Introduction

This is my response to a document titled “Statement Regarding Daniel Haqiqatjou.” The document was publicly posted on December 21, 2025. The statement condemns me as a deviant and warns all Muslims to avoid taking religious knowledge from me. It is signed by a network of 34 Wahhabi or Wahhabi-inclined social media influencers and anonymous Twitter accounts with names like “Full Metal Theist.”

For more than two years I have been involved in an online conflict with various Wahhabi social media figures over a range of religious and political issues.

These conflicts are linked to a stream of videos and social media posts that I have produced on Wahhabism. These include a three-and-a-half hour documentary on Wahhabism that I published about seven months ago. It is called “Wahhabism: Uncovering the Hidden Truth.” The documentary has already accumulated half a million views, and has become the most influential video refuting Wahhabism in the English language.

In the wake of the documentary, many Wahhabis have come to see me as their most dangerous critic in the English language. As such they see it as necessary to discredit me. Thus, never before in the English-speaking world have so many Wahhabis come together to issue a group statement condemning another Muslim in this manner. It should also be mentioned that I have numerous times challenged these Wahhabi critics to debate me, but they have persisted in refusal, even when I give them an overwhelmingly favorable debate format where I am only allowed to speak for 10 minutes total for the entirety of the debate.

My response covers a number of key topics. These are described in the Table of Contents found below.

Table of Contents

Wahhabism Background

To understand the nature of my conflict with the Wahhabis, it will be useful to make a few brief points about the Wahhabi movement, and its history. Evidence for these points can be found in the Wahhabism documentary.

The Wahhabi movement was established in the mid-eighteenth century by the Hanbali-trained religious scholar Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (1703-1792). Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab was greatly impressed by the writings of Ibn Taymiyya (1263-1328). During his life, Ibn Taymiyya criticized many widespread beliefs and practices accepted by the religious scholars of his day. He claimed that these were repugnant later innovations which had developed after the time of the Salaf (or earliest Muslim generations).

He further argued that some of these beliefs and practices were shirk, or at least encouraged shirk. For instance, he criticized pilgrimage to the Prophet’s ﷺ grave, touching relics for baraka, and tawassul. For him, these were haram because they encouraged shirk, even if they were not shirk themselves. He also argued that istighatha was shirk. Views of this kind conflicted with the developed doctrine of the four legal schools (Hanafi, Shafii, Maliki, Hanbali). For the schools either endorsed these practices or tolerated them.

Shirk is, of course, the greatest sin in Islam. Under standard circumstances, the Muslim who commits shirk is subject to takfir, and declared a disbeliever. He then must be killed, either by court order or by being fought through jihad. The overwhelming majority of scholars in Ibn Taymiyya’s time rejected his unique fiqh opinions regarding shirk, which they saw as an attack on the four legal schools.

Nevertheless, Ibn Taymiyya took a conciliatory stance towards the religious scholars around him. He argued that knowledge had declined since the time of the Salaf, such that the scholars and laypersons of his age deserved to be excused for their ignorance (al-‘udhr bi-l-jahl). Thus, even if they committed shirk (e.g., istighatha), they were not to be takfired and fought. Ibn Taymiyya also respected scholarly ijtihad, even in matters of aqida. Hence, when other scholars came to different opinions about what counts as shirk, Ibn Taymiyya did not oppose them with harshness. Rather he simply sought to convince them with proofs from the Quran and Sunna.

This changed with Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, who enthusiastically adopted Ibn Taymiyya’s previously marginalized views on shirk. The Muslims of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab’s day followed the standard doctrine of the four legal schools. As such they engaged in practices that Ibn Taymiyya considered problematic for either being shirk or for encouraging shirk.

Yet Ibn Abd al-Wahhab would break from Ibn Taymiyya in two fundamental ways.

First, Ibn Taymiyya excused his contemporaries for their ignorance, even in matters of shirk. Yet Ibn Abd al-Wahhab did not do this. On the contrary, he takfired all those around him as polytheists or mushriks. He even argued that they had a lower religious status than the mushriks (polytheists) who fought the Prophet ﷺ like Abu Jahl.

Second, unlike Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn Abd al-Wahhab also rejected tolerance for scholarly differences in opinion. He harshly attacked all the scholars of his era for endorsing (what he deemed to be) shirk or for tolerating shirk. He further claimed that whoever disagreed with his views on shirk was a disbeliever. This followed from his principle, in Nawaqid al-Islam, that whoever does not takfir the person guilty of shirk becomes a disbeliever. In other words, all scholars are obliged to adopt Ibn Abd al-Wahhab’s views on shirk, and they are required to takfir those who engage in such shirk (e.g., istighatha). The scholars of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab’s day did not do this, so they became disbelievers.

Today many Muslims call themselves Salafi. The Salafi movement has been influenced by various figures like Ibn Hanbal, Ibn Taymiyya, and Ibn Abd al-Wahhab. However, Salafis are a diverse group. Those who stick closely to the views on Ibn Hanbal and Ibn Taymiyya cannot be called Wahhabis. However, those who stick closely to the views of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab can be called Wahhabis. A Wahhabi can be thought of a Salafi who is focused on mass takfir.

Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb initiated a long-term partnership between his movement and the Saud dynasty (Āl Suʿūd). Together they established an expanding state in the central Arabian region of Najd. The emerging Saudi state entered into a long-term conflict with the Ottoman empire (1299-1922). The Ottomans claimed to be a Caliphate responsible for protecting Sunnī Islam as codified in the four schools. They ruled Anatolia and much of the Arab world. Thus, they ruled most of the Arabian peninsula including the Hijaz, with the holy cities of Makka and Madina. Ibn Abd al-Wahhab claimed that the type of Islam embraced by the Ottomans was actually shirk. He takfired Ottoman government officials and laypersons. He also takfired scholars from all four legal schools, teaching at Ottoman centers of learning such as Makka, Madina, Cairo’s al-Azhar, and Istanbul’s Suleymaniye.

In response, virtually all scholars of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab’s day branded him a heretic. Many also accused him of being a Kharijite, for like the Kharijites he takfired all the Muslims around him and fought them in jihad.

Wahhabism was considered a heretical doctrine by Muslims across the world until the mid-twentieth century. At this point the Ottoman empire had collapsed after being defeated in World War I. Its holdings in the Hijaz had been absorbed by the Saudi state. The Saudi state had also just discovered oil, giving it unprecedented wealth. With these new resources the Saudi state began to propagate Wahhabism across the world. This process led to the gradual erasure of the older Islam associated with the four schools and the Ottoman empire.

The most important feature of Wahhabism is its focus on takfiring other Muslims.

The Saudi state has always used this feature of Wahhabism to advance its political ends. Thus, at the time of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, they takfired the whole Ottoman empire. This justified jihad against the Ottomans, along with the taking of their lands and properties. During World War I, the Saudi state and the Wahhabi religious establishment allied with the British to help destroy the Ottoman empire. Wahhabis claimed that the Ottoman empire consisted in mushrik disbelievers with a lower status than British Christians. The same pattern itself has repeated itself throughout history.

During the first Gulf War (1990-1991), the Saudi state allied with the US to destroy Iraq. At the time various Wahhabi scholars like Ibn Baz issued fatwas justifying this alliance, takfiring Saddam and his government, and permitting US troops on Saudi soil.

Wahhabi scholars regularly mass takfir Shia Muslims. It is argued that just as traditional Sunnis are mushrik disbelievers, Shia are even worse mushrik disbelievers. This is used to justify the Saudi state’s alliance with Israel and the US against various Shia states and organizations like Iran and Hezbollah. For example, in 2006, there was a major conflict between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon. The leading Wahhabi scholar Ibn Jibrin issued a fatwa in favor of Israel, ordering all Muslims to refrain from supporting Hezbollah against Israel. The fatwa also stated that any Muslim who helps Hezbollah against Israel becomes a kafir. Wahhabi preferences for Jews over Shia are now being used to justify normalization with Israel and the Abraham Accords.

RELATED: New Middle East Alliance Against Islam: Will Saudi Join the Abraham Accords?

Overall, it can be said that Wahhabis have a problem with three groups.

First, Wahhabis have a problem with traditional Sunnis who follow the four legal schools, and typically embrace some type of Sufism. For Wahhabis, such Sunnis are disbelieving mushriks.

Second, Wahhabis also have a problem with Shia who they consider to be disbelieving mushriks.

The third major group that Wahhabis have a problem with is the Muslim Brotherhood or al-Ikhwan al-Muslimin. The Muslim Brotherhood endorses an idea commonly referred to as “Pan-Islamism” or simply “Islamism.” This idea holds that the greatest danger facing Muslims is atheistic secular liberalism, along with imperialistic Western and Jewish political forces who seek to impose such liberalism on Muslims. The Muslim Brotherhood also holds that Muslims of all types should cooperate to resist these Western and Jewish political forces. Thus, it is necessary for Salafis, traditional Sunnis, and Shia to cooperate. Wahhabis reject this idea. They say that the greatest danger to Muslims consists in other Muslim groups. These groups include traditional Sunnis and Shia. They also include the Muslim Brotherhood, because they do not takfir traditional Sunnis and Shia, and this is their duty. Refraining from this duty makes them deviants if not disbelievers. For remember that, according to Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, one becomes a disbeliever if he does not adopt Ibn Abd al-Wahhab’s views on shirk, and takfir those who Ibn Abd al-Wahhab considers guilty of shirk.

Over the past four years I have been publicly criticizing particular Gulf states like Saudi and UAE for acts like normalizing with Israel, abandoning the Palestinians, abolishing the Sharia, and building Hindu temples. This has led to constant attacks on me from Wahhabi social media influencers associated with Gulf states. Initially, those leading the attacks were figures like Faris al-Hammadi (Rabbi Faris), Shamsi, Wajdi Akkari, and other Madkhali influencers.

RELATED: Important Academic Resources on the Madkhali Movement

However, things reached a new level after October 7^th 2023. At this point, Hamas entered into a conflict with Israel, and began an extended struggle against Israeli policies of apartheid and genocide. Hamas is a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, and called for Pan-Islamist opposition to Israel. They said that Muslims of all types should cooperate to defend the Palestinian people – whether Salafi, Traditional Sunni, or Shia. Many Wahhabis responded by attacking Hamas as a deviant Muslim Brotherhood group. They also moved to attack me for espousing Pan-Islamist views. They claimed that I was excessively tolerant of shirk for not takfiring traditional Sunnis and Shia. For this they called me a shirk apologist, a shirk advocate, and eventually a disbelieving mushrik.

In fact, at the same time, I was being openly targeted by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which is linked to the Mossad, and is arguably the most powerful Jewish organization in the US. However, the Wahhabi attack has been more severe and sustained than that of the ADL. Post October 7th, those leading the Wahhabi attack have been Farid al-Bahraini, Adnan Rashid, and Jake Brancatella. It is in fact these three individuals who are primarily responsible for producing the group statement that I am responding to.

I should note that all these individuals are known for their constant takfir of others, including me.

For example, Adnan Rashid mass takfirs Twelver Shia as following a “false religion” that is “separate from true Islam.” And then, he declares that I am a Twelver Shia who lies about being Sunni. This implies that I am a kafir mushrik.

Farid al-Bahraini also has a history takfiring his targets by declaring them as “shirk apologists”, “shirk advocates,” and the like. Thus he calls the traditional Sunni Sufi scholar Shaykh Salik a “5-star mushrik.”

Farid also has prayed for Allah to kill me by breaking my back and my neck.

Video 1

Video 2

Jake Brancatella, a “debater” who has sworn by Allah that he will never debate me (lol), has also mass takfired the Asharite and Maturidite Sunni Muslims and says that they should be executed.

In a stream, Jake also revealed that “it makes a lot of sense” that “many scholars of Ahl al-Sunna believed in kufr.” He goes on to state, “I think most people about their aqida have been wrong.”

Jake also has takfired me, refuses to return my salams, and has declared that I am a mushrik who deserved the hadd for apostasy (death penalty).

Another signatory, someone who ironically goes by “Proving Islam,” openly takfirs UK-based imam Asrar Rashid by declaring him a mushrik.

So, the joint statement against me has been pushed by a small network of Wahhabis who casually engage in mass takfir and individual takfir.

Their statement revolves around five basic criticisms that can be briefly stated as follows.

First Criticism: Haqiqatjou has claimed that some Sunni scholars believe that prophets and saints exercise control over every atom in the universe.

Second Criticism: Haqiqatjou has raised doubts about whether praying to Jesus is shirk.

Third Criticism: Haqiqatjou has raised doubts about whether sacrificing animals for jinns is shirk.

Fourth Criticism: Haqiqatjou has claimed that some Muslim social media preachers have ties to Gulf governments, and defend or promote the pro-Zionist policies of those governments.

Fifth Criticism: Haqiqatjou has claimed that some Muslim social media preachers promote a Wahhabi doctrine which teaches the mass takfir and killing of Muslims, which is similar to Kharijism, and which is actually the same doctrine as ISIS.

I will now respond to each of these criticisms.

FIRST CRITICISM

Introduction

First Criticism: Haqiqatjou has claimed that some Sunni scholars believe that prophets and saints (awliya) exercise control over every atom in the universe.

This criticism is expressed in the group’s statement as follows:

“The most serious concerns relate to his repeated undermining of core matters of tawḥid (monotheism). He has justified positions that amount to shirk (polytheism) as valid, including claims that certain classical Sunni scholars held that the Prophet – peace be upon him – exercises control over all atoms of the universe. He has also downplayed other polytheistic practices, such as offering sacrifices to jinn2 and praying for healing directly from Jesus – peace be upon him – ,3 despite these acts constituting clear shirk.”

This statement is problematic for several reasons.

First of all, as explained below, I have never stated that “some Sunni scholars believe that prophets and saints exercise control over every atom in the universe.” Rather I have stated that some Sunni scholars believe that prophets and saints exercise some sort of control over the universe. This is the doctrine of “al-tasarruf fi-l-kawn” which is explained below.

But let us put aside this issue for the time being.

The claim that some Sunni scholars believe something is not the same as saying that this belief is correct or justifying it.

For example, some Sunni scholars believe that jinns can have children with human beings, that the hell-fire is temporary, and that liberal democracy is an Islamically-prescribed form of government. This is a fact. Simply describing the fact that Sunni scholars have beliefs is not the same as justifying these beliefs. For example, it is a fact that many Sunni scholars today believe that women should be educated and empowered in the same way as men. I do not agree with such beliefs. In fact I strongly reject them. However, admitting that they exist is not the same as justifying them as valid.

The entire argument in this statement is based on this fundamental logical flaw, namely, that accurately describing the beliefs of some Sunni scholars is the same as justifying these beliefs as valid.

In fact, as I have repeatedly stated, I myself have never taught or promoted the idea that prophets and awliya exercise control over the universe.

What I have said is that if major Sunni scholars hold a given belief, we should be cautious about labelling it shirk or kufr, or takfiring people with that belief. But that is not the same as justifying the said belief. A belief could be wrong, without labelling it shirk or kufr.

For example, in his writings, Ibn Taymiyya says many things that neither I nor even Wahhabis themselves would accept.

He says that it is permissible to believe that hell is not eternal (i.e., fana al-nar).

He says that it is permissible to believe that the material universe has always existing alongside Allah (i.e., al-hawadith la awwala laha).

He says that the Prophet ﷺ was tricked by Satan such that he temporarily and accidentally fell into a type of shirk (i.e., qissa al-gharaniq).

He says that it is permissible to make requests from jinns.

Many Muslims, including many Wahhabis, describe Ibn Taymiyya as having these beliefs, while not justifying them as valid, and without claiming that they are shirk and kufr.

In other words, it is possible to hold that Ibn Taymiyya had some invalid beliefs which did not rise to the level of shirk and kufr.

In fact, as we will see, Ibn Taymiyya says that prophets and awliya exercise control over the universe. We can reject this belief as invalid without labelling it shirk and kufr, and without takfiring Ibn Taymiyya as a result. And we can take the same approach with other Sunni scholars past and present.

Al-Tasarruf fi-l-Kawn

The doctrine that prophets and awliya exercise control over the universe is often referred to as al-tasarruf fi-l-kawn. It will be useful to begin by providing some background on this doctrine.

According to standard premodern Islamic teachings, prophets have supernatural power. Pious non-prophets likewise have such supernatural power. Such non-prophets are known as saints or awliya (singular: wali). Awliya include figures like Maryam (mother of Jesus) and Abu Bakr, as well as various Sufi shaykhs like Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani and Ahmad al-Badawi.

Both prophets and saints exercise power by working miracles, which are known as “mu’jizat” or “karamat.”

Examples of miracles are turning a staff into a snake, resurrecting the dead, and splitting the moon.

Prophets and saints can work miracles in two basic ways. First, they can use a God-given power. For instance, Allah might give Moses the power to turn his staff into a snake, or Sulayman the power to control the winds. Alternatively, prophets and saints can request help from Allah by making dua. Since Allah loves them, He will frequently answer their requests. So they can request that Allah makes it rain or that He restores the sight of a blind person. In many cases, Allah will respond by doing what it requested.

Notably, most premodern Sunnis believe that prophets and walis do not merely work miracles during their life. They continue to do so after death as well.

Sunni scholars differ over how much supernatural power prophets and saints have. According to a minimalist conception they only work rare, sporadic miracles with limited effects. According to a maximalist conception they work numerous constant miracles with wide-ranging effects.

Sunni scholars use the term “al-tasarruf fi-l-kawn” to refer to the maximalist conception. “Al-Tasarruf fi-l-kawn” literally means “exercising control over the universe.” A related term is “tadbir al-‘alam” which literally means “managing the universe.”

Overall, the term al-tasarraf fi-kawn means that prophets and awliya exercise some significant amount of power or control over the universe through their miracles and dua. But the exact amount and nature of this power is open to multiple interpretations. This leads to different understandings of the term. Some of these constitute shirk (i.e., shirk akbar) while others do not.

The most extreme understanding of al-tasarruf fi-kawn is that prophets and walis have power to literally control the entire universe. Allah has transferred this power to them, and they hold it independently. This is sometimes referred to as tafwid. It is clearly shirk.

Another understanding of al-tasarruf fi-l-kawn is that prophets and walis have power to literally control the entire universe in an instantaneous. Allah continuously provides them with this power. However, He can cut it off whenever He pleases. This is shirk too.

Another understanding of al-tasarruf fi-l-kawn is that prophets and awliya have wide-ranging power that extends to all areas of the universe, from the heavens to the earth. Scholars commonly refer to the heavens as the upper realm (al-malakut al-‘ulwi) and the earth as the lower realm (al-malakut al-sufli). On this view, prophets and awliya can cause miracles in the upper realm (e.g, splitting the moon, stopping the sun) and the lower realm (e.g., causing earthquakes, splitting the sea). This gives them some measure of power or control over both realms. However, this view does not imply that they have complete control of everything in the universe. Rather these simply exercise some power over some things in the upper and lower realms. Such a view may be wrong, but it is not shirk.

Al-Wilāya al-Takwīniyya

Just as Sunnism has the notion of “al-tasarruf fi-l-kawn,” Shiism has a similar concept known as “al-wilaya al-tawkwiniyya.” Shiis consider their twelve imams to be awliya. So the concept of al-wilaya al-takwiniyya means that prophets and imams exercise some significant amount of power or control over the universe through their miracles and dua.

Here we may consider the official wikishia entry on al-wilaya al-takwiniyya, which is run by Ayatollah Khameini’s Ahl al-Bayt World Assembly. The entry explicitly defines “al-wilaya al-takwiniyya” as a type of “al-tasarruf fi al-kawn.”

The entry is translated into English below:

“Al-wilāya al-takwīniyya is the power to exercise control over another existent thing (al-qudra ‘ala al-taṣarruf fī mawjūd ākhar) without the mediation of the physical body.

 

It manifests in the power of the infallibles (i.e., the Prophet and the imams) to exercise control over things in the universe (qudra al-maʿṣūm ʿalā al-taṣarruf fī al-umūr al-kawniyya) – such that [the infallible] brings a thing into existence or causes a thing to disappear – in a manner contrary to natural laws – through a delegated [power] from Allah – at a time when [the infallible] is challenged [to perform a miracle] or at some other time.

 

Examples of al-wilāya al-takwīniyya include miracles (mu’jizat), which are mentioned in the Qur’an and in numerous narrations that establish their occurrence at the hands of the prophets, awliya, and the righteous, as well as at the hands of the Noble Messenger, blessings of God be upon him and his family, and the Ahl al-Bayt, peace be upon them.

The Definition [of al-Wilaya al-Takwiniyya]

 

Linguistically:

 

The word “wilāya” comes from the root w-l-y and means:

 

“proximity and adjacency such that two or more things occur with nothing else between them; it is metaphorically used for nearness in place, lineage, religion, friendship, support, and belief. Al-wilāya also means support, and al-wilāya (with kasra) means assuming authority over an affair…”

Ibn Manẓūr says:

 

“Al-wilāya (with kasrah) is a noun, like al-imāra (leadership) and al-niqāba (supervision), because it designates something undertaken and carried out by someone.”

[The word ] “takwīniyya” comes from the root k-w-n and means:

 

“an event, a happening, something that comes into existence; and God brought things into being and created them (Allāh kawwna al-ashyā’ wa awjadahā).’”

 

It also means ‘the verbal noun of kāna in its complete (perfect) form.’ One says: kāna yakūnu kawnan—that is, ‘it came into existence and became established.’”.”

 

And:

 

“the verbal noun of kāna (perfect form); kāna yakūnu kawnan: it existed and became established.”

 

Technically (as a term):

 

Al-wilāya al-takwīniyya is an existing thing exercising control over another existing thing due to power over it (al-wilāya al-takwīniyya wa-hiya taṣarruf mawjūd fī mawjūd ākhar; li-tasalluṭihi wa-qudratihi ʿalayhi).

Some scholars state that this term is recently developed in the writings of later [Shia] scholars and does not appear in the works of the early scholars.

The True Meaning [of al-Wilaya al-Takwiniyya]

There are four possible interpretations of the true meaning and understanding of al-wilāya al-takwīniyya (ḥaqīqa al-wilāya al-takwīniyya wa-mafhumuhā tadūr bayna arbaʿa iḥtimālāt):

 

[1.] A form of miracle-making (naḥw min anḥā’ al-iʿjāz).

 

This interpretation appears in the words of those who establish al-wilāya al-takwīniyya by appealing to the miracles of prophets and Imams, peace be upon them.

 

For example, al-Sayyid al-Sabzawārī states:

 

“The way to establish this [al-wilāya al-takwīniyya] is through mass-transmitted reports of those miracles wherein they bring things into existence.”

Al-Sayyid Taqī al-Qummī says in his doctrinal responses:

 

“There is no doubt about the al-wilāya al-takwīniyya of the prophets and Imams – peace be upon them – or even the awliyāʾ who are close [to God]. The Qur’an is the greatest proof of this, mentioning in many places the miracles of the prophets.”

[2.] A form of answered request [directed to Allah] (naḥw min anḥā’ al-duʿāʾ al-mustajāb)

 

I.e., that the al-wilāya al-takwīniyya of an infallible [prophet or imam] is nothing more than [reference to] the infallible uttering words, wherein he requests [from Allah] that something be brought into existence, then Allah answers his request and the thing is brought into existence. This is what appears in the words of some scholars, such as Shaykh Salmān Āl ʿAbd al-Jabbār al-Qaṭīfī. From one of his treatises, it is understood that he holds:

 

“al-wilāya al-takwīniyya is a form of answered supplication (anna al-wilāyah al-takwīnīyah naḥw min anḥāʾ al-

duʿāʾ al-mustajab).”

[3.] A form of delegation (naḥw min anḥā’ al-tafwīḍ)

 

This means that Allah has delegated to the purified Imams – peace be upon them – the affairs of the universe – such as creation, sustenance, giving life, and causing death -such that they are done independently (ʿalā naḥw al-istiqlāl) [i.e., with their own power independent from Allah]. That means that [Allah] has granted them this [power], and left things to them [such that they] exercise control over [the universe] how they please (taraka lahum al-amr yataṣarrafūna fīhi kayfa yashāʾūn), with no involvement [from Allah].

 

[4.] A natural act of the infallible (fiʿl ṭabīʿi lil-maʿṣūm)

 

I.e., the true meaning and understanding [of al-wilāya al-takwīniyya] is a natural power possessed by the infallible [prophet or imam] through which he exercises control over things in the universe (yataṣarruf min khilālihā fī al-umūr al-kawniyya) – through a delegated [power] from Allah the Highest – at a time when [the infallible] is challenged [to perform a miracle] or at some other time.”

The issue of al-wilaya al-takwiniyya will become important later on.

Wahhabis like Farid al-Bahraini have demanded that I takfir traditional Sufi Sunnis and Shia because of their beliefs on al-tasarruf fi-l-kawn and al-wilaya al-takwiniyya.

Wahhabis claimed that these beliefs amount to clear shirk. Thus, it was demanded that I takfir the Sunni Sufi Shaykh Salik because he believes in al-tasarruf fi-l-kawn. It was also demanded that I takfir the Shia generally, or at least Ayatollah Khomeni, because of the fact that some Shia believe in al-wilaya al-takwiniyya. My response was that these concepts are understood in different ways by different scholars, and they are not necessarily understood in a way that amounts to shirk. I also stated that many major classical Sunni scholars have expressed support for the notion of al-tasarruf fi-l-kawn. So if we were to simply takfir everyone who endorses these notions we would be led to takfir many major Sunni scholars.

Premodern Sunni Scholars

I will now provide an extensive list of premodern major Sunni scholars who endorse the notion al-tasarruf fi-l-kawn or some variant of this notion.

Ibn Hajar al-Haytami (1503-1566)

Al-Haytami says:

“It is also necessary for [the one who visits the grave of the Prophet ﷺ] to recall what we mentioned earlier in the second chapter regarding the noble life of the Prophet ﷺ in his noble grave – that he has knowledge of his visitors regardless of their varying ranks, conditions, hearts, and actions. And that the Prophet ﷺ responds to their speech in a manner appropriate to their state. He is the vicegerent of Allah, to whom Allah has entrusted the treasures of His generosity and the sources of His blessings. These are under his control and will; he gives from them to whomever he wills and withholds from whomever he wills; and it is not possible for anyone to reach the Divine Presence without his path….”

 

العاشرة: ينبغي له أيضاً أن يستحضر ما قدمناه في الفصل الثاني من حياته المكرمة في قبره الكريم، وأنه يعلم بزيارتك على اختلاف درجاتهم، وأحوالهم، وقلوبهم،وأعمالهم، وأنه ﷺ يردّ كلامهم بما هو عليه، وأنه خليفة الله الذي جعل خزائن كرمه ومعادن نعمه بيده وتحت إرادته يعطي منهما من يشاء ويمنع من يشاء، وأنه لا يمكن جداً أن يصل إلى الحضرة العلية من غير طريقه، وأن من سُئلت له نفسه البينة نبياً كان سبباً لحرمانه وخسرانه،

 

[Ibn Hajar al-Haytami, Al-Jawhar al-Munazzam fī Ziyara al-Qabr al-Mukarram]

Taqi al-Dīn al-Subkī (1284-1355)

The great Shafii scholar Taqi al-Din al-Subki (1284-1355) says the following on the notion of al-tasarruf fi-l-kawn.

“As for the life of the prophets, it is higher, more perfect, and more complete, than that of all others, because it belongs to [both] the soul and the body continuously, in the same manner as it was in worldly life, as has been transmitted from a group of scholars. Even if this were not firmly established, there would be no doubt that the perfection of their life is still greater than that of the martyrs and others.

 

As for the soul: its perfection lies in the completeness of its connection and its bliss, and in its witnessing of the Divine Presence; and despite that, it remains attentive to this world and exercises power over it.

 

وأما حياة الأنبياء فأعلى وأكمل وأتم من الجميع؛ لأنها للروح والجسد على الدوام، على ما كان في الدنيا، على ما تقدم عن جماعة من العلماء، ولو لم يثبت ذلك؛ فلا شك في كمال حياتهم أيضًا أكثر من الشهداء وغيرهم.

 

أما بالنسبة إلى الروح؛ فكمال اتصالها ونعيماها، وشهودها للحضرة الإلهية، وهي مع ذلك مقبلة على هذا العالم ومتصرفة فيه.

 

[Taqi al-Din al-Subki, Shifa al-Siqam (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyya, 2008), p.431-432].

Taj al-Dīn al-Subkī (1327-1370)

Al-Subki says:

“All of existence entirely belongs to Muhammad ﷺ and he exercises control (yatsarraf) over it as he wills.”

 

فالنبي أولى بِالْمُؤْمِنِينَ من أنفسهم وَلَا يحْتَاج إِلَى إِذن من أحد وَمَا يلْزم على ذَلِك من اجْتِمَاع مالكين على مَمْلُوك وَاحِد لَا مَحْذُور فِيهِ كَمَا قَرَّرْنَاهُ فِي بعض تعاليقنا

وَهَذَا كَمَا أَن الْوُجُود بأسره ملك لله تَعَالَى ملكا حَقِيقِيًّا وَملك كل مَالك مَا ملكه الله وَهَكَذَا نقُول إِن الْوُجُود بأسره ملك مُحَمَّد صلى الله عَلَيْهِ وَسلم يتَصَرَّف فِيهِ كَيفَ يَشَاء وَإِذا ازْدحم هُوَ وَبَعض الْملاك فِي شَيْء كَانَ أَحَق لِأَنَّهُ مَالك مُطلق وَلَا كَذَلِك غَيره لِأَن كل وَاحِد وَإِن ملك شَيْئا فَعَلَيهِ فِيهِ الْحجر من بعض الْوُجُوه

[Taj al-Dīn al-Subki, Tabaqat al-Shafi’iyya al-Kubra]

Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī (1150-1209)

Al-Razi says:

“We observe that the more a person knows the states of the unseen world, the stronger his heart becomes and the less weakness affects him. For this reason:

 

ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib — may God honor his face — said:

 

“By God, I did not uproot the gate of Khaybar by bodily strength, but with strength from God.”

