Re: Accusations of Blasphemy Against Shaikh of Islam Ibn Taimiyyah

A few days ago, we received a request to answer some common claims against Shaikh of Islam Ibn Taimiyyah via the QSS Canada website. The brother currently tending to the site forwarded me the request asking if I could write a response to the sender. I enlisted a bit of help from my friend Navaid Aziz and prepared the following reply (the original email follows afterwards):

From: Rasheed Gonzales
To: [Sender]
Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2007 9:10 PM
Subject: RE: Accusations of Blasphemy Against Shaikh of Islam Ibn Taimiyyah

as-Salâm ‘alaikum wa rahmatullah,

My name is Rasheed. I am a volunteer for QSS Canada and I am responding to the message you sent us via the feedback form on the Qssc.org website. Please forgive us for any delay, and may Allah reward and bless you for sending us your request. Allah willing, I hope you find what is written below to be satisfactory in answering these claims made by the person you’re corresponding with.

1. There is blasphemy in Majmu Al Fatawa, volume number 4, page 374 on the right side, on the 4th line. Ibn Taymiyyah said: “Allaah firmly established himself on the throne and leaves a space beside Him for Prophet Muhammad.”

This is a complete misrepresentation of what Shaikh of Islam Ibn Taimiyyah said in this portion of Majmū’ al-Fatâwâ. In this portion of Majmū’ al-Fatâwâ, Ibn Taimiyyah is discussing a question that was famous among the people: the preference between the angels and men. He discusses the issue from a several of angles mentioning textual evidences (i.e., texts from the Qur’an and hadîths), as well as logical evidences for the various aspects discussed. In the course of his discussion, Ibn Taimiyyah mentions that

… the satisfactory scholars and His accepted patrons narrated that Muhammad’s Lord sat him, Allah’s messenger (may Allah send salutations and peace upon him), on the Throne with Him. That was narrated by Muhammad bin Fudail from Laith, from Mujâhid regarding the exegesis of «It might be that your Lord resurrected you in a praised position» (17:79). That was mentioned from other routes, [some] in marfū’ form and [others] in non-marfū form. Ibn Jarîr said this is not contradictory to what the hadîths [elaborately] describe about the praised position being the intercession, by agreement of the imams all [those] who embraced Islam and claimed it. He does not say his sitting on the Throne is rejected, but some of the Jahmiyyah reject it, and he does not mention it as rejected in the exegesis of the verse. So if the virtue of our noble one is established over their noble one, the virtue of the type over the [other] type is established, i.e., our righteous one over them.

So, as you can see, Ibn Taimiyyah does not state this himself. He is quoting a narration that is also quoted in Tafsîr atTabarî, which was written centuries before Ibn Taimiyyah’s Majmū’. If you refer back to Imam atTabarî’s Tafsîr, you will see that Imam atTabarî indicates the narration’s weakness when he states that the opinion mentioned before this opinion is correct because what is mentioned from Mujâhid (i.e., Allah sitting Prophet Muhammad on His Throne with Him) hasn’t been authentically reported from Prophet Muhammad.

Even if the narration is authentically attributed to Mujâhid (who was a student of ‘Abdullah bin ‘Abbâs, Prophet Muhammad’s cousin!!!), Prophet Muhammad’s sitting on the Throne does not encroach upon Allah’s perfection as there are no narrations that say Allah “sat” on His throne. Rather, what’s mentioned in the legislative texts is that Allah rose above His throne, which is the correct understanding of the word istiwâ’ as is mentioned by many scholars from the early generations of Islam. So where is the blasphemy?

