Reply to the Doubt that Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhaab Declared the Books of the Four Madhaahib Worthless

Reply to the Doubt that Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhaab Declared the Books of the Four Madhaahib Worthless

Refutation against the Doubt that the Shaykh has Declared the Books of the Four Madhaahib Worthless

Note: the following paragraph are the words of Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhaab (rahimahullah) which were stated in his letter to the people of Qaseem when they asked him about his ‘aqeedah. The explanation is from Shaykh Saalih Fawzaan al-Fawzaan.

And Allaah knows that the man has fabricated against me affairs that I have not stated. And most of these affairs have not even been brought to my attention. So from them is his statement that I have declared the books of the four madhaahib worthless and that I say the people have been upon nothing for the last six hundred years.

Explanation:

Is it correct that the Shaykh declares the books of the four madhaahib worthless? This is from the greatest of lies. The Shaykh himself studied the madhhab of the Hanaabilah. Rather, he took whatever was based upon the proof, regardless of whether it came from the madhhab of ash-Shafi’ee (d.204H), or the madhhab of Maalik (d.179H), or the madhhab of Abee Haneefah (d.150H). This was the manhaj of the Shaykh. His origin (asl) was upon the madhhab of Imaam Ahmad (d.241H). However, with regards to the religious verdicts, he took whatever had the strongest proof, regardless of whether it came from the madhhab of Imaam Ahmad or other than him. He was not fanatical, he only wanted the truth. This was his manhaj in fatwaa (religious verdicts) and teaching. He would take whatever had the strongest evidence, from any madhhab from amongst the four madhhaahib. However, he did not go outside of the four madhhaahib.

So the statement of Ibn Suhaym, “…declared the books of the four madhhaahib worthless,” is a lie, because he (rahimahullah) did not go outside of the four madhaahib. Rather, he benefited from them and gave fatwaa based upon whoever had the strongest evidence from amongst them, regardless of whether that was in agreement with His Hanbalee madhhab or not, because he wanted to reach the truth.

And he said, “The people have been upon nothing for the last six hundred years.” Meaning he declared the people disbelievers. This is from the fabrications of Ibn Suhaym, that the Shaykh declared the people to be disbelievers. Why did he declare the people disbelieves? Was it because he called to Tawheed and prohibited Shirk? So due to this, they alleged that he declared the people disbelievers, whilst he was only calling to Tawheed and prohibiting Shirk. And he did not declared the people to be disbelievers, he did not declared anyone a disbeliever, except the one whose disbelief had been confirmed by a proof from the Book and the Sunnah, as occurs in the ten invalidators of Islaam, which he wrote about.

Source: Explanation of the ‘Aqeedah of the Imaam, the Reformer, Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhaab d.1206H Explained by the Noble Shaykh, Dr. Saalih Ibn Fawzaan al-Fawzaan, Sunnah Publishing, Translation by Maaz Qureshi, pp.234-235.


[Press here to read this text in Spanish].

Taken from: https://islamtees.wordpress.com/2012/12/06/reply-to-the-doubt-that-shaykh-muhammad-ibn-abdul-wahhaab-declared-the-books-of-the-four-madhaahib-worthless/

Accuse your brother of something without proof...

Accuse your brother of something without proof...

Shaykh al’Fawzan حفظه الله quoted Imaam Muhammad bin ‘Abdul Wahhab:

“…You should not have dark suspicion concerning your muslim brother if you do not have any sound proof for what you suspect. To merely accuse your brother of something without proof is a major sin.”

(Sharh Kitaab al’Kabaair page 345)

WHAT IS THE PUNISHMENT FOR THE PICTUREMAKERS!

WHAT IS THE PUNISHMENT FOR

 THE PICTUREMAKERS!

By Sheikh-ul-Islam Muhammad bin Abdul-Wahhab rahimahullah

Chapter No: 61, Kitab At-Tauhid, THE BOOK OF MONOTHEISM

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Abu Hurairah رضي الله عنه narrated that Allah's Messenger  صلي الله عليه وسلم said:

"Allah said: 'Who would be more unjust than the one who tries to create the like of my creatures? Let them create an atom, or let them create a grain, or let them create a barley corn.' "   (Al-Bukhari and Muslim)


They also report from `Aishah رضي الله عنها that Allah's Messenger  صلي الله عليه وسلم said:  "The people who will receive the severest punishment on the Day of Resurrection will be those who try to make the like of Allah's creation."



Also reported by them from Ibn Abbas ((رضي الله عنهما) that I heard Allah's Messenger صلي الله عليه وسلم saying: "All the picture-makers would be in the fire of Hell. A soul will be breathed in every picture prepared by him and it shall punish him in the Hell."



It is additionally narrated from Ibn Abbas (رضي الله عنهما) in a Marfu' Hadith: ­
"Whoever makes a picture in this world will be charged with putting a soul (life) in it and he will never be able to do it."



