Wahhabis and Salafis are not Sunnis

Ijtihad

There have been numerous sects that have splintered from the main body of Islam, and all have clearly defined themselves as separate traditions. None have been so clever and wily, and so successfully imposed their pernicious influence, as the Wahhabis and Salafis, who have insinuated themselves instead as a “reform” movement within Sunni Islam. Instead, they have characterized Sunni Islam as being founded on belief in the rightful successorship of the four righteous Caliphs, in contradistinction to Saudi Arabia’s traditional enemies, the Shiah of Iran.

Rather, the Wahhabis and Salafis represent a consequence of a wave of “revivalist” movements that began to emerge in the eighteenth century, sponsored by the British, with the aim of undermining Sunni Islam, which has historically been founded on following one of the four schools of legal interpretation, known as Madhhabs, a practice known as Taqlid.

Known for their nefarious strategy of Divide and Conquer, the British were intent on re-writing the laws of Islam to suit their purposes. However, Sunni Islam had formalized a highly sophisticated legal tradition that was effectively impervious to outside influence. According to Joseph Schacht, the renowned historian of Islamic Law:

Islamic law provides us with a remarkable example of the possibilities of legal thought and of human thought in general, and with a key to understanding the essence of one of the great world religions.[1]

Within the first few centuries of its existence, these Madhhabs had settled the majority of the early legal questions in Islam, and strictly forbade the use of unqualified independent reasoning, known as Ijtihad, in order to protect the sanctity of Islam from violation. However, what all the British-sponsored “revivalists” held in common was a rejection of the Madhhab tradition, in favour of re-opening the Doors of Itjihad, which has resulted in the wholesale rewriting Islam, in order to lend false justification to the injustices they currently perpetrate under its name.

Initially, the followers of Mohammed, known as the Sahabah, would seek advice from those amongst themselves who had attained reputations for piety and advanced knowledge of the religion. However, as the Muslim empire expanded, the cases that required rulings became increasingly complex, and because they were not necessarily explicitly addressed in the Quran, it became necessary for judges (Qadis) to make use of their independent reasoning (Ijtihad). The word “Ijtihad” is derived from the same root as the word “Jihad,” and means to strive with one’s utmost effort.

Ijtihad is considered legitimized in a Hadith that refers to a consultation between the Prophet Mohammed and Muadh Ibn Jabl, a jurist who was on his way to Yemen. The Prophet asked Muadh how he would decide matters brought before him. He responded: “I will judge matters according to the Quran.” He then said, “If the Book of God contains nothing to guide me, I will act on the precedents of the Prophet of God, and if it is not in that either, then I will make Ijtihad [use his reason] and judge according to that.” The Prophet is said to have been very pleased with the reply.[2]

Over time, rulings became increasingly codified through consensus (Ijma), unanimous agreement that was considered to reflect divine sanction. However, a new body of literature became available, known as Hadith, and comprising of saying reported from Muhammad. Therefore, Ijtihad came to be restricted to reasoning confined by recourse to available sources of evidence and accepted methodologies. These included the Quran, the Sunnah of the Prophet, consensus of the community (Ijma), and analogy (Qiyas) or systematic reasoning.

Imam Shafi (767–820 AD) had been instrumental in bringing about this change, producing a system known as Usul al Fiqh. Then, through the communal process of collating the evidence and developing rulings, there initially emerged many different schools of thought and interpretation, but the reputations of only four surpassed and finally eclipsed the others. These are known as the four Madhhabs, each named after the scholars who founded them, being the Shafi of Imam Shafi, the Hanafi of Imam Abu Hanifa (699–767 AD), the Hanbali of Ahmed Ibn Hanbal (780–855 AD), and Maliki of Imam Malik (711–795 AD).

According to a well-known Hadith, the Prophet Muhammad said “differences of opinion among my community are a blessing,” and therefore, despite their differences, each school was considered as founded on valid conclusions, arrived at through the rigorous process of Ijtihad. Ultimately, as noted by Schacht:

By the beginning of the fourth century of the hijra (about A.D. 900)… the point had been reached when the scholars of all schools felt that all essential questions had been thoroughly discussed and finally settled, and a consensus gradually established itself to the effect that from that time onwards no one might be deemed to have the necessary qualifications for independent reasoning in law, and that all future activity would have to be confined to the explanation, application, and, at the most, interpretation of the doctrine as it had been laid down once and for all.[3]

This consensus is referred to as the “Closing of the Doors of Ijtihad.” As for the common Muslim, he would from then on be required to follow one—and only one—of the four Madhhabs, a practice known as Taqlid. While it is possible, and even commendable, for any Muslim to read the Quran and Hadith on his own, when it comes to formulating rulings from these sources, or Ijtihad, it requires an advanced degree of knowledge. Therefore, from that point forward, the free use of Ijtihad was restricted to only those most qualified, known as a Mujtahid, being the four Imams, for which extensive and stringent requirements were put forward.

The closing of Ijtihad effectively acted as a fortress to protect Islamic law from any further controversy, and preserve the formulations of the most pious and talented of the Muslim scholars from corruption. As explained by Ibn Khaldun (1332–1406), considered one of the fathers of modern historiography, and as one of the greatest philosophers of the Muslim world:

The people after that were able to close the door in the face of dispute at a time when terminology became more complex, and it was harder to achieve the rank of Ijtihad, and when it was feared that [Ijtihad] might get attributed to someone not from its people [an incompetent], who is not to be relied upon in neither his opinion nor his religion.[4]

 

Ibn Taymiyyah

However, what all the revivalists held in common was following the precedent of a controversial Muslim scholar named Ibn Taymiyya (1263 - 1328). For his various controversial rulings and anthropomorphic doctrine, Ibn Taymiyya spent much of his career in jail. It was for his typical intemperance that Arab historian Ibn Battuta declared that Ibn Taymiyyah had a “screw loose.”[5] Opinions about Ibn Taymiyyah during his lifetime varied widely. One of his opponents, who had the most success in refuting his views, was Taqi al Din Al Subki, who remarked, "his learning exceeded his intelligence."[6]

Ibn Taymiyyah’s legal ideas remained largely in the framework of the Hanbali school, but his more controversial doctrines were adopted from the more anthropomorphic faction of the Hanbali school, though not representing the tenets professed by Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal or his Madhhab. This Hanbali faction was opposed to the Ash’ari and Maturidi schools who have represented the Aqida, or “tenets of belief,” of the majority of Sunni Muslims, just as the Madhhabs have represented the Sharia or “Sacred Law.”[7]

Those opposed to these two traditional schools of Aqida are regarded as people of Biddah, defined in a Fatwa or formal legal opinion the sixteenth century by Imam Ibn Hajar Haytami, who represents the foremost resource for legal opinion in the entire late Shafi school, as: “whoever is upon other than the path of Ahl al-Sunna wa l-Jama‘a [people of the Sunnah and of the majority], Ahl al-Sunna wa l-Jama‘a meaning the followers of Sheikh Abul Hasan Ash‘ari and Abu Mansur Maturidi, the two Imams of Ahl al-Sunna.”[8]