2. Ibn Taymiyyah said: “Angels are the helper of Allaah” and this is clear blasphemy because Allaah does not need anything. The logical prove is the one who needs something is imperfect and the imperfect doesn’t deserve to be worshipped. Also in Surat Al-^Imran ayah number 97, Allaah said which means: ” Allaah does not need any of the worlds.” This means Allaah does not need anything Also ibn taymiyyah said: “The world (by its kind), exists without a beginning” and this is clear blasphemy because Muslims scholars judged as blasphemer the one who believes the world is eternal . Among them are Al-Mutawalli (a Shafi^iyy scholar), Qadi ^Iyad (Malikiyy scholar who dead in the year 544 AH), Ibnu Daqiqil- ^Id( who was famous for teaching both Malikiyy and the Shafi^iyy school and dead 702 AH), and the famous Hafidth Ibn Hajar al-Asqalaniyy.

There are a number of points that can be mentioned here.

a. The person provides no references for either of the statements attributed to Ibn Taimiyyah here. So unless one is well read in Ibn Taimiyyah’s works, verifying whether these statements were made by Ibn Taimiyyah or not will be very difficult, to say the least.

b. This point begins with a straw man argument. Allah having helpers does not necessitate that He needs them, nor does the statement presented here as being Ibn Taimiyyah’s hint at it, in the least.

c. In the Qur’an (3:52), Allah says, «When Jesus sensed the disbelief from them he [asked], “Who are my helpers to Allah?” The Disciples said, “We are Allah’s helpers; we believe in Allah. Testify that we are Muslims.”» This same incident is mentioned in ch. 61:14 where Allah says, «O you who believed, be Allah’s helpers just as Jesus bin Maryam [asked] the Disciples, “Who are my helpers to Allah?” The Disciples said, “We are Allah’s helpers.” So a group from the Children of Israel believed, and a group disbelieved. So We aided those who believed over their enemies, thus they came to be manifest.» In this verse, Allah is the one commanding the believers to be His helpers. There is also the hadîth, «If you help Allah, He will help you and make your feet firm.» So where is the blasphemy in this?

d. Concerning the statement concerning the world having no beginning, a friend of mine, Navaid Aziz (a student at the Islamic University of Madînah), writes,

As for the statement of the world having no beginning this is a very intrinsic point of Aqeedah. We believe that Allah is Al-Khaaliq (the creator) and that He always has been. We also believe that all of Allahs names have meaning, and thus Allah is described with the attribute of this name. Having understood that, lets move to another point, and that is do we believe that Jannah and Jahannam are eternal? Yes we do. So just as it is possible for something to exist eternally forwards, it is possible for something to exist eternally backwards. So since Allah is Al Khaliq, and always will be and has been Al Khaliq, there has been some sort of creation or another. Ibn Taymiyyah says that there are three opinions on this (Minhaaj us sunnah Vol 3-4) 1- The jahmiyyah state that nothing is possibly eternal, neither forward or backward. The ashaariah state that it is only possible forward. Then the imams of ahl ul hadith, and some of the mutakallimeen, said that it is possible both forward and backward. Our minds cannot imagine an existence with out space and time, so its best not to delve upon the issue and its meticulous points. Rather just accept it and move on.

Even if it’s true that Ibn Taimiyyah did say that the world has no beginning, how is this blasphemous when we all know that the world will come to an end. Something that has an end cannot be eternal, even if it had no beginning. Something that is eternal has no beginning and no end; and only Allah has this characteristic, glorified and exalted is He.

3. Ibn Taymiyyah is blasphemer by him saying this: “10.1.2 HENCE ALLAAH’S ISTIWAA UPON HIS THRONE MEANS: – That He is above and established upon it in a manner that befits Him. – It is one of His Attributes that pertain to His Actions. – And this is proved by the Book, the Sunnah, and the Consensus of the Salaf. “

How is this blasphemous when practically all of the imams from the People of the Sunnah hold this belief? Will the person then accuse these imams of being blasphemers? Or how about the Prophet’s companions?