Muslim reports from Abu Haiyaj (Al-Asadi) that Ali ( رضي الله عنه) said to him:
"Should I not depute you on a mission on which I was sent by Allah's Messenger صلي الله عليه وسلم ?: Deface all the pictures which 'you come across and demolish all the high graves to the level of earth."



IMPORTANT ISSUES OF THE CHAPTER


1) Intense condemnation of those who make pictures.

2) Picture-making is condemned because it constitutes not having proper regard for Allah. As in His Statement: "Who would be more unjust than the one who tries to create the like of my creatures...”

3) Declaration of the power and ability of Allah and the incapacity and weakness of those (who attempt to create). As in His Statement: "Let them create an atom or a grain or a barley corn."

4) Declaration that they (picture-makers) will get the most severe punishment (on the Day of Judgement).

5) Allah will create a soul in place of every picture and the maker of that picture will be punished by it in Hell.

6) Picture-makers will be asked to breathe life into every of their Images.

7) The command to deface all the images/pictures when found.



Source: Kitab At-Tauhid, THE BOOK OF MONOTHEISM. CHAPTER NO: 61, (Page: 174-175). By Sheikh-ul-Islam Muhammad bin Abdul-Wahhab rahimahullah


[To read this article in Spanish, click here]

The Categories of Istighaathah from the Explanation of Kashfush-Shubuhaat (Removal of Doubts)

The Categories of Istighaathah from

the Explanation of Kashfush-Shubuhaat

(Removal of Doubts)

Stated Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul-Wahhaab in Kashfush-Shubuhaat (Removal of Doubts):

“So that only His salvation (istighaathah) would be sought, and such that all acts of worship would be directed to Allaah alone.”

Imaam Muhammad Ibn Saalih al-’Uthaymeen’s (d.1420H) explanation of this statement is as follows:

The word istighaathah means to seek relief and salvation at times of hardship and when on the verge of destruction. It can be divided into four categories:

• The First Category: Seeking relief and salvation (istigaathah) from Allaah (subhaanahu wa ta’aala) which is from the best and most perfect of actions. It was the practice of the Messengers (alaihimus-salaam) and their followers. And the proof of this can be found in the statement of Allaah (tabaaraka wa ta’aala),
  “Remember when you sought the help of your Lord, and He answered you: Indeed, I will reinforce you with a thousand angels, following one another in succession.” [Sooratul-Anfaal 8:9]
• The Second Category: Seeking salvation (istighaathah) from the dead or from individuals who are living but absent and unable to provide any assistance; this type of (istighaathah) is polytheism (Shirk). This is because this type of action is not done except by someone who believes that those who he is calling upon possess some type of control and influence over creation. So they have attributed a share of Lordship (ar-ruboobiyyah) to the creation. Allaah (tabaaraka wa ta’aala) says,
  Isn’t the One who responds to the desperate whenever they call upon Him; who removes the harm; and who makes you inheritors of the earth? Can there be another besides Allaah? Little do you reflect?” [Sooratun-Naml 27:62]
• The Third Category: Seeking relief and salvation from those who are living and able to provide assistance. This is permissible and it is just like seeking their aid. Allaah said concerning the story of Moosaa (alaihis-salaam),
  “And the one from his faction who called for help against one of his enemies, so Moosaa struck him and [unintentionally] killed him.” [Sooratul-Qasas 28:15]
• The Fourth Category: Seeking relief and salvation from a living person who is unable to provide the necessary assistance without believing that he possesses any special influence over the creation. An example of this is if help was sought from someone who is paralyzed to repel an advancing army of the enemy. This is considered useless and mockery of the one whose aid was sought. So this action is prohibited for this reason and because it might be interpreted by others to suggest that the one whose aid was sought despite his handicap possessed a hidden power that allows him to save people in times of adversity.

Source: Explanation of Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhaab’s Removal of Doubts, Imaam Muhammad Ibn Saalih al-’Uthaymeen (d.1420H), Translation by Qasim Mutiva, Sunnah Publishing, pp.103-105.

Source: http://islamtees.wordpress.com/

This text has been translated in spanish, to read it click here

Refutation against the Doubt that the Shaykh has declared the Books of the Four Madhaahib Worthless

Refutation against the Doubt that the Shaykh has declared the Books of the Four Madhaahib Worthless

And Allah knows that the man has fabricated against me affairs that I have not stated. And most of these affairs have not even been brought to my attention. So from them is his statement that I have declared the books of the four Madhaahib worthless and that I say the people have been upon nothing for the last six hundred years.