 

This is because at that moment ʿAlī — may God honor his face — had his gaze cut off from the world of bodies, and the angels shone upon him with the lights of the realm of Divine Majesty. His spirit grew strong, took on the likeness of the essences of angelic spirits, and the radiances of the world of holiness and grandeur gleamed within him. Thus, undoubtedly, he attained a power by which he was able to do what no other could.

 

Likewise, when a servant perseveres in obedience, he reaches the station of which God says:

“I become his hearing and his sight.”

 

When the light of God’s majesty becomes his hearing, he hears what is near and far. When that light becomes his sight, he sees what is near and far. And when that light becomes his hand, he becomes capable of exercising control (qadara ‘ala al-tasarruf) over matters both difficult and easy, and things both far and near.“

 

الْحُجَّةُ السَّادِسَةُ: لَا شَكَّ أَنَّ الْمُتَوَلِّيَ لِلْأَفْعَالِ هُوَ الرُّوحُ لَا الْبَدَنُ وَلَا شَكَّ أَنَّ مَعْرِفَةَ اللَّهِ تَعَالَى لِلرَّوْحِ كَالرُّوحِ لِلْبَدَنِ عَلَى مَا قَرَّرْنَاهُ فِي تَفْسِيرِ قَوْلِهِ تَعَالَى: يُنَزِّلُ الْمَلائِكَةَ بِالرُّوحِ مِنْ أَمْرِهِ [النمل: ٢٠]

وَقَالَ عَلَيْهِ السَّلَامُ: «أَبِيتُ عِنْدَ رَبِّي يُطْعِمُنِي وَيَسْقِينِي»

وَلِهَذَا الْمَعْنَى نَرَى أَنَّ كُلَّ مَنْ كَانَ أَكْثَرَ عِلْمًا بِأَحْوَالِ عَالَمِ الْغَيْبِ كَانَ أَقْوَى قَلْبًا وَأَقَلَّ ضَعْفًا وَلِهَذَا

قَالَ عَلِيُّ بْنُ أَبِي طَالِبٍ كَرَّمَ اللَّهُ وَجْهَهُ: وَاللَّهِ مَا قَلَعْتُ بَابَ خَيْبَرَ بِقُوَّةٍ جَسَدَانِيَّةٍ وَلَكِنْ بِقُوَّةٍ رَبَّانِيَّةٍ.

وَذَلِكَ لِأَنَّ عَلِيًّا كَرَّمَ اللَّهُ وَجْهَهُ فِي ذَلِكَ الْوَقْتِ انْقَطَعَ نَظَرُهُ عَنْ عَالَمِ الْأَجْسَادِ وَأَشْرَقَتِ الْمَلَائِكَةُ بِأَنْوَارِ عَالَمِ الْكِبْرِيَاءِ فَتَقَوَّى رُوحُهُ وَتَشَبَّهَ بِجَوَاهِرِ الْأَرْوَاحِ الْمَلَكِيَّةِ وَتَلَأْلَأَتْ فِيهِ أَضْوَاءُ عَالَمِ الْقُدُسِ وَالْعَظَمَةِ فَلَا جَرَمَ حَصَلَ لَهُ مِنَ الْقُدْرَةِ مَا قَدَرَ بِهَا عَلَى مَا لَمْ يَقْدِرْ عَلَيْهِ غَيْرُهُ وَكَذَلِكَ الْعَبْدُ إِذَا وَاظَبَ عَلَى الطَّاعَاتِ بَلَغَ إِلَى الْمَقَامِ الَّذِي يَقُولُ اللَّهُ كُنْتُ لَهُ سَمْعًا وَبَصَرًا فَإِذَا صَارَ نُورُ جَلَالِ اللَّهِ سَمْعًا لَهُ سَمِعَ الْقَرِيبَ وَالْبَعِيدَ وَإِذَا صَارَ ذَلِكَ النُّورُ بَصَرًا لَهُ رَأَى الْقَرِيبَ وَالْبَعِيدَ وَإِذَا صَارَ ذَلِكَ النُّورُ يَدًا لَهُ قَدَرَ عَلَى التَّصَرُّفِ فِي الصَّعْبِ

وَالسَّهْلِ وَالْبَعِيدِ وَالْقَرِيبِ.

 

[Al-Razi, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb]

Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti (1445-1505)

Al-Suyuti says:

“[Prophet Muhammad] and all the other prophets are alive – their souls were returned to them after they were taken, and they have been granted permission to emerge from their graves and to exercise control over the upper and lower realms (al-tasarruf fi al-malakut al-‘ulwi wa al-sufli).”

 

، وَذَلِكَ لِأَنَّهُ – صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ – وَسَائِرَ الْأَنْبِيَاءِ أَحْيَاءٌ رُدَّتْ إِلَيْهِمْ أَرْوَاحُهُمْ بَعْدَ مَا قُبِضُوا وَأُذِنَ لَهُمْ بِالْخُرُوجِ مِنْ قُبُورِهِمْ وَالتَّصَرُّفِ فِي الْمَلَكُوتِ الْعُلْوِيِّ وَالسُّفْلِيِّ

 

[Jalal al-Dīn al-Suyuti, Al-Hawi li-l-Fatawi]

ʿAbd al-Wahhāb al-Shaʿrānī (1492-1565)

Notably, al-Sharani is not only a major scholar. He is also al-Suyuti’s most famous student. In his Al-Tabaqat al-Kubra he describes the lives of various Sufi awliya.

Of one wali al-Shaʿrānī says:

He is among the eminent shaykhs of the eastern lands, one of the foremost figures of the gnostics, and among the greatest of the researching scholars; a possessor of miracles, lofty spiritual stations, and exalted spiritual insights. He is among those to whom God—exalted is He—granted control over the world (al-taṣarruf fi-l-ʿālam). In him were combined the Sacred Law and the inner reality…

 

هو من أعيان مشايخ المشرق وصُدور العارفين، وأكابر المحققين، صاحب الكرامات، والمقامات السنية، والإشارات العلية، وهو أحد من ملكه الله تعالى التصرّف في العالم، وجمع له بين الشريعة والحقيقة، وانتهت إليه الرئاسة في تربية المريدين الصادقين بسنجار وما يليها

 

[Al-Shaʿrānī, Al-Ṭabaqāt al-Kubrā]

Of another wali, al-Shaʿrānī says:

He is among those who have mastered their inner secrets, subdued their spiritual states, and prevailed over their own affairs. He is one of the pillars of this Path, among the foremost of its spiritual pegs (awtād), the greatest of its imams, and the eminent among its scholars—in knowledge and practice, in spiritual state and speech, in asceticism, realization, and awe.

 

He is among those whom God, exalted is He, brought forth into manifest existence and gave him [i.e., the wali] control over the universe (ṣarrafahu fi-kawn); whom He firmly established in spiritual states, caused to speak of unseen matters, for whom He broke natural laws [with miracles] and transformed realities. Wonders were manifested at his hands, benefits were made to flow upon his tongue, and he was set up as a model for students—so that a group from among the people of the Path became his disciples, and many of the righteous and the saints affiliated themselves with him and acknowledged his merit.

 

وهو أحد من ملك أسراره، وقهر أحواله، وغلب على أمره، وهو أحد أركان هذه الطريق، وصدور أوتادها، وأكابر أئمتها، وأعيان علمائها علمًا، وعملًا، وحالًا، وقالًا، وزهدًا، وتحقيقًا، ومهابة، وهو واحد ممن أظهره الله تعالى إلى الوجود وصرفه في الكون، ومكنه في الأحوال، وأنطقه بالمغيبات، وخرق له العوائد، وقلب له الأعيان، وأظهر على يديه العجائب، وأجرى على لسانه الفوائد، ونصبه قدوة للطالبين حتى تلمذ له جماعة من أهل الطريق، وانتمى إليه خلق من الصلحاء والأولياء، واعترفوا بفضله.

 

[Al-Shaʿrānī, Al-Ṭabaqāt al-Kubrā]

Al-Shaʿrānī approvingly quotes another wali. Al-Shaʿrānī records:

He -may God be pleased with him -used to say: “When a saint dies, he stops assisting [others] through control exercised over the universe (tasarrufu fi-l-kawn). If, after death, assistance reaches a visitor or a need is fulfilled, it is from God, exalted is He, at the hand of the Pole (al-qutb), the master of the time, and God grants the visitor according to the rank of the one visited.”

 

وكان رضي الله عنه يقول: إذا مات الولي انقطع تصرفه في الكون من الإمداد، وإن حصل مدد للزائر بعد الموت أو قضاء حاجة فهو من الله تعالى على يد القطب صاحب الوقت، ويعطي الزائر من الله على قدر مقام المزور

 

[Al-Shaʿrānī, Al-Ṭabaqāt al-Kubrā]

Mulla Ali al-Qari (d.1605)

Mulla Ali al-Qari says:

“If you say: Why did Gabriel ask about the Hour, even though he knew that none knows it except [God]? And how can we reconcile the verse with what is well-known among those with mystic knowledge regarding reports of the unseen—such as what the great shaykh Abū ʿAbd Allāh said in his creed: “We hold that the servant is transferred through spiritual states until he attains the attribute of spirituality, whereupon he comes to know the unseen, and the earth is folded for him, and he walks upon water, and becomes invisible”?

 

The answer:

 

As for the first question, it is because Gabriel wished thereby to inform them that he [the Prophet] does not have an answer concerning that for which he possesses no knowledge. Nor does he disdain to say “I do not know,” which is half of knowledge—just as Gabriel informed them, regarding what he did answer, to the excellence of asking well, which is half of knowledge. Thus knowledge becomes complete thereby.

 

As for [the second question]: The unseen consists of things that have beginnings and extensions. Its beginnings are such that no near angel nor sent prophet has access to them. As for its extensions, they are what God discloses to some of His beloved ones from the Tablet of His knowledge. This then no longer belongs to the absolute unseen, but becomes a relative unseen.

 

This [happens] when the sanctified spirit becomes filled with light, and its light and radiance increase through turning away from the darkness of the sensory world, and through polishing the mirror of the heart from the rust of material nature, and through persistence in knowledge and in righteous action, and through the overflowing of divine lights—until the light grows strong and spreads out in the expanse of his heart. Then the forms impressed upon the Preserved Tablet are reflected within him, and he becomes aware of unseen matters, and he exercises control over [material] bodies in the lower realm [i.e., the area below the heavens] (yataṣarraf fī ajsām al-ʿālam al-suflī).

 

Indeed, at that moment, the Most Holy Bestower (al-Fayyāḍ al-Aqdas) manifests Himself with His knowledge—knowledge which is the noblest of gifts—so what then of anything lesser than that?”

 

فَإِنْ قُلْتَ: فَلِمَ سَأَلَ جِبْرِيلُ عَنِ السَّاعَةِ مَعَ عِلْمِهِ بِأَنَّهُ لَا يَعْلَمُهَا إِلَّا هُوَ، وَمَا التَّوْفِيقُ بَيْنَ الْآيَةِ، وَبَيْنَ مَا اشْتُهِرَ عَنِ الْعُرَفَاءِ مِنَ الْأَخْبَارِ الْغَيْبِيَّةِ كَمَا قَالَ الشَّيْخُ الْكَبِيرُ أَبُو عَبْدِ اللَّهِ فِي مُعْتَقَدِهِ، وَنَعْتَقِدُ أَنَّ الْعَبْدَ يُنْقَلُ فِي الْأَحْوَالِ حَتَّى يَصِيرَ إِلَى نَعْتِ الرُّوحَانِيَّةِ فَيَعْلَمَ الْغَيْبَ، وَتُطْوَى لَهُ الْأَرْضُ، وَيَمْشِي عَلَى الْمَاءِ، وَيَغِيبُ عَنِ الْأَبْصَارِ ; فَالْجَوَابُ: أَمَّا عَنِ الْأَوَّلِ فَلِتَنْبِيهِهِمْ بِذَلِكَ عَلَى أَنَّهُ لَيْسَ لَهُ الْجَوَابُ عَمَّا لَا عِلْمَ لَهُ بِهِ، وَلَا الِاسْتِنْكَافُ مِنْ قَوْلِ لَا أَدْرِي الَّذِي هُوَ نِصْفُ الْعِلْمِ كَمَا نَبَّهَهُمْ مِمَّا لَهُ الْجَوَابُ عَنْهُ مِمَّا قَدْ سَلَفَ بِحُسْنِ السُّؤَالِ الَّذِي هُوَ نِصْفُ الْعِلْمِ فَتَمَّ الْعِلْمُ بِذَلِكَ، وَأَمَّا عَنِ الثَّانِي فَلِأَنَّ لِلْغَيْبِ مَبَادِئَ وَلَوَاحِقَ، فَمَبَادِئُهُ لَا يَطَّلِعُ عَلَيْهِ مَلَكٌ مُقَرَّبٌ، وَلَا نَبِيٌّ مُرْسَلٌ، وَأَمَّا اللَّوَاحِقُ، فَهُوَ مَا أَظْهَرَهُ عَلَى بَعْضِ أَحِبَّائِهِ لَوْحَةَ عِلْمِهِ، وَخَرَجَ ذَلِكَ عَنِ الْغَيْبِ الْمُطْلَقِ، وَصَارَ غَيْبًا إِضَافِيًّا، وَذَلِكَ إِذْ تَنَوَّرَ الرُّوحُ الْقُدُسِيَّةُ،

وَازْدَادَ نُورِيَّتُهَا، وَإِشْرَاقُهَا بِالْإِعْرَاضِ عَنْ ظُلْمَةِ عَالَمِ الْحِسِّ، وَتَحْلِيَةُ مِرْآةِ الْقَلْبِ عَنْ صَدَأِ الطَّبِيعَةِ، وَالْمُوَاظَبَةُ عَلَى الْعِلْمِ وَالْعَمَلِ، وَفَيَضَانُ الْأَنْوَارِ الْإِلَهِيَّةِ حَتَّى يَقْوَى النُّورُ، وَيَنْبَسِطَ فِي فَضَاءِ قَلْبِهِ فَتَنْعَكِسُ فِيهِ النُّقُوشُ الْمُرْتَسِمَةُ فِي اللَّوْحِ الْمَحْفُوظِ، وَيَطَّلِعُ عَلَى الْمُغَيَّبَاتِ، وَيَتَصَرَّفُ فِي أَجْسَامِ الْعَالَمِ السُّفْلِيِّ، بَلْ يَتَجَلَّى حِينَئِذٍ الْفَيَّاضُ الْأَقْدَسُ بِمَعْرِفَتِهِ الَّتِي هِيَ أَشْرَفُ الْعَطَايَا فَكَيْفَ بِغَيْرِهَا؟

 

[Mulla Ali al-Qari, Mirqāh al-Mafātīḥ]

Ibn Taymiyya (1263-1328)

Ibn Taymiyya himself endorses the notion of al-tasarruf fi-l-kawn.

Given that Wahhabis claim to be followers of Ibn Taymiyya, let us give special attention to his case, and also compare his views with those of later Wahhabi authorities like Ibn Baz.

In one long passage in Majmu’ al-Fatawa, Ibn Taymiyya explains the nature of supernatural acts performed by prophets and awliya. Ibn Taymiyya says that, in reality, Allah is the only being who truly possesses knowledge and power. However, Allah can grant prophets and awliya knowledge and power. When this happens they acquire supernatural knowledge of unseen matters, and have supernatural power to affect the universe around them. This is manifested in the form of mu’jizat and karamat.

Ibn Taymiyya says:

Although the term “muʿjiza” (miracle) in language, and in the usage of the early imams such as Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal and others, applies to every event that breaks the natural order—and they used to call such occurrences “āyāt” (signs)—many of the later scholars have distinguished between the two terms. They designate “muʿjiza” for the prophet and “karāma” for the saint (walī), even though both share a single reality: a matter that breaks the normal course of nature.

 

We say, then, that the attributes of perfection reduce to three: knowledge, power, and self-sufficiency (al-ghina) . Or, if you wish, you may say simply: knowledge and power.

 

…

 

These three qualities belong in absolute perfection only to God alone, for He is the One who has knowledge encompassing all things, who has power over all things, and who is independent of the worlds.

 

The Messenger ﷺ was commanded to disavow any claim to these three, as God says:

 

“Say: I do not say to you, ‘I possess the treasuries of God,’ nor do I know the unseen, nor do I say to you that I am an angel. I only follow what is revealed to me.” [Quran 6:50]

 

…

 

So [the Prophet] was commanded to inform them that he does not know the unseen, does not possess the treasuries of God, and is not an angel free from the need for food or wealth. He is only a follower of what has been revealed to him.

 

Following what has been revealed to [the Prophet -s-] is the essence of religion—it is obedience to God and worship of Him in knowledge and action, inwardly and outwardly.

 

He [i.e., the Prophet -s] only obtains the amount that God gives him of three attributes— of knowledge, power, and self-sufficiency; he knows with the knowledge given to him by God; he is empowered with the power given to him by God; and he is self-sufficient with what God gives him to free him from need. [God gives him amounts of knowledge, power, and self-sufficiency] which go beyond with the established laws of nature, and what capacities of most people.

 

وَإِنْ كَانَ اسْمُ ” الْمُعْجِزَةِ ” يَعُمُّ كُلَّ خَارِقٍ لِلْعَادَةِ فِي اللُّغَةِ وَعُرْفِ الْأَئِمَّةِ الْمُتَقَدِّمِينَ كَالْإِمَامِ أَحْمَد بْنِ حَنْبَلٍ وَغَيْرِهِ – وَيُسَمُّونَهَا: الْآيَاتِ – لَكِنَّ كَثِيرًا مِنْ الْمُتَأَخِّرِينَ يُفَرِّقُ فِي اللَّفْظِ بَيْنَهُمَا فَيَجْعَلُ ” الْمُعْجِزَةَ “

لِلنَّبِيِّ وَ ” الْكَرَامَةَ ” لِلْوَلِيِّ وَجِمَاعُهُمَا الْأَمْرُ الْخَارِقُ لِلْعَادَةِ. فَنَقُولُ: صِفَاتُ الْكَمَالِ تَرْجِعُ إلَى ” ثَلَاثَةٍ “: الْعِلْمِ وَالْقُدْرَةِ وَالْغِنَى. وَإِنْ شِئْت أَنْ تَقُولَ: الْعِلْمُ وَالْقُدْرَةُ. وَالْقُدْرَةُ إمَّا عَلَى الْفِعْلِ وَهُوَ التَّأْثِيرُ وَإِمَّا عَلَى التَّرْكِ وَهُوَ الْغِنَى وَالْأَوَّلُ أَجْوَدُ. وَهَذِهِ الثَّلَاثَةُ لَا تَصْلُحُ عَلَى وَجْهِ الْكَمَالِ إلَّا لِلَّهِ وَحْدَهُ؛ فَإِنَّهُ الَّذِي أَحَاطَ بِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ عِلْمًا وَهُوَ عَلَى كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ وَهُوَ غَنِيٌّ عَنْ الْعَالَمِينَ. وَقَدْ أَمَرَ الرَّسُولُ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ أَنْ يَبْرَأَ مِنْ دَعْوَى هَذِهِ الثَّلَاثَةِ بِقَوْلِهِ: {قُلْ لَا أَقُولُ لَكُمْ عِنْدِي خَزَائِنُ اللَّهِ وَلَا أَعْلَمُ الْغَيْبَ وَلَا أَقُولُ لَكُمْ إنِّي مَلَكٌ إنْ أَتَّبِعُ إلَّا مَا يُوحَى إلَيَّ}

وَكَذَلِكَ قَالَ نُوحٌ عَلَيْهِ السَّلَامُ. فَهَذَا أَوَّلُ أُولِي الْعَزْمِ وَأَوَّلُ رَسُولٍ بَعَثَهُ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى إلَى أَهْلِ الْأَرْضِ. وَهَذَا خَاتَمُ الرُّسُلِ وَخَاتَمُ أُولِي الْعَزْمِ كِلَاهُمَا يَتَبَرَّأُ مِنْ ذَلِكَ. وَهَذَا لِأَنَّهُمْ يُطَالِبُونَ الرَّسُولَ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ تَارَةً بِعِلْمِ الْغَيْبِ كَقَوْلِهِ: {وَيَقُولُونَ مَتَى هَذَا الْوَعْدُ إنْ كُنْتُمْ صَادِقِينَ} و {يَسْأَلُونَكَ عَنِ السَّاعَةِ أَيَّانَ مُرْسَاهَا قُلْ إنَّمَا عِلْمُهَا عِنْدَ رَبِّي} وَتَارَةً بِالتَّأْثِيرِ كَقَوْلِهِ: {وَقَالُوا لَنْ نُؤْمِنَ لَكَ حَتَّى تَفْجُرَ لَنَا مِنَ الْأَرْضِ يَنْبُوعًا} {أَوْ تَكُونَ لَكَ جَنَّةٌ مِنْ نَخِيلٍ وَعِنَبٍ فَتُفَجِّرَ الْأَنْهَارَ خِلَالَهَا تَفْجِيرًا} {أَوْ تُسْقِطَ السَّمَاءَ كَمَا زَعَمْتَ عَلَيْنَا كِسَفًا أَوْ تَأْتِيَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْمَلَائِكَةِ قَبِيلًا}

إلَى قَوْلِهِ {قُلْ سُبْحَانَ رَبِّي هَلْ كُنْتُ إلَّا بَشَرًا رَسُولًا} وَتَارَةً يَعِيبُونَ عَلَيْهِ الْحَاجَةَ الْبَشَرِيَّةَ كَقَوْلِهِ: {وَقَالُوا مَالِ هَذَا الرَّسُولِ يَأْكُلُ الطَّعَامَ وَيَمْشِي فِي الْأَسْوَاقِ لَوْلَا أُنْزِلَ إلَيْهِ مَلَكٌ فَيَكُونَ مَعَهُ نَذِيرًا} {أَوْ يُلْقَى إلَيْهِ كَنْزٌ أَوْ تَكُونُ لَهُ جَنَّةٌ يَأْكُلُ مِنْهَا} . فَأَمَرَهُ أَنْ يُخْبِرَ أَنَّهُ لَا يَعْلَمُ الْغَيْبَ وَلَا يَمْلِكُ خَزَائِنَ اللَّهِ وَلَا هُوَ مَلَكٌ غَنِيٌّ عَنْ الْأَكْلِ وَالْمَالِ إنْ هُوَ إلَّا مُتَّبِعٌ لِمَا أُوحِيَ إلَيْهِ وَاتِّبَاعُ مَا أُوحِيَ إلَيْهِ هُوَ الدِّينُ وَهُوَ طَاعَةُ اللَّهِ وَعِبَادَتُهُ عِلْمًا وَعَمَلًا بِالْبَاطِنِ وَالظَّاهِرِ وَإِنَّمَا يَنَالُ مِنْ تِلْكَ الثَّلَاثَةِ بِقَدْرِ مَا يُعْطِيه اللَّهُ تَعَالَى فَيَعْلَمُ مِنْهُ مَا عَلَّمَهُ إيَّاهُ وَيَقْدِرُ مِنْهُ عَلَى مَا أَقْدَرَهُ اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَيَسْتَغْنِي عَمَّا أَغْنَاهُ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ مِنْ الْأُمُورِ الْمُخَالِفَةِ لِلْعَادَةِ الْمُطَّرِدَةِ أَوْ لِعَادَةِ غَالِبِ النَّاسِ

[Ibn Taymiyya, Majmu’ al-Fatawa Vol. 11, 311-313]

In the same passage, Ibn Taymiyya further clarifies what it means for prophets and awliya to affect the universe with supernatural power through mu’zjizat and karamat. Ibn Taymiyya explains that prophets and awliya affect things in the higher realms of the universe – in the heavens – which exist above humans. So their power affects the sun, moon, and the stars. Their power also affects things in the lower realms of the universe beneath the heavens. So their power affects the earth, mountains, plants, and animals.

Ibn Taymiyya says:

As for power and influence (al-qudra wa-l-taʾthīr), they [affect] the higher world or what lies beneath it (al-ʿālam al-ʿulwī aw mā dūnahu).

 

What lies beneath may be either simple or composite: the simple is either the air or the earth, while the composite consists of animals, plants, or minerals.

 

And the animal is either rational (human) or non-rational (beast).

 

[Regarding the powers of prophets to affect the higher world]

 

The miracles pertaining to the higher world include the splitting of the moon, the return of the sun for Yūshaʿ ibn Nūn (Joshua), and likewise the report of the return of the sun for ʿAlī, when he missed his prayer while the Prophet ﷺ was asleep in his lap — if the ḥadīth is authentic.

 

Some scholars, such as al-Ṭaḥāwī and Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ, considered it authentic, while others, such as Abū al-Faraj ibn al-Jawzī, regarded it as mawqūf (not raised to the Prophet), and this is the sounder opinion.

 

Also among these is [the Prophet’s] ascension (miʿrāj) to the heavens.

 

[Regarding the powers of prophets to affect the lower world]

 

As for the air, there are his supplications for rain and for its cessation, both of which occurred multiple times — as in the ḥadīth of the Bedouin in the two Ṣaḥīḥs and elsewhere.

 

Also among these are the increase in falling stars at his appearance, and his Night Journey (isrāʾ) from the Sacred Mosque to the Farthest Mosque (al-Masjid al-Aqṣā).

 

As for the earth and water, there was the shaking of the mountain beneath him, the multiplication of water in the spring of Tabūk and at Ḥudaybiyya, the gushing of water from between his fingers on several occasions, and the incident of the woman’s water-skin.

 

As for composite beings, there were his many instances of multiplying food — in the story of the Trench (al-Khandaq) as reported by Jābir and Abū Ṭalḥa, during his journeys, in Abū Hurayra’s sack, in the palm-trees of Jābir ibn ʿAbd Allāh, and in the report of Jābir and Ibn al-Zubayr concerning the uprooting of the palm-tree that returned to its place.

 

Also, his causing springs to gush from the earth, as in the spring of Abū Qatāda.

 

This is a vast subject; the aim here is not to enumerate all his miracles (mu’jizat) in detail, but merely to provide examples.

 

Likewise, among the miracles involving [supernatural] power are the staff of Moses, the parting of the sea, the plagues of lice, frogs, and blood, the she-camel of Ṣāliḥ, and the healing of the blind and the lepers and the raising of the dead by Jesus — just as, among the miracles of knowledge, is their telling people what they eat and what they store in their houses.

 

In sum, the purpose here is not to specifically mention [all] prophetic miracles, but only to present illustrative examples.

 

[Regarding the miracles of non-prophets]

 

As for the miracles (mu’jizat) of non-prophets belonging to the realm of revelation and knowledge (kashf wa-ʿilm), these include: ʿUmar’s statement in the story of Sāriya, Abū Bakr’s foreknowledge that his wife was carrying a girl, ʿUmar’s foretelling that a just ruler would arise from his descendants, and the story of Moses’ companion who knew the state of the boy.

 

And among the acts of [supernatural] power [for awliya], there are: the story of the one who had knowledge of the Book, the People of the Cave, Mary, Khālid ibn al-Walīd, Safina, the freedman of the Messenger of God ﷺ, and Abū Muslim al-Khawlānī, and many other cases whose enumeration would be like counting raindrops.

The aim here is only to mention examples known to most people.

 

As for [supernatural] power not connected to the person’s own action, it includes God’s granting victory to those who support Him and His destroying those who revile Him.

وَأَمَّا ” الْقُدْرَةُ وَالتَّأْثِيرُ ” فَإِمَّا أَنْ يَكُونَ فِي الْعَالَمِ الْعُلْوِيِّ أَوْ مَا دُونَهُ وَمَا دُونَهُ إمَّا بَسِيطٌ أَوْ مُرَكَّبٌ وَالْبَسِيطُ إمَّا الْجَوُّ وَإِمَّا الْأَرْضُ؛ وَالْمُرَكَّبُ إمَّا حَيَوَانٌ وَإِمَّا نَبَاتٌ وَإِمَّا مَعْدِنٌ. وَالْحَيَوَانُ إمَّا نَاطِقٌ وَإِمَّا بَهِيمٌ؛ فَالْعُلْوِيُّ كَانْشِقَاقِ الْقَمَرِ وَرَدِّ الشَّمْسِ لِيُوشَعَ بْنِ نُون وَكَذَلِكَ رَدُّهَا لَمَّا فَاتَتْ عَلِيًّا الصَّلَاةُ وَالنَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ نَائِمٌ فِي حِجْرِهِ – إنْ صَحَّ الْحَدِيثُ – فَمِنْ النَّاسِ مَنْ صَحَّحَهُ كالطَّحَاوِي وَالْقَاضِي عِيَاضٍ. وَمِنْهُمْ مَنْ جَعَلَهُ مَوْقُوفًا كَأَبِي الْفَرَجِ بْنِ الْجَوْزِيِّ وَهَذَا أَصَحُّ. وَكَذَلِكَ مِعْرَاجُهُ إلَى السَّمَاوَاتِ.