4. First of all saying that He is above is blasphemy because The Scholar Abu Mansur al Bagdadiyy who died in the year 429 after hijra in his book Al-Farq Baynul-Firaq conveyed the consensus that Allaah exists without a place, so that means Allaah has no above, or below, in front of, or behind, a left or a right. Also Abu Ja^far at-Tahawiyy (d. 322 AH) wrote a famous book called Al-^Aqidah At-Tahawiyyah he said in this book which mean: “Allaah is supremely clear of all Boundaries, extremes, sides, organs and instrument. The six directions do not contain him, for these are attributes to all created things.” This proves that what ibn taymiyyah said is false and blasphemy. Also the Messenger of Allaah Prophet Muhamamd said: O Allaah you are Ad-dhahir, there is not above you and you are al-Batin there is nothing underneat you” and now ur telling me that ibn taymiyyah is not a BLASPHEMER.

Even if what these imams and scholars said were to be understood in the manner this person presents them, Allah’s exaltedness and transcendence is proven unequivocally through Qur’anic verses and prophetic hadîths, which are too numerous to list. As for the consensus mentioned, this concensus is restricted to the theological rhetoriticians (mutakallimūn). Imam Ahmad was specifically asked, “Do we affirm the area (jihah) of above (fawq) for Allah?” and he replied with the affirmative. So how can there be consensus? As for the hadîth quoted, the wording in Arabic states, “wa laisa dūnaka shai’,” and not “wa laisa tahtaka shai’.” This is an important point to understand, as tahta would mean there is nothing below Him, where as dūnaka shay means that nothing escapes Him.

I have translated an excellent reply to some of the doubts concerning Allah’s being above His creation, which can be read on my blog: here.

5. The word istiwaa yes has different meanings in the arabic language. It can mean conquer, sit and other meanings. So why instead of him saying above why doesn’t he say conquered or controlled. The Throne is the largest creation that Allaah created, isn’t that right. So that means if Allaah conquered the throne that means He can conquere anything less than the Throne. For example if i can lift 100 pounds then it is obvious that i can lift 99, 98, 97, 50, 20, 1 pounds so i can lift 100 pounds and lower..

While it is true that the word “istiwaâ'” has more than one meaning, none of the early Arabic lexicons mention istiwâ’ meaning sitting or conquering. And when the word is followed by the preposition “alâ (on/over)”, the scholars from early generations of Islam only understood it to mean one thing: to rise above. Add to this the fact that to say that Allah conquered His throne makes absolutely no sense.

6. Mention one scholar in the time of the Salaf that said the same thing (regarding the Istawa of Allah). Don’t tell me Ibn Taymiyyah because he died in the year 729 after hijra. Or tell me one hadeeth that proves that authenticity of Ibn taymiyyah.

How about two? Imam Abu Bakr al-Ismâ’îlî (d.295H) said, “He (i.e., Allah, mighty and sublime is He) ascended upon the throne and did not mention how his ascension was done.” Imam Abul-Hasan al-Ash’arî (d.324H) said, “Allah, glorified is He, is over His throne as He said, «The Merciful mounted (istiwa) the Throne» (20:5).” There are numerous others, as well.

7. Let me tell u something one time a person went to Hajj and he was holding a tasbeeh (dhikr beads) and the wahhabies called him “Shirk, kafir if u use that”. So the person was like so why do u sell tasbeeh in Hajj time. U know what the wahhabi said: ” We sell it to the non muslims” and it is known that no non-muslim is allowed to enter Makkah. U know why he said that because he believes whatever the Prophet didn’t do is a Bid^ah. For God’s sake in the time of the Prophet the letters of the quran had no dots and harakahs( tashkeel). So when a man named Yahya Ibn Ya^mar put the dots he was praised by scholars in that time. Then a man named Hasan al-Basri after a long period of time put the tashkeel( the fatha, the kasra, and the damma) to make reciting the Qur’an easier. So go to the wahhabies books and u see that they have tashkeel and isnt this is bid^ah, yes but a good one as the Prophet said: “The one who innovates an innovation in Islam has its reward and the reward of those who practice it until the day of judgement without lessening the rewards of those who practice it. The one who innovates the innovation of misguidance has its sin and the sin of those who practice it until the Day of Judgement without lessening the sin of those who practice it.” related by Imam Muslim from the route of Jarir Ibn ^Abduilah.