Explanation:

It is correct that the Shaykh declares the books of the four Madhaahib worthless? This is from the greatest of lies. They Shaykh himself studied the madhhab of the Hanaabilah, but he did not remain staunch upon the madhhab of the Hanaabilah. Rather, he took whatever was based upon the proof, regardless of whether it came from the madhhab of ash-Shaafi’ee (d.204H), or the madhhab of Maalik (d.179H), or the madhhab of Abee Haneefah (d.150H). This was the manhaj of the Shaykh. His origin (asl) was upon the madhhab of Imam Ahmad (d.241H). However, with regards to religious verdicts, he took whatever had the strongest proof, regardless of whether it came from the madhhab of Imam Ahmed or other than him. He was not fanatical, he only wanted the truth. This was his manhaj in fatwa (religious verdicts) and teaching. He would take whatever has the strongest evidence, from any madhhab from amongst the four Madhaahib. However, he did not go outside of the four Madhaahib.

So the statement of Ibn Suhaym, “…declared the books of the four Madhaahib worthless,” is a lie, because he did not go outside of the four Madhaahib. Rather, he benefited from them and gave fatwa based upon whoever has the strongest evidence from amongst them, regardless of whether that was in agreement with his Hanbalee madhhab or not, because he wanted to reach the truth.

And he said, “The people have been upon nothing for the last six hundred years.” Meaning, he declared the people of disbelievers. This is from the fabrications of Ibn Suhaym, that the Shaykh declared the people to be disbelievers. Why did he declare the people disbelievers? Was it because he called to Tawheed and prohibited Shirk? So due to this, they alleged that he declared the people disbelievers, whilst he was only calling to Tawheed and prohibiting Shirk. And he did not declare the people to be disbelievers, he did not declare anyone a disbeliever, except the one whose disbelief has been confirmed by a proof from the Book and the Sunnah, as occurs in the ten invalidators of Islaam, which he wrote about.

From the Book: “Explanation of the ‘Aqeedah of the Imaam, the Reformer, Muhammad ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhaab (d.1206H) Explained by the Noble Shaykh, Dr. Saalih ibn Fawzaan al-Fawzaan. Pgs.: 234-235.

Clarification of Doubts Concerning the Life of Shaykhul-Islaam Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhaab

Clarification of Doubts Concerning

the Life of Shaykhul-Islaam

Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhaab

A response to the Soofee lies claiming that Shaykhul-Islaam Muhammad Ibn ’Abdul-Wahhaab (d.1206H) had a connection to the British and that he was responsible for the downfall of the Ottoman Khilaafah.


Some of the enemies of the Salafee Da‘wah have claimed that Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhaab broke away from the Ottoman Caliphate, and thus departed from majority in disobedience.




Ibn Afaaliq describes the tawheed of the followers of the Salafee Da‘wah as such:




"As for their tawheed, then it includes going against Muslims…and this is disbelief and not tawheed ."


Addressing them, ‘Umar al-Mahjoob said:




"…and you have fallen into disobedience."




Ibn ‘Aabideen in his commentary described the followers of this da‘wah as Khawaarij, and that was under the chapter of " The wrong-doers (al-Bughaat)", and they are the ones who go against the obedience of the Imaam without a true (proof). [1]


Dahlaan claims that the followers of Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhaab:


"…have departed the majority." [2]




Az-Zahaawee as well, claims that they are notorious for:


"…deserting the obedience of Ameerul-Mu’mineen".




Many of the enemies of the da‘wah described the Shaykh and his followers as Khawaarij, because one of the attributes of Khawaarij is that they go against the Imaam of Muslims, and they become disobedient as soon as they observe some sins of this Imaam that are far below Major Disbelief.




And this is illustrated with what al-Amlee claims. He says:




"The Khawaarij have made the fighting of the Kings of Muslims and going against them permissible… So did the Wahhaabiyyah."


The author of the book "A summary of the History of Arabs" includes a chapter in his book titled "The Uprising of the Wahhaabiyyah against the obedience".




‘Abdul-Qadeem claim that the upcoming of Wahhaabism was one of the reasons behind the fall of the Caliphate, he says:


"The Wahhaabiyyah founded a state within the Islaamic State under the leadership if Muhammad Ibn Sa‘ood and then his son ‘Abdul-‘Azeez. England supported them with weapons and money, and based on ideology they have thrust forward to conquer Islaamic lands that were under the control of the Sultaan, in other words they have raised the sword in the face of the Caliph and killed the Islaamic Army, the army of Ameerul-Mu’mineen (Leader of the Faithful) by means of instigation and support from the English."




And before starting to answer the claim of Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhaab’s revolt against the Caliph, it is appropriate to mention what the Shaykh believed of the creed that necessitates the obedience to the Imaam of Muslims, regardless of whether they are dutiful or wrong-doers, unless they order a disobedience of Allaah, for obedience (to them) is only for things that are good.




