaf. My other question relates to this statement you made,

“The Ash`aris do indeed state that Allah’s actions are not done for a purpose, nor can they be characterized with “wisdom”. They deny what is called “al-Hikma wa al-Ta`lil’”

“I think it would be good to rephrase this to give the Ash’aris more justice on this matter. The way that you phrase it makes it sound like the Ash’aris hold that Allah’s actions are nothing more than ‘abath’ as the Qur’an clearly denies. Do deny that would be tantamount to apostasy for it would be an outright denial of Allah’s explicit words. This is not the Ash’ari view, and your words can be seen as distorting the true understanding they intend to convey….”

“Instead of simply appreciating your scholarship, many people will take your words as further support for whatever personal vendetta he/she has against certain Muslim factions, while the greater concerns of our community will continue to go neglected. We need to do our best to make sure that people don’t waste too much time on chat rooms and blogs going back and forth about matters they do not completely understand. May Allah make you a light for others out of darkness.”
(end of quote)

SHAYKH BIN HAMID ALI’S CLARIFICATION TO A YASIR QADHI FOLLOWER

Shaykh bin Hamid Ali also responded to a Salafi tarnished follower of the Al-Maghrib Institute in the issue of ta’wil, or figurative interpretation of the Attributes of Allah in the Qur’an and Sunnah:

“As for Brother Haithim’s comment, “In fact the Shaikh went against the Ash’ari creed.” Well, according to Abul-Hussein I’ve taken the view of “some” Ash’aris. If I am incorrect about that assumption, then I still haven’t seen how I have gone against the Ash’ari creed. I just think you are misunderstanding what is meant by “ta’lil” and are perhaps confusing it with “hikma.” Otherwise, I don’t think it would be appropriate for you to say, “Ash’aris believe that Allah SWT’s actions are neither based nor motivated by a divine wisdom.” and then to say “Imams Bajoori and Marghini have made similar statements. Ash’aris do believe Allah SWT’s actions to be wise, but not motivated by a divine wisdom.” I don’t see where I have said anything different from this.

“When a person has a sensor placed on a door to detect movement so that the door opens every time a person wants to enter, this is an example of ta’lil. Why the sensor? To detect the person who’s about to enter the door. What is the wisdom of that? Perhaps, it’s to remove the burden of having to push or pull the door open, thus lightening the burden of the people. Or perhaps the wisdom is for one to simply develop an admiration and appreciation for the creator of the door with the sensor and to feel amazement for one who could do such a thing. I hope that I am clear about what the difference is between “‘illah gha’iyya” and “hikma ilahiyya.”

“As for the first thing “ta’til”, Allah’s actions are free from being bound by such motivations, while ever action of the Creator is characterized by wisdom. This is the Ash’ari view. To actually study that with an Ash’ari rather than read about it may be at the root of misunderstandings. Harshness with people many times results from autodidacts and their independent studies of the rational and legal sciences. This is one thing that Imam Shatibi in his Al-Muwafaqat considered to be the reason for Ibn Hazm’s harshness toward the ‘ulama. Perhaps you need to read what I wrote again for the sake of fairness. However, if your intention is to merely make this a tit for tat exchange, don’t hold your breath. This is only a one shot deal for me. My time and work is too valuable for such a waste of time. I just thought that I would reach out in the hopes that I have found “brothers” who I am able to “reason” with. Beyond that, those of you who may seek only disputation can go right ahead and argue with my corpse (metaphorically “or not”).”

(end of quote)

(SOURCE: http://muslimmatters.org/2008/04/09/the-role-of-atomism-on-groups-of-kalam/)