Although Ibn Taymiyyah is remember by this adherents today as a vociferous opponent of the Sufis, he was a follower of Abdul Qadir al Gilani (1077–1166), the founder of the Qadiriyya Sufi order, which is particularly venerated in the Western occult tradition, where it is seen by some as the origin of the Rosicrucian movement.[9] Gilani was also condemned for harboring heretical works in his school, particularly the writings of the Brethren of Sincerity, whose works were admired by generations of Kabbalists.[10] According to Chacham Israel Joseph Benjamin II in Eight Years in Asia and Africa from 1846 to 1855, Gilani “was nothing less than the famous Talmudist Joseph Hagueliti.”[11]

After three centuries of his views being scrutinized by the leading scholars of the time, like al Subki and others, a Fatwa was finally pronounced by Ibn Hajar al Haytami in the sixteenth century, which declared:

Ibn Taymiyyah is a servant whom God forsook, misguided, blinded, deafened, and debased. That is the declaration of the imams who have exposed the corruption of his positions and the mendacity of his sayings. Whoever wishes to pursue this must read the words of the Mujtahid Imam Abu al Hasan al Subki, of his son Taj al Din Subki, of the Imam al Izz ibn Jama and others of the Shafi, Maliki, and Hanafi scholars... It must be considered that he is a misguided and misguiding innovator and an ignorant who brought evil whom God treated with His justice. May He protect us from the likes of his path, doctrine, and actions.[12]

 

Salafism

In their rejection of traditional Islam, all revivalists singled out Ibn Taymiyyah as the pre-eminent classical scholar, whose unique but controversial approach to the subject provided them with a precedent in their calls for a re-opening of the Doors of Ijtihad. As Joseph Schacht explained:

From the eighth/fourteenth century onwards the Hanbali school declined and seemed on the verge of extinction, when the puritanical movement of the Wahhabis of the twelfth/eighteenth century and especially the Wahhabi revival in the present century, gave it a new lease of life. The religious founder of this movement, Muhammad ibn Adb al Wahhab (d. 1201/1787), was influenced by the works of Ibn Taymiyyah. Whereas the Hanbali school had always been regarded by orthodox Islam as one of the legitimate schools of law, the intolerant attitude of the earlier Wahhabis towards their fellow Muslims caused them for a long time to be suspected as heretics, and they have come to be generally considered orthodox only since their political successes in the present generation.[13]

Wahhabism as founded by Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab, in the seventeenth century, who according to the Memoirs of Mr. Hempher, was a British agent. Though the authenticity of the work has been questioned, in 1888, Ayyub Sabri Pasha, a well-known Ottoman writer and Turkish naval admiral who served the Ottoman army in the Arabian Peninsula, recounted Wahhab’s association and plotting with a British spy named Hempher. Additionally, the U.S. Department of Defense released a translation of an Iraqi intelligence document in September 2002, titled “The Emergence of Wahhabism and its Historical Roots,” which indicates that Abdul Wahhab, the founder of Wahhabism, and his sponsor ibn Saud, who created the Saudi dynasty that now rules Saudi Arabia, were reported by several sources as being secretly of Jewish origin.[14]

Ultimately, Wahhab instigated the rejection of Taqlid, or following a Madhhab, in favor of re-opening the Doors of Ijtihad, which is the bedrock of the platform of the modern Salafi movement. Salafism begins with Jamal ud Din al Afghani, who was the Grand Master of Egyptian Freemasonry, as well as purported member of the Hermetic Brotherhood of Luxor, which supposedly also represented a revival of the Brethren of Sincerity. According to K. Paul Johnson, he was also chiefly responsible for the central teachings of H. P. Blavatsky, who is regarded as the godmother of the New Age movement, and whose books are considered “scriptures” of Freemasonry.[15] In Afghani’s own words, as cited in Elie Kedourie, Afghani and Abduh: An Essay on Religious Unbelief and Political Activism in Modern Islam:

We do not cut off the head of religion except with the sword of religion. Therefore, if you were to see us now, you would see ascetics and worshipers, kneeling and genuflecting, never disobeying God’s commands and doing all that they are ordered to do.[16]

Afghani’s Salafi movement exploited the vacuum left behind by the collapse of traditional scholarship in the wake of British colonialism. Leading a modernist trend, they suggested that the deteriorating condition of the Muslims was due to their inability to mirror the institutions or technology of the Europeans. Therefore, Afghani and the Salafis insisted that a return to Ijtihad was needed, claiming that the Ijma of the scholars to close the “Gates of Ijtihad” was merely in response to political pressures, and had contributed to a period of “intellectual stagnation.” Effectively, as was typical of the Revivalists, the Salafis maintained that it was necessary to circumvent the teachings of the Madhhabs, and go “directly” to the sources, the religion of the forefathers, known as the Salaf, from which they gained their name.

 

Wahhabis

Today, the Wahhabis reject the early Salafis for their Masonic affiliations, but have nevertheless retained the appellation. Chief among their influences was Muhammad Nasiruddin Al Albani (1914 – 1999), who began his career by becoming influenced by articles in al Manar, the mouthpiece of Rashid Rida, a Freemason and successor to Afghani’s leading pupil, Mohammed Abduh. Al Albani also studied under a student of Qasimi of Damascus, who was among the chief Revivalists responsible for reviving Ibn Taymiyyah’s reputation. Albani was first expelled from Syria, and then accepted a post in Saudi Arabia on the invitation of its chief Mufti, Ibn Baz, who would continue to support him throughout his career.

Al Albani’s trouble with the Saudis began when his pronouncements against Taqlid as “blind following” went so far that he even criticized the Saudis’ partial adherence to the Hanbali tradition. He went so far as to declare that the founder of Wahhabism himself, Ibn Abdul Wahhab, was not a true “Salafi” for following the Hanbali Madhhab. To al Albani, Hadith alone can provide answers to matters not found in the Quran, without relying on the Madhhabs.[17] To al Albani, the mother of all religious sciences therefore becomes the “science of hadith,” through which he claimed to have identified over five thousand among them to be suspect.

Despite their differences with him otherwise, the Saudi state made use of al Albani's criticism of the Muslim Brotherhood to lend supposed religious authority to their agenda. Although the Saudis assisted the CIA in giving refuge to the Muslim Brotherhood, following a failed assassination attempt against Gamal Nasser in 1954, its members contributed to a wave of criticism against the state known as the Sahwa.

However, al Albani was the first among the Saudi scholars to dare to criticize the organization. His primary complaint against the Brotherhood was that they placed too much emphasis on “politics” instead of knowledge (Ilm) and creed (Aqeedah). Essentially, al Albani characterized all criticism of the state as futile banter, which disregarded the more pressing issue of reforming society which had fallen away from a “pure” understanding of Islam, in the perverted Wahhabi sense.