وَأَمَّا ” الْجَوُّ ” فَاسْتِسْقَاؤُهُ واستصحاؤه غَيْرَ مَرَّةٍ: كَحَدِيثِ الْأَعْرَابِيِّ الَّذِي فِي الصَّحِيحَيْنِ وَغَيْرِهِمَا وَكَذَلِكَ كَثْرَةُ الرَّمْيِ بِالنُّجُومِ عِنْدَ ظُهُورِهِ وَكَذَلِكَ إسْرَاؤُهُ مِنْ الْمَسْجِدِ الْحَرَامِ إلَى الْمَسْجِدِ الْأَقْصَى. وَأَمَّا ” الْأَرْضُ وَالْمَاءُ ” فَكَاهْتِزَازِ الْجَبَلِ تَحْتَهُ وَتَكْثِيرِ الْمَاءِ فِي عَيْنِ تَبُوكَ وَعَيْنِ الْحُدَيْبِيَةِ وَنَبْعِ الْمَاءِ مِنْ بَيْنِ أَصَابِعِهِ غَيْرَ مَرَّةٍ وَمَزَادَةِ الْمَرْأَةِ. وَأَمَّا ” الْمُرَكَّبَاتُ ” فَتَكْثِيرُهُ لِلطَّعَامِ غَيْرَ مَرَّةٍ فِي قِصَّةِ الْخَنْدَقِ مِنْ حَدِيثِ جَابِرٍ وَحَدِيثِ أَبِي طَلْحَةَ وَفِي أَسْفَارِهِ وَجِرَابِ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ وَنَخْلِ جَابِرِ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ وَحَدِيثِ جَابِرٍ وَابْنِ الزُّبَيْرِ فِي انْقِلَاعِ النَّخْلِ لَهُ وَعَوْدِهِ إلَى مَكَانِهِ وَسُقْيَاهُ لِغَيْرِ وَاحِدٍ مِنْ الْأَرْضِ كَعَيْنِ أَبِي قتادة. وَهَذَا بَابٌ وَاسِعٌ لَمْ يَكُنْ الْغَرَضُ هُنَا ذِكْرُ أَنْوَاعِ مُعْجِزَاتِهِ بِخُصُوصِهِ وَإِنَّمَا الْغَرَضُ التَّمْثِيلُ. وَكَذَلِكَ مِنْ بَابِ ” الْقُدْرَةِ ” عَصَا مُوسَى صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَفَلْقُ الْبَحْرِ وَالْقُمَّلُ وَالضَّفَادِعُ وَالدَّمُ وَنَاقَةُ صَالِحٍ وَإِبْرَاءُ الْأَكْمَهِ وَالْأَبْرَصِ وَإِحْيَاءُ الْمَوْتَى لِعِيسَى كَمَا أَنَّ مِنْ بَابِ الْعِلْمِ إخْبَارَهُمْ بِمَا يَأْكُلُونَ

وَمَا يَدَّخِرُونَ فِي بُيُوتِهِمْ. وَفِي الْجُمْلَةِ لَمْ يَكُنْ الْمَقْصُودُ هُنَا ذِكْرُ الْمُعْجِزَاتِ النَّبَوِيَّةِ بِخُصُوصِهَا وَإِنَّمَا الْغَرَضُ التَّمْثِيلُ بِهَا. وَأَمَّا الْمُعْجِزَاتُ الَّتِي لِغَيْرِ الْأَنْبِيَاءِ مِنْ ” بَابِ الْكَشْفِ وَالْعِلْمِ ” فَمِثْلُ قَوْلِ عُمَرَ فِي قِصَّةِ سَارِيَةَ وَإِخْبَارِ أَبِي بَكْرٍ بِأَنَّ بِبَطْنِ زَوْجَتِهِ أُنْثَى وَإِخْبَارِ عُمَرَ بِمَنْ يَخْرُجُ مِنْ وَلَدِهِ فَيَكُونُ عَادِلًا وَقِصَّةِ صَاحِبِ مُوسَى فِي عِلْمِهِ بِحَالِ الْغُلَامِ. وَ ” الْقُدْرَةُ ” مِثْلُ قِصَّةِ الَّذِي عِنْدَهُ عِلْمٌ مِنْ الْكِتَابِ وَقِصَّةِ أَهْلِ الْكَهْفِ وَقِصَّةِ مَرْيَمَ وَقِصَّةِ خَالِدِ بْنِ الْوَلِيدِ وَسَفِينَةَ مَوْلَى رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَأَبِي مُسْلِمٍ الخولاني وَأَشْيَاءَ يَطُولُ شَرْحُهَا فَإِنَّ تَعْدَادَ هَذَا مِثْلُ الْمَطَرِ. وَإِنَّمَا الْغَرَضُ التَّمْثِيلُ بِالشَّيْءِ الَّذِي سَمِعَهُ أَكْثَرُ النَّاسِ. وَأَمَّا الْقُدْرَةُ الَّتِي لَمْ تَتَعَلَّقُ بِفِعْلِهِ فَمِثْلُ نَصْرِ اللَّهِ لِمَنْ يَنْصُرُهُ وَإِهْلَاكِهِ لِمَنْ يَشْتُمُهُ.

[Ibn Taymiyya, Majmu’ al-Fatawa vol. 11, 316-318]

Ibn Taymiyya is listing all of these miraculous things that are recorded about prophets and awliya in the Quran and Sunna, including exercising control over the sun, the air, mountains, water, and more. He is also talking about supernatural knowledge of the unseen, whether awliya among the Sahaba or Salaf are able to know the future.

Ibn Taymiyya is explaining here humans have supernatural power that can supernaturally affect phenomena throughout the universe – in both its higher and lower realms.

And he is justifying these views through citations from the Quran and Sunna, claiming that it is based on the Quran and Sunna.

So, to sum up, in the previous quotation from Majmu al-Fatawa, Ibn Taymiyya argues for the idea that humans have supernatural power which is exercised throughout the universe – in the upper and lower realms.

Elsewhere in his writings, Ibn Taymiyya uses other terms to express this idea. Thus, he says that awliya have the power to “manage the universe” (tadbīr al-ʿālam) and “control the universe” (al-taṣarruf fi l-kawn).

Let’s look at two key quotes on this subject. In the first quote, Ibn Taymiyya affirms belief in Aqṭāb, the Awtād, Aghwāth, Abdāl, and Nujabā’. These specific terms are used to refer to special groups of awliya who exercise control over the universe. Furthermore, in the quote, he explicitly says that saints have the power to “manage the universe” (tadbīr al-ʿālam).

Ibn Taymiyya says these things in the context of a discussion of whether humans or angels are higher in status and more excellent.

The background of this discussion is the Quranic verse [79:5], which refers to “beings who manage the affair”

فَٱلْمُدَبِّرَٰتِ أَمْرًۭا ٥

In tafsir texts, this verse is generally understood to refer to angels exercising some power of management over the universe.

Ibn Kathir, the student of Ibn Taymiyya, says the following in his tafsir of the verse.

Regarding His, Most High’s, statement: “By those who manage the affair” (Q 79:5): ʿAlī, Mujāhid, ʿAṭāʾ, Abū Ṣāliḥ, al-Ḥasan, Qatāda, al-Rabīʿ ibn Anas, and al-Suddī said that they are the angels. Al-Ḥasan added: they manage the affair from heaven to earth, meaning by the command of their Lord, Mighty and Majestic. They did not differ regarding this. Ibn Jarīr, however, did not definitively specify the intended meaning in any of these things, though he did report, concerning “those who manage the affair,” that they are the angels—without affirming it decisively nor denying it.

 

وقوله تعالى { فَٱلْمُدَبِّرَٰتِ أَمْراً } قال علي ومجاهد وعطاء وأبو صالح والحسن وقتادة والربيع بن أنس والسدي هي الملائكة، زاد الحسن تدبر الأمر من السماء إلى الأرض، يعني بأمر ربها عز وجل، ولم يختلفوا في هذا، ولم يقطع ابن جرير بالمراد في شيء من ذلك، إلا أنه حكى في المدبرات أمراً أنها الملائكة، ولا أثبت ولا نفى

 

[Ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Quran al-‘Azim]

So Ibn Taymiyya is comparing awliya and angels. He is asking which of them is higher in status, and he assumes that angels have some role in managing the universe.

Ibn Taymiyya says:

And [some scholars] have said: “Human religious scholars, despite the presence of opposition [to Allah’s command], are more excellent and virtuous [than angels].” Then [these righteous humans] in this worldly life and in the Hereafter are inspired to glorify [Allah] just as they are inspired to breathe.

 

As for beneficial effects that extend to others, benefits for creation, and the management of the universe (tadbīr al-ʿālam), it has been said that the sustenance of the humans (al-ʿibād) flows through their hands, and that they descend with knowledge and revelation, and that they protect and restrain, and perform other such actions attributed to the angels.

 

The response (to this claim) is: that righteous human beings possess the likes of these qualities – and even more than that.

 

It is enough for you to consider the intercession (shafā‘a) of the Intercessor [i.e. Prophet Muhammad], who is granted intercession for the sinners, and whose intercession on behalf of mankind is that they may be judged, and whose intercession is for the people of Paradise so that they may enter Paradise.

 

Then, after that, the intercession of the angels takes place. So where are [the angels] in comparison to His (Allah’s) statement:

 

“And We have not sent you except as a mercy to the worlds” [Qur’an 21:107]?

 

And where are they in comparison to “those who give preference to others over themselves, even though they are in need themselves” [Qur’an 59:9]?

 

And where are they compared to those who call to guidance and the religion of truth, and those who initiate a good sunna [practice]?

 

And where are they compared to his saying (peace be upon him):

 

“Indeed, among my nation are those who will intercede for more people than the tribes of Rabīʿa and Muḍar.”

 

And where are they compared to the Aqṭāb, the Awtād, Aghwāth, Abdāl, and Nujabā’?

 

وَقَدْ قَالُوا: إنَّ عُلَمَاءَ الْآدَمِيِّينَ مَعَ وُجُودِ الْمُنَافِي وَالْمُضَادِّ أَحْسَنُ وَأَفْضَلُ. ثُمَّ هُمْ فِي الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا وَفِي الْآخِرَةِ يُلْهَمُونَ التَّسْبِيحَ كَمَا يُلْهَمُونَ النَّفَسَ؛ وَأَمَّا النَّفْعُ الْمُتَعَدِّي وَالنَّفْعُ لِلْخَلْقِ وَتَدْبِيرُ الْعَالَمِ فَقَدْ قَالُوا هُمْ تَجْرِي أَرْزَاقُ الْعِبَادِ عَلَى أَيْدِيهِمْ وَيَنْزِلُونَ بِالْعُلُومِ وَالْوَحْيِ وَيَحْفَظُونَ وَيُمْسِكُونَ وَغَيْرُ ذَلِكَ مِنْ أَفْعَالِ الْمَلَائِكَةِ.

وَالْجَوَابُ: أَنَّ صَالِحَ الْبَشَرِ لَهُمْ مِثْلُ ذَلِكَ وَأَكْثَرُ مِنْهُ وَيَكْفِيك مِنْ ذَلِكَ شَفَاعَةُ الشَّافِعِ الْمُشَفَّعُ فِي الْمُذْنِبِينَ وَشَفَاعَتُهُ فِي الْبَشَرِ كَيْ يُحَاسَبُوا وَشَفَاعَتُهُ فِي أَهْلِ الْجَنَّةِ حَتَّى يَدْخُلُوا الْجَنَّةَ. ثُمَّ بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ تَقَعُ شَفَاعَةُ الْمَلَائِكَةِ وَأَيْنَ هُمْ مِنْ قَوْلِهِ: {وَمَا أَرْسَلْنَاكَ إلَّا رَحْمَةً لِلْعَالَمِينَ}؟ وَأَيْنَ هُمْ عَنْ الَّذِينَ: {وَيُؤْثِرُونَ عَلَى أَنْفُسِهِمْ وَلَوْ كَانَ بِهِمْ خَصَاصَةٌ}؟ وَأَيْنَ هُمْ مِمَّنْ يَدْعُونَ إلَى الْهُدَى وَدِينِ الْحَقِّ؛ وَمَنْ سَنَّ سُنَّةً حَسَنَةً؟ وَأَيْنَ هُمْ مِنْ قَوْلِهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ” {إنَّ مِنْ أُمَّتِي مَنْ يَشْفَعُ فِي أَكْثَرَ مِنْ رَبِيعَةَ وَمُضَرَ} “؟ وَأَيْنَ هُمْ مِنْ الْأَقْطَابِ وَالْأَوْتَادِ والأغواث؛ وَالْأَبْدَالِ وَالنُّجَبَاءِ؟

 

[Ibn Taymiyya, Majmu’ al-Fatawa, Vol.4 379]

This is another fascinating quote from Ibn Taymiyya because, here, he is saying that part of the management of the universe is that the sustenance or rizq of people flows through the hands of awliya.

The claim that Ibn Taymiyya is making is, imagine how much power the angels have over the universe. We know from revelation that angels have significant powers in terms of managing the universe. Well, according to Ibn Taymiyya, there are righteous awliya whose power are comparable to those of angels and may even exceed them.

Now, full disclosure, Ibn Taymiyya’s has complex views on the specific Sufi concepts of Aqṭāb, Awtād, Aghwāth, Abdāl, and Nujabā’. In the preceding quote he endorses these concepts. But, in other quotes, he criticizes them.

Furthermore, he holds that ascribing too much power to awliya is shirk. Hence, it is shirk to believe that have been empowered to literally control the entire universe, and to provide sustenance and aid to all creatures. See Ibn Taymyya, Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā, vol.27 96-98.

Nevertheless, he does not reject the more limited principle that awliya exercise some type of control over the universe.

Now coming to the second quote, here Ibn Taymiyya explicitly mentions the notion of al-tasarruf fi-l-kawn and says that awliya can even exercise [some] control over the universe:

“It is mentioned in a report: ‘Whoever would be pleased to be the strongest of people, let him put his trust in Allah.’ … According to the soundest opinion, reliance on [Allah] [i.e., tawakkul] – just like supplicating Him, according to the soundest opinion on that as well – is a means of obtaining benefits and repelling harms. For it imparts strength to the servant and gives him the ability to exercise [some] control over the universe (tasrif al-kawn). For this reason, it predominates among those endowed with spiritual states [i.e., ahwal], whether they adhere to the sacred law or not; and by it they exercise control [over the universe] and exert influence (yataṣarrafūn wa yuʾaththirūn), sometimes in a way that accords with the [divine] command, and sometimes in a way that opposes it.”

 

وَفِي الْأَثَرِ: ” {مَنْ سَرَّهُ أَنْ يَكُونَ أَقْوَى النَّاسِ فَلْيَتَوَكَّلْ عَلَى اللَّهِ} “. وَعَنْ سَعِيدِ بْنِ جُبَيْرٍ: ” التَّوَكُّلُ جِمَاعُ الْإِيمَانِ ” وَقَالَ تَعَالَى: {وَمَنْ يَتَوَكَّلْ عَلَى اللَّهِ فَهُوَ حَسْبُهُ} وَقَالَ: {إذْ تَسْتَغِيثُونَ رَبَّكُمْ فَاسْتَجَابَ لَكُمْ} وَهَذَا عَلَى أَصَحِّ الْقَوْلَيْنِ فِي أَنَّ التَّوَكُّلَ عَلَيْهِ – بِمَنْزِلَةِ الدُّعَاءِ عَلَى أَصَحِّ الْقَوْلَيْنِ أَيْضًا – سَبَبٌ لِجَلْبِ الْمَنَافِعِ وَدَفْعِ الْمَضَارِّ فَإِنَّهُ يُفِيدُ قُوَّةَ الْعَبْدِ وَتَصْرِيفَ الْكَوْنِ وَلِهَذَا هُوَ الْغَالِبُ عَلَى ذَوِي الْأَحْوَالِ متشرعهم وَغَيْرِ متشرعهم وَبِهِ يَتَصَرَّفُونَ وَيُؤْثِرُونَ ” تَارَةً ” بِمَا يُوَافِقُ الْأَمْرَ. و ” تَارَةً ” بِمَا يُخَالِفُهُ.

 

[Ibn Taymiyya, Majmu’ al-Fatawa, Vol.10 549-550]

Ibn Taymiyya is saying that some Muslims because of their spiritual state, like having a great deal of tawakkul, have the power to actually exercise control over aspects of the universe in a supernatural way. What kind of powers are we talking about here? Well, Ibn Taymiyya denies that awliya have a type of maximal control over the universe. But Ibn Taymiyya does believe in significant powers and he explicitly refers to this as tasrif al-kawn.

There are many reasons for taking note of Ibn Taymiyya’s specific statements on awliya engaging in management of the universe (tadbir al-‘alam), and exercising control over the universe (al-tasarruf fi-l-kawn).

Ibn Taymiyya Vs. Ibn Baz (1912-1999)

Wahhabi scholars like Ibn Baz explicitly assert that statements of this kind are clear shirk and kufr, making one a disbeliever who should be killed.

Ibn Baz says:

Among the theological doctrines that stand in opposition to the truth is what some Sufis believe: namely, that certain individuals whom they call “saints” (awliyāʾ) share with God in management [of the universe] (tadbīr), and exercise control over the affairs of the world (yataṣarrafun fi shuʾūn al-ʿālam). They refer to them as aqṭāb, awtād, aghwāth, and other such names which they have invented for their deities. This constitutes one of the most reprehensible forms of shirk in lordship (shirk al-rubūbiyya), and it is worse than the idolatry of the pagan Arabs of the pre-Islamic period…

 

ومن العقائد المضادة للحق ما يعتقده بعض المتصوفة من أن بعض من يسمونهم بالأولياء يشاركون الله في التدبير، ويتصرفون في شئون العالم، ويسمونهم بالأقطاب والأوتاد والأغواث، وغير ذلك من الأسماء التي اخترعوها لآلهتهم، وهذا من أقبح الشرك في الربوبية، وهو شر من شرك جاهلية العرب؛ لأن كفار العرب لم يشركوا في الربوبية وإنما أشركوا في العبادة، وكان شركهم في حال الرخاء، أما في حال الشدة فيخلصون لله العبادة، كما قال الله سبحانه: {فَإِذَا رَكِبُوا فِي الْفُلْكِ دَعَوُا اللَّهَ مُخْلِصِينَ لَهُ الدِّينَ فَلَمَّا نَجَّاهُمْ إِلَى الْبَرِّ إِذَا هُمْ يُشْرِكُونَ}

 

[Ibn Baz, Majmu Fatawa wa Maqalat Mutanawwi’a]

Ibn Baz also says:

Control over the universe [al-taṣarruf fi-l-kawn] belongs to Allah alone. A servant has no authority in this regard, even if he is the most righteous of the righteous, or even one of the Messengers. He does not possess control over the universe, nor the ability to enrich or impoverish people. Rather, this is in the Hand of Allah, Glorified and Exalted. He is the One who enriches and impoverishes, the One who governs all affairs, the Creator of all things – Glorified and Exalted is He:

 

‘Indeed, His command is only when He intends a thing that He says to it, ‘Be,’ and it is.’ [Surah Ya Sin 36:82]

 

As for servants, no matter how righteous they are, they do not have control over the universe, nor do they possess authority over its management.

 

Yes, it is possible that a believer makes a blessed supplication and it is answered – he might pray for his brother to be healed, and he is healed; or he might pray for forgiveness and it is granted. This is from Allah’s bounty – that He may answer the supplication of a believing man or woman for their brother. But none of the righteous, nor anyone else, has control over the universe or its governance. That is for Allah alone, Glorified and Exalted.

 

What may occur among some Sufis or others – the belief that some of their shaykhs can say to a thing ‘Be’ and it is, or that they manage affairs [in the universe] – all of this is extremism, excessive praise, and outright kufr and misguidance. It is impermissible. In fact, it constitutes disbelief in Allah, Glorified and Exalted.

 

“هذا باطل ؛ التصرف في الكون لله وحده ، والعبد لا يملك شيئاً في ذلك ، ولو كان أصلح الصالحين ، ولو كان من الرسل ، لا يملك التصرف في الكون ولا إغناء الناس ولا إفقارهم ، بل هذا بيد الله سبحانه وتعالى ؛ وهو الذي يغني ويفقر جل وعلا ، وهو المتصرف في الأمور سبحانه ، وهو مدبر الأمر جل وعلا ، وهو الخالق لكل شيء سبحانه وتعالى : (إِنَّمَا أَمْرُهُ إِذَا أَرَادَ شَيْئًا أَنْ يَقُولَ لَهُ كُنْ فَيَكُونُ) يس/82 ، سبحانه وتعالى .

أما العباد وإن كانوا أصلح الناس فليس لهم التصرف في الكون ، ولا يملكون تدبير الكون .

نعم ، قد يتدارك المؤمن دعوة مباركة فتستجاب له ، فيدعو لأخيه أن يشفيه الله فيُشفى ، وقد يدعو له بالمغفرة فيغفر له ، هذا من فضل الله سبحانه وتعالى أنه قد يجيب دعوة المؤمن والمؤمنة لأخيهما ، لكن ليس لأحد من الصالحين أو غيرهم التصرف في الكون أو تدبير الكون ، هذا لله وحده سبحانه وتعالى ، وما قد يقع لبعض الصوفية أو لغيرهم من اعتقاد هذا في بعض مشايخهم وأنهم يقولون للشيء : كن فيكون ، وأنهم يديرون الأمور فهذا كله غلو ، كله إطراء زائد ، وكله كفر وضلال ، فلا يجوز هذا ، بل هذا من الكفر بالله سبحانه وتعالى” انتهى .

“فتاوى نور على الدرب” (1/314) .

 

[Ibn Baz, Fatawa Nur `ala al-Darb]

Ibn Taymiyya Vs. Ibn Uthaymin (1929-2001)

We may also consider the statements of Ibn Uthaymin. Ibn Uthaymin says that beliefs in al-taṣarruf fi-l-kawn are found among Sufis, as well as Shia. The Shia claim that their imams engage in al-taṣarruf fi-l-kawn, and the Sufis say the same about their aqṭāb. Both groups are disbelieving mushriks.

In a work on Tafsir, Ibn Uthaymin says:

Fifth benefit:

 

A refutation of those people who claim that the Prophet—may God’s blessings and peace be upon him and upon his family—exercises control over the universe and manages its affairs (taṣarrufan fi-l-kawn wa tadbīran lahu). A fortiori, this constitutes a refutation of those who claim that someone other than the Messenger—peace and blessings be upon him—possesses control over the universe, such as the assertions of the Rāfiḍa and some of the Sufis, who claim that certain of their Imams exercise control over the universe. Those Sufis likewise claim that some of their aqṭāb exercise control over the cosmos. Such people—there is no doubt—are misguided mushriks who associate partners with Allah, Mighty and Exalted is He.

 

الْفَائِدَةُ الخَامِسَةُ: الرَّدُّ على أولئك القومِ الذين يدَّعون أنَّ للنبيِّ – صلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وعلى آلِهِ وسلَّمَ – تصرُّفًا في الكونِ، وتدبيرًا له، ومن بابِ أَوْلَى، أن يكونَ فيها رَدٌّ على القائلين بأنَّ من دون الرسولِ -عَلَيْهِ الصلاة والسلام – له تَصَرُّفٌ في الكونِ؛ كقولِ الرَّافضةِ وبعضِ الصوفيَّةِ الذين يَدَّعونَ أنَّ من أئمَّتِهم من يَتَصَرَّفُ في الكونِ، وأولئك الصوفيَّةُ يَدَّعُونَ أن من أقطابِهِم من يتصرَّفُ في الكونِ، فهؤلاء – لا شكَّ – ضالُّونَ مُشْرِكُونَ باللهِ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ.

 

[Ibn Uthaymin, Tafsir al-Uthaymin]

Ibn Uthaymin also indicates – correctly – that al-tasarruf fi al-kawn does not necessarily mean that an individual controls the entire universe. Thus, he describes simply being able to exert supernatural control over distant objects through miracles as a type of tasarruf fi-l-kawn. Hence, a wali who rescues a faraway person from drowning is engaged in tasarruf fi-l-kawn.

Ibn Uthaymin says:

Whoever requests that another person to carry his belongings with him, or the like, when that other person is unable to carry them—this is not major shirk; rather, it is either frivolous behavior or minor shirk.

 

And whoever requests that an absent person rescue him from distress commits major shirk, because this is called hidden shirk (shirk al-sirr), since a person cannot call upon one who is absent except while believing that he possesses a type of control over the cosmos (taṣarruf fī al-kawn), exercising it while being distant.

 

من فوائدِ الآيةِ الكريمةِ:

الْفَائِدَةُ الأُولَى: وجوب الإخلاص لله تعالى في الدُّعاء؛ لقوله: {فَادْعُوا اللَّهَ مُخْلِصِينَ} [غافر: ١٤]، ودُعاء غير الله فيما لا يَقدِر عليه المَدعوُّ يُعتَبَر من الشِّرْك، ثُم قد يَكون شِرْكًا أكبَرَ، وقد يَكون شِرْكًا أصغَرَ بحَسب الحال، فمَن دعا قبرًا فهذا شِرْك أكبَرُ،

ومَن دعا غيره ليَحمِل معه مَتاعَه، وما أَشبَه ذلك والغَيرُ لا يَستَطيع أن يَحمِل فهذا ليس بشِرْك أكبَرَ، بل هو إمَّا عبَث وإمَّا شِرْك أصغَرُ، ومَن دعا غائبًا ليُنقِذه من شِدة فهذا شِرْك أكبَرُ؛ لأنَّ هذا يُسمَّى شِرْك السِّرِّ، إذ إن الغائِب لا يُمكِن أن يَدعوَه الإنسان إلَّا وهو يَعتَقِد أن له تَصرُّفًا في الكون، يَتصَرَّف وهو بعيد، بخِلاف مَن دعا قريبًا وقال: يا فُلانُ احمِلْ معِي كذا، أَعنِّي على كذا، فهذا يَدعوه ليَقوم بشَيْء مَحسوس.

 

[Ibn Uthaymin, Tafsir al-Uthyamin]

Addressing the More Specific Criticism of Haqiqatjou

The previous sections have provided us with an understanding of al-tasarruf fi-l-kawn in Sunnism and the parallel concept of al-wilaya al-takwiniyya in Shiism.

Wahhabis do not understand either of these concepts because they are uneducated laymen who have never studied either Sunnism or Shiism and have little knowledge of the works of major scholars like Ibn Taymiyya, let alone al-Suyuti, al-Razi, al-Haytami, et al. Rather, their education consists primarily in reading online fatwas from individuals like Ibn Baz. As a result, since Ibn Baz provides a simplistic concept of al-tasarruf fi-l-kawn, and calls it kufr and shirk, Wahhabis simply repeat the same view.

As indicated above, my debate with Wahhabis over al-tasarruf fi-l-kawn and al-wilaya al-takwiniyya began when they began demanding that I takfir both traditional Sufi Sunnis and Shia because of their beliefs on al-tasarruf fi-l-kawn and al-wilaya al-takwiniyya. Wahhabis claimed that these beliefs amount to clear shirk. Thus, it was demanded that I takfir the Sunni Sufi Shaykh Salik because he believes in al-tasarruf fi-l-kawn. It was also demanded that I takfir Shia generally, or at least Ayatollah Khomeini, because of the fact that some Shia believe in al-wilaya al-takwiniyya.

My response was that these concepts are understood in different ways by different scholars, and they are not necessarily understood in a way that amounts to shirk. I also stated that many respected Sunni scholars have expressed support for the notion of al-tasarruf fi-l-kawn. So if we were to simply takfir everyone who endorses these notions it would result in takfiring many major Sunni scholars.

This is what leads to the first criticism found in the group statement condemning me. Recall that this statement says:

“The most serious concerns relate to his repeated undermining of core matters of tawḥid (monotheism). He has justified positions that amount to shirk (polytheism) as valid, including claims that certain classical Sunni scholars held that the Prophet – peace be upon him – exercises control over all atoms of the universe.”

This is a distortion of my views.

I have said that some classical Sunni scholars explicitly say that prophets and saints “exercise control over the universe” (al-tasarruf fi-kawn). Which I have demonstrated above.

I have also noted that at times they even say that prophets and saints exercise “control over the entire universe,” and “over the upper and lower realms of the universe.” Statements of this type are made by al-Subki and al-Suyuti, as demonstrated above.

However, “exercising control over the universe,” “exercising control over the entire universe,” and “exercising control over the upper and lower realms” of the universe do not necessarily mean literally controlling everything or every atom in the universe.

For instance, suppose we agree with Ibn Taymiyya that the Prophet ﷺ can work miracles in different places throughout the lower realm of the earth. He can also do so in different places throughout the upper realm of the heavens. Through these miracles, he exercises some control “over the entire universe” including both its “upper and lower realms.” But this does not mean he literally controls every atom in the universe.

It is an incorrect understanding of human language to assume that statements like “exercise control over x” can only be understood as having one literal and absolute meaning. For example, suppose I say that a mayor or a crime gang or an electric company “exercises control over Chicago” or “exercises control over all of Chicago.” Does this necessarily mean that the control extends to literally everything in the Chicago? For example, do the mayor or the crime gang control what people eat for breakfast or when they sleep? Obviously not.

In fact, I have stated numerous times that I do not believe that the prophet or any other created being literally controls every atom in the universe. I have called this shirk many times.

All of these matters I have clarified in numerous detailed posts/essays on X. Here are four examples.

Click on the links to read the whole posts, as the screenshots are not complete.