Firstly, the story mentioned at the beginning is irrelevant. Not only are these types of stories next to impossible to verify, they often prove nothing. In this story, for example, all it shows is the rudeness and roughness of some ignorant (so-called) “Wahhâbîs”. This rudeness and harshness is not indicative of all “Wahhâbîs”, nor is their (apparent) ignorance.

Regarding the word bid’ah, then this person shows his ignorance regarding its meaning. The concept of good innovations only exists in the realm of mutual conduct and wordly matters, as well as from a linguistic perspective. With respect to religious affairs and affairs pertaining worship, there has never been such a notion or concept, as Allah has perfected His religion for us as He clearly and explicitly states in the Qur’an. What is perfect cannot be made any more perfect; and what was not part of the religion back then, can never be part of the religion now, just as Imam ash-Shâtibî has quoted from Imam Mâlik.

As for the diacritical markings (i.e., the vowels and dots), what is mentioned by this person is incorrect. The markings were invented by Abul-Aswad ad-Du’alî (d.69H). Refer to The History of the Qur’anic Text from Revelation to Compilation, by Prof. M. Mustafa al-A’zami, pgs. 131-141.

As for the last point, that’s just hogwash.

Original Request:

Asalamu Alaykum In an attempt to Bring a follower of Abdullah al Habashi followers to the right path i recieved the following response. Please refute the following claims they made, so that I can send it back to the brother:

1. There is blasphemy in Majmu Al Fatawa, volume number 4, page 374 on the right side, on the 4th line. Ibn Taymiyyah said: “Allaah firmly established himself on the throne and leaves a space beside Him for Prophet Muhammad.”

2. Ibn Taymiyyah said: “Angels are the helper of Allaah” and this is clear blasphemy because Allaah does not need anything. The logical prove is the one who needs something is imperfect and the imperfect doesn’t deserve to be worshipped. Also in Surat Al-^Imran ayah number 97, Allaah said which means: ” Allaah does not need any of the worlds.” This means Allaah does not need anything Also ibn taymiyyah said: “The world (by its kind), exists without a beginning” and this is clear blasphemy because Muslims scholars judged as blasphemer the one who believes the world is eternal . Among them are Al-Mutawalli (a Shafi^iyy scholar), Qadi ^Iyad (Malikiyy scholar who dead in the year 544 AH), Ibnu Daqiqil- ^Id( who was famous for teaching both Malikiyy and the Shafi^iyy school and dead 702 AH), and the famous Hafidth Ibn Hajar al-Asqalaniyy.

3. Ibn Taymiyyah is blasphemer by him saying this: “10.1.2 HENCE ALLAAH’S ISTIWAA UPON HIS THRONE MEANS: – That He is above and established upon it in a manner that befits Him. – It is one of His Attributes that pertain to His Actions. – And this is proved by the Book, the Sunnah, and the Consensus of the Salaf. “

4. First of all saying that He is above is blasphemy because The Scholar Abu Mansur al Bagdadiyy who died in the year 429 after hijra in his book Al-Farq Baynul-Firaq conveyed the consensus that Allaah exists without a place, so that means Allaah has no above, or below, in front of, or behind, a left or a right. Also Abu Ja^far at-Tahawiyy (d. 322 AH) wrote a famous book called Al-^Aqidah At-Tahawiyyah he said in this book which mean: “Allaah is supremely clear of all Boundaries, extremes, sides, organs and instrument. The six directions do not contain him, for these are attributes to all created things.” This proves that what ibn taymiyyah said is false and blasphemy. Also the Messenger of Allaah Prophet Muhamamd said: O Allaah you are Ad-dhahir, there is not above you and you are al-Batin there is nothing underneat you” and now ur telling me that ibn taymiyyah is not a BLASPHEMER.