Thus, exploiting the reputation of al Albani, the Saudi state purged the university system of Muslim Brotherhood influences. They thereby have created a collaborationist version of Salafism, where any sense of social justice is absent, and which has become the primary version now promoted in its worldwide campaign. As noted by Bernard Heykal, in Global Salafism: Islam’s New Religious Movement, although al Albani had been expelled for his influence over the violent attempt to take over the Grand Mosque in 1979:

On the other hand, it was equally possible for other followers of al Albani to wholeheartedly support the regime, as happened with his neo-Ahl al-Hadith disciples Rabi ibn Hadi Madkhali and Mohammed Aman al-Jami, who supported the Saudi invitation to American troops in 1990. They were allowed to gain control over such important institutions as the Islamic University of Medina in exchange for purging them of the Sahwist and Muslim Brotherhood critics of the regime. Whereas the “political” genealogy leads to Afghanistan and Jihadi-Salafism, the “apolitical” trend can be traced to Europe, as many foreign students who studied at institutions such as Medina's Islamic University, or other Islamic universities in Saudi Arabia, brought the Madhkali trend back to countries like France and the Netherlands.[18]

This was certainly accomplished with the cognizance of the Saudi’s paymasters, the oil Supermajors, whose very livelihood depends on the stability of the Saudi regime. These collaborationist Salafis, now known as Madkhalis and al-Jamiyyah, denounced all Muslim Brotherhood ideologues as “innovators.” Most importantly, they required obedience to the rulers, even unjust ones, as a purported religious obligation, providing the pretense that opposition to the rulers would contribute excessive difficulties (Fitnah).

The collaborationist Salafis therefore do not concern themselves with issues of international politics, claiming that Muslims are not “ready” for the larger issues, but instead need to be educated so as to reform them of their “deviant” practices.[19] This followed upon al Albani’s advice, where he said, “all Muslims agree on the need to establish an Islamic state, but differ on the method to be employed to attain that goal. [For me] only by the Muslims’ adhering to Tawheed [monotheism, according to Wahhabi prescriptions] can the causes of their dissensions be removed, so that they may march toward their objective in closed ranks.”[20]

The Salafi have therefore focused their mission on “reforming” other Muslims on minor ritual details and creedal tenets as departures, called Biddah, from what they considered “true” Islam. Thus, deprived of knowledge of the true depths of the state’s corruption or complicity in the conquest of Muslim lands and exploitation of the rest of the world by the Western powers, with the Salafi movement, the Saudi regime created a neutered version of Islam.

 

The Biddah Brigade

Essentially, at the behest of American interests, the Saudis have robbed Islam of any sense of social justice, which is the message that the world is actually waiting to hear, and ensured that a politically amenable version is disseminated to other parts of the world. As explained by Joas Wagemakers, this Salafi doctrine has been propagated by an international legion of students educated at the Islamic universities in Saudi Arabia, such that it “was rapidly exported out of Arabia, so that it today constitutes an unavoidable element of Salafi Islam in many Muslim and Western countries.”[21]

Islam is the world’s fastest growing religion and according to the 2010 German domestic intelligence service annual report, Salafism is the fastest growing Islamic movement in the world.[22] What has made Salafism attractive to some is that, typically, adherence to Islam among modern Muslims is weak and uninspiring. Salafis, on the contrary, exhibit an intensity that can be misread as enthusiastic piety. What Salafism inculcates, however, is haughtiness.

And, though the Salafis reject the Madhhabs, they have essentially created their own by following the prescriptions of their three scholars, Bin Baz, Uthaymeen and Al Albani. The Salafis are easily recognizable for their insistence on certain modes of dress and behavior, which they deem to derive from “correct” interpretations of the evidence, and the fulfillment of which they see as a measure of piety. Their wives normally wear Nikab (Burqa), they insist on the beard for men, and normally wear white thobes, and keep their pant hems above their ankles. In prayer they hold their hands on their chests, and abut each others’ toes together.

Worse still, the Salafis have inherited the anthropomorphism of Ibn Taymiyyah, regarding God as “above” creation in order to “affirm” his attributes. All these minutiae are considered emblematic of their superior knowledge of Islam, and all those who do otherwise are condescended upon as “deviants.”

What the Wahhabis and Salafis tend to be universally condemned for is their lack of tact. In other words, their fanaticism, which paints a picture of Islam all too familiar in the West, the most egregious example being the Taliban. Everywhere they make their presence felt, the Wahhabis and Salafis have a tendency towards harsh criticism of other Muslims, for what they deem to be “innovations” (Biddah), and therefore have often been derisively referred to among other Muslims as the “Biddah Brigade.”

However, as the Prophet Mohammed remarked, “the only reason I have been sent is to perfect good manners [Akhlaq],”[23] and that “the best amongst you are those who have the best manners and character.”[24] Finally, the Prophet also said, “make things easy for people, and do not make them difficult for them, and give them good tidings and do not make them turn away (from Islam).”[25]

Regrettably, for the fundamentalists, theirs is a vengeful, punishing God, who lifts the status of “Believers” and humiliates the “Unbelievers,” in the next world, as well as in this one. The Prophet Muhammad said in a well-known Hadith: “No one truly believes until he wants for his brother what he wants for himself.” The leading Hanbali jurist, Ibn Rajab said: “The brotherhood referred to in this Hadith is the brotherhood of humanity.”[26] But this is the message of Islam that has been forgotten.

Like the Jews and Christians before them, Muslims have lost sight of the “Spirit of the Law.” This also was the essence of Jesus’ message. When asked by the Jewish priests of his time to explain the meaning of the Law, Jesus replied: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.” When asked to clarify who one’s “neighbor” was, he responded with the story of the Good Samaritan, to explain that, obviously, one’s neighbor is any other human being. In other words, that our responsibility is towards all men, regardless of race or religion.

The problem is partly as the Revivalists claim, that Muslims have to return to the purity of their religion to improve their situation. But the answer is not to be found in reinterpreting Islam, or in the more accurate performance of prescribed rituals, but in rediscovering the spiritual message articulated in traditional scholarship of the Maddhabs. As the Quran advises: “Verily never will God change a condition of a people until they change what is within their souls.”[27]

 

 

 



[1] Schacht, Joseph. An Introduction to Islamic Law. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982), preface p. v

[2] Abu Daud, Aqdiya, 11

[3] Schacht, An Introduction to Islamic Law, p. 70-71

[4] quoted from Shaykh Dr. Muhammad Sa’id Ramadan al Buti, Al la-Madhhabiya: Abandonin Madhhabiya the Madhhabs is the Most Dangerous Bid’ah Threatening the Islamic Shari’ah. Damascus: Sunni Publications. 2007. p. 84

[5] Little, "Did Ibn Taymiyyah Have a Screw Loose,” p. 95

[6] Ahmad ibn al-Naqib al-Misri, Reliance of the Traveller:  A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law.