Clarification Post 1

Clarification Post 2

Clarification Post 3

Clarification Post 4

I have also explicitly said that I do not believe that Sunni scholars hold that prophets or awliya literally control all the atoms in the universe.

Now, admittedly, I do make hundreds of hours of video content. This often involves me speaking off the top of my head rather than from a script, and sometime I do make errors or state things in less than the clearest way. However, when errors occur, I try to correct them promptly. Nevertheless, this process becomes much more difficult when facing an intense Wahhabi smear campaign.

Wahhabis go through these hundreds of hours of clips to look for any error or ambiguous statement. They then take it out of its broader context and interpret it in the most negative way possible.

Such Wahhabis then consciously ignore any later clarifications or corrections, while pretending that these do not exist.

This is their dishonesty and lack of sincerity in action.

Moreover, Wahhabis have a strategy wherein they constantly refuse to openly discuss or debate their criticisms with me. This is done with intention of preventing me from publicly clarifying or correcting any problematic statements for them and their audiences.

One of the Wahhabis’ favorite clips is the following (starts at 0:50 mark).

In this clip, I warn against being too eager to make takfir. I say that we should be cautious about takfiring other Muslims, even Shia. I say that if we automatically takfir Shia because some express support for the notion of al-wilaya al-takwiniyya, this will provide justification for takfiring Sunnis. After all, some Sunnis express support for a similar idea of al-tasarruf fi-l-kawn. Thus, some Sunni scholars (e.g., al-Haytami, al-Subki) do say things like the Prophet ﷺ exercises control over the universe. Moreover, in the Indian subcontinent today there are many millions of Barelvis who express support for such beliefs. All of this is correct.

But then I add on a further statement, about how for some of these people, an atom does not move without the Prophet’s authority. This statement is exaggerated and unclear. So after making this mistaken statement, I corrected it, and indicated that such an extreme interpretation of al-tasarruf fi-l-kawn is in fact shirk and kufr.

Wahhabis pretend like my clarifications do not exist because they are dishonest.

SECOND CRITICISM

Introduction

Second Criticism: Haqiqatjou has raised doubts about whether praying to Jesus is shirk.

This criticism is expressed in the groups statement as follows:

“The most serious concerns relate to his repeated undermining of core matters of tawḥid (monotheism). He has justified positions that amount to shirk (polytheism) as valid, including claims that certain classical Sunni scholars held that the Prophet – peace be upon him – exercises control over all atoms of the universe. He has also downplayed other polytheistic practices, such as offering sacrifices to jinn and praying for healing directly from Jesus – peace be upon him – , despite these acts constituting clear shirk.”

Once again, this is a distortion of my views. I acknowledge that “praying” to Jesus is shirk, for “praying” in the English language typically refers to a type of worship, and it is shirk to direct worship to a being other than Allah.

The more complicated issue is whether “duʿāʾ” or “istighātha” directed towards Jesus is clear shirk. “Du’a” and “istighatha” are Arabic terms that are sometimes translated as “prayer.” However, in Arabic they do not necessarily have this meaning.

Let us examine each of these terms more closely.

In Arabic, the term “duʿāʾ” simply means calling out. Such calling is usually done to make a request.

For example, Allah says in Qurʾan [24:63]:

“Do not treat the Messenger’s calling (duʿā) to you as your calling to one another.”

 

لَا تَجْعَلُوا دُعَاءَ الرَّسُولِ بَيْنَكُمْ كَدُعَاءِ بَعْضِكُم بَعْضًا

Calling in this verse has nothing to do with worship.

There are also many hadiths which use the relevant verb (daʿā) to mean call out with a request, without any sense of worship.

Sahih Muslim contains the following hadith:

It was said to him (to the Holy Prophet): There are people to whom fasting has become unbearable and they are waiting how you do. He (the Holy Prophet) then called for a cup of water (daʿā bi-qadah min māʾ) when it was afternoon.

 

وَحَدَّثَنَاهُ قُتَيْبَةُ بْنُ سَعِيدٍ، حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الْعَزِيزِ، – يَعْنِي الدَّرَاوَرْدِيَّ – عَنْ جَعْفَرٍ، بِهَذَا الإِسْنَادِ وَزَادَ فَقِيلَ لَهُ إِنَّ النَّاسَ قَدْ شَقَّ عَلَيْهِمُ الصِّيَامُ وَإِنَّمَا يَنْظُرُونَ فِيمَا فَعَلْتَ ‏.‏ فَدَعَا بِقَدَحٍ مِنْ مَاءٍ بَعْدَ الْعَصْرِ ‏.‏

Malik’s Muwatta contains the following hadith:

Malik related to me from Zayd ibn Aslam that a man confessed to fornication in the time of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, called for a whip (daʿā lahu .. bi-sawṭ) , and he was brought a broken whip. He said, “Above this,” and he was brought a new whip whose knots had not been cut yet. He said, “Below this,” and he was brought a whip which had been used and made flexible. The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, gave the order and he was flogged. Then he said, “People! The time has come for you to observe the limits of Allah. Whoever has had any of these ugly things befall him should cover them up with the veil of Allah. Whoever reveals to us his wrong action, we perform what is in the Book of Allah against him.”

 

حَدَّثَنِي مَالِكٌ، عَنْ زَيْدِ بْنِ أَسْلَمَ، أَنَّ رَجُلاً، اعْتَرَفَ عَلَى نَفْسِهِ بِالزِّنَا عَلَى عَهْدِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَدَعَا لَهُ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم بِسَوْطٍ فَأُتِيَ بِسَوْطٍ مَكْسُورٍ فَقَالَ ‏”‏ فَوْقَ هَذَا ‏”‏ ‏.‏ فَأُتِيَ بِسَوْطٍ جَدِيدٍ لَمْ تُقْطَعْ ثَمَرَتُهُ فَقَالَ ‏”‏ دُونَ هَذَا ‏”‏ ‏.‏ فَأُتِيَ بِسَوْطٍ قَدْ رُكِبَ بِهِ وَلاَنَ فَأَمَرَ بِهِ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَجُلِدَ ثُمَّ قَالَ ‏”‏ أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ قَدْ آنَ لَكُمْ أَنْ تَنْتَهُوا عَنْ حُدُودِ اللَّهِ مَنْ أَصَابَ مِنْ هَذِهِ الْقَاذُورَاتِ شَيْئًا فَلْيَسْتَتِرْ بِسِتْرِ اللَّهِ فَإِنَّهُ مَنْ يُبْدِي لَنَا صَفْحَتَهُ نُقِمْ عَلَيْهِ كِتَابَ اللَّهِ ‏”‏ ‏.‏

Sahih Muslim also contains the following hadith:

Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) said: “When any one of you is invited (duʿiya) to a feast, he should attend it.” (I.e., When it is requested that you attend a feast, you should attend).

حَدَّثَنَا يَحْيَى بْنُ يَحْيَى، قَالَ قَرَأْتُ عَلَى مَالِكٍ عَنْ نَافِعٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ عُمَرَ، قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ “‏ إِذَا دُعِيَ أَحَدُكُمْ إِلَى الْوَلِيمَةِ فَلْيَأْتِهَا ‏”‏ ‏.‏

Sahih Bukhari contains the following hadith:

The Prophet (ﷺ) said, “If I am invited (duʿītu) to a meal consisting of a sheep’s foot or shoulder, I would respond and I would accept as a gift a shoulder or a foot of a sheep.”

 

حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ بَشَّارٍ، حَدَّثَنَا ابْنُ أَبِي عَدِيٍّ، عَنْ شُعْبَةَ، عَنْ سُلَيْمَانَ، عَنْ أَبِي حَازِمٍ، عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ ـ رضى الله عنه ـ عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ ‏ “‏ لَوْ دُعِيتُ إِلَى ذِرَاعٍ أَوْ كُرَاعٍ لأَجَبْتُ، وَلَوْ أُهْدِيَ إِلَىَّ ذِرَاعٌ أَوْ كُرَاعٌ لَقَبِلْتُ ‏”‏‏.‏

 

In some contexts, duʿā does not simply mean “calling.” Rather it means calling while humbling oneself to a being with higher status and putting oneself in a state of servitude. This might happen by calling while bowing, or while prostrating, or while raising one’s hands up like a supplicant, or while saying “my Master,” or while humbly lowering one’s voice. When used in this way, du’a becomes a type of worship or ‘ibada, which means the state of being a slave.

For example, Allah says in Quran [7:55]:

“Call upon your Lord humbly and secretly. Surely He does not like the transgressors.”

 

ٱدْعُوا۟ رَبَّكُمْ تَضَرُّعًۭا وَخُفْيَةً ۚ إِنَّهُۥ لَا يُحِبُّ ٱلْمُعْتَدِينَ ٥٥

In the English language, calling with requests while humbling oneself is referred to as “prayer” or “supplication.”

So du’a has two meanings: “Calling out with requests” and “Calling out with requests while humbling oneself.”

We now come to istighatha. Istighatha simply means calling out with requests for aid. It does not involve humbling oneself. The Quran uses the term istighatha in this way.

Allah says in Quran [28:15]:

“One day˺ he entered the city unnoticed by its people. There he found two men fighting: one of his own people, and the other of his enemies. The man from his people called to him for help (istaghatha) against his foe. So Moses punched him, causing his death. Moses cried, “This is from Satan’s handiwork. He is certainly a sworn, misleading enemy.””

 

وَدَخَلَ ٱلْمَدِينَةَ عَلَىٰ حِينِ غَفْلَةٍۢ مِّنْ أَهْلِهَا فَوَجَدَ فِيهَا رَجُلَيْنِ يَقْتَتِلَانِ هَـٰذَا مِن شِيعَتِهِۦ وَهَـٰذَا مِنْ عَدُوِّهِۦ ۖ فَٱسْتَغَـٰثَهُ ٱلَّذِى مِن شِيعَتِهِۦ عَلَى ٱلَّذِى مِنْ عَدُوِّهِۦ فَوَكَزَهُۥ مُوسَىٰ فَقَضَىٰ عَلَيْهِ ۖ قَالَ هَـٰذَا مِنْ عَمَلِ ٱلشَّيْطَـٰنِ ۖ إِنَّهُۥ عَدُوٌّۭ مُّضِلٌّۭ مُّبِينٌۭ ١٥

All premodern Muslim scholars acknowledge that dua and istighatha do not amount to worship in some contexts (e.g., when living people call on one another with requests).

However, they came to hold differing opinions about the dead. Ibn Taymiyya tended to assume that calling to the dead was worship, and hence shirk.

However, the majority of scholars resisted this view. They emphasized that calling out with requests is not necessarily worship, even when it comes to the dead. To be clear, they held that calling out to a dead person with requests can be worship if the caller believes that the dead person is powerful like a god, and he humbles himself before that dead person (e.g., by prostrating, sacrificing animals). However, they argued that merely calling out by itself is not necessarily worship and hence shirk.

Tawassul vs. Istighatha

Religious scholars came to discuss this issue with respect to two widespread practices. Both of these practices assume that dead persons have a type of life in their graves.

The first practice can be described as follows. Muslims are encouraged to approach pious living persons, and request that these persons ask Allah for things on their behalf via du’a, as it is believed such du’a is likely to be answered. So I can say to a pious man, please make du’a that Allah heal me.

As mentioned earlier, premodern Muslims generally believed that the dead have a type of life in their graves (barzakh) and can do various things, including making du’a. This gave rise to the practice of living Muslims calling out to dead Muslims and requesting that these dead Muslims ask Allah for things on their behalf. Most commonly, they would ask the deceased Prophet Muhammad ﷺ. So they would go to his grave and say, “O Prophet ask Allah to heal me” or “O Prophet ask Allah to save me from the Hellfire.” This is known as “tawassul.” Tawassul can be defined as the practice of calling out to dead people and requesting that they ask Allah for things on one’s behalf.

Tawassul may be contrasted with istighatha. As noted earlier, istighatha has the more general meaning of calling out with a request for aid. However, it has a more technical meaning of calling out directly to a dead person with a request for aid, especially the Prophet ﷺ. So one says “O Prophet heal me” or “O Prophet save me from the Hellfire.” The dead person can provide such help in one of two ways. Either he can choose to ask Allah on one’s behalf. Or He can perform a miracle. So if someone says “O Prophet heal me,” the Prophet ﷺ can respond by asking Allah to heal one via dua. Alternatively, the Prophet ﷺ can work a miracle himself which heals one.

Many scholars including al-Subki and al-Haytami do not distinguish clearly between tawassul and istighatha.

The single most influential historical Sunni text on istighatha is Shifa` al-Saqam, written by al-Subki (1284-1355) who is one of the major scholars of the Shafii school. In the text, al-Subki makes a number of different arguments defending istighatha, but in one argument he claims that, in reality, istighatha nothing more than a type of tawassul. Al-Subki says that whenever a Muslim does istighatha and says, “O Prophet heal me,” he is tacitly intending, “O Prophet, heal me by making du’a to Allah to heal me.” So according to al-Subki, the Muslims who seek aid from the Prophet ﷺ through istighatha – these Muslims implicitly believe that the way the Prophet ﷺ will aid them is not by directly answering them, but by asking Allah on their behalf via du’a. This, of course, is just tawassul.

This is how al-Subki explains all this:

“The third type of Tawassul [referring to istighatha]: That one requests the wanted thing from [the Prophet ﷺ], with the meaning that he is able to be an intermediary means in this by asking his Lord and by his intercession unto Him. So it goes back to the second type [of Tawassul], in meaning [i.e., to request the Prophet’s dua on one’s behalf], even if the expression [used] is different.

 

“And from this is the statement of the one who said to the Prophet ﷺ (as reported in Sahih Muslim): “I ask you for your companionship in paradise.” The Prophet responded: “Then help me to achieve this for you by devoting yourself often to prostration.”

 

“There are also many reports regarding this and the people do not intend by their asking this except the Prophet ﷺ to be an intermediary mean (Sabab) and intercessor (Shafi’) [in attaining the requested matter].

 

“Likewise the response of the Prophet ﷺ even if it was reported in the manner of a request, as we have seen reported in “Dala`il al-Nubuwwah” by al-Bayhaqi with a chain of transmission (Isnad) going back to ‘Uthman bin Abi al-‘As [in which] he said: “I complained to the Prophet ﷺ regarding my weakness in memorizing the Qur`an, so he said [to me]: “A devil who is called Khinzab [is responsible for this], come closer to me o ‘Uthman.” Then he put his hand on my chest, so that I felt its coldness between my shoulder blades and he said: “Get out, o devil, of the chest of ‘Uthman.”” He (‘Uthman) said: “I did not hear anything after this except that I memorized it.”

 

“So look at the command of the Prophet ﷺ to the devil to get out, with the knowledge that this is [only possible] with the permission of Allah, with Him creating and facilitating it. The intent isn’t to ascribe to the Prophet ﷺ [the ability of] creating (Khalq) and independence in actions (Istiqlal bil Af’al). No Muslim intends such a thing.

 

“So taking the words to this [meaning] and disallowing it [based upon this] is from the deception regarding the religion and from the causing of confusion for the monotheist laymen.”

 

النوع الثالث من التوسل : ان يُطلبَ منه ذلك الأمر المقصود ، بمعنى أنه صلى الله عليه وسلم قادرٌ على التَّسبُّب فيه ؛ بسؤاله ربه وشفاعته إليه ، فيعود إلى « النوع الثاني » في المعنى ، وإن كانت العبارة مختلفة ، ومن هذا قول القائل للنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم : أسألك مُرافقتكَ في الجنة ، قال : « أَعِنِّي على نفسك بكثرة السجود » . والآثار في ذلك كثيرة أيضاً ، ولا يَقصدُ الناس بسؤالهم ذلك إلَّا كون النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم سبباً وشافعاً ، وكذلك جَوابُ النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم وإن ورد على حسب السؤال ، كما رُوِّينا في « دلائل النبوة » للبيهقي ، بالإسناد إلى عثمان بن أبي العاص رضي الله عنه قال : شكوتُ إلى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم سُوء حفظي للقرآن ، فقال : « شيطان يقال له خِنْزَب ، أُدْنُ مني يا عثمان » ، ثم وضع يده على صدري ، فوجدت بردها بين كتفي ، وقال : « اخرج يا شيطان من صدر عثمان » . قال : فما سمعت بعد ذلك شيئاً إلَّا حفظته . فانظر أمر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم بالخروج للشيطان ، للعلم بأنَّ ذلك بإذن الله تعالى وخَلْقه وتيسيره ، وليس المراد نِسبَةَ النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم إلى الخَلقِ والاستقلال بالأفعال ؛ هذا لا يَقصِدهُ مُسلم . فَصرفُ الكلام إليه ومنعه من باب التلبيس في الدِّين ، والتشويش على عوام الموحدين

 

[Al-Subki, Shifa` al-Saqam]

Why is all of this important? Some early Muslims like Ibn Hanbal endorsed tawassul. Moreover, with time, tawassul won acceptance within all four Sunni legal schools. For example, tawassul is endorsed by the Ḥanbalī Ibn Qudāma, the Shāfiʿī al-Nawawī , the Māliki Ibn al-Ḥājj, and the Hanafi Ibn ʿĀbidīn.

Although istighatha was more controversial, it also won a significant amount of acceptance. This was in part because many scholars considered it to be the same as tawassul. Leading proponents of istighatha include Shafii scholars like Taqī al-Dīn al-Subkī , al-Suyūṭī , Shihāb al-Dīn al-Ramlī and al-Haytamī. Moreover, even those scholars who did not endorse istighatha usually did not claim that istighatha was shirk – although here there are rare exceptions like the Hanbali scholars Ibn Aqil and Ibn al-Jawzi.

This situation changed with Ibn Taymiyya. Ibn Taymiyya argued that both tawassul and istighatha were haram. He claimed that tawassul was not shirk itself, but it was a means to shirk. He further claimed that istighatha was the worst kind of shirk. In doing so he challenged the positions held by all four legal schools in his day.

Eventually, Ibn Taymiyya’s views were largely adopted by Ibn Abd al-Wahhab and the Wahhabi movement. Most Wahhabis consider tawassul to be haram, although some (like Ibn Baz) take the unprecedented position that it is actually shirk. All Wahhabis also consider istighatha to be shirk. One of the main reasons why Ibn Abd al-Wahhab takfired the general body of religious scholars in the Ottoman Empire is that they did not agree with him that istighatha was necessarily shirk. Remember that for Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, one becomes a disbeliever if one does not takfir others who are guilty of shirk (e.g., those doing istighatha). This is his chain takfir principle.

But in these matters it is not clear that Ibn Taymiyya’s position is the strongest. Ibn Taymiyya himself conceded that tawassul is not shirk. But if this is true, it is not necessarily the case that istighatha is shirk. For if someone calls out “O Muhammad heal me,” his tacit intention may simply be that the Prophet ﷺ makes dua for him (which is tawassul, and not shirk). Alternatively, the person who says “O Muhammad heal me” may not have any more specific intention. He may not care how the Prophet ﷺ heals him, whether by dua or by a miracle from himself. Is such a person guilty of shirk? This is not clear for his statement is at least open to being a type of tawassul.

The upshot of all this is the following. It is not obviously shirk for a Muslim to say “O Muhammad heal me.” Nor is it obviously shirk for a Muslim to do the same with other prophets by saying things like “O Moses heal me,” or “O Jesus heal me.” This is in fact the view of all four premodern Sunni legal schools. It is also the standard view of Ottoman scholars. It is for this reason that Ibn Abd al-Wahhab declared a jihad against them.

However, personally, I think Ibn Taymiyya is correct that Muslims should avoid both tawassul and istighatha. For this is safer, and lowers the chance of falling into shirk, which is the greatest sin. For this reason, I have never promoted tawassul or engaged in it myself. Moreover, I believe that istighatha is wrong and haram, for, at minimum it can lead to shirk. In fact, as I have stated numerous times, I think istighatha may not only lead to shirk. There is a possibility that it is shirk.

Moreover, some forms of istighatha are more likely forms of shirk than other types. For instance, suppose a person says, “O Prophet heal me” but does not specify that the Prophet ﷺ should do this by dua. This could possibly be shirk.

Likewise, when a person goes further in humbling himself to the dead person, his acts are more likely shirk. So the person who bows down and says “O Prophet heal me” has more likely committed shirk than the person who simply says “O Prophet heal me” without bowing.

Finally, it is certain that a person has committed shirk if he says “O Prophet heal me” while believing that the Prophet ﷺ is a god, who possesses godlike attributes such as being independently powerful (istiqlal).

Addressing the More Specific Criticism of Haqiqatjou

So why, again, are Wahhabis so furious with me?

It is because I have simply repeated the standard position of the four legal schools and said that it is not obviously shirk if a person says “O Muhammad heal me” or “O Jesus heal me.”

In fact, I go beyond the position of the four schools in the direction of Ibn Taymiyya. Hence, I say that such acts are haram and are possibly shirk. Nevertheless, since I am not certain they are shirk, I do not accuse scholars who endorse them (e.g., al-Subki, al-Haytami) of being mushriks, and I do not takfir them.

In the eyes of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab and his followers, this means that I am a kafir.

Admittedly, there is one major way in which I differ from traditional proponents of the four legal schools. I make influential anti-Wahhabi video content, and bully Wahhabis online by exposing the weakness in their views on issues like tawassul and istighatha. This is why Wahhabis continuously refuse my offers to debate them over tawassul and istighatha.

However, I also admit to having weaknesses. As noted above, I make hundreds of hours of video content. This often involves me speaking off the top of my head rather than from a script, and sometime I do make errors, even though I try to correct them promptly.

Recall that Wahhabis go through these hundreds of hours of clips to look for any error or ambiguous statement. They then take it out of its broader context and interpret it in the most negative way possible. Such Wahhabis then consciously ignore any later clarifications or corrections, while pretending that these do not exist.

One of the favorite clips used by Wahhabis comes from a single occasion. During this occasion I was speaking about istighatha directed to Jesus.

You can watch the original context here, which is clearly about istighatha.

Video on Istighatha to Jesus

Notice how in the clip the Wahhabis cited in their joint letter [here] is deceptively cut to exclude where I explicitly state:

“He prays to Jesus […] is this shirk or not? Obviously it’s shirk.”

They cut out this part deliberately.

From the full clip, however, you can see that I am making an argument about istighatha and explaining how istighatha in some cases is shirk, but in some cases, it cannot be considered shirk in the same way as praying to Jesus whilst believing him to be God.

Retarded Wahhabis and their friends hear this and they conclude, “DANIEL THINKS PRAYING TO JESUS IS NOT SHIRK”

In my argument, I first describe a Christian praying to Jesus for health (“O Jesus heal my leprosy”). I then describe him converting to Islam and becoming a Sufi who makes istighatha to Jesus, while using the same words he used before in prayer (“O Jesus heal my leprosy”). I then argue that before becoming Muslim this person was obviously committing shirk by praying to Jesus. Nevertheless, the situation has changed after he has become Muslim. So it is not longer so obvious that he is committing shirk. In discussing this matter, I used the words “prayer,” “dua,” and “istighatha” interchangeably. This is what may cause confusion and I admit my wording could have been clearer. However, from the context, it is clear that I do not mean that the Sufi Muslim is actually “praying to Jesus.” He is making istighatha to Jesus but is making the request in the same wording as his prayer from when he was a Christian.

I have repeatedly clarified this, but Wahhabis are not interested in the truth. They are interested in cancelling me, even if they have to blatantly lie to do so.

The Wahhabis know that the average Muslim recognizes that istighatha is a disputed issue, and by extension, so is the issue of “istighatha to Jesus”, which is what I was discussing. But since the Wahhabis want to portray me as going beyond what is disputed and, instead, falling into the territory of clear-cut shirk, they falsely portray me as discussing “praying to Jesus,” rather than “istighatha to Jesus.” This is their deception.

I also clarified this matter during a long discussion with Adnan Rashid (1hr 46min mark).

Nevertheless, Wahhabis continue to constantly bring up this clip as proof that I believe it is permissible to “pray to Jesus.” This is what they have done in their joint statement.

So let me end by once again stating my position.

1. Praying to Jesus is shirk
2. Istighatha to Jesus is Haram, as it encourages shirk.
3. Istighatha to Jesus might also actually be shirk, but this matter is not certain.
4. Specific circumstances increase the possibility of istighatha to Jesus being shirk.
5. In fact, in some circumstances, istighatha to Jesus is certainly shirk (e.g., when it is believed that Jesus is an independently powerful god).
6. In cases, where major Muslim scholars endorse particular forms of istighatha, I do not call these forms of istighatha shirk and takfir them.
7. Ibn Abd al-Wahhab was wrong for takfiring and killing the scholars and laypersons of the Ottoman empire for their views on istighatha.
8. Wahhabi followers of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab are wrong for adopting his takfir doctrine and they are being inconsistent if they do not mass takfir the majority of Sunni Muslim scholars past and present, including all four Sunni legal schools, who also do not deem istighatha to be categorically shirk.

THIRD CRITICISM

Introduction

Third Criticism: Haqiqatjou has raised doubts about whether sacrificing animals for jinns is shirk.

This criticism is expressed in the group statement as follows:

“The most serious concerns relate to his repeated undermining of core matters of tawḥid (monotheism). He has justified positions that amount to shirk (polytheism) as valid, including claims that certain classical Sunni scholars held that the Prophet – peace be upon him – exercises control over all atoms of the universe. He has also downplayed other polytheistic practices, such as offering sacrifices to jinn and praying for healing directly from Jesus – peace be upon him – , despite these acts constituting clear shirk.”

This statement is misleading.

All Muslims hold that intention is relevant in analyzing ritual actions to determine whether they count as shirk.

Most Sunnis give great emphasis to intentions. Meanwhile, Wahhabis often minimize the importance of intentions or disregard them altogether.

Let us consider a series of rituals directed towards beings other than Allah.

For non-Wahhabi Sunnis, intentions are of great importance in analyzing such rituals.

Consider prostration for a being other than Allah – like a dead saint or jinn or king.

or slaughtering an animal for a being other than Allah – like living human or jinn.

or tawaf around a being other than Allah – like the grave of the Prophet ﷺ,

or requests from a being other than Allah – like an angel or jinn.

Sunnis claim that if you do any of these things with the intention of worshipping the being other than Allah – because you see him as a powerful god – then the actions are shirk.

But otherwise, they might not be shirk, even if they are haram. As a result, the person who does them should not be takfired and killed as an apostate.

So for instance, in the Quran, Prophet Yusuf’s family prostrated to him and this was not shirk, because they did not intend to worship him as a god (see Quran 12:4, 99-100).

Similarly, Prophet Ibrahim slaughtered animals to honor guests. But this was not shirk because he did not intend to worship them as gods (see Quran 51:24-26).

Or, we might request things from human beings. Like I might request a glass of water from my neighbor. But this is not shirk, unless I see my neighbor as a living god (e.g., like Pharoah).

But Wahhabis like Farid al-Bahraini commonly reject this logic. As a result, they claim that ritual acts are automatically shirk regardless of a person’s intentions.

Consider this statement from the Wahhabi-influenced scholar Ibn Baz. Ibn Baz is commenting on the well-known text Al-Aqida al-Tahawiyya. He’s specifically commenting on the phrase:

“A slave does not leave faith except by denying what brought him into it.”

Ibn Baz’s commentary on this phrase is as follows:

This restriction is questionable, for a disbeliever enters Islam by pronouncing the two testimonies (shahadatayn) if he had not previously uttered them. If he had already been uttering them, he enters Islam by repenting from what had rendered him a disbeliever. Moreover, one may leave Islam for reasons other than denial [juhūd], as there are many causes of apostasy, which scholars have explained in the chapter on the ruling of the apostate. Among these causes is insulting Islam, the Prophet ﷺ, or mocking Allah, His Messenger, His Book, or anything from His divine law. […] Among these causes is also worshiping idols or statues, calling upon the dead, seeking their assistance, or requesting aid and support from them, as this contradicts the meaning of La ilaha illa Allah. This statement signifies that worship is the sole right of Allah, which includes supplication, seeking help, bowing, prostration, sacrifice, vows, and similar acts. Whoever directs any of these acts to anyone other than Allah – be it idols, statues, angels, jinn, the inhabitants of graves, or any other created beings – has committed shirk and has not actualized La ilaha illa Allah.

 

All these matters expel a person from Islam by the consensus of the scholars, and they are not classified as mere denial [juhūd]. Their evidences are well known from the Quran and Sunna.

 

ولا يخرج العبد من الإيمان إلا بجحود ما أدخله فيه

هذا الحصر فيه نظر فإن الكافر يدخل في الإسلام بالشهادتين إذا كان لا ينطق بهما، فإن كان ينطق بهما دخل الإسلام بالتوبة مما أوجب كفره، وقد يخرج من الإسلام بغير الجحود لأسباب كثيرة بينها أهل العلم في باب حكم المرتد، من ذلك طعنه في الإسلام أو في النبي ﷺ أو استهزاؤه بالله ورسوله أو بكتابه أو بشيء من شرعه سبحانه لقوله سبحانه: قُلْ أَبِاللَّهِ وَآيَاتِهِ وَرَسُولِهِ كُنتُمْ تَسْتَهْزِءُونَ ۝ لاَ تَعْتَذِرُوا قَدْ كَفَرْتُمْ بَعْدَ إِيمَانِكُمْ [التوبة:65-66]، ومن ذلك عبادته للأصنام أو الأوثان أو دعوته الأموات والاستغاثة بهم وطلبه منهم المدد والعون ونحو ذلك؛ لأن هذا يناقض قول لا إله إلا الله لأنها تدل على أن العبادة حق لله وحده، ومنها الدعاء والاستغاثة والركوع والسجود والذبح والنذر ونحو ذلك، فمن صرف منها شيئا لغير الله من الأصنام والأوثان والملائكة والجن وأصحاب القبور وغيرهم من المخلوقين فقد أشرك بالله ولم يحقق قول لا إله إلا الله، وهذه المسائل كلها تخرجه من الإسلام بإجماع أهل العلم، وهي ليست من مسائل الجحود وأدلتها معلومة من الكتاب والسنة، وهناك مسائل أخرى كثيرة يكفر بها المسلم وهي لا تسمى جحوداً وقد ذكرها العلماء في باب حكم المرتد فراجعها إن شئت. وبالله التوفيق

 

[Ibn Baz, Commentary on Aqida Tahawiyya]

Now let us look at Ibn Taymiyya. Compared to other scholars, Ibn Taymiyya is more willing to claim that rituals are shirk regardless of intentions – a fact that generated great controversy.

Nevertheless, even he is not willing to go as far as someone like Ibn Baz.

Take sajda or prostration. If someone prostrates to a being other than Allah, is that to automatically be considered worshipping a being other than Allah, and hence shirk? For instance, is it shirk to prostrate before the Prophet ﷺ at his grave?

Ibn Taymiyya says:

“Animals used to prostrate to the Prophet ﷺ and animals do not worship anyone but Allah, so how can it be said that prostrating to something necessitates that one is worshipping it?”

 

وَقَدْ كَانَتْ الْبَهَائِمُ تَسْجُدُ لِلنَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَالْبَهَائِمُ لَا تَعْبُدُ اللَّهَ. فَكَيْفَ يُقَالُ يَلْزَمُ مِنْ السُّجُودِ لِشَيْءِ عِبَادَتُهُ؟

 

[Ibn Taymiyya, Majmu` al-Fatawa vol.4 p.360]

Imam al-Dhahabi, who is a Shafii and one of Ibn Taymiyya’s students, elaborates further when it comes to the issue of making sajda to the grave of the Prophet ﷺ:

“Do you not see that the Companions, out of the intensity of their love for the Prophet ﷺ said: ‘Shall we not prostrate to you?’ He replied: ‘No.’ Had he permitted them, they would have prostrated out of reverence and honor, not as an act of worship – just as the brothers of [prophet] Yusuf prostrated to Yusuf. The same applies to the case of a Muslim prostrating at the grave of the Prophet ﷺ as a gesture of reverence: This does not constitute kufr at all, but is a sinful act. It should be known that this is prohibited, and the same applies to praying toward the grave.”

 

( ألا ترى الصحابة من فرط حبهم للنبي –صلى الله عليه وسلم- قالوا: ألا نسجد لك؟ فقال: لا، فلو أذن لهم لسجدوا سجود إجلال وتوقير لا سجود عبادة كما سجد إخوة يوسف عليه السلام ليوسف، وكذلك القول في سجود المسلم لقبر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم على سبيل التعظيم والتبجيل لا يكفر به أصلا بل يكون عاصيا. فليعرف أن هذا منهي عنه وكذلك الصلاة إلى القبر ) .

 

[Al-Dhahabi, Mu`jam al-Shuyukh al-Kabir]

So Ibn Taymiyya does not believe that prostration is necessarily shirk, rather it depends upon intentions.

On the other hand, Ibn Taymiyya does believe that requests from the dead in the form of istighatha are necessarily shirk, regardless of intentions.

When it comes to slaughtering and vowing for beings other than Allah, Hanbali scholars actually debate what Ibn Taymiyya’s views are and whether he really thinks such slaughtering and vowing are necessarily shirk regardless of intentions. True, Ibn Taymiyya does say things which indicate that such slaughtering and vowing are shirk. And this is certainly how Wahhabis like Ibn Abd al-Wahhab interpret him.

When it comes to slaughtering and vowing for beings other than Allah, Hanbali scholars actually debate what Ibn Taymiyya’s views are and whether he really thinks such slaughtering and vowing are necessarily shirk regardless of intentions. True, Ibn Taymiyya does say things which indicate that such slaughtering and vowing are shirk. And this is certainly how Wahhabis like Ibn Abd al-Wahhab interpret him.

Lest this idea seem farfetched, we may take a similar example from contemporary Wahhabism. Scholars like Ibn Baz often say things like “slaughtering for beings other than Allah is shirk.” But then when he is pressed on the issue, and people ask him whether it is shirk to slaughter for guests (like Ibrahim), he offers a more nuanced view and starts bringing up intentions.

Indeed, as we will see shortly, Ibn Baz even holds that certain types of slaughter involving jinns are not shirk depending on intentions.

At any rate, after Ibn Taymiyya’s death, Hanbalis continued to debate how much Ibn Taymiyya considered the issue of intentions in classifying acts as shirk.

In fact, this issue continues to be debated until this day. Some non-Wahhabi Hanbalis (e.g., Abd al-Wahid al-Azhari al-Hanbali) argue that Ibn Taymiyya’s views were in reality more similar to the views of other Hanbalis. As such he did not necessarily consider it shirk to direct acts like slaughter, tawaf, and vows to beings other than Allah.

Sulayman ibn Abd al-Wahhab

Slaughtering animals for beings other than Allah has major significance in the history of Wahhabism. When Ibn Abd al-Wahhab takfired the scholars and laypersons of the Ottoman empire, he did so partly because most did not consider istighatha to be shirk; but also because some did not believe that slaughtering for beings other than Allah was necessarily shirk.

Take Ibn Abd al-Wahhab’s brother Sulayman who was a Hanbali scholar himself. Sulayman accused his brother of being ignorant and not understanding the writings of Ibn Taymiyya. This was a common belief among scholars at the time, and was articulated by figures like al-San’ani.

Sulayman asserted that, according to Ibn Taymiyya, slaughtering for beings other than Allah was not necessarily shirk. Rather it depends on intention. Thus, if a person slaughters for a being he considers to be a god – like the Christian Jesus, or the idol Lat, or the stars – then his intention is worship, and his slaughtering counts as shirk. However, if a person slaughters for a being he does not consider a god, and does not intend to worship, then his action is not shirk. So Sulayman says slaughtering for jinns is not necessarily shirk according to Ibn Taymiyya. Or, at least it is not the type of shirk (shirk akbar) that takes one out of Islam.

Sulayman expresses these views in a famous book criticizing his brother, called the Divine Lightening. Let us look at a translation of this text, where Ibn Taymiyya is referred to as “Shaykh Taqi al-Din.”

Ibn Abd al-Wahhab strongly rejected his brother Sulayman’s views and takfired him.

More recently, youtuber Farid al-Bahraini has claimed that Sulayman is a deviant mushrik, or something close to it for his views. Thus, he calls Sulayman a “shirk apologist.”

He then attacks me for saying that Sulayman’s views should not be dismissed so lightly, and that it is not obvious he is mistaken.

Keep in mind, I did not say that Sulayman is correct that slaughtering for jinns is merely haram and not shirk. Rather I said it is not certain that his ijtihad is wrong. Hence Ibn Abd al-Wahhab was wrong for takfiring him, and Farid is wrong for insulting him.

I also pointed out that Sulayman’s views are arguably consistent with those of other major scholars like the Shafiis al-Nawawi, al-Rafii, and al-Haytami. These scholars all hold that slaughtering for beings other than Allah is not necessarily shirk. Rather it depends on intentions.

However, before examining these Shafii views, I would like to briefly consider how Sulayman’s opinions relate to those of earlier Hanbalis, like Ibn Hanbal and al-Bahuti.

Unlike Wahhabis, Ibn Hanbal was not concerned with labelling various things shirk. Rather, for him it usually sufficed to encourage people to distance themselves from actions somehow linked to shirk. Thus, he disliked that people should eat animals slaughtered for beings other than Allah, like planets and stars.

Consider the following:

984 — He said: I asked my father [Ibn Hanbal] about one who slaughtered [an animal] for al-Zuhara (i.e., the planet Venus).

 

He said: I do not like it.

 

I said to my father: Is eating it unlawful?

 

He said: I do not say it is unlawful, but I do not like it.

 

985 — I said to my father: What about a man who slaughters for a star?

 

He said: I also do not like it. I dislike everything that is slaughtered for other than God.

 

And some of them disliked what was slaughtered for a church.

الذَّبِيحَة لغير الله

٩٨٤ – قَالَ سَأَلت ابي عَمَّن ذبح للزهرة

قَالَ لَا يُعجبنِي قلت لابي أحرام أكله

قَالَ لَا اقول حرَام وَلَكِن لَا يُعجبنِي

٩٨٥ – قلت لابي فَرجل يذبح للكوكب

قَالَ وَلَا يُعجبنِي اكره كل شَيْء يذبح لغير الله وَقد كره بَعضهم مَا ذبح للكنيسة

الرجل يَشْتَرِي الْأُضْحِية ثمَّ يَمُوت

[Masail al-Imam Ahmad of Abdullah ibn Ahmad ibn Hanbal]

Unlike Ibn Hanbal, Ibn Taymiyya was concerned with flagging various actions as linked to shirk. But most later Hanbalis seem to have retained Ibn Hanbal’s approach.

A good example is the prominent Hanbali Mansur al-Bahūtī (c. 1592-1641), who lived immediately before the time of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab. He addresses the practice, at his time, of Muslims slaughtering animals to ward off harm from jinns.

Here Mansur al-Bahuti remarks that meat slaughtered from a jinn to protect from evil is forbidden to eat.

“As for what a human slaughters in order to avoid harm from the jinn, that is forbidden.”

 

وأما ما يذبحه الآدمي لئلا يصيبه أذى من الجن فمنهي عنه.

 

[A-Bahūtī, Kashshaf al-Qina’]

Al-Bahuti does not take this opportunity to remark that slaughter of this type is shirk. This does not necessarily mean he rejects such a view. But it is possible that he does not necessarily believe that slaughtering for jinns is shirk. Either way, unlike Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, he was not concerned with resolving this matter, to facilitate takfiring others for shirk. This is significant in and of itself.

Rafi’i and Haytami

Consider this statement from the Shafii scholar al-Rafi`i. The great Imam al-Nawawi approving quotes al-Rafi`i saying:

“Know that slaughtering animals for a being that is worshipped – and in that being’s name – is like prostration. Each of these – slaughter and prostration – is a form of veneration and worship that is exclusive to Allah, who alone is deserving of worship. So whoever slaughters for someone other than Allah, whether for a living being or for an inanimate object like an idol – as an act of veneration and worship – then the slaughtered animal is not permissible [to eat], and his action is an act of kufr, just like one who prostrates to someone other than Allah with a prostration [intended as] worship. Likewise, if he slaughters for [that being] or for someone else in this same manner [i.e., intending worship], then the ruling is the same [i.e., a person who slaughters intending worship has committed disbelief].

 

However, if he slaughters for someone other than Allah not in this manner [i.e., not intending worship] – such as sacrificing or offering an animal to the Kaʿba out of reverence for it as the House of Allah, or for the Messenger of Allah ﷺ due to his status as the Messenger of Allah – then this is not something that renders the slaughtered animal impermissible [to eat]. This is the meaning of the common expression: “I have offered this to the Haram (sanctuary) or the Kaʿba.

 

Of this same kind is slaughtering when receiving the sultan, because it expresses happiness at his arrival, which is akin to slaughtering an `aqiqah [i.e., making a sacrifice for a newborn, which expresses happiness for the newborn’s arrival]. Such acts do not necessitate kufr. Similarly, prostrating to another [human] out of humility or submission does not necessitate kufr, even if it is haram.

 

And based on this, if someone says at the time of slaughter: ‘In the name of Allah and the name of Muhammad,’ and by that he intends: ‘I slaughter in the name of Allah and seek blessing through the name of Muhammad,’ then it should not be considered haram.

 

As for the view of those who say, ‘This is not permissible,’ it may be interpreted as meaning that the phrase is disliked (makruh), because something disliked can validly be described as not permissible in the sense of being not unconditionally allowed.

 

قَالَ الرَّافِعِيُّ وَاعْلَمْ أَنَّ الذَّبْحَ لِلْمَعْبُودِ وَبِاسْمِهِ نَازِلٌ مَنْزِلَةَ السُّجُودِ وَكُلُّ وَاحِدٍ مِنْهُمَا مِنْ أَنْوَاعِ التَّعْظِيمِ وَالْعِبَادَةِ الْمَخْصُوصَةِ بِاَللَّهِ تَعَالَى الَّذِي هُوَ الْمُسْتَحِقُّ لِلْعِبَادَةِ فَمَنْ ذَبَحَ لِغَيْرِهِ مِنْ حَيَوَانٍ أَوْ جَمَادٍ كَالصَّنَمِ عَلَى وَجْهِ التَّعْظِيمِ وَالْعِبَادَةِ لَمْ تَحِلَّ ذَبِيحَتُهُ وَكَانَ فِعْلُهُ كُفْرًا كَمَنْ يَسْجُدُ لِغَيْرِ اللَّهِ تَعَالَى سَجْدَةَ عِبَادَةٍ فَكَذَا لَوْ ذَبَحَ لَهُ أَوْ لِغَيْرِهِ عَلَى هَذَا الْوَجْهِ (فَأَمَّا) إذَا ذَبَحَ لِغَيْرِهِ لَا عَلَى هَذَا الْوَجْهِ بِأَنْ ضَحَّى أَوْ ذَبَحَ لِلْكَعْبَةِ تَعْظِيمًا لَهَا لِكَوْنِهَا بَيْتَ الله تعالى أَوْ لِرَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ لِكَوْنِهِ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ فَهُوَ لَا يَجُوزُ أَنْ يَمْنَعَ حِلَّ الذَّبِيحَةِ وَإِلَى هَذَا الْمَعْنَى يَرْجِعُ قَوْلُ الْقَائِلِ أَهْدَيْت لِلْحَرَمِ أَوْ الْكَعْبَةِ وَمِنْ هَذَا الْقَبِيلِ الذَّبْحُ عِنْدَ اسْتِقْبَالِ السُّلْطَانِ لِأَنَّهُ اسْتِبْشَارٌ بِقُدُومِهِ نَازِلٌ مَنْزِلَةَ ذَبْحِ الْعَقِيقَةِ لِوِلَادَةِ الْمَوْلُودِ وَمِثْلُ هَذَا لَا يُوجِبُ الْكُفْرَ وَكَذَا السُّجُودُ لِلْغَيْرِ تَذَلُّلًا وَخُضُوعًا لَا يُوجِبُ الْكُفْرَ وَإِنْ كَانَ مَمْنُوعًا

وَعَلَى هَذَا فَإِذَا قَالَ الذَّابِحُ بِاسْمِ اللَّهِ وَاسْمِ مُحَمَّدٍ وَأَرَادَ أَذْبَحُ بِاسْمِ اللَّهِ وَأَتَبَرَّكُ بِاسْمِ مُحَمَّدٍ فَيَنْبَغِي أَنْ لَا يَحْرُمَ وَقَوْلُ مَنْ قَالَ لَا يَجُوزُ ذَلِكَ يُمْكِنُ حَمْلُهُ عَلَى أَنَّ اللَّفْظَةَ مَكْرُوهَةٌ لِأَنَّ الْمَكْرُوهَ يَصِحُّ نَفْيُ الْجَوَازِ وَالْإِبَاحَةِ الْمُطْلَقَةِ عَنْهُ

 

[Al-Nawawi, Al-Majmu’]

So, al-Rafi`i is making some careful distinctions. When someone is making a sacrifice for a being other than Allah, that is not automatically shirk. There are scenarios where slaughtering for other than Allah is haram, but not shirk. And in some circumstances, it might not even be haram, such as slaughtering in the name of the Prophet ﷺ or slaughtering to celebrate the arrival of a ruler.

Also notice the point about prostration when he says that the issue of slaughtering is the same as the issue of prostration. When it comes to both prostration and slaughtering, they are not necessarily shirk when directed towards beings other than Allah. Rather intention matters.

Wahhabis like Farid al-Bahraini have claimed that I am mispresenting al-Rafi’i, and that al-Rafi’i is not actually saying that intentions matter, and that slaughtering for beings other than Allah is not necessarily shirk.

The problem for Farid, is that the interpretation I have given is not only obvious. It is also endorsed by leading religious scholars. Let us consider a fatwa from al-Azhar’s Dar al-Ifta. They discuss the exact same passage from Rafii, and give the exact same interpretation; namely, that slaughtering for other than Allah is not necessarily shirk, but instead depends on intentions. Based on al-Rafii they claim that slaughtering animals for dead walis is not necessarily shirk, for those who slaughter often do not intend to worship the walis. Rather their intention is to gift the spiritual reward of the slaughter to the walis. Al-Azhar makes these points to counter Wahhabi opinions about slaughter always being worship.

The official fatwa reads:

Some people may confuse the act of slaughtering for other than God as an act of worship, veneration, and seeking closeness to that being, with the practice of some Muslims who, when visiting the graves of saints and righteous people, bring vowed animals, slaughter them, and distribute them at the graves of the saints and righteous.

 

They do not intend by these slaughtered animals to draw near to the righteous saint himself; rather, they intend that the reward of the slaughter reach the deceased, that is, they slaughter on his behalf so that its reward may reach him, not that they slaughter for him or seek closeness to him. This is their intention and objective.

 

Sometimes they may express their desire to gift the reward of the slaughter or charity to that righteous person using wording whose error is not perceived by the one who utters it. Therefore, it is not permissible to hasten—merely upon hearing such expressions—to accuse Muslims of disbelief or to claim that they worship those saints, especially since similar expressions conveying this meaning have been transmitted from the noble Companions, may Allah be pleased with them.

 

Abū Dāwūd narrates from Saʿd ibn ʿUbādah, may Allah be pleased with him, that he said:

“O Messenger of Allah, the mother of Saʿd has died; which charity is best?”

He replied: “Water.”

So he dug a well and said: “This is for the mother of Saʿd.”

Meaning: this well is a charity on her behalf.

 

Accordingly, making vows and slaughtering for saints and righteous persons in this intended sense held by the people is valid and not shirk, as some propagate. It does not contradict monotheism or sincerity in worship to Allah Most High.

 

The Azhar fatwa then cites the al-Rafii quote from al-Nawawi’s Majmu. The Azhar fatwa then continues:

 

It is therefore not appropriate for us to rush to declare shirk against someone who slaughters an animal at the graves of the friends of God, intending by that to convey the reward to them; for shirk occurs only if a person believes in independent benefit apart from God, or independent power to cause harm, or if he directs an act of worship to other than Him, exalted be He. Thus, we ought to think well of such people, because the umma has agreed that if a Muslim performs an act that could imply disbelief from ninety-nine angles, yet implies faith from a single angle, it is obligatory to adopt that one angle of faith alone and to disregard the remaining possibilities.

 

The eminent scholar Ibn ʿAbidin said in al-Durr al-Mukhtār (4/229, Dar al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya ed.): “A fatwa declaring a Muslim to be an unbeliever is not given when his words can be interpreted in a good sense, or when there is disagreement over his disbelief—even if only in a weak report.” End quote.

 

Disbelief is among the matters that require the utmost care and precision in speaking about them, due to the worldly and otherworldly rulings that follow from them. For the affirmation of apostasy entails the permissibility of one’s blood and property, the prohibition of marital relations with his Muslim wife, and bearing witness that he will abide eternally in Hell if he dies in that state. Because of the gravity and danger of this matter, clarification and rigorous investigation are required before issuing a ruling of disbelief—especially concerning people whose Islam has already been established. Whenever it is possible to interpret a Muslim’s action or statement in a sound and acceptable manner, that interpretation becomes obligatory, particularly since his Islam is a strong presumption that repels the ruling of disbelief from him.

 

Based on the foregoing, and with regard to the case in question: what some Muslims do at the graves of the righteous friends of God—such as distributing slaughtered animals at their graves in order to feed the loved ones of that saint or others—and the statement of one of them, for example, “this is for our master al-Husayn, may God be pleased with him,” should be explained and interpreted in a legally acceptable way, similar to how the statement of our master Saʿd, “this is for the mother of Saʿd,” is understood. All of these matters are not considered slaughter as an act of worship directed to other than God, which would render the doer an unbeliever. A Muslim is not declared an unbeliever for doing this unless he intends worship and seeking closeness to someone other than God through that slaughter, believing that such a being shares with God, exalted is He, in causal influence and the management of affairs.

 

And God, exalted and transcendent, knows best.

 

وقد يخلط البعض بين صورة الذبح لغير الله عبادة له وتعظيمًا وتقربًا منه، وبين اصطحاب بعض المسلمين عند زيارة قبور الأولياء والصالحين الذبائح المنذورة، وذبحها وتفريقها عند قبور الأولياء والصالحين، ولا يتقربون بهذه الذبائح إلى الولي الصالح، وإنما يريدون به أن يصل ثواب الذبيحة للميت، أي: يذبح عنه ليصل ثوابها له، ولا يذبح له ويتقرب إليه؛ لأن هذه نيته ومقصده، وقد يعبر برغبته في هبة ثواب الذبيحة أو الصدقة لهذا الصالح بتعبير لا يدرك خطأ من تلفظ به، فلا يجوز التسرع بمجرد سماع هذا التعبير باتهام المسلمين بالكفر وأنهم يعبدون هؤلاء الأولياء، خاصة وقد ورد مثل هذا التعبير الموهم عن الصحابة الكرام رضي الله عنهم؛ فقد روى أبو داود عَنْ سَعْدِ بْنِ عُبَادَةَ رضي الله عنه أَنَّهُ قَـالَ: يَا رَسُولَ اللهِ، إِنَّ أُمَّ سَعْدٍ مَاتَتْ، فَأَيُّ الصَّدَقَةِ أَفْضَلُ؟ قَالَ: «الْمَاءُ»، فَحَفَرَ بِئْرًا، وَقَالَ: هَذِهِ لأُمِّ سَعْدٍ. أي: هذه البئر صدقة لها.

وعلى ذلك: فالنذر والذبح للأولياء والصالحين بهذا المعنى الذي يقصده الناس صحيحٌ وليس شركًا كما يُرَوِّجُ البعض، ولا ينافي التوحيد وإخلاص العبادة لله تعالى.

يقول الإمام النووي في “المجموع” (8/ 385، ط. دار الفكر) مبينًا هذه الصورة على الخصوص: [قال الرافعي: واعلم أن الذبح للمعبود وباسمه نازل منزلة السجود، وكل واحد منهما من أنواع التعظيم والعبادة المخصوصة بالله تعالى الذي هو المستحق للعبادة، فمن ذبح لغيره من حيوان أو جماد كالصنم على وجه التعظيم والعبادة لم تحلّ ذبيحته وكان فعله كفرًا كمن يسجد لغير الله تعالى سجدة عبادة، فكذا لو ذبح له أو لغيره على هذا الوجه. فأما إذا ذبح لغيره لا على هذا الوجه بأن ضحَّى أو ذبح للكعبة تعظيمًا لها؛ لكونها بيت الله تعالى أو لرسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم لكونه رسول الله فهو لا يجوز أن يمنع حلّ الذبيحة، وإلى هذا المعنى يرجع قول القائل: أهديت للحرم أو الكعبة، ومن هذا القبيل الذبح عند استقبال السلطان؛ لأنه استبشار بقدومه نازل منزلة ذبح العقيقة لولادة المولود، ومثل هذا لا يوجب الكفر، وكذا السجود للغير تذللًا وخضوعًا لا يوجب الكفر وإن كان ممنوعًا، وعلى هذا: فإذا قال الذابح: باسم الله واسم محمد وأراد أذبح باسم الله وأتبرك باسم محمد فينبغي ألا يحرَّم، وقول من قال: لا يجوز ذلك يمكن حمله على أن اللفظة مكروهة؛ لأن المكروه يصحّ نفي الجواز والإباحة المطلقة عنه] اهـ.

فلا ينبغي لنا التسرع بالحكم بالشرك على من يذبح عند أولياء الله قاصدًا بذلك إيصال الثواب لهم؛ لأن الشرك يحصل إذا اعتقد الشخص النفع الذاتي في غير الله أو القدرة الذاتية على الضرر، وكذا إذا صرف عبادة لغيره سبحانه، فينبغي أن نحسن الظن بهؤلاء؛ لأنه قد وقع اتفاق الأمة على أن المسلم إذا عمل عملًا يحتمل الكفر من تسعة وتسعين وجهًا، ثم هو يحتمل الإيمان من وجه واحد، وجب الأخذ بهذا الوجه الإيماني وحده، وإسقاط اعتبار بقية الوجوه.

قال العلامة ابن عابدين في “الدر المختار” (4/ 229، ط. دار الكتب العلمية): [لا يفتى بكفر مسلم أمكن حمل كلامه على محمل حسن أو كان في كفره اختلاف، ولو رواية ضعيفة] اهـ.

فالكفر من المسائل التي ينبغي التدقيق في الكلام عليها، لما يترتب عليها مِن أحكام دنيوية وأخروية، فمعنى ثبوت الردة هَدْر الدم والمال وحرمة قربانه زوجته المسلمة، والشهادة عليه بالخلود في النار إن مات على حاله. ولأجل عظم هذا الأمر وخطره وجب التبيين والتحري الشديد قبل إصدار الحكم بالكفر وخصوصًا عن أناس ثبت إسلامهم، فمتى أمكن حمل فعل المسلم أو قوله على محمل حسن تعيَّن ذلك، لا سيّما وأن إسلامه قرينة قوية تدفع عنه حكم الكفر.

وبناء على ما سبق وفي واقعة السؤال: فإن ما يفعله بعض المسلمين عند قبور أولياء الله الصالحين من توزيع الذبائح عند قبورهم لإطعام أحباب هذا الولي أو غيره، وأن قول أحدهم هذا لسيدنا الحسين رضي الله عنه -مثلًا- ينبغي أن يفسَّر ويحمل على محمل سائغ شرعًا كالذي يحمل عليه قول سيدنا سعد: “هذه لأم سعد”، ولا تُعَدُّ هذه الأمور كلها من الذبح تعبدًا لغير الله الذي يكفر فاعله، فلا يكفر المسلم بفعل ذلك إلا إذا كان يقصد العبادة والتقرب من غير الله بهذا الذبح معتقدًا مشاركته لله تعالى في التأثير وتصريف الأمور.

والله سبحانه وتعالى أعلم.

We may also consider the views of al-Haytami. Al-Haytami says, if someone slaughters to win the favor of the Prophet ﷺ or a jinn, this is a great sin or kabira. Nevertheless, he does not state that it is in and of itself shirk.

He says:

“And our companions [from the Shafii school] considered among the things that make the slaughtered animal haram to eat: if one says ‘In the name of Allah and the name of Muhammad’, or ‘Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah’, while using a grammatical construction that makes the second name genitive, or ‘Muhammad’ or [simply] if he knows grammar, as appears to be the case. Likewise, [it is unlawful to eat the animal] if a Jew or Christian slaughters [an animal] for a church, for a cross, for Moses, or for Jesus; or if a Muslim slaughters [it] for the Kaʿba, for Muhammad—may God’s blessings and peace be upon him—or as an act to win the favor of a ruler or someone else, or for the jinn. All of this renders the slaughtered animal unlawful, and it constitutes a major sin (kabīra), as previously mentioned.

 

This is unlike the case where the person merely intends joy at his arrival, or thanks Allah for him, or seeks to please someone who is upset, or seeks closeness to Allah so that He may protect him from the harm of the jinn.

 

وَجَعَلَ أَصْحَابُنَا مِمَّا يُحَرِّمُ الذَّبِيحَةَ أَنْ يَقُولَ بِاسْمِ اللَّهِ وَاسْمِ مُحَمَّدٍ أَوْ مُحَمَّدٍ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ بِجَرِّ اسْمِ الثَّانِي أَوْ مُحَمَّدٍ إنْ عَرَفَ النَّحْوَ فِيمَا يَظْهَرُ، أَوْ أَنْ يَذْبَحَ كِتَابِيٌّ لِكَنِيسَةٍ أَوْ لِصَلِيبٍ أَوْ لِمُوسَى أَوْ لِعِيسَى، وَمُسْلِمٌ لِلْكَعْبَةِ أَوْ لِمُحَمَّدٍ – صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ – أَوْ تَقَرُّبًا لِسُلْطَانٍ أَوْ غَيْرِهِ أَوْ لِلْجِنِّ، فَهَذَا كُلُّهُ يُحَرِّمُ الْمَذْبُوحَ وَهُوَ كَبِيرَةٌ عَلَى مَا مَرَّ، بِخِلَافِ مَا لَوْ قَصَدَ الْفَرَحَ بِقُدُومِهِ أَوْ شُكْرَ اللَّهِ عَلَيْهِ، أَوْ قَصَدَ إرْضَاءَ سَاخِطٍ أَوْ التَّقَرُّبَ إلَى اللَّهِ لِيَدْفَعَ عَنْهُ شَرَّ الْجِنِّ.

 

[Al-Haytamī, Al-Zawājir ‘an Iqtiraf al-Kaba’ir]

So al-Haytamī is making a nuanced distinction here. He says that if you slaughter for the sake of, for example, pleasing someone who is upset or to please Allah in order to seek protection from jinn, this is not a problem at all. The only problem is if you slaughter an animal to win the favor of, for example, a ruler. And in this situation, this is a major sin, a kabira, but he does not characterize it as shirk, let alone shirk akbar.

This is the dominant pattern found in the classical books of fiqh from the four madhahib. They say that these actions are major sins, but they usually don’t call them shirk out of caution. Even in the minority of cases where classical fiqh books do call an act shirk, they do not claim that this is known with certainty, such that whoever denies this is a kafir. Ibn Abd al-Wahhab breaks with the four madhahib and says, no, acts things are more than just major sins, they are shirk akbar. Furthermore, whoever denies this is a kafir. And this is what we see from Wahhabis to this day, whether Farid or Ibn Baz or Fawzan.

Wahhabis like Farid have alleged that just as I misinterpreted al-Rafii, I likewise misinterpreted al-Haytami.

They claim that when al-Haytami says that slaughtering for a jinn is a kabira, he means that it is shirk. I reject this view. He has not made a judgement about whether it is shirk. Instead he has simply chosen to call it a great sin out of caution.

Farid has also argued that, even though al-Haytami does not mention the word shirk, he means it tacitly. The proof is that earlier he mentions a Christian slaughtering for Jesus. This is clearly shirk. Since slaughtering for jinns is mentioned alongside a Christian slaughtering for Jesus it must also be shirk.

But this is wrong.

Al-Haytami also mentions a Muslim slaughtering for the Ka’ba and this is generally not considered shirk in the Shafii school (as noted by al-Rafii). In other words, al-Haytami mentions a string of actions including Christians slaughtering for Jesus (which is shirk) and Muslims slaughtering for the Ka’ba (which is not shirk), and Muslims slaughtering for jinn. He describes all these acts as major sins, but does not identify which are shirk in addition to being major sins. Farid’s claims to the contrary simply lack evidence (as is typical from him).

Nevertheless, according to Farid and the group statement, if I take seriously the view of Sulayman ibn Abd al-Wahhab and al-Azhar’s Dar al-Ifta, and disagree with the random forced Wahhabi readings of al-Rafii and al-Haytami given by some youtuber – this means that I am a shirk apologist or a kafir.

Wahhabi Views on Jinns

It is strange that Wahhabis are so eager to declare interactions with jinns to be shirk given the nature of Ibn Taymiyya’s beliefs on jinns.

Today, people’s understanding of Ibn Taymiyya is largely based on inaccurate Wahhabi propaganda. Many Wahhabis believe that requests from jinns are shirk for which an individual should be takfired and executed. Such is the position of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab.

However, Ibn Taymiyya’s views were much more complex.

Ibn Taymiyya took unique positions on both requests from the dead and requests from jinns. He was among the most forceful critics of requests from the dead, leading him to forbid tawassul and istighatha. However, he also offered arguments permitting requests from jinns. In fact, it is possible that he gave the most extensive arguments of any premodern scholar in favor of requests from jinns.

Ibn Taymiyya believes that requests from jinns are permissible because they were made by Prophet Sulayman. However he adds some important restrictions. Thus, it is not permissible to request that the jinn do something sinful like murder someone.

According to Ibn Taymiyya jinns should only be used to do things that are permissible.

He gives three examples of permissible jinn use.

(1) Having a jinn retrieve one’s property.

(2) Having a jinn disclose the location of hidden treasure (that has no owner).

(3) Having a jinn repel an enemy.

Ibn Taymiyya expresses these views in two places that are found in Majmu’ al-Fatawa.

Key quotes are given below.

Ibn Taymiyya says:

The point here is that the jinn interact with humans in various ways. Whoever among the humans commands the jinn with what Allah and His Messenger have commanded—namely, to worship Allah alone and obey His Prophet—and likewise commands humans to do the same, then such a person is among the best of the walis of Allah Most High. He is, in that regard, one of the successors and deputies of the Messenger (peace be upon him).

 

And whoever uses the jinn in matters that are permitted to him, then he is like one who uses humans in matters that are permitted. This is like commanding them with what is obligatory upon them, forbidding them from what is forbidden to them, and employing them in permitted things—such a person is in the position of a king who does likewise.

 

وَالْمَقْصُودُ هُنَا أَنَّ الْجِنَّ مَعَ الْإِنْسِ عَلَى أَحْوَالٍ: فَمَنْ كَانَ مِنْ الْإِنْسِ يَأْمُرُ الْجِنَّ بِمَا أَمَرَ اللَّهُ بِهِ وَرَسُولُهُ مِنْ عِبَادَةِ اللَّهِ وَحْدَهُ وَطَاعَةِ نَبِيِّهِ وَيَأْمُرُ الْإِنْسَ بِذَلِكَ فَهَذَا مِنْ أَفْضَلِ أَوْلِيَاءِ اللَّهِ تَعَالَى وَهُوَ فِي ذَلِكَ مِنْ خُلَفَاءِ الرَّسُولِ وَنُوَّابِهِ. وَمَنْ كَانَ يَسْتَعْمِلُ الْجِنَّ فِي أُمُورٍ مُبَاحَةٍ لَهُ فَهُوَ كَمَنْ اسْتَعْمَلَ الْإِنْسَ فِي أُمُورٍ مُبَاحَةٍ لَهُ وَهَذَا كَأَنْ يَأْمُرَهُمْ بِمَا يَجِبُ عَلَيْهِمْ وَيَنْهَاهُمْ عَمَّا حَرَّمَ عَلَيْهِمْ وَيَسْتَعْمِلُهُمْ فِي مُبَاحَاتٍ لَهُ فَيَكُونُ بِمَنْزِلَةِ الْمُلُوكِ الَّذِينَ يَفْعَلُونَ مِثْلَ ذَلِكَ

 

[Ibn Taymiyya, Majmu al-Fatawa vol.11 307]

Ibn Taymiyya also says:

Among them are those who employ [the jinn] in permissible matters—such as retrieving one’s property, or indicating the location of wealth that has no protected (legally entitled) owner, or repelling someone who harms him, and the like. This is like humans helping one another in such matters.

 

مِنْهُمْ مَنْ يَسْتَخْدِمُهُمْ فِي أُمُورٍ مُبَاحَةٍ إمَّا إحْضَارِ مَالِهِ أَوْ دَلَالَةٍ عَلَى مَكَانٍ فِيهِ مَالٌ لَيْسَ لَهُ مَالِكٌ مَعْصُومٌ أَوْ دَفْعِ مَنْ يُؤْذِيهِ وَنَحْوِ ذَلِكَ فَهَذَا كَاسْتِعَانَةِ الْإِنْسِ بَعْضِهِمْ بِبَعْضِ

 

[Ibn Taymiyya, Majmu al-Fatawa vol.13 87]

In fact, Ibn Taymiyya believes that human beings are capable of marrying jinns, having sex with them, and producing children. He mentions that this is considered disliked by most scholars, but not prohibited. Moreover, he does not indicate that it raises any concerns over shirk.

Ibn Taymiyya says:

[When] they [i.e., jinns] strike humans with insanity, [this] may occur due to [the jinns’ sexual] desire, passion, or infatuation, just as occurs among humans themselves. Humans and jinn may even intermarry, and a child may be born between them—this is something well known and widely reported, and scholars have mentioned it and discussed it. [However] most scholars have disapproved of marriage with jinn.

 

وَصَرْعُهُمْ لِلْإِنْسِ قَدْ يَكُونُ عَنْ شَهْوَةٍ وَهَوًى وَعِشْقٍ كَمَا يَتَّفِقُ لِلْإِنْسِ مَعَ الْإِنْسِ وَقَدْ يَتَنَاكَحُ الْإِنْسُ وَالْجِنُّ وَيُولَدُ بَيْنَهُمَا وَلَدٌ وَهَذَا كَثِيرٌ مَعْرُوفٌ وَقَدْ ذَكَرَ الْعُلَمَاءُ ذَلِكَ وَتَكَلَّمُوا عَلَيْهِ وَكَرِهَ أَكْثَرُ الْعُلَمَاءِ مُنَاكَحَةَ الْجِنِّ.

 

[Ibn Taymiyya, Majmu al-Fatawa vol. 19 39-40].

This exemplifies Wahhabi hypocrisy. Although they may disagree with some of Ibn Taymiyya’s views, they do not attack him as a promoter of shirk. Rather they simply hide his opinions or insist they represent legitimate scholarly ijtihad.

Wahhabi Views on Slaughtering for Jinns

What is even more shocking is that some Wahhabi scholars themselves claim that certain types of animal slaughter involving jinns do not count as shirk.

Thus, in the Arab world, there is the practice of slaughtering animals when one acquires a new home, with the expectation that this will somehow supernaturally protect the home from the evil eye and from jinns. However, the person doing the slaughtering does not necessarily do it with the intention of winning the favor of jinns (taqarrub).

This leads to two differ views among Wahhabis, represented by Ibn Baz and Fawzan.

According to Ibn Baz, it is necessary to give some consideration to intentions. Thus, it is shirk if one slaughters with the intention of winning the favor of jinns. However, if one slaughters simply with the intention that it will simply somehow ward off jinns (ittiqāʾ al-jinn), and protect the house, then this is not shirk.

Ibn Baz’s view is likely shaped by the views of Hanbali scholars like al-Bahuti, who do not label such actions as shirk.

Ibn Baz’s view conflicts with that of Salih al-Fawzan, who pays less attention to intentions. Al-Fawzan says any slaughter that is done to affect the jinns is shirk. So not only is it shirk to slaughter to win the favor of jinns. It is likewise shirk to slaughter to ward them off (ittiqāʾ al-jinn). Both acts are shirk, because both are slaughtering for a being other than Allah.

According to the view of al-Fawzan, Ibn Baz’s opinion is mistaken, and overly tolerant of shirk. For it denies that it is shirk to slaughter animals to ward off jinns.

Let us look at the evidence.

Fatwa of Ibn Baz

Question:

 

A question from one of our Sudanese brothers states: In our country there is a custom whereby, when a person begins constructing a house, he slaughters an animal when the building reaches the halfway point; or the slaughter is delayed until the construction is completed and the person intends to move into the house. Relatives and neighbors are invited to this slaughtered animal. What is Your Eminence’s view of this practice? And is there any legislated act that is recommended to be performed before moving into a new house? Please advise us, and may Allah reward you with the best of reward.

 

Answer:

 

All praise is due to Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon the Messenger of Allah, upon his family, his Companions, and those who follow his guidance. To proceed:

 

This practice requires distinction and clarification.

 

If the intention behind the slaughter is to ward off jinn (ittiqāʾ al-jinn), or for some other purpose whereby the homeowner believes that this slaughter will bring about such-and-such results—such as protection for himself or for the occupants of the house—then this is not permissible; rather, it is among the innovations.

 

And if it is done for the jinn [i.e., to win the jinns favor], then it constitutes major shirk, because it is an act of worship directed to other than Allah.

س: سؤال من أحد الإخوة السودانيين يقول فيه: توجد في بلدنا عادة وهي أن المرء إذا شرع في بناء منزل له يذبح ذبيحة إذا وصل البناء إلى النصف، أو تؤجل هذه الذبيحة حتى اكتمال البنيان وإرادة السكن في المنزل، فيدعى لهذه الذبيحة الأقارب والجيران، فما رأي فضيلتكم لهذا العمل؟ وهل هناك عمل مشروع يستحب عمله قبل السكن في المنزل الجديد؟ أفيدونا جزاكم الله خير الجزاء.

جـ: الحمد لله والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله وعلى آله وأصحابه ومن اهتدى بهداه أما بعد:

فهذا التصرف فيه تفصيل، فإن كان المقصود من الذبيحة اتقاء الجن أو مقصدا آخر يقصد به صاحب البيت أن هذا الذبح يحصل به كذا وكذا كسلامته وسلامة ساكنيه – فهذا لا يجوز، فهو من البدع. وإن كان للجن فهو شرك أكبر؛ لأنه عبادة لغير الله.

أما إن كان من باب الشكر على ما أنعم به عليه من الوصول إلى السقف أو عند إكمال البيت فيجمع أقاربه وجيرانه ويدعوهم لهذه الوليمة فهذه لا بأس بها، وهذا يفعله كثير من الناس من باب الشكر لنعم الله؛ حيث من عليهم بتعمير البيت والسكن فيه بدلا من الاستئجار، ومثل ذلك ما يفعله بعض الناس عند القدوم من السفر يدعو أقاربه وجيرانه شكرا لله على السلامة فإن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم كان إذا قدم من سفر نحر جزورا ودعا الناس لذلك عليه الصلاة والسلام.

[Ibn Baz, Majmu Fatawa wa Maqalat Mutanawwi’a]

Fatwa of Salih al-Fawzan

6267 – One of the questions posed by a questioner says: I ask about the ruling on slaughtering for graves and for houses out of fear of the jinn, and slaughtering upon purchasing a car or cars and then smearing them with blood.

 

The answer: All of these matters are polytheistic acts (ʾumūr shirkiyya). Slaughtering for the jinn is a polytheistic act, because it is slaughtering for other than Allah. In the Sunnah it is reported: ‘May Allah curse the one who slaughters for other than Allah.’ And Allah, Mighty and Exalted, says to His Prophet:

 

“Say: Indeed my prayer, my sacrifice, my living, and my dying are for Allah, Lord of the worlds. He has no partner. And with that I have been commanded” [al-Anʿām 162–163].

 

And He, Exalted, says:

 

“So pray to your Lord and sacrifice” [al-Kawthar 2].

 

Sacrifice and slaughter are acts for winning the favor (taqarrub) of Allah, Glorified and Exalted. So if one slaughters for the jinn or for devils in order to ward off their harm (li-ittiqāʾ sharrihim) or in hope that they will benefit him, then this is major shirk that expels one from the religion, because it involves directing a type of worship to other than Allah, Mighty and Exalted.

 

Likewise, slaughtering in the house out of fear of the jinn is also from shirk with Allah, Mighty and Exalted. Similarly, slaughtering when purchasing a car and smearing the car with blood out of fear of the evil eye or of the jinn—all of this is shirk with Allah, Mighty and Exalted. These acts are not permissible, because they are acts of worship for other than Allah, Mighty and Exalted, and constitute shirk with Allah, Mighty and Exalted.

 

“6267- من أسئلة السائل يقول: أسأل عن حكم الذبح للقبور وللبيوت خوفًا من الجن والذبح عند شراء السيارة أو السيارات ونقوم بتلطيخها بالدم؟

 

الجواب: الجواب: كُلُّ هذه أمور شركية، الذبح للجن أمر شركي؛ لأنه ذبح لغير الله وفي السُّنة: «لعن الله من ذبح لغير الله» والله جل وعلا يقول لنبيه: ﴿ قُلْ إِنَّ صَلَاتِي وَنُسُكِي وَمَحْيَايَ وَمَمَاتِي لِلَّهِ رَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ (162) لَا شَرِيكَ لَهُ وَبِذَلِكَ أُمِرْتُ﴾ [الأنعام: 162، 163] ويقول جل وعلا: ﴿فَصَلِّ لِرَبِّكَ وَانْحَرْ﴾ [الكوثر: 2] فالنسك والنحر تقرب إلى الله سبحانه وتعالى فإذا ذبح للجن أو للشياطين؛ لاتقاء شرهم أو رجاء أن ينفعوه فهذا هو الشرك الأكبر المخرج من الملة؛ لأنه صرف نوعًا من أنواع العبادة لغير الله عز وجل، وكذلك الذبح في البيت خوفًا من الجن هذا أيضاً من الشرك بالله عز وجل، كذلك الذبح عند شراء السيارة وتلطيخ السيارة بها خوفًا من العين أو من الجن كل هذه شرك بالله عز وجل، فلا تجوز هذه الأعمال؛ لأنها عبادة لغير الله عز وجل وشرك بالله عز وجل.

 

[Salih al-Fawzan, Fatawa Nur ‘ala al-Darb]

Addressing the More Specific Criticism of Haqiqatjou

To sum up:

Wahhabis do not attack Ibn Taymiyya for believing that prostration to beings other than Allah (e.g., jinns) is not necessarily shirk.

Wahhabis do not attack Ibn Taymiyya for believing that it is permissible to request that jinns bring one buried treasure.

Wahhabis do not attack Ibn Taymiyya for believing that it is permissible to request that jinns protect one from enemies.

Wahhabis do not attack Ibn Taymiyya for suggesting that it not prohibited to marry and have sex with jinns.

Wahhabis do not attack Ibn Baz for holding that it is not shirk to sacrifice animals to ward off jinns.

However, they then accuse me of “downplay[ing] other polytheistic practices, such as offering sacrifices to jinn — despite these acts constituting clear shirk.”

What exactly do these Wahhabis mean when they say that I have “downplayed” offering sacrifices to jinns?

It is simply that I said that the opinions of Sulayman, al-Rafii, and al-Haytami are not obviously wrong. I did not say I agree with them. I simply said that I do not automatically dismiss them.

I myself think that any type of sacrifice to jinns is likely shirk. I also believe that the type of behaviors mentioned Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn Baz are likely shirk, despite them denying this. However, I am not sure about these matters, and believe that they are matters of ijtihad. So I don’t believe in calling Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn Baz shirk apologists or mushriks, or accusing them of “downplaying polytheistic practices.” And I apply this same standard to Sulayman, al-Rafii, and al-Haytami.

FOURTH CRITICISM

Introduction

Fourth Criticism: Haqiqatjou has claimed that some Muslim social media preachers have ties to Gulf governments, and defend or promote the pro-Zionist policies of those governments.

This is expressed in the group statement as follows:

“[I]deological criticisms from Muslim duʿāt towards him [i.e., Haqiqatjou] are dismissed as psychological operations orchestrated by Israeli intelligence and “Abraham Accord” regimes, referring to those critics as “Zio agents.”

 

These accusations appear designed to incite hatred among his followers, and the broader public, deliberately endangering their safety and well-being.”

Wahhabism as a Tool for Advancing Political Interests

Nothing is more obvious than the fact that since the founding of Wahhabism in the mid-eighteenth century, it has been used to advance the political interests of Saudi Arabia and other allies Gulf states.

Leading Wahhabi scholars constantly write fatwas to legitimate state policies. This is most obvious when it comes to Madkhalism.

We see this with figures like Muhammad Aman al-Jami, Rabi bin Hadi al-Madkhali, Falah Mandakar, Abd al-Aziz al-Rayyis, Salim al-Tawil, and Sulayman al-Ruhayli.

RELATED: Who Are the ”Madkhalis”?

But Madkhalism is a phenomenon which only arose in the 1990s. In fact, although Madkhalis are much more servile than older generations of Wahhabis, Wahhabi scholars have always designed their fatwas to advance the geopolitical aims of the Saudi state – which they identify as the primary patron and protector of the Wahhabi movement – and the “land of Tawhid.”

As noted previously, at the time of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, Wahhabi scholars takfired the whole Ottoman empire. This justified Saudi jihad against the Ottomans, and the taking of their lands and properties.

During World War I, the Saudi state and the Wahhabi religious establishment allied with the British to help destroy the Ottoman empire. Wahhabis claimed that the Ottoman empire consisted in disbelievers with a lower status than British Christians. The same pattern itself has repeated itself throughout history.

During the first Gulf War (1990-1991), the Saudi state allied with the US to destroy Iraq. At the time various Wahhabi scholars like Ibn Baz issued fatwas justifying this alliance, takfiring Saddam and his government, and permitting US troops on Saudi soil.

Wahhabi scholars regularly mass takfir Shia Muslims. It is argued that just as traditional Sunnis are mushrik disbelievers, Shia are even worse mushrik disbelievers. This is used to justify the Saudi state’s alliance with Israel and the US against various Shia states and organizations like Iran and Hezbollah.

Wahhabi preferences for Jews over Shia is now being used to justify normalization with Israel and the Abraham Accords.

Saudi Arabia also considers the Muslim Brotherhood and its branches like Hamas to be a threat to their monarchical rulers. They are worried that the Muslim masses will support popular revolutions led by Muslim Brotherhood figures, as occurred in the Arab Spring. The result is that leading Wahhabi scholars denounce the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas as deviant movements that should be destroyed.

In short, much (though not all) of the Wahhabi da’wa is simply political propaganda designed to advance the geopolitical interests of Saudi and its allies such as the UAE. As Saudi and UAE become increasingly close allies of Israel and adopt increasingly pro-Zionist policies, Wahhabi scholars must spread religious propaganda to justify this.

Wahhabi Social Media Influencers and Their Political Propaganda

Wahhabi social media influencers repeat the political propaganda of the Gulf states they are subservient to.

Here is a video compiling the statements of Gulf-sponsored Wahhabi influencers denouncing the Palestinians, accusing them of shirk, and justifying normalization with Israel. These were statements made primarily after October 7th after Israel had begun it’s genocidal campaign in Gaza.

The main organizers of the join letter against me, Farid al-Bahraini and Jake Brancatella, have good relationships with these pro-Israel Wahhabis.

For example, Wajdi Akkari revealed that he met with Farid, who traveled to his country, and thinks positively about him. Jake also is very laudatory of Wajdi, who mocks the death of Palestinians, as you can see from the video above and the X post linked here.

Both Jake and Farid have gone out of their way to defend UAE agent Rabbi Faris Hammadi. Hammadi is a known employee of the UAE government and became infamous when, after October 7th, he issued a declaration that “boycotting Israel is haram.” You can see his statement on this in the video above.

Here is Rabbi Faris doing PR work for his employer:

I have asked Adnan, Jake, and Farid to condemn Rabbi Faris for his pro-Israel activism. All three have refused to do so. Why?

Farid refuses to disavow or condemn Rabbi Faris in any form or fashion. Why is Farid able to dedicate months to daily posting about me, attacking me in the harshest terms, implying I’m a kafir shirk apologist, but he can’t even bring himself to make a simple negative remark about the most obvious Zionist agent on Muslim Twitter?

He didnt even have to comment on Rabbi Faris as a person. All he had to say was, Rabbi Faris is a disgusting traitor for saying boycott of Israel is haram. That’s all that was required, but he couldn’t even do that.

The blood of Palestinians is cheap for these agents.

Jake especially became very passionate in defending his friend Rabbi Faris.

Here Jake confirms that he and Rabbi Faris are on excellent terms.

Shockingly, he admits that suddenly he has no problem with Rabbi Faris’ fatwa that boycotting Israel is haram terrorism.

Jake slammed Rabbi Faris in the past for saying boycotting Israel is haram. Now, after a private convo, he thinks Rabbi Faris has a perfectly legitimate position.

This is how Jake refers to the boycott of Israel.

“Stupidity of people like you who think it’s more important to not drink a can of coke”

Yes, you Zionist rat, I do believe the blood of Palestinians is more important than your subtard Wahhabi takfiri ramblings. Rabbi Faris taught you well!

 

Here Jake is getting really angry that people are criticizing his friend Rabbi Faris. Look at how passionately Jake comes to the rescue. That’s true love!

By the way, doesn’t Jake know that Faris has publicly admitted to working for the UAE government?

Now how about UAE matters in particular, such as the issue of Hindu Temples being built in the UAE. As “staunch defenders of Tawhid,” surely the Wahhabis would have plenty of objections about the return of idol worship to the Arabian peninsula, ushered in by the UAE rulers, right?

Farid, for example, refuses to condemn the UAE government for their role in this. This is how he earned the apt title “Hindu Temple Apologist.”

As a true Madkhali Wahhabi, Farid al-Bahraini will only criticize rulers if he can speak to them privately. Meanwhile, he feels no hesitation in publicly takfiring me, calling different shaykhs “5-star mushrik,” organizating joint letters to condemn me, and praying for Allah to break my neck and kill me lol.

In the eyes of Hindu Temple Apologist Farid, the honor and life of the UAE rulers are simply more important and valuable than those of mine and other regular Muslims.

Adnan Rashid also perfectly represents the geopolitical interests of the Gulf states and the UAE in particular. During the Israel-Iran 12-day war, Adnan was non-stop posting anti-Iran and anti-Shia polemics, while making absurd claims against Iran.

What also became very controversial was Adnan’s refusal to condemn the UAE for backing the RSF in Sudan, which was conducting a genocide of Sudanese Muslims in October this past year.

I have multiple times demanded that Adnan condemn the UAE for its parts in the Sudan massacres, and he has flatly refused.

 

Many X users pointed out that, with Iran, he is very specific in calling out their government, takfiring them, etc. But with the UAE, suddenly, Adnan only knows generalities and can only issue vague statements condemning all evil in the universe.

Adnan has also gone on record recently that it is impermissible (haram) to publicly criticize rulers. In other words, Adnan Rashid is also a Madkhali Wahhabi.

Notably, neither Jake nor Farid condemned the UAE for its part in the Sudan genocide.

Overall:

When it comes to Wahhabi social media influencers, some are on the front line pushing political propaganda.

Others content themselves with attacking those who criticize Gulf government policies, while fomenting hatred against the Sunni Sufi Traditionalists, Muslim Brotherhood, and Shia.

FIFTH CRITICISM

Introduction

Fifth Criticism: Haqiqatjou has claimed that some Muslim social media preachers promote a Wahhabi doctrine which teaches the mass takfir and killing of Muslims, which is similar to Kharijism, and which is actually the same doctrine as ISIS.

This is expressed in the group statement as follows:

“In response to public criticism from fellow duʿāt, he has retaliated by leveling baseless accusations, identifying them as Khawārij in a documentary and invoking a hadith in which the Prophet – peace be upon him – exhorted fighting and killing the Khawārij. He has, in some instances, attempted to link certain duʿāt to ISIS attacks, including the Bondi Beach shootings and the Mar Elias Greek Orthodox Church bombing. Haqiqatjou has gone as far as to accuse some duʿāt of wanting to kill millions of Muslims and wanting to enslave their women as concubines.”

Wahhabism Teaches the Mass Takfir and Mass Killing of Muslims

This was proven exhaustively in the three and a half three-and-a-half hour documentary “Wahhabism: Uncovering the Hidden Truth.” The documentary revealed in detail how Wahhabis historically takfired all the Muslims surrounding Najd in the Arabian peninsula, then launched a jihad against them in which they massacred them in their mosques, homes, farms, and marketplaces.

Here it suffices merely to quote some material from the documentary:

In the mid-eighteenth century, Ibn Abd al-Wahhab formed a tight alliance with Muhammad ibn Saud. Ibn Saud was born in Diriyya in Najd, the central region of Arabia. His ancestors had settled Diriyya and Ibn Saud became the emir in 1727. Nearly two decades later, in 1745, Ibn Saud formed an alliance with Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, who had accumulated a loyal group of hardcore followers. The deal that Ibn Saud made with Ibn Abd al-Wahhab is as follows: Ibn Saud promised to make Ibn Abd al-Wahhab’s ideas as the official doctrine of his state and he promised to spread those ideas by force. In return, Ibn Abd al-Wahhab was required to tell his followers to support Ibn Saud and fight in his wars. This political-religious alliance proved to be beneficial for both parties, but it resulted in a great deal of war and bloodshed.

By 1747, the surrounding areas of Diriyya accepted Wahhabism and pledged their allegiance to Ibn Saud. This included the areas of `Uyayna, Huraymilaʾ, `Ammariyya, and Manfuha. But neighboring Riyadh, which was ruled by Dahham ibn Dawwas, was a hold out. So Ibn Saud initiated attacks against Riyadh. Initially, Ibn Abd al-Wahhab and his followers claimed these wars were purely defensive. “Oh we’re just protecting ourselves from all the enemies surrounding us!” For example, in a letter Ibn Abd al-Wahhab sent to an Iraqi scholar, he writes:

“To this day we have not fought anybody except to defend ourselves and [our] women. They are the ones who came to us in our lands and left [us] no choice.”^[1]

In reality, however, Ibn Saud and Ibn Abd al-Wahhab were the aggressors. This is obvious from Ibn Abd al-Wahhab’s own teachings, but it is also what independent historians say. Cole Bunzel, in his book Wahhabism published in 2023 by Princeton University Press, acknowledges that perhaps in the early days, Ibn Abd al-Wahhab and his followers were being opposed by other scholars and authorities in Najd. But this opposition was not because Ibn Abd al-Wahhab was peacefully teaching his understanding of tawhid. The problem was, Ibn Abd al-Wahhab and his followers were aggressively takfiring the scholars and authorities who did not accept his teachings. The apologists for Ibn Abd al-Wahhab today claim that Ibn Abd al-Wahhab takfiring scholars and authorities was only a response to the takfir of his opponents. But Bunzel rejects this:

“The claim that the opponents of Wahhabism were the first to engage in takfir is not believable at all.”^[2]

Bunzel continues:

“Exactly when the transition from defensive jihād to offensive jihād in Wahhābism took place is difficult to say, but we can be sure that the transition was taking place no later than 1752, which is when the town of Ḥuraymilāʾ committed [alleged] apostasy (ridda).”^[3]

According to Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, apostasy meant refusing to be ruled by Ibn Saud. Ibn Saud and Ibn Abd al-Wahhab ruled over their new territories like co-rulers. They ensured that all their subjects adhered to strict Wahhabi teachings. They were so strict, in fact, that in 1753, Ibn Abd al-Wahhab ordered the execution of a man who was spreading the teachings of his brother Sulayman ibn Abd al-Wahhab. Keep in mind that his brother Sulayman as a fellow Hanbali probably agreed with Ibn Abd al-Wahhab on 99% of Islamic topics. But because Sulayman disagreed with the mass takfir and other innovations of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, for that he was considered an apostate and liable for execution.

Going back to 1752, a group of men in Huraymila were inspired by Sulayman and initiated a coup to break off from Ibn Saud and Ibn Abd al-Wahhab. Now, theoretically, if a group breaks their pledge and secedes from a ruler, the ruler is justified in using force to regain what was lost. But this was not enough for Ibn Abd al-Wahhab. Ibn Abd al-Wahhab declares the entire town of Huraymila as apostates. In his book Mufid al-Mustafid, he claims they have not only apostatized from Islam, they are actually mushriks who practice polytheism. Therefore, offensive jihad is justified against them. Their blood and property has become halal. Now, this move from Ibn Abd al-Wahhab to frame things in terms of shirk and offensive jihad proves two things. First, it proves that Ibn Abd al-Wahhab did engage in mass takfir. He takfired an entire town and accused them of being mushriks simply for rejecting his and Ibn Saud’s political rule. Secondly, by declaring all the inhabitants of Huraymila as mushriks, Ibn Abd al-Wahhab is depicting the Saudi state as warriors against shirk while their political enemies are magically transformed into mushriks who must be eliminated. The significance of this is that the political aspirations of Ibn Saud become religiously mandated. There is convenient religious justification to aggressively drive expansion of the Saudi political power.

The attack on Huraymila in 1755 was the biggest offensive that the Wahhabis had ever engaged in up to that point. Ibn Saud’s son, Abd al-Aziz led the charge of 1000 soldiers in a surprise attack. One hundred men from Huraymila were killed. After Huraymila, the Wahhabi forces conquered the area of al-Mihmal. The area of al-Washm was conquered in 1767. All-`Aarid was conquered in 1773 and Riyadh finally came under Saudi control. The regions of Sudayr and al-Kharj were also conquered by 1781 and 1784 respectively, which meant that pretty much all of Najd was now under Saudi rule.

Now, where were the Ottomans all this time? All of the Arabian peninsula was under Ottoman rule, so technically the Saudi expansion was a revolt against the Ottoman Caliphate. The Saudis were now looking to take over Hijaz in the West and expel the Ottomans, who they viewed, of course, as nothing more than kafir mushriks in need of swift elimination.

The question is, why didn’t the Ottomans quickly crush the Wahhabi rebellion? The answer is that the Ottomans were not in a strong position to stop the rebellion because they were busy defending the Ummah from Russia, which was actively invading Muslim lands in Southeast Europe. The Ottomans were further taxed when, at the turn of the century, the British and the French invaded Egypt and Algeria. In the process, these European states initiated genocides that would claim millions of Muslim lives. While the Ottomans prioritized fighting a defensive jihad against these invading European powers, the Wahhabis took this as an opportunity to wage jihad against the Ottomans.

By 1765, Muhammad ibn Saud died. His eldest son, Abd al-Aziz became the second ruler of the Saudi State. Abd al-Aziz was also the son-in-law of ibn Abd al-Wahhab and ibn Abd a-Wahhab was his primary advisor.

Abd al-Aziz continued to wage war against the Muslims of Najd until Riyadh fell into Wahhabi control in 1773. After this, all of Najd came under Wahhabi control. In the 1790s, the nascent Saudi state began expanding east and north with raids against the Muslims in Qatif and Ahsa as well as lower Iraq and Syria. Accounts of these raids reveal disturbing details. Consider the following event which happened in 1797, as described by Wahhabi historian Ibn Bishr:

“In [that year] in [the month of] Ramadan, Sa’ud – may the worshipped One have mercy upon him – set out with the victorious armies and the famous horses, from all of the areas of Najd and its [bedouin] Arabs and intended the North (i.e., Iraq). He attacked the known al-Shuyukh market near Basrah and killed many of them. The people fled and drowned in the river.”^[4]

 

وفيها في رمضان سار سعود رحمه المعبود , بالجنود المنصورة والخيل العتاق المشهورة , من جميع نواحي نجد وعربانها وقصد الشمال , وأغار على سوق الشيوخ المعروف عند البصرة , وقتل منهم قتلى كثيرة , وهرب أناس وغرقوا في الشط

Even in Ramadan, the plundering Wahhabi raiders did not spare fasting Muslims, fasting Muslims who they drove into the rivers, forcing them to drown to death.

In 1802, the Wahhabis committed their most infamous massacre in the Iraqi city of Karbala. According to Ibn Bishr, Saud, who was the son of Abd al-Aziz, arrived outside the city, climbed its walls, and entered it by force. They then killed most of the city’s people in the markets and homes. They raided the mosque of the Prophet ﷺ grandson Husayn. They looted the entire city and slaughtered 2,000 of its inhabitants. Other accounts place the total death toll at 4500.

One of the habits of the followers of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab is that they gloat about slaughtering Muslims. In one letter, the son of Abdul-Aziz writes to the governor of Ottoman controlled Baghdad, threatening him. He writes:

“Your statement that we took Karbala, slaughtered its people, and took its property – alhamdulillah! We make no apology for this, and we say, ‘the disbelievers shall have the likes thereof.’”^[5]

 

وقولك: إنا أخذنا كربلاء، وذبحنا أهلها، وأخذنا أموالها، فالحمد لله رب العالمين، ولا نتعذر من ذلك، ونقول: {وَلِلْكَافِرِينَ أَمْثَالُهَا} [سورة محمد آية: ١٠] .

Speaking more generally about his bloodthirstiness, he continues:

“As for what you mentioned that we kill the disbelievers, this is something for which we make no apology and that we do not minimize. We shall do more of it […] We abase the disbelievers, shed their blood, and make booty of their property, by the might and power of God. […] The verses and hadiths concerning jihad and encouraging it are countless; we have no labor but jihad, and we have no appetite save for the possessions of the disbelievers.”^[6]

 

وأما ما ذكرت: إنا نقتل الكفار، فهذا أمر ما نتعذر عنه، ولم نستخف فيه، ونزيد في ذلك إن شاء الله، ونوصي به أبناءنا من بعدنا، وأبناؤنا يوصون به أبناءهم من بعدهم، كما قال الصحابي: على الجهاد ما بقينا أبدا.

ونرغم أنوف الكفار، ونسفك دماءهم، ونغنم أموالهم بحول الله وقوته، ونفعل ذلك اتباعا لا ابتداعا، طاعة لله ولرسوله، وقربة نتقرب بها إلى الله تعالى، ونرجو بها جزيل الثواب، بقوله تعالى: {فَاقْتُلُوا الْمُشْرِكِينَ حَيْثُ وَجَدْتُمُوهُمْ وَخُذُوهُمْ وَاحْصُرُوهُمْ وَاقْعُدُوا لَهُمْ كُلَّ مَرْصَدٍ فَإِنْ تَابُوا وَأَقَامُوا

الصَّلاةَ وَآتَوُا الزَّكَاةَ فَخَلُّوا سَبِيلَهُمْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَحِيمٌ} [سورة التوبة آية: ٥] . وقوله: {وَقَاتِلُوهُمْ حَتَّى لا تَكُونَ فِتْنَةٌ وَيَكُونَ الدِّينُ كُلُّهُ لِلَّهِ فَإِنِ انْتَهَوْا فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ بِمَا يَعْمَلُونَ بَصِيرٌ وَإِنْ تَوَلَّوْا فَاعْلَمُوا أَنَّ اللَّهَ مَوْلاكُمْ نِعْمَ الْمَوْلَى وَنِعْمَ النَّصِيرُ} [سورة الأنفال آية: ٤٠] وقوله تعالى: {فَإِذَا لَقِيتُمُ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا فَضَرْبَ الرِّقَابِ} [سورة محمد آية: ٤] الآية وقوله: {قَاتِلُوهُمْ يُعَذِّبْهُمُ اللَّهُ بِأَيْدِيكُمْ وَيُخْزِهِمْ وَيَنْصُرْكُمْ عَلَيْهِمْ} [سورة التوبة آية: ١٤] الآية.

ونرغب فيما عند الله من جزيل الثواب، حيث قال تعالى: {إِنَّ اللَّهَ اشْتَرَى مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ أَنْفُسَهُمْ وَأَمْوَالَهُمْ بِأَنَّ لَهُمُ الْجَنَّةَ يُقَاتِلُونَ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ فَيَقْتُلُونَ وَيُقْتَلُونَ وَعْداً عَلَيْهِ حَقّاً فِي التَّوْرَاةِ وَالْأِنْجِيلِ وَالْقُرْآنِ وَمَنْ أَوْفَى بِعَهْدِهِ مِنَ اللَّهِ فَاسْتَبْشِرُوا بِبَيْعِكُمُ الَّذِي بَايَعْتُمْ بِهِ وَذَلِكَ هُوَ الْفَوْزُ الْعَظِيمُ} [سورة التوبة آية: ١١١] وقال تعالى: {هَلْ أَدُلُّكُمْ عَلَى تِجَارَةٍ تُنْجِيكُمْ مِنْ عَذَابٍ أَلِيمٍ تُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَرَسُولِهِ وَتُجَاهِدُونَ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ بِأَمْوَالِكُمْ وَأَنْفُسِكُمْ ذَلِكُمْ خَيْرٌ لَكُمْ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ تَعْلَمُونَ يَغْفِرْ لَكُمْ ذُنُوبَكُمْ وَيُدْخِلْكُمْ جَنَّاتٍ تَجْرِي مِنْ تَحْتِهَا الْأَنْهَارُ وَمَسَاكِنَ طَيِّبَةً فِي جَنَّاتِ عَدْنٍ ذَلِكَ الْفَوْزُ الْعَظِيمُ وَأُخْرَى تُحِبُّونَهَا نَصْرٌ مِنَ اللَّهِ وَفَتْحٌ قَرِيبٌ وَبَشِّرِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ} [سورة الصف آية: ١٠-١١] والآيات والأحاديث ما تحصى في الجهاد، والترغيب فيه.

ولا لنا دأب إلا الجهاد، ولا لنا مأكل إلا من أموال الكفار

The Wahhabi penchant for gloating about slaughtering Muslims continues to this day on social media. Contemporary followers of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab glorify this massacre because the victims were Shia. But these ignorant neo-khawarij forget that Ibn Abd al-Wahhab takfired Sunnis and Shiis equally, and thus, many Sunnis were also slaughtered by the Wahhabi armies.

In 1803, for example, the Wahhabis began pressing Westward in order to conquer Hijaz. This resulted in the siege of Taif. Uthman al-Mudayifi was the Wahhabi commander leading the siege. Ibn Bishr describes what happened:

“[Uthman’s forces] marched to Taif, where Ghalib al-Sharif had fortified himself, prepared, and armed for battle against them. However, when those forces besieged him, Allah cast fear into his heart, and he fled to Makka, abandoning Taif. Then, Uthman and his forces entered and seized the city by force without facing any resistance. They killed its people in the markets and homes, slaughtering around two hundred individuals. They looted the city, seizing vast amounts of wealth—money, goods, weapons, fabrics, jewelry, and valuable merchandise—so much that it could neither be contained nor counted.”^[7]

 

فساروا إلى الطائف وفيها غالب الشريف وقد تحصن فيها، وتأهب واستعد لحربهم. فنازلته تلك الجموع فيها فألقى الله في قلبه الرعب وانهزم إلى مكة، وترك الطائف فدخله عثمان ومن معه من الجموع وفتحه الله لهم عنوة بغير قتال، وقتلوا من أهله في الأسواق والبيوت، فقتل منهم عدّة مائتين. وأخذوا من البلد من الأموال الأثمان، والأمتاع، والسلاح، والقماش، والجواهر، والسلع الثمينة ما لا يحيط به الحصر ولا يدركه العد

Keep in mind that this is the sanitized Wahhabi description of the siege. But Ahmad Dahlan, the Grand Mufti of Makka provides a different perspective. In his book Khulasat al-Kalam, he says:

“When [the Wahhabis] entered Taif, they carried out a mass killing, sparing neither the old nor the young, neither the rulers or the subjects, neither the nobles or the commoners. They slaughtered even the nursing infant on his mother’s chest. They climbed onto rooftops, dragging out those who had hidden and killing them. They found a group studying the Qur’an and killed them all, exterminating everyone in the houses. Then they moved to the shops and mosques, killing those inside—even slaying men in the mosque while they were bowing or prostrating—until they annihilated these people entirely.”^[8]

 

ولما دخلوا الطائف قتلوا الناس قتلاً عاماً واستوعبوا الكبير والصغير، والمأمور والأمير، والشريف والوضيع، وصاروا يذبحون على صدر الأم الطفل الرضيع، وصاروا يصعدون البيوت يخرجون من توارى فيها، فيقتلونهم. فوجدوا جماعة يتدارسون القرآن فقتلوهم عن آخرهم حتى آبادوا من في البيوت جميعاً. ثم خرجوا الى الحوانيت والمساجد وقتلوا من فيها، ويقتلون الرجل في المسجد وهو راكع أو ساجد، حتى أفنوا هؤلاء المخلوقات..

Of course, Dahlan may be embellishing, but his account is not substantively different from what the Wahhabi historians themselves say.

In 1803, Abd al-Aziz died and his son Saud took his position as leader of the Wahhabis.

True to his Wahhabi roots, Saud combined blood lust with a bitter hatred for Muslims. This was more than evident in the letters he wrote to Muslim leaders, demanding they surrender to his rule. For example, in one letter, he taunts the Ottoman governor of Baghdad, who had been a Christian slave who had converted to Islam. Saud writes:

“I hope that you die upon your Christian religion and are among the pigs of hellfire.”^[9]

This is how the Wahhabi leader addressed the Muslims leaders. In another letter to the Ottoman governor of Sham in Syria, Saud writes:

“I summon you to God alone without partner, as the Prophet said in his letter to Heraclius, ‘Submit, and you shall be safe.’”^[10]

The governor responds to this letter, outraged that the Wahhabi leader has takfired the entire region of Sham. He also calls the Wahhabis khawarij for taking up arms and rebelling against the Ottoman caliphate.

The Wahhabis wrote many of these letters to rulers in Iraq and Syria, takfiring them and then threatening them, if you do not accept our rule and our beliefs, then we will wage jihad against you, slaughter you, and take your women and children.

These weren’t empty threats. The attack on Sham, for example, happened around 1820 as described by Ibn Bishr:

“The news reached [Sa’ud] that in the deserts of the Levant, among its Arab tribes from the ‘Anaza, Bani Sakhr, and others [they were gathering]. However, when he arrived in that region, he found none of them, as someone had warned them beforehand. […] When Ibn Sumayr and his followers heard of Saud’s approach, they fled with their Bedouin forces and descended into the Ghor region of Hawran. Saud then moved through that area, advancing and retreating, passing by the villages around Muzayrib and Busra. His forces plundered whatever goods and food they found and set the villages ablaze. The inhabitants had fled upon hearing of his march.

 

“Saud then encamped at ‘Ayn al-Bijjah, where the Muslims [i.e., his soldiers] drank from its waters, and their horses and armies were watered […]

“Afterward, he returned to his homeland, carrying abundant spoils of horses, goods, furnishings, and food. Many people from the Levant were killed, and this raid caused great fear and panic throughout the Levant, including Damascus and its surrounding regions, as well as all its Bedouin tribes.”^[11]

 

بلغه الخبر أن بوادي الشام وعربانه من عنزة وبني صخر وغيرهم فيها , فلما وصل تلك الناحية لم يجد فيها أحداً منهم , وإذا قد سبقه النذير إليهم , فاجتمعوا على دوخي بن سمير رئيس ولد علي من عنزة , وهو من وراء الجبل المعروف بطويل الثلج قرب نابلس , نازلين عين القهوة من جبال حوران , ولما بلغ ابن سمير ومن معه إقبال سعود إليهم انهزم بمن معه من البوادي ونزلوا الغور من حوران , فسار سعود في تلك الناحية , وأقبل فيها وأدبر , واجتاز بالقرى التي حول مزيريب وبصرى , فنهبت الجموع ما وجدوا فيها من المتاع والطعام , وأشعلوا فيها النيران , وكان أهلها قد هربوا عنها لما سمعوا بمسيره , ثم نزل عين البجة , وروى منها المسلمون!! وشربت خيلهم وجيوشهم….

ثم رجع قافلاً إلى وطنه ومعه غنائم كثيرة من الخيل والمتاع , والأثاث والطعام , وقتل من أهل الشام عدّة قتلى , وحصل في الشام رجفة ورهب عظيم بهذه الغزوة , في دمشق وغيرها من بلدانه وجميع بواديه

The Wahhabis terrorized the Muslims of the Middle East with raiding, plundering, and murdering for decades.

Then in 1806, the Wahhabis set on attacking Makka, which was under Ottoman rule. Prior to the attack, Saud sent another shocking letter which was addressed to all the people of Makka, the scholars, the guardians of the sanctuary, and the Sultan’s judge.

This letter starts off with [al-salam `ala man ittaba`-l-huda] “Peace be upon those who follow guidance.” He didn’t start the letter with the [Al salamu `alaykum] because that is, of course, only the greeting given to fellow Muslims. Instead, he gave the customary greeting that is given to Christians because, according to the Wahhabi invaders, all the people of Makka and its scholars were collectively kafir mushriks, so no greetings of salam should be given to them. The letter reads:

“You are the neighbors of God and the inhabitants of His Sacred Sanctuary, secure under His protection. We invite you to the religion of God and His Messenger: “Say: O People of the Book! Come to a word that is equitable between us and you—that we worship none but Allah, that we associate no partners with Him, and that none of us shall take others as lords besides Allah. But if they turn away, then say: Bear witness that we are Muslims.” (Quran 3:64)”^[12]

 

من سعود عبد العزيز الى كافة اهل مكة و العلماء الاغوات و قاضي السلطان

السلام على من اتبع الهدى، أما بعد.

فأنتم جيران الله وسكان حرمه، آمنون بأمنه، إنما ندعوكم لدين الله ورسوله: «قُلْ يَا أَهْلَ الْكِتَابِ تَعَالَوْاْ إِلَى كَلَمَةٍ سَوَاء بَيْنَنَا وَبَيْنَكُمْ أَلاَّ نَعْبُدَ إِلاَّ اللّهَ وَلاَ نُشْرِكَ بِهِ شَيْئًا وَلاَ يَتَّخِذَ بَعْضُنَا بَعْضًا أَرْبَابًا مِّن دُونِ اللّهِ فَإِن تَوَلَّوْاْ فَقُولُواْ اشْهَدُواْ بِأَنَّا مُسْلِمُون»، فأنتم في وجه الله ووجه أمير المسلمين سعود بن عبدالعزيز، وأميركم عبدالمعين بن مساعد، فاسمعوا له وأطيعوا ما أطاع الله والسلام

The ayah cited in the letter implies that all the residents of Makka are not Muslim, they are kafirs, and the Wahhabis are inviting them to embrace Islam for the first time.

After a period of siege, the Wahhabis were able to conquer Makka Mukarrama. After doing so, they forced the Sunni scholars in the city to sign a document. What is interesting about this document is that it is a confession. This document reads as follows:

“We bear witness – as scholars of Makka, who have affixed our signatures and seals to this document – that the religion upheld by Sheikh Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (may Allah have mercy on him) and to which the leader of the Muslims, Saud ibn Abd al-Aziz, has called, consisting of the monotheism of Allah and the rejection of polytheism as mentioned in this book, is indeed the truth, without doubt or uncertainty. We also bear witness that the types of polytheism mentioned in this book, which have occurred in Makka, Medina in the past, and in Egypt, Syria, and other lands up to the present time, constitute disbelief that permits the shedding of blood and the confiscation of wealth, and warrants eternal punishment in Hellfire.

 

“Whoever does not embrace this religion, act according to it, ally with its adherents, and oppose its enemies is, in our view, a disbeliever in Allah and the Last Day. It is incumbent upon the leader of the Muslims and upon the Muslims to strive against and fight such a person until they repent to Allah from what they are upon and adhere to this religion.

 

“I testify to this, and it is written by the one in need of Allah, the Exalted: Abd al-Malik ibn Abd al-Mun’imi, the Mufti of Makka, may Allah pardon and forgive him….”^[13]

 

نشهد – ونحن علماء مكة، الواضعون خطوطنا، وأختامنا في هذا الرقيم – أن هذا الدين، الذي قام به الشيخ محمد بن عبد الوهاب، رحمه الله تعالى، ودعا إليه إمام المسلمين سعود بن عبد العزيز، من توحيد الله، ونفي الشرك، الذي ذكره في هذا الكتاب، أنه هو الحق الذي لا شك فيه ولا ريب، وأن ما وقع في مكة والمدينة، سابقا، ومصر والشام وغيرهما من البلاد إلى الآن، من أنواع الشرك المذكورة في هذا الكتاب، أنه: الكفر، المبيح للدم والمال والموجب للخلود في النار; ومن لم يدخل في هذا الدين، ويعمل به، ويوالي أهله، ويعادي أعداءه، فهو عندنا كافر بالله واليوم الآخر، وواجب على إمام المسلمين والمسلمين، جهاده وقتاله، حتى يتوب إلى الله مما هو عليه، ويعمل بهذا الدين.

أشهد بذلك، وكتبه الفقير إلى الله تعالى: عبد الملك بن عبد المنعم، القلعي، الحنفي، مفتي مكة المكرمة، عفى عنه، وغفر له.

So the Wahhabis forced the scholars of Makka to confess that:

1. Their previous teachings were kufr and shirk
2. Ibn Abd al-Wahhab’s teachings were true beyond doubt
3. The Saudi state was correct in killing them and taking their property through jihad because Makka was Dar al-Harb and a land of kufr and shirk.

This letter reveals, again, the mentality of the Saudi Wahhabi state: Only the followers of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab are the true Muslims. Literally everyone else in the Ummah, even the residents of Makka itself and its most senior scholars, are kafir mushriks and jihad must be waged against them.

…

The defining characteristic of Wahhabis is their hatred and backstabbing of the Ummah.

Nothing better represents this than the alliance of the Wahhabis with the British in the early 20th century. The Wahhabis experienced a re-emergence of political power due to military campaigns led by Abd al-Aziz Ibn Saud (1880-1953). Ibn Saud reconquered Riyadh in 1902 and over the next decade expanded his rule across Najd. But Ibn Saud wasn’t satisfied with Najd alone. He desired to annex the Hijaz – a goal that had eluded earlier members of the Saud dynasty. Annexing the Hijaz required defeating the Ottomans and the Arab tribes allied with the Ottomans. The opportunity to defeat the superior Ottoman forces came with World War 1. In 1914, the Ottomans issued a jihad proclamation, calling on the world’s Muslims to fight back against the British and other allied European powers who were threatening to destroy the Caliphate. But Ibn Saud and the Wahhabis rejected this call for Muslim unity. In fact, Ibn Saud saw this as the perfect time to go the opposite direction and formalize an alliance with the British.

In 1915, Ibn Saud signed the Treaty of Darin. This treaty made the Wahhabi Najd a British protectorate. The treaty formalized Ibn Saud and Wahhabis as allies of the British against the Ottomans in World War 1. As a reward for backstabbing the Ottomans, the British formally recognized Najd and offered it British protection. They also gave Ibn Saud a £20,000 loan and a shipment of arms, as well as a monthly stipend of £5,000.

Isn’t it amazing that just £5,000 a month is all it took for the Wahhabis to sell out the Ummah to the enemies of Islam? The Wahhabis knew the British were invading and massacring Muslims, burning down their homes and their mosques, but they sided with the British anyway and celebrated when Sunni Muslims were being slaughtered.

If you think I’m exaggerating, just consider the fatwa from top Wahhabi authority Sulayman ibn Sahman, who lived from 1850 to 1930. Ibn Sahman was one of the highest ranking authorities in the entire history of the Wahhabi movement. Ibn Sahman’s fatwa has been preserved as a historical manuscript by King Saud University and, at time of recording, you can still download it directly from their manuscript database.

The fatwa states that Ottoman Sunni Muslims are all kafir murtads. Furthermore, their level of kufr is worse than that of Jews and Christians, who are standard kafirs, or what they term “kafir asli.”

“Question: What is your opinion regarding the [Ottoman] Turkish state and the Christians – may Allah curse them all: Which of the two is greater in disbelief? And which of the two groups deserves to be granted victory over the other?

 

Answer: […] The disbelief of these people, the cursed Turkish state, is more severe than that of the Jews and Christians, and far more harmful to Islam and the Muslims than the Christians. This is because they are apostates from Islam, and the apostate is more severe in disbelief than the disbeliever who was never a Muslim (i.e., kafir asli). […]

 

There is no doubt that these apostates – from among the Turkish soldiers and others – are more disbelieving than the Jews and Christians, as is well known from the words of Shaykh al-Islam [Ibn Taymiyya], as he explicitly stated regarding the Nusayris. It is known that they outwardly display Islam; that they pronounce the two testimonies of faith; that they perform Friday and congregational prayers; and they appoint [Sharia] judges, as they did when they took control of Egypt.”^[14]

 

مسئلة :

ما قولكم – أدام الله فضلكم – في الدولة التركية والنصارى-لعنهم الله جميعا –

أيهما أعظم كفرًا ؟ وأي الطائفتين يجب انتصارها على الأخرى؟ افتنا مأجورًا. أثابك الله الجنة آمين!

الجواب:

الحمد لله، والصلاة والسلام على من لا نبي بعده، اعلم وفقك الله- أن كفر هؤلاء-الدولة التركية الملعونة – أغلظ من كفر اليهود والنصارى

وأعظمُ ضررًا على الإسلام والمسلمين من النصارى بكثير ؛ لأنهم مرتدون عن الإسلام، والمرتد عن الإسلام أغلظ من كفر الكافر

الأصلي؛ لما سنبينه من الأدلة القاطعة والبراهين الساطعة.

ولا شك أن هؤلاء المرتدين من العساكر التركية وغيرهم، أكفرُ من اليهود والنصارى، كما هو معلوم من كلام شيخ الإسلام، وكما صرح

به في النصيرية ومن المعلوم أنهم يتظاهرون بالإسلام، [ ويتلفظون] بالشهادتين، ويُصلُّون الجمعة والجماعة، وينصبون القضاة، لما

استولوا على مصر].

So, Ibn Sahman is citing Ibn Taymiyya and claiming that Ibn Taymiyya’s opinion about Nusayris applies to the Ottomans. Now to understand how crazy this is, you have to realize who the Nusayris are. Nusayris believe that Ali ibn Ali Talib is literally God. They believe Ali is the Divine incarnation of God and they worship him as God. So of course, Ibn Taymiyya and all other Muslim scholars throughout history said that Nusayris are not Muslim. But how in the world are you going to compare Nusayris, who believe God was a man walking the earth, with Sunni Ottomans? How completely insane is this? If you remember, this is exactly the twisted logic of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, who said that the Sunni Muslims of Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Makka, and Madina were all mushriks worse than Abu Jahl. Why? Because some people in those places have Sufi practices like istighatha, therefore, because of auto-takfir and chain takfir, they’re all mushriks worse than Abu Jahl. This is the deviant Wahhabi takfir doctrine we discussed earlier. And, as we’ve seen, Ibn Taymiyya has nothing to do with this deviance. Never did Ibn Taymiyya mass takfir Sufis or entire regions where Sufis practicing istighatha lived. Yet, here is this so-called “scholar,” Ibn Sahman citing Ibn Taymiyya and applying Ibn Taymiyya’s opinion about Nusayris in order to mass takfir the Sunni Ottomans.

Now the second part of the question was, who should the Muslims want to be victorious, the British or the Ottoman Turks? To answer this, Ibn Sahman refers to the sirah. He points out that, when the Persians and the Romans were at war, the Sahaba were cheering for the Romans. Why? Because at least the Romans were Christians and were Ahl al-Kitab, i.e., People of the Book, whereas the Persians of the time were mushrik fire-worshippers. So on that basis the Sahaba were more in favor of the Romans. Ibn Sahman applies this logic to the British and the Ottomans.

“Once it becomes clear to you that the Persians were worshipers of statues and idols; and that the Romans were People of the Book; and that the polytheists among Qurayshi disbelievers rejoiced at the victory of the Persians over the Romans, because both were idol worshipers; and that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and his companions rejoiced at the victory of the Romans over the Persians, because they were People of the Book, – and although both groups [Persians and Romans] were disbelievers who had never been Muslim, the Muslims rejoiced at the Romans’ victory because they were People of the Book, while the Persians were not, but rather idolaters.

 

“It is also known that the disbelief of the apostate is more severe than that of the disbeliever who has never been Muslim (al-kafir al-asli), as we have already established with evidence. Therefore, rejoicing at the victory of the People of the Book over idol worshipers in our time [i.e., the Turks] is even more appropriate. This is because they are apostates so their disbelief is worse than the disbelief of those who have never been Muslim.”^[15]

 

فإذا تبين لك: أن أهل فارس عبدةُ أوثان وأصنام، وأن الروم أهل كتاب، وأن المشركين من كفار قريش يفرحون بنصر فارس على الروم؛

لأنهم وإياهم عباد أوثان وأصنام، وكان رسول الله-صلى الله عليه وسلم- وأصحابه يفرحون بانتصار الروم على الفرس؛ لأنهم أهل كتاب،

وكُلُّ من هؤلاء وهؤلاء كُفْرُهُمْ كفر أصلي، وقد فرح المسلمون بانتصار الروم لأنهم أهل كتاب على الفرس لأنهم ليسوا بأهل كتاب، بل

كانوا من عبدة الأوثان والأصنام، وقد كان من المعلوم أن كفر المرتد أغلظ من كفر الكافر الأصلي لما قدَّمنا من الأدلة؛ فكان الفرح

بانتصار أهل الكتاب على عبدة الأوثان في هذه الأزمان بطريق الأولى والأحرى؛ لأن كفرهم لأجل ردتهم عن الإسلام أغلظ من كفر الكافر الأصلي،

Keep in mind that in 1915, the Ottoman Caliphate included not only Turkey, but also Syria, Palestine, Iraq, and the Hijaz, Makka and Madina. According to Ibn Sahman, Muslims in these regions are apostate kafir mushriks– whose disbelief is more severe than that of Christians and Jews. Therefore, the real Muslims, meaning the Wahhabis, should hope and pray that the British invaders wipe them all out.

This shocking fatwa is not well known because Wahhabis have aggressively hidden these historical documents which reveal the truth about their movement. The fatwa was endorsed by Abdullah bin Abd al-Latif (1848-1920) who was a direct descendent of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab and was the highest ranking Wahhabi scholar of his time. Abdullah was also the direct teacher of Ibn Saud (1875- 1953).

Ibn Saud, who would eventually found the modern Saudi state, truly believed the Wahhabi doctrine that the British were superior to Sunni Muslims.

All of this is reported by Harry St John Bridger Philby (1885-1960). Philby was a high-ranking British colonial intelligence officer who served as advisor to Ibn Saud, and was one of Ibn Saud’s close friends. Philby reports his conversations with Ibn Saud in the book “Arabia of the Wahhabis” published in 1928.

Philby says:

“Ibn Sa’ud hastened to explain that most of their time had been spent in close contact with their English hosts and that they had seen but little of the local Muslims. He then seized the opportunity of launching out into one of his favourite themes—the comparative merits of Christians and non-Wahhabi Muslims, lumped together in the category of Mushrikin. *Why!” he said, ‘if you English were to offer me of your daughters to wife I would accept her, making only the condition that any children resulting from the marriage should be Muslims. But I would not take of the daughters of the Sharif or of the people of Makka or other Muslims, whom we reckon as Mushrikin. I would eat of meat slain by the Christians without question. Ay, but it is the Mushrik, he who associates others in worship with God, that is our abomination. As for Christians and Jews,’ here he quoted a text from the Quran, ‘they are “people of a book,” though,’ and here somewhat naively he permitted himself a delightful dash of inconsistency, ‘I like not the Jews—they are contemptible by reason of their too great love of money.’ Sincere as he was in his own religion, Ibn Sa’ud was fully convinced of the practical advantages of a British alliance, and it seemed to me in these days that anything like a cordial reaction on our part would result surely and steadily in the establishment of the toleration of Christians as a basic factor of the Wahhabi creed.”^[16]

Ibn Saud conveys to this British colonial officer how Islam gives a higher status to Christians and Jews above non-Wahhabi Muslims. He also says his eagerness to ally with the British empire against the so-called mushrikin. Elsewhere, Ibn Saud even admits that he believes the Ottoman Turks are an inferior race:

“Ibn Sa’ud, by way of commentary [on a Quranic chapter he had read] turned to me and remarked that he […] was of the stock of Isma’il— ‘cousins to you [Christian Britons], for you are of the stock of Ishaq.’ The Turks, he said, were Awlad Iblis [children of the devil], being Tatars by origin.”^[17]

According to Ibn Saud, the British and the Wahhabis are cousins because the British are descended from Isaac and the Wahhabis are descended from Ishmael. But the Ottoman Turks are nothing more than the children of Satan.

Phillby continues:

“Thus in every way within his power Ibn Saud, in preparation for his coming campaign, was laying the foundations of a general acceptance of his basic policy of an alliance with Britain.”^[18]

Ibn Saud’s hatred for Sunni Muslims resulted in numerous massacres that have been extensively documented by historians.

For example, did you know that the Wahhabi murdered over 3000 Yemeni pilgrims?

In 1923, Ibn Saud’s paramilitary gangs shot dead over 3,000 Yemeni pilgrims heading toward Makka to perform the annual Hajj. When the Yemenis arrived in the southern provinces, one of Ibn Saud’s gangs started shooting the pilgrims, killing 3105.

This massacre is described in the book “The Great Massacre of Pilgrims,” by Professor Hamoud Al-Ahnoumi. Professor Ahnoumi claims that this massacre took places for a number of reasons. Ahnoumi says that Ibn Saud did not want the Yemenis to interfere with his plans to conquer the Hijaz in alliance with Britain. Ahnoumi also says that this massacre was a British “acceptance test” for Ibn Saud, so that Ibn Saud could prove to the British that he was willing to do anything they asked. Ahnoumi says:

“Britain was preparing Ibn Saud to be its first man and main agent in the region, who would implement its disruptive and differentiating project, but it wanted him to carry out an acceptance test that would qualify him to be its man who could carry out any ugly thing it asked of him.”^[19]

At the time of Ibn Saud, another Wahhabi massacre took place in Taif. As mentioned earlier, in 1803 there was an infamous massacre in Taif which saw the Wahhabis kill 200 Sunnis. In 1924, they carried out another massacre where they massacred 500 Sunnis. Then they robbed the remaining residents, leaving them no food. As a result, thousands starved to death. This is all described in the book “The Hijaz” by Malik Dahlan, published by Oxford University Press in 2018. The book collects the testimonies of multiple eyewitness accounts of the atrocities:

“British diplomats played down the situation in their initial reports […but] As more refugees arrived from Taif and it became clear that a number of British subjects had been killed or robbed during the attack, the evidence of Wahhabi brutality became clear. Yasin Khan, the Indian Pilgrimage Officer, wrote: ‘After the occupation of the town the Wahhabis behaved most brutally, killing the peaceful inhabitants treacherously and indiscriminately. About five to eight hundred men are said to have been killed. … Seven men were taken out to ransom of 7,000 pounds.’

 

“Dr Munir-ud-Din submitted another account of events as described by his patients who had fled Taif: On 2 September they heard firing of bullet outside the walls of Taif. … Ibn Saud’s men entered the town in the afternoon of 5 September with the words: ‘Heaven for you! Slaughter these mushrikeen [idolators], these kuffar [unbelievers], these enemies of Allah!’ They then made their way towards the tomb of Abdullah bin Abbas, demolished the cupola, levelled the grave to the ground and set fire there with the words: ‘Demolish the cupola of the mushrikeen that they worship.’ From that time onwards the bullets were shot all over indiscriminately into the houses of the town until 8am on the Saturday. … When they entered a house they levelled their guns and pointed swords and knives towards the inmates and demanded that they surrender all gold and other coins. … As soon as gold was collected the adults were often shot dead. … On Saturday, some people were made to carry the dead bodies towards the tomb of Abdullah bin Abbas. The dead bodies were thrown there with the words that these kaffirs need not be buried but should be left there for dogs to devour. … Dead bodies were also tied with rope and dragged by mules. … Some soldiers of the Hashemite government who were left in the town threw off their uniforms and joined the common people as Arabs so as to be saved from being slaughtered.

 

“The testimony of another eyewitness, Runsi Ihsanullah, a British subject, described how the inhabitants of Taif were taken outside the town into Shubrah with no personal belongings or clothing except what they were wearing, while the Wahhabis collected all the valuables found in their homes. In the next three days no food was given to the captured, and when they were allowed to return to Taif, most decided to flee to other villages, as nothing was left in their homes. During that exodus many died on the way with no access to water. That event brought the estimated number of dead into the thousands. Another account states that the survivors were made to walk to Makkah barefoot in their underclothes with instructions to deliver a message that the Wahhabis were on their way, and those who supported Sharif Hussein would ‘meet the fate of Taif, otherwise they would be spared’. The atrocities reflect the extreme poverty of the Bedouin from the famished desert tribes, but also the political extremism inherent in the Wahhabi doctrine. In order to justify the killing of fellow Muslims they first proclaimed them kuffar and mushrikin. They also reportedly called the conventional Sunni admiration of the Prophet Mohammad a form of idolatry.”^[20]

When you understand this history, you recognize that it is not an exaggeration to say that Wahhabis today literally prefer the US, Israel, and European powers over other Muslims. You might have thought I was exaggerating when I said that Wahhabis are working with the enemies of Islam today to slaughter Palestinians and betray the Ummah. But what do you think now that you know this history and you’ve seen their statements? Still think I’m exaggerating?

From the very beginning of the Saudi state, the Wahhabis conspired with the Europeans against the Caliphate and against the wider Ummah. Remember the Ibn Sahman fatwa from 1915? At this time, the Caliphate began calling all the Muslims of the world to support them. The Wahhabis favored the British to destroy the Ottomans, which would allow the Wahhabis to retake Hijaz and the Arabian Peninsula. This is exactly what happened at the end of the war, leading to the collapse of the Ottoman Caliphate and the seizure of its lands, including Palestine, which was then given to Jews to establish israel. And, of course, the rest of the Arab lands were divided up into nation states, creating the dysfunctional mess known as the modern Middle East we know today.

The depressing situation we have today in Palestine and the Middle East is a result of exactly what the Wahhabis worked for. Wahhabis have for centuries stabbed the Ummah in the back; they’ve repeatedly celebrated when Muslims were attacked and killed by non-Muslims; they’ve always preferred non-Muslims dominating over the Muslims with so-called “incorrect aqida.” Just like Ibn Saud worked with the British to destroy the Ottomans, Wahhabis in our time helped the US to destroy Iraq in two Gulf Wars. And we see many Wahhabis today encouraging and helping the US and Israel to destroy the Muslims in Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, and Yemen.

This is something no Muslim should ever forget. Because the Wahhabis lie and claim that what distinguishes them from other Muslims is their belief in “Tawhid” and following the Salaf. All of this is a propaganda hoax. What distinguishes Wahhabis is takfir and betrayal of all other Muslmis, allying with non-Muslims against other Muslims, loyalty to the Saudi state over religion, and racism towards non-Saudis. That is the legacy of Wahhabism.

Wahhabi Doctrine is Similar to Kharijism

The claim that Wahhabi doctrine is similar to Kharijism is not a claim that I created. It was the standard way Sunni scholars viewed Wahhabism at the time of its emergence, in the mid-eighteenth century. Moreover, it remained the dominant view until the early twentieth century.

The great Hanafi scholar Ibn Abidin (1784-1836) said the following about the Wahhabis:

“[The khawarij] takfir the Companions of our Prophet ﷺ. […] This is similar to what occurred in our time with the followers of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, who emerged from Najd, took control of Makka and Madina and claimed to follow the Hanbali school of thought. However, they believed that they alone were the true Muslims and that anyone who disagreed with their beliefs was a polytheist [mushrik]. Based on this belief, they deemed it permissible to kill Ahl al-Sunna and their scholars until Allah Almighty broke their strength, destroyed their lands, and the Muslim armies defeated them in the year 1233 AH [1818 CE].”

(قَوْلُهُ: وَيُكَفِّرُونَ أَصْحَابَ نَبِيِّنَا – صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ -) عَلِمْت أَنَّ هَذَا غَيْرُ شَرْطٍ فِي مُسَمَّى الْخَوَارِجِ، بَلْ هُوَ بَيَانٌ لِمَنْ خَرَجُوا عَلَى سَيِّدِنَا عَلِيٍّ – رَضِيَ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى عَنْهُ -، وَإِلَّا فَيَكْفِي فِيهِمْ اعْتِقَادُهُمْ كُفْرَ مَنْ خَرَجُوا عَلَيْهِ، كَمَا وَقَعَ فِي زَمَانِنَا فِي أَتْبَاعِ عَبْدِ الْوَهَّابِ الَّذِينَ خَرَجُوا مِنْ نَجْدٍ وَتَغَلَّبُوا عَلَى الْحَرَمَيْنِ وَكَانُوا يَنْتَحِلُونَ مَذْهَبَ الْحَنَابِلَةِ، لَكِنَّهُمْ اعْتَقَدُوا أَنَّهُمْ هُمْ الْمُسْلِمُونَ وَأَنَّ مَنْ خَالَفَ اعْتِقَادَهُمْ مُشْرِكُونَ، وَاسْتَبَاحُوا بِذَلِكَ قَتْلَ أَهْلِ السُّنَّةِ وَقَتْلَ عُلَمَائِهِمْ حَتَّى كَسَرَ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى شَوْكَتَهُمْ وَخَرَّبَ بِلَادَهُمْ وَظَفِرَ بِهِمْ عَسَاكِرُ الْمُسْلِمِينَ عَامَ ثَلَاثٍ وَثَلَاثِينَ وَمِائَتَيْنِ وَأَلْفٍ (قَوْلُهُ: كَمَا حَقَّقَهُ فِي الْفَتْحِ) حَيْثُ قَالَ: وَحُكْمُ الْخَوَارِجِ عِنْدَ جُمْهُورِ الْفُقَهَاءِ وَالْمُحَدِّثِينَ حُكْمُ الْبُغَاةِ. وَذَهَبَ بَعْضُ الْمُحَدِّثِينَ إلَى كُفْرِهِمْ. قَالَ ابْنُ الْمُنْذِرِ: وَلَا أَعْلَمُ أَحَدًا وَافَقَ أَهْلَ الْحَدِيثِ عَلَى تَكْفِيرِهِمْ، وَهَذَا يَقْتَضِي نَقْلَ إجْمَاعِ الْفُقَهَاءِ

[Ibn `Abidin, Radd al-Muhtar]

The great Maliki jurist Aḥmad al-Sāwī (1761-1825), also addressed the phenomenon of Wahhabism in a tafsir work. He comments on Quran verse 35:8, which reads:

“What about those whose evil deeds are made alluring to them so that they think they are good?”

أَفَمَن زُيِّنَ لَهُۥ سُوٓءُ عَمَلِهِۦ فَرَءَاهُ حَسَنًۭا ۖ

Al-Sawi says:

It is said that this verse was revealed concerning the khawarij, who distort the interpretation of the Qur’an and the Sunna and thereby deem the shedding of Muslim blood and the seizure of their wealth as lawful. This is exactly what is observed today among their likes—a group […] known as the Wahhabis. They think they are upon something [true], but indeed, they are the liars. Satan has gained control over them and made them forget the remembrance of Allah. They are the party of Satan, and indeed, the party of Satan will be the losers. We ask the Most Generous Allah to eradicate them.”

يقول في تفسير الآية الكريمة: {أَفَمَنْ زُيِّنَ لَهُ سُوءُ عَمَلِهِ فَرَآهُ حَسَنًا فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ يُضِلُّ مَنْ يَشَاءُ وَيَهْدِي مَنْ يَشَاءُ فَلَا تَذْهَبْ نَفْسُكَ عَلَيْهِمْ حَسَرَاتٍ إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَلِيمٌ بِمَا يَصْنَعُونَ} [فاطر: ٨].

وقيل: هذه الآية نزلت في الخوارج الذين يحرفون تأويل الكتاب والسنة ويستحلون بذلك دماء المسلمين وأموالهم، كما هو مشاهد الآن في نظائرهم، وهم فرقة بأرض الحجاز يقال لهم: الوهابية، ويحسبون أنهم على شيء ألا إنهم هم الكاذبون استحوذ عليهم الشيطان فأنساهم ذكر الله أولئك حزب الشيطان ألا إن حزب الشيطان هم الخاسرون – نسأل الله الكريم أن يقطع دابرهم -“.

[Aḥmad al-Sāwī, Hāshiya al-Sāwī ‘alā Tafsīr al-Jalālayn]

But because of Wahhabi behavior, Wahhabis were reviled as violent and ignorant heretics across the Muslim world. This is actually acknowledged by Husayn ibn Ghannaam (1739-1810). Ibn Ghannaam is one of the most famous Wahhabi scholars. He was a contemporary of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab and was a direct associate of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab’s sons. Although Ibn Ghannam is a strong supporter of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, he acknowledges the fact that virtually all the scholars of the era had declared Ibn Abd al-Wahhab to be a khariji and a deviant outside of Ahl al-Sunna.

Ibn Ghannam says:

“The majority of scholars from various regions and eras asserted definitively that this individual [Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab] […] is among the most evil of the misguided, the impious, and the disbelievers—and one of the worst of kharijites and depraved people.”

بل جزم أكثر علماء الأمصار في تلك الأزمان والأعصار بأن هذا المبين لآثار السلف الأخيار المتبع لهدي نبيه المختار من أقبح الضلال والفساق والكفار وأشر الخوارج والفجار،

[Ibn Ghannam, Tarikh Najd]

When the group statement condemns me for claiming that Wahhabi doctrine resembles Kharijism, I am being attacked for simply expressing a traditional Sunni Muslim view.

Wahhabism is Actually the Doctrine of ISIS

Once again, this issue was covered extensively in the documentary. It is suffices here to simply quote a relevant portion of the documentary.

“The only group that openly preaches and teaches the full khariji doctrine of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab today is ISIS. Let me make it absolutely clear: Most supporters of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab completely reject ISIS. But this is due to an ignorance of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab’s actual views and history. If they knew Ibn Abd al-Wahhab’s actual views and history, they would immediately recognize that Ibn Abd al-Wahhab was the 18th century version of ISIS.

People might think, well Daniel is just biased against the Najdi dawah so he’s comparing it to ISIS. But, the reality is ISIS explicitly says they’re the true followers of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab. This is what Cole Bunzel points out in recent academic book Wahhabism, published in 2023 by Princeton University Press. Bunzel says:

“The centrality of Wahhabism to the Jihadī Salafi movement became even more evident with the rise of the Islamic State in the 2010s. When the Islamic State came to the world’s attention in 2013, its fidelity to Wahhabism was loudly trumpeted by its official representatives and online supporters. […] The recruits in Islamic State training camps were made to study textbooks about Wahhabi creed. In the summer of 2015, the Islamic State’s official publishing house began the printing of classic Wahhabi texts, from Ibn Abd al-Wahhab’s Arba` qawa`id fi-l-din and Kashf al-shubuhat […]

 

“The purpose of printing these texts was to inculcate in the new generation of jihadis a proper understanding of Islamic belief, one that was exclusivist and militant. In the introduction to one of these works, the anonymous editor likens the Islamic State to the early Wahhabi da`wa, claiming that the Islamic State “is again renewing tawhid, jihad, and the sunna,” as the Wahhabis had done before. The official scholars and wicked preachers in Saudi Arabia, by contrast, have forsaken the Wahhabi heritage: “They lyingly ascribe themselves to the imam Muḥammad ibn `Abd al-Wahhāb, knowing full well that today the Islamic State, its da`wa, and its jihad are an extension and embodiment of the mission of tawhid and jihad initiated by the Messenger of God and his companions and renewed by Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb and his descendants.”^[21]

You can even see prints of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab’s Kitab al-Tawhid with ISIS’s seal on the cover.

ISIS see themselves as the true successors of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, claiming they are reviving the original mission of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab to purify the Muslims lands of shirk, just like ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab and his followers did centuries ago. ISIS argues that Saudi Arabia and the Salafi dawah as a whole has abandoned the true teachings of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, leaving ISIS to carry the torch.

Members of ISIS today claim that Salafi scholars like Sh al-Albani and others have rejected Ibn Abd al-Wahhab’s actual teachings. They view these Salafis as watered down versions, whereas they’re the “real thing,” the real Najdi dawah. I think this is exactly right. ISIS are the true followers of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab and now that you’ve seen Ibn Abd al-Wahhab’s takfiri teachings and his history committing atrocities against countless Muslims, hopefully you’ve realized this too.

Do Particular Wahhabis Deserve Harsh Personal Attacks, Which Potentially Endanger Them?

Wahhabi social media influencers fall into two categories, which I will refer to as “ordinary Wahhabis” and “aggressive Wahhabis.”

Aggressive Wahhabis differ from ordinary Wahhabis in three ways:

1. The constantly and repeatedly takfir opponents, while claiming they deserve to be killed.
2. They openly and repeatedly express hope that their opponents are killed.
3. They constantly try and link opponents with groups or governments that are classed by international law as terrorist organizations, such that those associated with them face legal danger.

Ordinary Wahhabis do not do these things. For this reason, I consider it unfair to single them out for harsh personal attacks, or say things which endanger them.

However, aggressive Wahhabis deserve to be responded to in kind. It is hypocritical for them to complain when people treat them with the type of harshness which they treat others.

Adnan Rashid, Farid al-Bahraini, Jake Brancatella, and some of the signatories on their joint letter not only openly identify as Wahhabis, they are aggressive Wahhabis who have initiated a non-stop vicious attack on me, that has continued for over a year. They operate as a network which retweets and shares material to attack me. This includes incendiary material from suspected Zionist agents posing as Baathist Muslims, like the anonymous account Xumas.

They have also refused my repeated offers of discussion or debate.

I have responded by treating them with the same harshness which they treat me.

I never do this with ordinary Wahhabis. In fact this is something that Adnan, Farid, and Jake complain about.

They complain that I am unprincipled because I attack them harshly, but do not do the same with other Wahhabis who do not attack me harshly. They say that if I really oppose Wahhabism, I should attack every Wahhabi equally. But I reserve harsh attacks for those who deserve it.

Let me now present evidence of their outrageously aggressive behavior that endangers me.

Takfiring Haqiqatjou

Accusing a Muslim of kufr and shirk is an extremely grave matter, as discussed above. The graveness is partly due to the fact that a Muslim who commits shirk can in certain circumstances be considered an apostate, and the Sharia punishment for apostasy is capital punishment. Therefore, accusing others of becoming an apostate due to committing shirk and becoming a mushrik is implicitly tied to the potential for execution.

Many of the Wahhabi signatories on the joint statement have either directly takfired me, or soft takfired. The result has been constant death threats from their followers.

For example, Farid constantly calls me a shirk apologist, shirk advocate, and makes it clear that he cannot affirm that I am a Muslim. etc. All of this is soft-takfir and it leads to non-stop death threats from Farid’s Wahhabi followers.

Farid has also said that I am a “bigger liar” and “more dangerous” than career anti-Islam provocateurs David Wood and Apus.

Adnan mass takfirs Shia by saying they do not follow Islam, but rather another separate religion. He then accuses me of being Shia, thus takfiring me.

Jake has engaged in soft takfir by referring to me as “such people claiming to be Muslim.”

Elsewhere, Jake says that I am “upon kufr,” again a type of soft takfir.

More recently, Jake has fully takfired me, refuses to return my salams, and has declared that I am a mushrik who deserved the hadd for apostasy (death penalty).

Another signatory on the list, an anonymous X user calling himself Ibrahim Ibn Mahmud/Ibn Sulaymani also has directly takfired me.

Expressing Hope that Haqiqatjou Is Killed

Farid also has prayed for Allah to kill me by breaking my back and my neck.

Video 1

Video 2

Other Wahhabis are also now takfiring me and trying to break up my marriage.

Elsewhere, Adnan has accused me of engaging in profiting from muta marriage.

Attempting to Link Haqiqatjou to Legally-Designated Terrorist Organizations like Various Iranian Governmental Institutions, Hezbollah, and Shia Militia Groups

In the Fifth Criticism in the joint letter, the Wahhabis cry about me linking their ideology to terror groups, namely ISIS. But for years, Wahhabis have accused me of working for organizations that are legally classified as terrorist entities by Western governments. This is despite the fact that working for such entities, or receiving money from them, carries heavy legal penalties. Such entities include various Iranian governmental institutions (e.g., Revolutionary Guard, Press TV), Hezbollah, and Shia Militia groups. They have also accused me of being a covert agent of Iran, a country that has been in conflict and war with the US, thus endangering me as a US citizen.

Here, Adnan accuses me of working for Iran and using taqiyya to secretly incite rebellions in the Muslim world in order to destroy the entire Sunni world. Such an accusation, if taken seriously by Middle Eastern security agencies, poses an acute risk to my life and the lives of my family members if we were to travel through certain countries.

Ultimately, notice that no one had a problem with these Wahhabis waging this type of smear campaign against me for over a year. The signatories on the group statement did not raise issues over this behavior. And indeed, I myself, did not cry and beg for help when targeted in this manner. However, it is hypocritical for Wahhabis like Adnan, Farid, and Jake to pretend to be victims when they and their co-signers use this behavior with me and others.

It is also a fact that Adnan, Farid, and Jake do promote takfiri Wahhabi propaganda online, with the same teachings as ISIS. Their followers also constantly express support for the views of Wahhabism and ISIS.

Furthermore, it is a fact that Wahhabi groups like ISIS are responsible for a highly disproportionate percentage of Muslim terrorist attacks, that such attacks violate Islamic teachings, and that they severely harm Muslims and the reputation of Islam throughout the world.

Let us consider two twitter posts from me that the group statement identifies as problematic.

Everything in this post is true.

Adnan Rashid, Farid al-Bahraini, and Jake Brancatella are surely responsible for spreading the same repugnant Wahhabi teachings that motivate ISIS.

Adnan deserves to be rebuked for promoting a post calling for a terrorist uprising in Iran and calling me an apostate who should be killed. Farid and Jake deserve to be rebuked for cooperating with Adnan.

These people should be shunned by the Muslim community and eliminated from online dawah. They need to be continually mocked and derided until they cease their takfiri agenda.

Now let us look at the second post that the group statement considers to be problematic.

https://x.com/Haqiqatjou/status/2000594137893003514

What is the problem here?

The news reports indicate that those involved in the attack are affiliated with ISIS.

ISIS is also obviously a Wahhabi organization, which seeks to enact Wahhabi teachings.

Wahhabi teachings are spread online by Farid al-Bahraini and Adnan Rashid.

These two figures also devote their time to takfiring Muslims and arguing they should be killed.

Literally all of these statements are correct.

Furthermore, Adnan Rashid has promoted posts from actual ISIS-linked terror groups.

Adnan reposted from this account because it is rabidly anti-Iran, just like Adnan is. The account calls for terror bombings in Iran and to exterminate its Shia population. Adnan apparently has no problem promoting such an account.

Now, is it harsh to mention Farid and Adnan alongside ISIS, because it could cause them legal problems? Of course. It is not something I had to do, and it is not something that I do with ordinary Wahhabis.

However, I will not accept a situation where they treat me harshly, takfir me, express hope that I am killed, and create legal dangers for me, and simply do nothing in response. If they treat me harshly without caring about the effects, I will treat them the same way.

Remember that it is they who initiated all of this against me. And their group statement is simply the latest chapter in this ongoing attack.

CONCLUSION

On the one hand, it is disappointing to be condemned in a document produced by a network of over 30 Wahhabi social media influencers. As Farid and others note, such an act is unprecedented.

But at the same time, the experience is encouraging and even exhilarating. It means that I am now probably considered the number one enemy of the Wahhabi movement in the English language. This is not because I hate Wahhabis. There are millions who hate Wahhabis as much or more than I do. Rather it is because alhamdulillah I am causing their deviant movement significant damage with my media output. And if they are this rattled now, wait until they see what I have in the pipeline, and what will be coming out in the future inshaAllah.

This will be a war of attrition. But there is also a fundamental asymmetry. They have countless millions in resources and an online army, and state backing. But they are too afraid to have any open debate or discussion with me, because they know I have the truth on my side. The intellectual, social, and political weakness of this movement is now clear for all who are observing this war play out. All we need is time to gradually expose them to the world.

The days of Wahhabism somehow posing as the face of orthodox Islam are over.

At best, the most that the Wahhabis can do with me is destroy one person. That is what they get if they win, which inshaAllah will not happen. However, if I win, then the entire movement receives a deeply damaging blow that extends far beyond the pathetic “careers” of a handful of youtube Wahhabis.

If you hate the influence of Wahhabism on this religion. If you hate their attacks on traditional Sunnism. If you hate their ignorance and lying. If you hate them fomenting civil war and terror attacks across the Muslim world. If you hate them blackening the image of Islam. Then join me in fighting them.

And, although it may be strange to say it, the people who must accept a leading role in this fight are the non-Wahhabi Salafis. Purge these Wahhabi deviants from your midst, and return to the teachings of Ibn Hanbal and Ibn Taymiyya. Put aside Ibn Abd al-Wahhab and the service to the Gulf governments.

Notes

1. Ibn Ghannam, Tarikh ↑
2. Bunzel, Wahhabism p.200 ↑
3. Ibid. ↑
4. Ibn Bishr, ‘Unwan al-Majd fi Tarikh Najd vol.1, p.240 ↑
5. al-Durar al-Saniyya, vol.9 p.284 ↑
6. al-Durar al-Saniyya, vol.9 p.280-282 ↑
7. Ibn Bishr, ‘Unwan al-Majd fi Tarikh Najd vol.1, p.259-260 ↑
8. Ahmad Zayni Dahlan, Khulāṣat al-kalām (section Dhikr Qissa Ahl al-Ta’if wa ma waqa’ahum min al-Wahhabiyya) ↑
9. al-Durar al-Saniyya, vol.9 p.286 ↑
10. al-Durar al-Saniyya, vol.9 p.287 ↑
11. Ibn Bishr, ‘Unwan al-Majd vol.1, p.309-310 ↑
12. Ibn Bishr, ‘Unwan al-Majd fi Tarikh Najd ↑
13. al-Durar al-Saniyya, vol.1 p.314 ↑
14. Sulayman ibn Sahman, 1915 Unpublished Fatwa Retrieved from King Saud University Manuscript Database #3422 ↑
15. Sulayman ibn Sahman, 1915 Unpublished Fatwa Retrieved from King Saud University Manuscript Database #3422 ↑
16. Harry St John Bridger Philby, Arabia of the Wahhabis ↑
17. Ibid. ↑
18. Ibid. ↑
19. As quoted in article “The forgotten massacre of Yemeni pilgrims in Tanomah, Sadwan of Saudi Arabia” https://english.almayadeen.net/articles/feature/the-forgotten-massacre-of-yemeni-pilgrims-in-tanomah-sadwan ↑
20. Malik Dahlan, The Hijaz (Oxford University Press, 2018), p.103-104 ↑
21. Cole Bunzel, Wahhabism ↑