5. The word istiwaa yes has different meanings in the arabic language. It can mean conquer, sit and other meanings. So why instead of him saying above why doesn’t he say conquered or controlled. The Throne is the largest creation that Allaah created, isn’t that right. So that means if Allaah conquered the throne that means He can conquere anything less than the Throne. For example if i can lift 100 pounds then it is obvious that i can lift 99, 98, 97, 50, 20, 1 pounds so i can lift 100 pounds and lower..

6. Mention one scholar in the time of the Salaf that said the same thing (regarding the Istawa of Allah). Don’t tell me Ibn Taymiyyah because he died in the year 729 after hijra. Or tell me one hadeeth that proves that authenticity of Ibn taymiyyah.

7. Let me tell u something one time a person went to Hajj and he was holding a tasbeeh (dhikr beads) and the wahhabies called him “Shirk, kafir if u use that”. So the person was like so why do u sell tasbeeh in Hajj time. U know what the wahhabi said: ” We sell it to the non muslims” and it is known that no non-muslim is allowed to enter Makkah. U know why he said that because he believes whatever the Prophet didn’t do is a Bid^ah. For God’s sake in the time of the Prophet the letters of the quran had no dots and harakahs( tashkeel). So when a man named Yahya Ibn Ya^mar put the dots he was praised by scholars in that time. Then a man named Hasan al-Basri after a long period of time put the tashkeel( the fatha, the kasra, and the damma) to make reciting the Qur’an easier. So go to the wahhabies books and u see that they have tashkeel and isnt this is bid^ah, yes but a good one as the Prophet said: “The one who innovates an innovation in Islam has its reward and the reward of those who practice it until the day of judgement without lessening the rewards of those who practice it. The one who innovates the innovation of misguidance has its sin and the sin of those who practice it until the Day of Judgement without lessening the sin of those who practice it.” related by Imam Muslim from the route of Jarir Ibn ^Abduilah.

8. wahhabies is a poison in our society.

About Rasheed Gonzales
My name is Rasheed Gonzales. I’m a Muslim convert of Filipino descent. Born and raised in Toronto, Canada, I was guided to Islam through one of my younger brothers and a couple of friends, all of whom had converted to Islam sometime before me (may Allah reward them greatly). I am married with four children (and the praise is Allah’s) and also a volunteer for the Qur'an & Sunnah Society of Canada, based in Toronto.

13 Responses to Re: Accusations of Blasphemy Against Shaikh of Islam Ibn Taimiyyah

  1. al-Boriqee says:

    akhee rasheed

    Abu Bakr Isma’eeli died in 371 hijri

  2. May Allah reward you for that correction.

  3. mkhalifa says:

    TROID sent out an email on their mailing list yesterday mentioning they received the same request,but they only answered the first accusation. Jazaakallaahu khairan for your efforts.

  4. mkhalifa says:

    Sorry, should have said they answered the first few accusations (like four of them).

  5. Actually, they only answered the first while posting the first four points; I saw the post to their website before I saw their email from their list (and after I had sent our reply to the sender).

    I had started working on this request a few days before on the 1st of November, when we first received it … got a bit of help from Navaid too (may Allah reward and bless him with good). The person who had the request sent our reply to the Habashî brother he/she was debating with and sent us this reply after we emailed our response to the accusations (and the praise is Allah’s):

    Asalamu Alaykum

    When it seemed like the “Habashi” brother could not refute your response to his claims, he sent me the “Memoir of Mr. Hempher”. They claim that this British spy conspired with Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab, to create the “Wahhabi” movement. It seems like this is a fabrication for several reasons, what have you heard about this document.

    Should I just stop attempting to show him the True path? IT IS LIKE GETTING BLOOD OUT OF A ROCK. Subhanallah.