[7] George Makdisi, "Ashari and the Ash'arites in Islamic Religious History I,” Studia Islamica, No. 17 (1962), pp. 37-80; "Islam,” Encyclopædia Britannica, (Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2013. Web. 01 Jan. 2013) [http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/295507/Islam/69167/The-way-of-... Duncan B. MacDonald, Development of Muslim Theology, Jurisprudence and Constitutional Theory, (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1903), chap. III; W. Montgomery Watt, "Ash'ariyya,” Encyclopedia of Islam, (Brill, 1999).

[8] Haytami, al-Fatawa al-hadithiyya, 280

[9] G Makdisi "The Hanbali School and Sufism" Actas IV Congresso de Estudos Arabes e Islamicos (Leiden 1971). p. 122

[10] Ibn Rajab, Dhayl (i. 415-20). Laoust, H.. "Ibn al-Dhawzi,” Encyclopedia of Islam. Brill Online, 2012

[11] Chacham Israel Joseph Benjamin II, "Eight Years in Asia and Africa from 1846 to 1855," Hanover, Germany, 1861. p. 117.

[12] Fatawa al Hadithiyyah p. 105, Published by Maktaba Mishkaat al Islamiyyah

[13] An Introduction to Islamic Law, p. 66

[14] Federation of American Scientists [http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/iraqi/wahhabi.pdf]

[15] Livingstone, David. Terrorism and the Illuminati, p. 165

[16] New York: The Humanities Press, 1966, p. 45.

[17] Stephane Lacroix, Global Salafism: Islam’s New Religious Movement, New York: Columbia University Press, 2009, p. 64

[18] Roel Meijer, Global Salafism: Islam’s New Religious Movement, New York: Columbia University Press, 2009, p. 20

[19] Bernard Haykel, Global Salafism: Islam’s New Religious Movement, New York: Columbia University Press, 2009, p. 49

[20] al-Majdhub, ‘Ulema wa mufakkirun ‘araftuhum, p. 302, quoted from Global Salafism, p. 69.

[21] Heykal, Global Salafism: Islam’s New Religious Movement, New York: Columbia University Press, 2009, p. 78

[22] AFP, "Uproar in Germany Over Salafi Drive to Hand Out Millions of Qurans,” Assyrian International News Agency, April 16, 2012.

[23] Malik, Muwatta, Book 47, Number 47.1.8

[24] Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 56, Number 759

[25] Bukhari Volume 1, Book 3, Number 69

[26] Sharh al-`Arba`în al-Nawawiyyah

[27] Ar Rad 13:11

 

Comments

In the time of the prophet and the 3 generations AND after there was no such thing as a Sunni,the term sunni muslim is a made up term for those muslim who adhere to the (sunnah) the way of the prophet and those who followed his ways (sunnah). They never called them selves Sunnis or shia or wahaabi or maliki or hanifi or shafi, they were just scholars who followed the sunnah. They called themselves Muslims upon the mila (way HANIFAN) of Ibraheem. The prophet told us that his Ummah Followers would innovate and break up into sects and groups.

Surat Al-'An`ām (The Cattle) - سورة الأنعام

6:159

Sahih International

Indeed, those who have divided their religion and become sects - you, [O Muhammad], are not [associated] with them in anything. Their affair is only [left] to Allah ; then He will inform them about what they used to do.

To call yourself a sunni or any other name other than Muslim makes you apart of those groups.

You need to speak with knowledge of ALLAH AND hIS RASSOOL

 

A name is not enough to make a sect. Dogma is what makes a sect. Not only the first generations were sincere or well-guided Muslims. Those who most closely followed the first generations continued their tradition. The result of their efforts were the Madhhabs. That's what the majority adhered to. But there were those who deviated from the majority. Those were sects. Not by their names, but by their deviation in doctrine.

In the struggle to spread the ideology uses the organization itself of several methods and hesitates does not hesitate to lie (Taqiyah) when trying to explain away the Koran / hadith meanings / messages so that it fits the target group mentality and humanity. One method is called "context" trick. Quranic verses / Surah is "revealed" individually and in a period of over 23 years. Islam / Sharia law is based on individual verses / hadith. But thanks to the organization's activities in Europe, claiming today many Western apologists that the Quran must be understood in the "context" of wire that the same throughout the Middle East (where Islam comes from) understood in just the opposite way, that is without taking into for the context. In the debates will be invited to listen to the proper authorities. Who is the real authority? There is only one authority in Islam is Muhammad. There is no Supreme Council, which dictates the "real" Islam. Islam is the Koran and the Sunna (Muhammad's practice)!Muhammad is [meaning. Koranic verses (68: 4)] the perfect role model for all Muslims. Everything Muhammad did and allowed in his time, [among other meaning. Verse (8:71), (29: 8) and (33:21)] commanded Muslims, just as they are obligated to comply with him. Eg. Koranic verse (33:21) says: "There kill excelent er for you in the Messenger of Allah an excellent pattern for anyone hvis hope is in Allah and the Last Day and [der] remembers Allah often." All the Koran atrocities such as slavery, polygamy , violence (in the form of killing, beheading, stoning), racism, discrimination, child bride, suicide (in the name of Allah) etc etc are Muhammad custom set and commanded in the Koran and the hadith. But Muslim self-deceiving and apologists try to foist us that these atrocities have nothing to do with Islam and is taken out of "context." The fact is that Western apologists (intentionally) uses Islam basic principle. Islam is in fact a political process. The shape-shifting and changing, when necessary according to the situation. For example, when Muhammad was weak, was the Koran moderate; when Muhammad was strong, was the Koran violent.It's the same with Islam. When Islam is politically weak, it is moderate.When Islam is strong, it is violent. One must remember that Islam is new and in the minority in the West, so the apologists / Muslims / Muslim brotherhood are trying so much to dampen criticism of Islam to explain away Muhammad atrocities either during the term "context" or that knowledge should be canvassed in some particular Islamic authorities, which are suitable to explain away and lie. http://www.islamic-life.com/forums/attachments/noble-companions-scholars/94d1260666446-shaykh-muhammad-bin-abdul-wahhab-term-wahhabi.pdf

While Salaafiyya adopted the opinion (ijtihaad) of the four aimma to claim legimitacy with the Ahlussunna and the Jama'a, what they don't tell the Salaafis is all four mazdhab methodology is not compatible with the Salaafi beliefs.

Hanafi: this mazdhab can freeze a Sa'hiyh hadiysth in favour of opinion.
Malikiy: this mazdhab will favour the actions of people of Madiyna over Sa'hiyh hadiysth.
Shafi'iy: this is the 'perfect' mazdhab for the Salaafis hence one will see a sect that claim (lies) to be Hanbalis relies heavily on Shafa'iyya books. However the problem is the shafi'iy consensus adopted Asha'ariyya theology. Little do Salaafis know that Imaam Nawawiy is Ashari'iy in theology thanks to the Scribes (Darussalam Pub) of the Pharisees of this umma doing 'abridged' works.
Hanbaliy: in this mazdhab, in absent of Sa'hiyh hadiysth, da'iyf hadiysth automatically becomes evidence. Hence I can't understand why Salaafis who claim to be Hanbalis keep asking, "is it sahiyh brother?"