The Shaykh says in his letter to the people of Qaseem:


"And I believe in the obligation of submitting and being obedient to the Imaams of Muslims, the dutiful of them as well as the wrong-doers of them, as long as they don't order a disobedience of Allaah, and the person who is responsible for Khilaafah; he whom the people have gathered around and accepted, and he who has forced his way to become Caliph as well, his obedience is obligatory and revolting against him is unlawful (haraam)."




He also says:


"The third source: To make our gathering complete we have to listen to and obey those who rule us, even if it was an Abyssinian slave, and Allaah has explained this to us fully in various forms of explanations, legislative and destined, and then this foundation became to be unknown to a lot of those who claim to have knowledge, never mind practicing it."


In answering such claims, an integral question needs to be answered: Was Najd, the home of this movement, under the control of the Ottoman Khilaafah?




Dr. Saalih al-‘Ubood answers:


" In general, Najd did not witness the sovereignty of the Ottomans, for their power did not reach it, nor their governors, nor at any time preceding the lifetime of Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhaab did a Turkish flag rise in it. What proves this reality is reading through the managerial divisions of the Ottomans. A treatise by Yameen ‘Alee Afandee (who was the treasurer of the Haqqaanee book in the year (1018H), corresponding to 1609) titled "The laws of the Ottoman/ the contents of the book of Deewaan", reveals that starting with the eleventh Hijree century, the Ottoman Khilaafah split into thirty two distinct divisions (iyala), fourteen of each are Arabic, and Najd is not included in those, except for al-Ihsaa, if we were to consider it to be part of Najd.."




Dr. ‘Abdullaah al-‘Uthaymeen says:


"Prior to the upcoming of the call of Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhaab, Najd was not under the direct dominion of Ottomans, nor did it witness any sovereignty from within. Banee Jabr, Banee Khaalid, and the Shareefs were not sovereign, and civil strife between the tribes of Najd was the norm."




Dr. Aajil al-Nashmee says:


"The Khilaafah did not pay attention to Najd and the neighbouring territories. This policy may be attributed to the vastness of Najd, on one side, and on the other side the presence of the tribal fragmentation."




What proves that the position of the Shaykh was fine, and that the Shaykh did not hesitate as to the fact that his movement is not related to the Khilaafah is the letter sent to Faadil al-Mazeed, the ruler of the Syrian desert:




" This thing that they have disapproved of me, that they hated me for and created enmity between me and them for; if they ask any scholar in Syria or Yemen and others, they will say this is the truth and it is the religion of Allaah and His Messenger (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam). However, I cannot make it public in my area because the state does not approve of it, and Ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhaab managed to because the ruler in his area did not disapprove of it, rather when he knew the truth he followed it."




As for "Zuloom's" claim that the movement of the Shaykh was one of the reasons behind the fall of the Khilaafah, and that the English helped the Wahhaabees to achieve this cause, then Muhammad Mahdee al-Istanboolee answers this flat allegation:




"It was incumbent on this author to support his view with proofs, and in the past the poet said: If the allegations were not based on their proofs/with texts, then it is a proof of foolishness.




To the contrary, History reveals that those English were opposed to this movement from the beginning, fearing a re-awakening of the Islaamic World."




Al-Istanboolee also says:


"It is strange, both amusing and saddening, that this author accuses the movement of the Shaykh of being one of the causes behind the fall of the Ottoman Khilaafah. It is needless to say that this movement was founded in the year 1811, and the Khilaafah was destroyed in the year 1922."


And what proves that the English were against the Wahhaabee movement is that they have sent Captain Forster Saddler to congratulate Ibraaheem Pasha on the victory he gained over the Wahhaabiyyah- referring to the war in Dar‘iyyah-, and to confirm also how inclined he is to cooperate with the British Act against the Wahhaabee piracy in the Arabian Gulf (The most aggressive attacks/ kidnapping of the Royal British vessels that roamed in the Gulf and the Indian Ocean carrying the treasures of India to the empress was carried by well known Wahhaabee centres on the Gulf coast- which until as recent as the fifties was referred to on international maps as the pirates coast- such as Sharjah and Raasul-Khaymah.)




Moreover this letter stated clearly the intention of the British government to create an agreement with Ibraaheem Pasha with the goal of annihilating the Wahhaabee control.




Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Mandthoor an-Nawmaanee says:


"The English have used the position in India that opposed Shaykh Muhammd Ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhaab in order to throw anybody who opposed them with the label "Wahhaabee" And as such the English called the scholars of Deoband, India - Wahhaabiyyah due to their open opposition to the English"




Rather the priest Zuimer mentioned that the Wahhaabiyyah in India do not expose their beliefs because call for Jihaad against the English was ascribed to them.




Footnotes:


[1] Haashiyah Ibn-‘Aabideen (4/262).


[2] ad-Durarus-Sunniyyah fir-Radd ‘alal-Wahhaabiyyah (pg. 23)




source:http://www.troid.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=212&Itemid=415