    I found the same response (an intellectually absent response) with two protestants i had a discussion with today. They make the doctine in subject (i.e. trinity, original sin, etc.) so complex that it becomes neary impossible to refute it. (i.e. i asked one of them how can 1+1+1=1 he replied: yes, but 1x1x1=1 LOL)

    Jazak Allah Khair

  6. Pingback: Response to Imam Zaid Shakir concerning his comments on Shaykhul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah « M A Q A S I D — مقاصد

  7. Pingback: TheTranslators » Blog Archive » A Balanced and Responsible Response Regarding Questions Surrounding Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah [ra]:

  8. anonymous sister says:

    Asalaamo Alaikom

    dear brother I myself used to learn with this group al-ahbash for several years in my youth and came to the realisation that they are a cult; and completely brainwashed. They claim to learn by a method called ‘talakhi’ which is by oral transmission (not sure if this is an Arabic word; or not) anything that is taken by this method from their so-called shaykh or one of their leaders either internationally or locally is taken as ‘gospel’ truth so even if they falsely claim something is or was in Sahih Al-Bukhari and it no longer is and this can be proven; they will believe what was taken from their ‘shaykh’ orally; over any other proof. So their shaykh claims there are ahadith in Bukhari where the companions prayed to The Prophet Muhammed Salalahu Alaihi Was Sallam when he had passed away asking him directly for help (A’udhu Billaah) and claim these were ‘removed’ by the ‘wahabies’.

    Yet when it comes to anyone else proving anything they must have written proof from the works of scholars they trust; the scholars which they trust are few and the works they don’t consider to have been ‘tampered with’ by wahabis are even fewer. Also they are warned against reading books because they believe if a person reads a book containing as they call it ‘kufr’ then by reading that statement one automatically becomes kaafir also. They usually talk about Ibn Taymiyyah but they also believe that Ibn Qayyim, and Ibn Kathir were kuffar also, as well as many other historical scholars such as Ibn Hazm and many of the Hanbali scholars past and present as well.

    With regard to what they consider as blasphemy; affirming any of the known attributes of Allaah, except Hearing and Sight is considered kufr by them. Even affirming any of the known names of Allaah as they are in the Arabic language is considered as kufr because they believe that this is claiming Allaah has attributes of creation. They even believe attributing Allaah with wisdom is kufr as they believe that to say Allaah created in anything other than a random fashion; is to make Him on the level of the creation. They have all the most extreme beliefs of the Mutazilah, Jam’eeah and Ashareeyyah (not to mention the rafidhah) rolled into one.

    When writing a response; they always write with exactly the same words and give the same proofs on any given issue but are unable to argue further; but at this point will resort to personal threats. I know many who have been threatened by them; and publically attacked; because according to them they ‘blasphemed’; this includes myself and some others I know who turned their back on the group and their false doctrines; which Alhamdulillaah is a common occurance because very few people feel at ease with this group because to anyone with a little Islaamic knowledge it soon becomes evident that their beliefs are outside the mainstream of Islaam at the very least. Even most soofees believe them to be a dangerous and false sect A’udhu billaah. They have caused a great deal of fitnah in Lebanon and Syria, Philadelphia, Canada, Australia and now are trying to cause a great fitnah in the United Kingdom also. They are particularly dangerous because they practice Taqiyah; only those who have been attending their classes for years are told that the people they have been studying with are ahbash; otherwise they claim to be ‘rifa’i’ ‘sunni’ or ‘shafi’i’ or even ‘ahl us sunnah wa’al jama’ah’

    Wasalamo Alaikom

    A sister

  9. Wa ‘alaikum as-salam wa rahmatullah sister,

    May Allah reward and bless you for sharing your experiences. al-Hamdulillah, Allah guided you away from their error and misguidance.

  10. anonymous sister says:

    Asalamo Alaikom

    Wa iyyak. I also wanted to state that it alluded on the TROID site to their ‘Shaykh’ Abdullah Al-Habashee; having passed away and repented on his deathbed. While no-one can ever be 100% sure with these sects; there is a lot of evidence out there and the general consensus in the Arab world is that he is very much still alive; although very elderly. It appears the rumour of his death and their ‘Shaykh’ repenting from what he believed on his deathbed; was started by the Al-Ahbash sect themselves in order to make other Muslims look foolish (of course they don’t believe he has anything to ‘repent’ from). It appears they have done the same with some of their beliefs and practices; they have even spread rumours of bizarre beliefs and practices (over and above their ‘usual’ ones!) on forums and so on and then will be there to ‘refute’ the claims.