In Nawaaqidul Islaam, point no.2 puts about 400, 000 high-ranking 'ulamaa - fuqaa'ha and aimma (imaams) as kuffar/murtadd for either endorsing or for making limited tawassul which imcludes big names as Imaam Maalik, Imaam Ahmaad muwaffaqudin ibn Qudama Al-Maqdisiy, As-Saffariniy and manyy more. Making the excuse of ignorance, ta'gwiyl, ikra and mistskes impossible. infact by endorsing it Mu'hammad ibn AbdulWahhab is accusing all of them are liars by point no.2

In point no.3, he accuses whoever dont agree with his point no.2 are also kuffar.

Takfiriy trash

The kuffar West engineered three Sects putting them in a state of tension against each other.

1. The traditionalist Suwfism
2. Salaafiyya
3. Dimukratiyya

In a weak hadiysth, it is said rhe 'Umma will be inflicted with seven great fitaan, the sixth is called the Fitna of The West before the seventh - Baniy Kalb, the last of the Mulkan Jabri

Understand this:

1. A sect is difined by its ideology ie: Mu'gtazila, Qadariyya, Suwfiyya, Ahlussunna (yes it is a sect, the One Sect out of the 73 sects of Islaam), Kharajiyya etc.

2. A school is defined by its founder or Imaam: Shafi'iyya, Malikiyya, Hanbaliyya, Hanafiyya etc.

3. A sect rejects any who are outside its fold, thus Ahlussunna who has limited itself to the four schools of fiq'h is also a sect as it rejects anyone who do not ascribed him or her self to the any one of the four schools.

Like all sects, Salaafiyya too has schools within it.

1. Wahhabiyya Salaafiyya - the original. It adopted the Hanbaliy fiq'h as taqqiyya against Ahlussunna and based on the agreement, put the Aal Al-Sheikh as the highest religious authority. The Sa'uwdi are this brand of Salaafis.

2. Madkhiliyya Salaafiyya - this is the school spearheaded by Ibn Usthaymiyn, Ibn Baaz and Al-Albaaniy in attempt to remove the authority of th Aal Al-Sheikh clan. Also by Al-Albaaniy it reject all the four Ahlussunna schools completely.

3. Jihaadiyya Salaaafiyya - This school are salaafis 'corrupted" by Ash-Shahiyd Sayyid Qutb writtings (Qutbiyya school of Ikhwaanul Muslimiyn). Thus by right should call itself Qutbiyya Salaafiyya; but to call themselves 'Qutbiyya Salaafiyya' is an affirmation that they are the corrupted Salaafis (talaafis), so they rebrand themselves Jihaadiyya Salaafiyya.

4. Khiylafatiyya Salaafiyya - this is a new emerging straing as a result of Jihaadiyya Salaafiyya merging with the call of Hizbut Tahriyr.

Assalaamu'alaykum David.

I know you suspect the Muslim Brotherhood completely. But i like to point out to a work by Shaykh Mustapha Siba'iy. He defended the great muhaddisth Abuw Shihaab Az-zuhriy from the attacks and slanders of the mu'gtazila and the Orientalists charlatans. Problem being he is a member of Ikhwaanul Muslimiyn which you suspect and blankets them all as untrustworthy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustafa_al-Siba'i

http://islamicencyclopedia.org/public/index/topicDetail/id/736/page/15

But in his excelent book - The Role of Sunna in Islaaamic Legislation

http://www.amazon.com/The-Sunnah-Role-Islamic-Legislation/dp/9960850285

PDF: https://islamfuture.wordpress.com/2013/03/07/the-sunnah-and-its-role-in-...

He clearly shown that the Orientalists like Joseph Schacht and Goldziher are mostly charlatans with hidden rancour against Islaam. What beautiful about it is he actually met many of these orientalist charlatans face-to-face thus this is a first-hand account of these charlatans true nature and their vile habit of twisting facts to suit their goals. So becareful when quoting these 'historians'.

Shaya'tiyn tells the truth and then adds lies to it. This is how they sell lies to the people.

The reason i am telling you this is because i sense from your writings that you have a tendecy to over rely on the writings of these orientalists charlatans. I am afraid for you just as now you are exposing the like of Alex Jones for what they are, in the future someone will make the same claim against you and destroy your credibility and your research by equalting you to the orientalists writers. We then have to return to square one where a new brother/Muslim will have to 'research' everything again and 'expose' everything again.

 

For example the case of Hasan Al-Banna.

1. While you have given good proofs on the untrustworthiness of JamaaludDiyn Al-Afrgaaniy, Mu'hammad Abduh and Rashiyd Rida where you have provided comfirming statements by Muslimuwn, whereas i find the claim on Hasan Al-Banna is lacking. So far no Muslim wrote against him.

2. John Loftus and Miles Copeland are both ex-CIA. As CIA dogs both of them are actively in the business of deception. They are being paid to lie which is much worst then a simple liar. Just because they have retired from CIA does not mean they have retired from the business of deceptions. In the Science of Jarh wa Ta'gdiyl once branded a kazd-zdab,  their evidence cannot be accepted. However we do believe sometimes even liars tells the truth; therefore their claims can be use as pointers for further investigations. There must be corroborating evidence by Muslimuwn against Hasan Al-Banna for the charge to stick.

3. As for Hasan Al-Banna (and Muslim Brotherhood) working with the Nazis/Germany is not evidence of his untrustworthiness, rather a mistake in methodology due to the hate against the British colonists which is occupying Mi'sr. For example, in Malaya (Malaysia) freedom fighters decided to work with the Japanese against the British colonist only to have the Japanese as the new colonizers and tyrants over them. Also before Muslim Brotherhood, the Ottoman allied itself with Germany against Britain. Allying with a kufar force against another kuffar force is not kufr, rather it is allowed in fiq'h. Even in hadisth Rasuwlullaah S'AWS said in the end times, the Muslimuwn will ally with the Romans to fight an enemy behind the Romans (the last and biggest Red (eastern) Turk confederation horde to mobilize Westward).

4. I am not a member of Ikhwaanul Muslimuwn, but ALLAAH said in Hujuraat 49: 6 - "O you who have believed, if there comes to you a disobedient one with information, investigate, lest you harm a people out of ignorance and become, over what you have done, regretful.". Therefore I like to point something to you about Muslim Brotherhood. This clown Robert Dreyfuss wrote:

The Muslim Brotherhood is a London creation, forged as the
standard-bearer of an ancient, anti-religious (pagan) heresy that
has plagued Islam since the establishment of the Islamic community
(umma) by the Prophet Mohammed in the seventh century.
Representing organized Islamic fundamentalism, the organization
called the Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan al-Muslimun in Arabic)
was officially founded in Egypt, in 1929, by the British agent
Hasan al-Banna, a Sufi mystic. Today, the Muslim Brotherhood is
the umbrella under which a host of fundamentalist Sufi, Sunni,
and radical Shiite brotherhoods and societies flourish.

Based on The West's orientalist charlatans you made the claimed:

"...Included among its eight members were important representatives of
the Salafi Muslim Brotherhood..."
[Surrendering Islam]

How is this movement Salaafi? Dreyfuss clearly said:

a. Hasan Al-Banna is a Suwfi.

b. As the bold part shows, this is not Salaafi behaviour. The 12vers Shiy'a claim whoever accepted the khiylafa of Abuw Bakr and 'Umar are all kuffar (meaning almost all of the "first three generation" are kuffar to them), While Salaafi don't accept the Shiy'a. All shiy'a are kuffar to them. Even the Suwfi are mushrikiyn to them. it's their central tenet. Salaafi and Shiy'a cannot work together.

Here is from a person whose writings you would not doubt:

It is common for writers on Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab to assert that he sought a social renewal of Arabia, but that characterization is never given specific substance, unless one considers ritual correctness and moral purity to constitute such renewal. The problem with such generalizations is they encourage facile comparisons with modern revivalist movements, when in fact Najd's eighteenth-century reformer would have found key elements in Hasan al-Banna's writings utterly alien[Cummins, David (2009). The Wahhabi Mission and Saudi Arabia. I.B.Tauris. pp. 142–3]

Ikhwaanul Muslimuwn really has liitle to do with the Salaafi movement which is in truth is a creedal movement.

5. Just because Hasan Al-Banna was the student of Rashiyd Rida is not a proof that he is one of them. If that the case, then Imaam Hanafiy is to be rejected as he sits and learn with The Supposers in his early days which in turn strengthen his juristic capabilities. Imaam Abuw Hasan Al-Asha'ariy is another point in case, turning against his own Mu'gtazila sect later in his life.

6. The truth of the matter is, while Salaafiyya claims "manhaj", they are an aqiyda movement (a sect), while Muslim Brotherhood is a manhaj (methodological) movement. Aqiyda is not a central issue to the Ikhwaan. This in turn let them work with everyone who they consider Muslim - Suwfi, Salaafi, Shiy'a...even hypocrites. This also the reason Ikhwaanul Muslimuwn in all their history is getting backstabbed by their own allies like the Free Officers. Their methodology is their undoing as they kept on allying with all the wrong people.

6. Abuw Mus'aab As-suriy and Al-Qaa^ida ideologue and an Ikhwaanul Muslimiyn member clearly said neither he or anyone else has rights to make takfiyr; that only a qualified qa'diy (judge) has the right to make takfiyr.

Shaya'tiyn tells the truth and then adds lies to it. This is how they sell lies to the people.

7. Abdullaah Yuwsuf 'A'z'zaam, a self-confess Ik'hwaanul Muslimiyn member - and the real architect of Al-Qaa^ida - is not in favour of offensive Jihaad and is against any form of terror attacks. Only after the huge influx of JIhaad-Salaafis after 911 that terror attacks become the hallmark of Al-Qaa^ida. Abdullaah Azzzam clearly said, "Al-Qaa^ida" job is to build the islaamic army in khurasaan (specifically} from which a fully organized islaamic army will march out and retake Al-Quds. Now if you say this is part of the Hizbu-Shay'taan (FreresMasons) conspiracy, then Rasuwlullaah S'AWS become part of that conspiracy because he is  the one who set the precedent to this army when he said "Black Flags will march out of khurasaan and will not stop until they reach Aelia (Jerusalem)".

8. In Mi'sr today, the Ikhwaanul Muslimuwn are being imprisoned, tortured, brutalized and killed by one of their own allies - the tyrant Sissi, they refused to 'pull out the sword' and fight back. This is based on a hadisth of Rasuwlullaah forbidding to rebel against tyrant rulers during the Age of Fitaan. Salaafis call Sissi a 'targuwt and repeatedly call for his violent removal, Ikhwaanul Muslimuwn refused to fight Sissi by armed revolution. This is not a Salaafi trait who readily make bar'a and fight other Muslim over the smallest of issues. The reason Sa'uwdi brought in the Ikhwaanul Muslimuwn is to counter the Salaafi aka Wahaabi violent nature after the Juhaymaan revolt. Ikhwanul Muslimuwn has a long record of being surpress by their own allies because they often refuse to fight other Muslimuwn. As David Cummins pointed out, Ibn AbdulWahhab's Salaafis and Hasan Al-Banna's Ikhwaanul Muslimuwn has little similiarity.

9. In the case of Syria, where the Ikhwaanul Muslimuwn launch an armed revolt against the regime of Hafezd Al-Assaad which resulted in the Hama Massacre this was a case of clearly opposing a 'TARGUWT. Unlike anywhere else, the Nusayris (Allawiys) believes their imaam is a re-incarnaton of ALLAAH on Earth. This can be clearly seen from their statement today such as "laa ilaaha illa Bashar".

10. While i admit Hasan Al-Banna's Muslim Brotherhood adopted many of the Freemasonry's methodologies, for instance to slowly (by 'degrees') bring a member from simple Islaamic obligations like Salaah and siyaam to finally volunteering for Jihaad; and the maqar system that mirrors the lodge system (albeit not as sophiscated and well-organized as those of Freemasons) these are adoption in methodology which is allowed by ALLAAH thru Quranic injuctions ie, leeway is given to the Muslimuwn in the afffairs of administration and organization. This has little to do with aqiyda, rather methodology. A matter of adminstration not aqiyda.

11. As for "Clash of Civilization", then again Rasuwlullaah S'AWS also guilty of it, when he said the Muslimuwn will tradeblows with the Romans at the Endtimes. in one hadisth, it is stated the Romans will make three great incursions in the Endtimes, each incursion will result in a bloody clash and then Islaam will march out into Europe and raze the Capitoline Citadel of Rome. - so the fact here is clear: the Romans (West) are the cause of the clash. We are not guilty for retaliating.

a). The embargo or encirclement of Shaam by The Romans. After the embargo fails and the Romans withdraw, somehow Baniy Kalb will come to power. We suspect The West will have something to do with the rise of the Kalb too.

b.) The Battle after the Muslim-Roman alliance against Red Turks where a foolish Roman claimed after the victory "the Cross had won" angering a Muslim who struck him down who is then killed by the Romans and triggering the second clash. - the Romans "won" because The Divine Throne's infantry forces on Earth entered the battle and turned the tides against the Red Turks; so the statement made by the Roman soldier is false. It's the Muslim who gave the victory.

c. the great battle of Dabiq-Amiq where the Romans will land 1,200 000 COMBANTANTS into the shores of the north-western Levant. Al-Mahdiy will wipe them out after loosing 2/3 of his own army.

After these three trust by the Romans, Islaam will counter attack resulting in the razing of the Capitoline Citadel of Rome, this is a fact because Imaam Al-Mahdiy WILL NOT RETAIN Europe, he will return to Anatolia imediately carryinng some relics of Baniy Israa^iyl, forcing Dajjal to come out of the shadows to block his return to Al-Quds.

Salaahuddiyn Ayyubiy, a Shafi'iy, therefore also Ash'ariy; he is an hardcore Ahlussunna, clearly stated if he had the means, he would cross the ocean and raze The West completey because he argues that as long one kaafir is there, they will not cease to conspire against Islaam over Jerusalem. There is idealism and then there is a reality. The realitiy is we are going to trade blows with the Romans to the finish.

Once the Roman rebellion (against The Divine Throne) is squashed once and for all; then under Ibnu Maryam (Jesus) we will deal with the Christains at Ludd and the Jews at Jerusalem. Their own Prophet will give the order to exterminate them all. WE HEAR AND WE OBEY. And this is reality because Rasuwlullaah S'AWS said every kuffar who sees the descension (return) of Iysa Ibnu Maryam between the wings of two Malaika (Angels) will automatically dies of awestruck and shock. Therefore there will be none of them alive to tell Iysa Ibnum Maryam has return and is leading the "Army of Mu'hammad" towards Jerusalem. At Ludd, Christianity will be terminated by order of Ibnu Maryam and at Jerusalem, it will the Jews' turn, again by the order of Ibnu Maryam. WE HEAR AND WE OBEY - The mark of the Muslimuwn. Ibnu Maryam says, "no jizya,wipe ALLAAH's Earth clean of all Christans and Jews". Who are we to argue with a Prophet of ALLAAH? We hear and we obey, and sweep them all to Jahannam.

Only after all the above, the Yaajuj wa Maajuj problem will be dealt. Which in truth will be release by ALLAAH to eradicate the faasiquwn and the munaafiquwn as Muslimuwn are forbidden to harm anyone of them.

This means that both:

  1. The Jews and The Christian are totally in the dark of Gog and Magog because IT DOES NOT CONCERN THEM AT ALL. Not even one of them will be alive to see the return of the greatest and deadliest of the Turkic Hordes. Ya'gni THE JEWS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YAAJUJ WA MAAJUJ AT ALL. Zero connection.
  2. Neither do the Romans (and their Holy Bloodline charlatanry) whom will be dealt with by Imaam Al-Mahdiy completely before the re-appearance of Dajjal then afterwards the reappeareance of the greatest and deadliest of the Turkic Horde.

The only one group has anything to do with Yaajuj wa Maajuj is the Hizbu-Shay'taan, as they are the ONLY ones who will witness Al-Qiyaama (Doomsday), as even us Muslimuwn will not witness it. Not even one, as ALLAAH will removed the last batch of Muslimuwn via the red breeze of Yemen and the cold breeze of Shaam - the so called Rapture in Christianity.

 

This is what i am advicing you:

Shaya'tiyn tells the truth and then adds lies to it. This is how they sell lies to the people.

The Orientalists charlatans are known to lie by telling the truth. So becareful of their statements less as ALLAAH said in Hujuraat 49: 6 - "O you who have believed, if there comes to you a disobedient one with information, investigate, lest you harm a people out of ignorance and become, over what you have done, regretful."

As you can see, Hasan Al-Banna's Ikhwaanul Muslimuwn goals is not Shay'taanic rather hadisthic. Neither is it creedal but rather a methodological movement. He saw a problem and he tried to solved it. I agree with you that Ikhwaanul Muslimuwn as an organization is corrupted and infiltrated - any Islaamic organization sanctioned and allowed to exist officially by The West is most certainly infiltrated, but there is a difference between Ikhwaanul Muslimuwn the organization, and Ikhwaanul Muslimuwn the ideology/goal.

So beware what The Western historians write for Shaya'tiyn tells the truth and then adds lies to it. This is how they sell lies to the people.

Secondly what you should know ALLAAH has planted HIS own Conspiracy (plot) within their conspiracies. Their conspiracies is automatically triggering ALLAAH's plots against them. So not all these conspiracy you are seeing is exclusively from the Hizbu-Shay'taan (FreresMasons) side; some of it are coming from The Divine Throne which are being triggered and activated by their own conspiracies against ALLAAH and Mankind.

You need to firgure out which is which. For instance. Rasuwlullaah S'AWS said JIhaad will not stop until Iysa Ibnu Maryam takes Al-Quds after which all weapons would be destroy. So you need to tell the people where the legitamate Jihaad are, because it is continiously on going. There must be a legit jihaad somewhere on the surface of this Earth.

The second reason you need to firgure out which is which because ALLAAH has sworn that HE will not accept a rival, and HE don't care if the entire universe burns in the fight if there was a challenger to HIS Divine Right:

"Had there been within the heavens and earth gods besides Allah , they both (ie the whole universe) would have been ruined. So exalted is Allah , Lord of the Throne, above what they describe." [Al-Anbiyaa 21:22]

Albert Pike the Gnosis Alliance of idiots says there is another God name Lucifer... the fools has put AR-RA'HMAAN on a warpath!

ALLAAH is menuevering HIS own conspiracy against HIS enemies using their own game - ORDO AB CHAOS:

Spread them out, then linked them all back to one matter - The Temple.. then kill them all in one masterful strike.

The fate of Christianity, Judaism, the Gnosis Mysteries, Witchcraft... all of them... are now interwined to one thing - The Third Temple.

No escape.

The Endgame.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Al Banna defined his movement as “a Salafiyya message, a Sunni way and a Sufi truth."

[Richard P. Mitchell, The Society of the Muslim Brothers (London 1969), p. 14.Al Banna defined his movement as “a Salafiyya message, a Sunni way and a Sufi truth.”]

I am aware of the verse in the Quran that advises to double-check facts when you received them from a "fasiq".  That doesn't mean you can't use such sources, it means you have to double-check.

I would have hoped that in reading my books that you've noticed that I rarely rely on a single source, and do my best to either make sure a claim can be verified, and if not, I merely mention it as a point of interest.

Regretably, there are very few decentMuslim investigators into the political realites of the Muslims these days. Muslim "scholars" are more concerned with navel-gazing, and dismiss political study as frivolous. They are victimes of their own ignorance.

So for the most part, there is no choice but to rely on non-Muslim scholars. But as I said, I try to find as many secondary corroborations as I can for any particular claim. As for al Banna, it's true, there's nothing very strong evidence against him. It's largly cicumstantial. But what's more important is to understand the nature of Salafism and the purpose of the Muslim Brotherhood, and there is enough evidence of their alignement with occultism and the CIA.

Also, ressearh is not about condemning ajny particular person. Rather, we should be concerned with identifying deceipt, in order not to fall into it. Probably 90% of the members of the MB have no idea what's going on. The purpose of an organization like that is not to recruit them to a Luciferian agenda, but rather to fool them into falsely thinking they have joined a true Muslim organization, without being aware of its ulterior aims.

So the probllem is not al Banna's intention. Rather, his movement is based on the lie of Salafism which rejects Taqlid of Madhhabs. As to what was in his heart, that's up to God to decice.

 

Truth to tell, I believe your writings/books should be included into part of the syllabus of 'lmu Ar-rijaal (The Science of Men) throughout the Muslim world; and become part of the corpus of information for 'Ilmu Jar'h wa Ta'gdiyl (The Science of Disparaging and Praising) as what you have provided is the Isnaad. Many has been written about the Occult Societies, but the names that link is really the eye-opener. The isnaad is what makes the matn acceptable.

But what i can't swallow is the claim that JamaaludDiyn Al-Afrgaaniy, Mu'hammad 'Abduh and Rashiyd Rida is the pioneer of Salaafism. When I was growing up, JamaaludDiyn Al-Afrgaaniy, Mu'hammad 'Abduh and Rashiyd Rida is known to pioneered a different sect of Islaam. One that tries to bring up Islaam "uptodate" by making it compatible or in comformity with the modern times; which you yourself has comfirmed in some of your writings. This is not Salaafiyya. It has a name for it.... PROGRESSIVE ISLAAM. One which the Al-Azhaar is known for today and condemned for and promoted by the likes of Azhaari-graduates like Yuwsuf Al-Qardawiy.

Mu'hammad ibn 'AbdulWahhab is Salaafiy No.1. Patient Zero. (Ibn Taymiyya is part of the problem goes without saying). His the source. Rashiyd Rida, a British dog merely help rebrand the other British Dog known as Sa'uwdi-Wahhabi movement into Salaafiyya.

This claim that the three charlatans is the source of Salaafiyya is a newly minted narrative by the Orientalists of The West. The reason being Mu'hammad ibn 'AbdulWahhab is too closey interwined with the Sa'uwdis. If the Sa'uwdi State crumbles, Salaafiyya will go down the toilet with it.

Bargdaadiy's Dawla needs the Haramayn to be a proper Khiylafa.

What the Orientalists are trying to do is attempt to unhook Salaafiyya off Mu'hammad ibn 'AbdulWahhab and pinned it on the more robust Ikhwaanul Muslimuwn which will ensure its survival for a long time to plague the 'Ummaa long after the Sa'uwdi State has bite the dust.

They are using the very same method in trying to attack the ahadiysth by attacking Abuw Hurayra and Abuw Shihaab Az-zuhriy, by manipulating the facts and then sell it to the mu'gtazila who then regurgitate it to the 'Umma. Only now they are selling it to the Suwfiyiyn, whose blind hatred for the Salaafiyiyn readily swallow it and spew it back to the 'Umma.

Based on this newly minted crappy narrative, today the Suwfiyiyn accused Yuwsuf Qardawiy as a Salaafiy. In that case, George Bush is a crypto-Muslim. :p

As David Cummins pointed, there is little similiarity between ibn 'AbdulWahhab's Ikhwaan Salaafiyya and Hasan Al-Banna Ikhwaan Muslimiyn. The reason is because the former is a creedal movement, while the later is a methodological movement.

To Ikhwaanul Muslimuwn it is simple, if you are Shafi'iy then follow the Shafi'iy mazdhab, if you are Hanafiy then follow the Hanafiy Mazdhab, a Salaafiy follows Salaafiyya, a Suwfiy follows his 'tariyqa; don't matter, but as Muslimuwn unite and face our enemy in a single bloc. If you are Shafi'iy mazdhab Ikhwaan, and has some issues then go to Shafi'iy faq'iyh for answers. Simple as that. So there is no need for Hasan Al-Banna to address the issue of taqliyd. Every Ikhwaan is free to follow whatever school he believes in. Ikhwaanul Muslimiyn is methodological.

"a Salafiyya message..." is just a kosher thing to say. It was the emerging trend. Everyone has to say "Salaafiyya" to be kosher.

The closest thing to Ikhwaan is Jama'a Tablirgh. Both tries to address the issue of unity. Wheras Ikhwaanul Muslimiyn took the political path requiring it to penetrate the economic, education, social sectors etc.  And making Jihaad against The West as an engine of unity. Jama'a Tablirgh takes the non-political path as a method to allow them to move freely without hindrance while using congretional 'Salaa as tool of unity basing it on the hadisth where ALLAAH will unite or break the unity of the hearts of Muslimuwn over the straigthness of the sufuf (rows). Like Ikhwaanul Muslimuwn, Jama'a Tablirgh will not address the issue of creed - a shafi'iy should go talk to a shafi'iy faqiy'h, a hanafiy should go to a hanafiy scholar and so on. Both are methodolgical movements.

Salaafiyya is a different beast altogether. It's creedal. While it may target the kuffaar initially to gain traction, it will eventually ends up targeting other Muslimuwn as its whole creed is based on purging Islaam of deviancy. Thus the Suwfiyya assessment that they are khawaarij is nearly right. Nearly right as they are based-line, similiar to the proto-khawaarij who surrounded 'Usthmaan who only turned full khawaarij at the time of 'Aliy. ISalaafiyya is a sect that sits between the Ahlussunna Sect and the Khawaarij Sect. That's why they are the most confused about Bargdaadiy's group.

Al-Afrgaaniy's statement:

We do not cut off the head of religion except with the sword of religion. Therefore, if you were to see us now, you would see ascetics and worshipers, kneeling and genuflecting, never disobeying God’s commands and doing all that they are ordered to do.

This is not proof of Salaafiyya. This is the very Taqiyya of the Shiy'a! Al-Afrgaaniy was not the first to use it. The first to employ this methodology is the Jew 'Abdullaah ibn Sabaa - the very father of Shi'ism. He used it against 'Usthmaan ibn 'Affaan resulting in the bloody murder and killing of Khaliyfa Zduwn Nuwr'ayn. And later tried again against 'Aliy resulting in 'Aliy. out of burst of anger, burning alive ibn Sabaa's followers. As you can see, Ibn Sabaa used this vile method against the Salaaf themselves.

As I said earlier, your work is actually 'Ilmu Ar-Rijaal that has long been abandoned. As well as a good source for the science of Jar'h wa tag'diyl, but mistake like this, of swallowing the Western narrative concocted by their corps of Orientalists will result in the 'ulamaa discrediting your works. A shame.

Ibn Hajar al-Asqalaani also documents that Ibn Taymiyyah was imprisoned for a number of things, and he was bought before a council of Egyptian Qadis backed by numerous Ulemaa of Egypt and Shaam, numerous other Shuyukh ul-Islam. The crimes that Ibn Taymiyyah was summoned for were punishable by execution and if found guilty would have been executed after trial. As Ibn Hajar al-Asqalaani documents that before this great council, Ibn Taymiyyah was sorely refuted, and that he repented and adopted the Ash’ari creed.

Theres people who say, ok, why did not his students know about his repentance? Why did Ibn Taymiyyah not correct his works? The simple answer is because the Qadis gave Ibn Taymiyyah a prison sentence to serve. Ibn Taymiyyah was known prior to be arrested, be repentful and then be let free only to cause trouble again. So this time, they gave him a prison term to serve, took away his pens and his rights to visitation so that nobody could visit him. Plus his main student Ibn al-Qayyum al-Jawziyyah was locked up in another prison and had no contact with Ibn Taymiyyah. So his repentance was unknown by many.

Interesting isn't it? Who should we believe now? Salaafis or Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalaaniy?

Fat'hul Bari anyone?

Add new comment