    I remember about five or six years ago a number of Arab brothers in my city really believed that their leader had died; but were unsure as to where they had heard this and they upon realising he wasn’t dead; began to doubt their own doubts about whether this was the same sect they were previously thinking of so I believe it was really a deliberate tactic. One of their leaders did really get murdered in the mid-90s (they claim it was by ‘wahabis’ although in reality it appears it was an extreme political militia far removed from salafiyyah).

    Another popular thing that they do is call themselves ‘al-ahbash’ and ‘habashis’ then when anyone else goes onto calling them this completely innocently (as it is how they themselves refer to themselves); they then turn around and mock them about their lack of knowledge of what a Habashi really is, i.e. someone from Ethiopia this is of course well-known by the person calling them ‘Habashi’; but they try to make it look as though the person refuting them is ignorant. Or they deny that they call themselves Al-Ahbash or Habashis; or even the person claims they have ‘never heard of’ such a group but they have heard of a ‘completely different’ group called AICP who are really fantastic and have led so many of the Muslims away from misguidance and so on and so forth.

    They will also claim if any of their more bizarre practices and beliefs are exposed; that this must be some people claiming to be AICP and not the ‘real’ AICP when usually the very people inciting the followers to partake in these practices and deviant beliefs are the leaders of the AICP in that locality who have made bayah to their ‘Shaykh’ and taken much of their ‘knowledge’ in person from him. Again this is where their ‘talakhy’ method of learning can come in very handy for them because there is no written proof; except notes taken by students and then they can just claim they were in error when taking down that particular tidbit of information. This is despite them checking and rechecking 3 or 4 times during their lessons exactly what has been written down.

    These are all deliberate efforts that they undertake to gain sympathy from Muslims and to drum up dissent against those whom they term ‘wahabies’ (but which includes ikhwaan al Muslimoon, Some Deobandees and even some soofees). It usually fails but I have seen some fall for it, particularly those with leanings towards ‘traditional’ Islam or ‘African’ Islam particularly since they like to whip up the fact their ‘Shaykh’ is Sufee from the rifa’i tariqah (he is not recognised as being so by the other rifa’is) and African and was kicked out by colonialist-backed oppressors.

    Inshallaah we can only really make du’a that they are shown the error of this deviated group because the brainwashing that goes on is intense and they pray mostly on those who are studying professional subjects at university (i.e. medicine or law); far away from home or those who otherwise have some type of estrangement from their family. They have no qualms about breaking families up in order to gain complete control over an individual family member for strategic reasons; they split up marriages because they believe once one partner in the marriage has the correct aqeedah then they are completely outside of Islam and the marriage is null and void. They don’t consider abuse or the like as a grounds for divorce; nor do they consider marriage to an extreme rafidhah or an extreme bareilwi to be null and void; it is only when it comes to what they term ‘wahabies’ but in reality encompasses most mainstream sunni Muslims SubhanAllaah.

    Wasalamo Alaikom

    A sister.

  11. anonymous sister says:

    Asalamo Alaikom

    One thing I forgot; with regard to the tashkeel; they used to claim it was Jarir ibn Abdullah himself who ‘innovated’ these markings; now they are claiming it is Hasan Al-Basri. In reality they have little idea as to who these figures were. They focus very little on the seerah and other historical reports; except as a means to ‘prove’ their practises. They also have other major errors in their tafsir and re-telling of historical events; to do with dates, names and they even claim that The Prophet Yusuf was exonerated by a baby who could speak, when this is not one of the known incidences of when a baby spoke from the cradle.

    Wasalamo Alaikom

  12. Pingback: Response to Imam Zaid Shakir concerning his comments on Shaykhul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah | Abdullah Hasan – Maqasid Press

  13. Pingback: Accusations of Blasphemy against Sheikh Al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah « OzDawah

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: