Al-Albani and Freemasonry

The intrigues of the  Kuffâr  against Islam  and Muslims, the correspondence of which to unfolding events being too glaring to doubt, are accurately delineated in the preceding Zionist excerpt.

The  Kuffâr  do not fear the Muslims  per se. They do not fear the speculative opinions of misguided individuals. But  what they do fear, indeed, is the justice of Islâm  and the equity of its  Sharî‘ah. Islam  did not ascend to glory, conquering the hearts of men and the world, from  China to Spain, in some juridical and legislative vacuum. Islâm  did not rule over the world without a comprehensive system of law. It was the  Madhâhib  of the illustrious Fuqahâ’  that gave to the Islamic  Khalîfates  of times gone by the sovereignty, justice, and advancement  that Muslims are so rightly proud of. It is ‘ that ’  Sharî‘ah  that is feared, not the  Sharî‘ah  of ‘ revisionist ’ Islam. Wahhâbîsm or Salafism  offered the enemies of Islam  the ideal opportunity, in the guise of ‘fundamentalist  tawhîd  ’, to subvert the supremacy of the  Sharî‘ah symbolized by the  Khalîfate. But Wahabism, with its treachery, subterfuge and blood-stained history, would always be totally unacceptable to the overwhelming majority of Muslims the world over. So  Wahhâbîsm  had to coin a new identity, free from  its reputation of the past. It was to be given credibility by the very name  of its orthodox adversaries, the Pious predecessors (Salaf as-Sâlihîn). The new name …… ‘ Salafîsm ’

The modern day Salafiyyah claim  to take their name  from  the celebrated Hadîth of the Holy Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) who said :  ‘

The best of people are my  generation, thereafter those who follow them, and thereafter those who will follow them.                 (Bukhârî)

These first three generations of the true believers are known as the ‘Salaf as-Sâlihîn’ (The Pious Predecessors), hence, they have derived an epithet from this Hadîth and, as such, call themselves ‘Salafis’  or ‘Salafiyyah’.

The ‘Salafiyyah’ were, in fact, dissenters from  the  Hanbalî  Madhhab  who simply misappropriated the name  ‘Salafiyyîn’.  Abu’l Faraj ibn al-Jawzî al Hanbalî (d.508/1114) (not Ibn Qayyim  al-Jawziyyah) and many other prominent scholars of the  Hanbalî Madhhab, unequivocally declared that these dissenters were not  the adherents of the ‘Salaf as-Sâlihîn’ neither were they specifically of the  Hanbalî Madhhab, but were rather  mubtadi‘în (heretical innovators), belonging to the dissident group of  Mujassimah  (a deviant sect who believed that Allah  was a material body). In the seventh century after  Hijrah, Ibn Taymiyyah pursued this blasphemous  fitnah (mischief) anew. 

Before Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim , there was not any  Madhhab whatsoever called ‘Salafiyyah’, nor even the word ‘Salafiyyah’ used. In order to inveigle the unsuspecting Muslim  masses  and to persuade the youth that they were on the ‘ straight path ’. The name  ‘ Salafiyyah’  from  the term ‘Salaf as-Sâlihîn’ (The Pious Predecessors), was forged, so as to give credence to their corrupt ideas and seduce the unenlightened. They incriminated the true orthodox Islamic  scholars, who were the successors of the  Salaf as-Sâlihîn, accusing them of  bid‘ah  (innovation in religious matters) and of dissenting from  their contrived touchstone, ‘Salafiyyah’. Ibn Taymiyya was advanced as a  Mujtahid, the ‘champion’ who revived the path of the ‘Righteous Predecessors ’. And its latter-day champion was to become Muhammad Nâsir ud-Dîn al-Albânî.

The neo-Khârijîte  nature of  Wahhâbi-Salafîsm  makes it intolerant of all other forms of Islamic expression. Because it has no coherent  fiqh  of its own – it rejects the orthodox  Madhâhib  – and has only the most basic and primitively anthropomorphic ‘aqîdah, it has a fluid, amoeba-like tendency to produce divisions and subdivisions among those who profess it. No longer are the Islamic groups essentially united by a consistent  Madhhab   (Ash ‘arî   and  Ahl as-Sunnah )  ‘aqîdah  (doctrine). Instead, they  are all trying to define the  Sharî‘ah  and  ‘Aqîdah  from  the  Qur’ân  and the  Sunnah  by themselves. The result is the appalling state of division and conflict which disfigures the moderm Salafî condition.

Muhammad Nâsir ud-Dîn al-Albânî is  described by many orthodox scholars as the the arch-innovator of the  Salafîs in the modern age. A watch repairman by trade, al-Albânî is  a self-taught claimant to  Hadîth  scholarship who has no known mentor in any of the Islamic sciences and has admitted not to have memorized the Book of Allah nor any book of  hadîth,  fiqh, ‘aqîda, usûl, or  lughah. He achieved notoriety by attacking the great scholars of the  Ahl al-Sunnah (Normative Islam)  and reviling the science of fiqh  with exceptional malice towards the school of his father who was a Hanafî scholar. 

Al-Albânî was born in the city of  Ashkodera, the capital of Albania in 1914 C.E. While he was young his parents migrated to Damascus, Syria, during the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. His father,  Shaykh  Nûh al-Albânî, was, as stated, a strict Hanafî scholar under whom  Al-Albânî studied  tajwid  or ‘Qur’anic recitation’ and perhaps the Hanafî  fiqh  primer  Marâqî al-Falâh (‘The Ascents to Success’). It is likely that he also studied some  other primary subjects in Hanafî  fiqh  under  Shaykh  Muhammad Sa‘îd al-Burhânî, who taught in the Al-Tawbah Masjid near his father’s shop, in the quarter of the Turks on the side of Mount Qâsiyûn.

Popular belief has it that at an early  age he was captivated by the science of Hadîth  and spent his time incessantly seeking knowledge of this science. Al Albânî deemed it to be more profitable to spend time in independent, unsupervised study of books and manuscripts at the famous library of Damascus, Al-Maktabat uz-Zâhiriyyah,  and not attend the lectures of the acknowledged scholars of the day.

Al-Albânî has attained notoriety  amongst scholars and students for his inadmissible reclassification and reappraisal of the Prophetic  Hadîth . However, he does not seem  to have  been given any authorization (ijâzah) in Hadîth  from  any recognized scholar of  Hadîth . He seems to have ‘taught   himself’  the science of Hadîth. 

As for his professed  ijâzah  or ‘warrant of learning,’ it is reported that a Hadîth  scholar from  Halab (Aleppo),  Shaykh    Râghib al-Tabbâkh , visiting the Dhâhiriyyah Library while in Damascus, was introduced to Al-Albânî who was pointed out to him  as a promising student of  Hadîth. After having spoken to him  for a while it is said that the  Shaykh  conferred upon him  a general  ijâzah, even though Al-Albânî did not attend his lessons nor studied any book of  Hadîth  under his tutelage. 

Indeed, Shaykh Râghib al-Tabbâkh  had chains of successive mentors reaching all the way back to  the authors of the foremost  Hadîth as  the  Sahîh  of  al-Bukhârî  works, such   and the  Sunan  of  Abû Dâwûd, and hence the prestige of a  contiguous chain  going back to the Holy Prophet. But this was an authorization (ijâzah) of  tabarruk, or ‘blessing’, not a ‘warrant of learning’.

This type of authorization (ijâzah), that of  tabarruk, is a known practice of some  traditional scholars and is intended  to serve as an encouragement to the student whom  they have met and whom  they find capable or hope will become a scholar. 

Though the authorization be given and signed by a specialist scholar of Hadîth , it in no way makes the individual to whom  it is issued a  Hadîth scholar. The scholarly value of such  ijâzahs is merely to establish that the two have met and to serve as an added impetus to pursue the course of study in the specified field. 

In later life he was given Professorship of  Hadîth  at the Islamic University of Madînah. It is a known fact that  Madînah university and like institutions within Saudi Arabia have been  the mainstay in spreading  Wahhâbî  tenets throughout the world and calumniating the beliefs and practice of the  Ahl asSunnah. Incidentally, the same is  to be said  of the Saudi-Wahhâbî  inspired ‘ Râbitah al-‘Âlam al-Islâmî  ’(Muslim  World League) in Makkah who have hired and indoctrinated hundreds of  ignorant men from  every country to their way of thinking. These hirelings and their Saudi-Wahhâbî  sponsored organisations, camouflaged as religious authorities, in turn become instrumental in propagating the heretical tenets of  Wahhâbîsm  which they often insidiously brand as ‘ The Fatwâ’s of world Muslim unity ’.

Al-Albânî was a rabid reviler of the  Awliyâ’  (Friends of Allah) and the Sûfîyâ’. He was expelled from  Syria then  Arabia, and finally settled in Amman, Jordan, under house arrest until  his death in 1999. He remains the object of devotion of the most strident innovators and self-styled ‘reformers’ of Islam. 

Muhammad Nâsir ud-Dîn al-Albânî was especially influenced by the writings of the notorious Egyptian Freemasons, Muhammad Rashîd Ridâ (d. 1935 C.E.) and his mentor,  Shaykh  Muhammad ‘Abduh (d. 1905 C.E.) who was both Grand  Muftî  of Egypt and Grand Master of the United Masonic Lodge of Egypt. These individuals were noted for employing, to a great extant, the writings of Ibn Taymiyyah  and his disciple Ibn al-Qayyim  al Jawziyyah in furthering their nefarious Masonic agenda. The four abovementioned personalities held idiosyncratically corrupt beliefs (aqîdah) and legal positions on certain particularly  contentious points, like the gross anthropomorphism’s attributed to Allah and the denial of the Orthodox Schools of Islamic Jurisprudence (Madhâhib). 

It is a well known fact that Muhammad Rashîd Ridâ and his teacher Muhammad ‘Abduh, the grand  Muftî  of Egypt at the time, were both Freemasons, who endeavoured to reinterpret the  Sharî‘ah,  claiming to ‘ reform ’ Islam from ‘ extraneous accretions ’, which led to their call for the abandonment of  Taqlîd; hence the need for the  abolishment of the four schools of Islamic Jurisprudence. In reality, they represented the hypocritical element who fought against Islam  from  within. One of the greatest
impediments in the endeavor to ‘ modernise ’ Islam  to conform  to western standards of reason and its  underlying agenda is the  Shar’î  demand for Taqlîd  (ie. following a School of Islamic Law).  Taqlîd  is a thorn in their flesh and it has to be eliminated for the attainment of their pernicious goal. This conspiracy was realized by many scholars of their day and , as a result, many a man of knowledge exposed them  for what they were, for example, Shaykh Muhammad Bâkhit al-Mutî‘î (d. 1935) – a grand  Muftî  of Egypt and one of the leading Hanafî scholars of his time. 

During the administration of Muhammad Alî Pâshâ, the Ottoman governor of Egypt in the mid nineteenth century, ‘Abduh was brought to the board of management of the  Jâmi’ al-Azhar,  the prestigious institute of Islamic learning and scholarship which had for  centuries educated Muslim savants. It was from  then on that the Scotch  Freemasons, having infiltrated, began to destroy Egyptian Muslims economically and spiritually. Through these Freemasons, the British were successful in  demolishing, not just the spiritual and intellectual heritage of Egyptian  Muslims, but also the mighty Ottoman Empire from within.  Shaykh  Muhammad ‘Abduh, incidentally, was  the disciple of the notorious Freemason Jamâl ud-Dîn al-Afghânî, regarded as one of the chief architects of the ‘ revisionist ’ movement of his time. Al-Afghânî left an abiding impression of his ‘ reformist ’ ideas  on the intelligentsia of Egypt and Constantinople (Istanbul), the Capital of the then Ottoman Empire. His contacts and discourses on ‘progressive’ Muslim  philosophy, jurisprudence and religion couched in  persuasive, deceptive   language fired many young ‘ liberal ’ writers and scholars in Egypt  and other parts of the Muslim  world with a missionary anti-orthodox zeal. Not  least effected by his writings were the secular ‘Young Turks’ who, under  the leadership of a donmeh Jew named Mustafâ Kamâl Ataturk, went on to destroy the last vestiges of the Ottoman  Khalîfate.  

Al-Afghânî and ‘Abduh were ‘master and  disciple’ and there exists no significant difference in their thought aside from  Al-Afghânî being more erudite in nefarious  Shî‘îsm  and ‘Abduh in  degenerate  Tasawwuf. Al Afghânîs real name  was Sayyid Jamâl ud-Dîn al-Asadabâdî. Asadabâd is a city in Iran, whose population is known to be 100 %  Shî‘âh.

Al-Afghânî bears the ignominy of introducing the Nahj al-Balâgha in Egypt. This book is regarded by the  Sh î‘âh  as second in importance only to the Holy Qur’ân. It is a known fact that this book contains a large number of spurious and false sayings attributed to  Sayyidinâ  ‘Alî (radhiyallahu anhu). It contains the most abominable invectives against the august Companions of the Holy Prophet    including  Sayyidinâ  ‘Uth mân, ‘Â’ish ah, Talhah, Zubayr and Mu‘âwiyah (radhiyallahu anhuma). Worst still is that it reflects most negatively against Sayyidinâ ‘Alî (radhiyallahu anhu). since, by attributing to him  those words, it implicates him in the most impious conduct and malevolent assertions against those noble personalities. ‘Abduh went so far  as to prepare a commentary on  Nahj al Balâghah  so as to further popularize it. 

Al-Afghânî and ‘Abduh also attempted to interpret Islamic history through the ideas and themes expressed in the book. In other words they had endeavored to teach Muslims a  Shî‘îte version of Islamic history which is warped to say the least.  Al-Afgh ânî and ‘Abduh tried their level best to convince Muslim  scholars that the  Sunnî-Sh î‘ah  divide was merely the result of variations in their respective political stances, and that the so-called ‘Ja‘farî’  Sh î‘îte school of law  must be accepted as legitimate (note that  Imâm Ja‘far as-Sâdiq rahimahullah was a noble descendant of the Holy Prophet    and an upright  Ahl as-Sunnah scholar). 

As regards Hasan al-Bannâ,  it is true that he was not a Wahhabî per se, but to consider him  an  Ahl us-Sunnah  scholar or a  Sûfî  of note, as many do, is not correct. He was a teacher in an elementary school, initially a member of a  Sûfî  tarîqah  and a high-ranking exponent of  British Masonry in Egypt. He was a follower of the ‘reformist theory’, preached by Al-Afgh ânî and was vehemently opposed by Muslim  Scholars and especially the Ottoman ‘Ulamâ’  of the day. He disassociated himself from  his  Qâdirî Tarîqah, believing that traditional  Sûfîsm  was old-fashioned, antiquated and irrelevant. His project was to create  a ‘Muslim secret society’, a kind of ‘Islamic Masonry’. The British government actively supported him  in much the same  way it had sponsored Ibn Sa‘ûd, this primarily because of his subversive influence and antagonism  towards the central  Khalîfate. 

After his demise, Sayyid Qutb assumed  leadership of his movement. He, like al-Albânî as described earlier,  was not a qualified scholar. His  Tafsîr  (Fî Dh ilâl al-Qur‘ân), is described by many scholars of note as a collection of the most absurd mistakes and baseless interpretations. What is most disconcerting about the commentary is its insults against the  Sahâbah, especially its claims to  correct “‘Uthmân’s (radhiyallahu anhu’s) inadequacies”, and its denial of the validity of the four Schools of Islamic Jurisprudence. 

When Egypt and Saudi Arabia were embroiled in the war for control of Yemen, the movement of Sayyid Qutb,  the Muslim  Brotherhood, began to depend on Saudi financing and thus became very much influenced by Wahhabîsm. Ever since they have been active in disseminating the  Wahhabî creed and its  literature worldwide, a more popular example being the printing and  translation of a book called ‘Minhâj al-Muslim’  by Jâbir al Jazâ‘irî, which represents the quintessence of  Wahhabîsm. Their organization (WAMY) also publishes ‘Fath al-Majîd’  by Ibn Abd al Wahhâb, the ‘gospel’ of Wahhabîsm. 

To conclude, among al-Albânî’s absurdities and innovations in Religion are the following:

1) In his book  Adab al-Zafaf  he prohibits women from  wearing gold jewelry – rings, bracelets, and chains  – despite the Consensus of the Scholars of Islam  permitting it.

2) He claims  that it is permissible for menstruating women and those in a state of major defilement (junub) to recite, touch, and carry the Holy Qur’ân.

3) He declares it prohibited (harâm) and an innovation to lengthen the beard over a fistful’s length although there is no proof for such a claim in the entire corpus of Islamic Law.

4) He claims that whoever carries a  tasbîh  (rosary) in his hand to remember Allah is misguided and an innovator.

5) He absolutely prohibits fasting on Saturdays.

6) He claims that 2.5% zakât  is not due on money obtained from commerce, ie. the main activity  whereby money circulates among Muslims.

7) He claims  that among the innovations in religion is the Prophet’s  grave in Madinah.

8) He claims that whoever travels  intending to visit the grave of the Prophet  or to ask for his intercession is a misguided innovator.

9) In many of his books he calls for  the demolition and  removal of the Prophet’s  grave.

10) He  states:  “I have found no evidence for the Prophet’s    hearing the salutation of those who greet him at his grave.”  These are among his greater enormities and bear the unmistakable signature of innovation and deviation.

11) He advocates in his ‘Salât al-Nabî’  the formula  “Peace and blessings upon  the  Prophet”  instead of  “…upon  you, O Prophet”  in the tash ahhud  in contradiction of the Four Orthodox Schools of Jurisprudence. The Prophet    himself instructed Muslims to pray exactly as he prayed saying:  “Peace and blessings upon  you, O Prophet”  without telling them  to change it after his death. Furthermore the major Companions (whose  Sunnah  or precedent we are ordered to emulate together with that of the Prophet ), such as Abû Bakr and ‘Umar, did not teach the Companions   and Successors otherwise!

12) He expresses hatred for those who read Imâm al-Busîrî’s masterpiece, Qasîdat al-Burdah, and calls them cretins (mahabil), in other words, millions of Muslims past and present, including the likes of Imâms Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalânî, al-Sakhâwî, and al-Suyûtî  who all included it as required reading in the Islamic curriculum. 

13) He published so called ‘corrected’ editions of the two  Sahîhs of al Bukhârî and Muslim, which he deceitfully called ‘Abridgments’ (mukhtasar) in violation of the integrity of these motherbooks.

14) He published newly-styled editions of the Four Sunan, al-Bukhârî’s al-Adab al-Mufrad, al-Mundhirî’s  al-Targhîb wa al-Tarhîb, and al-Suyûtî’s  al-Jâmi` al-Saghîr, each of which he split into two works, respectively prefixed  Sahîh  and  Daîf,  in violation of the integrity of these motherbooks.

15) He suggests that al-Bukh ârî is a disbeliever for interpreting the Divine Face as dominion or sovereignty (mulk) in the verse  “Everything will perish save His countenance” (28:88) in the book of  Tafsîr  in his Sahîh:  “ ‘Except His countenance’ means ‘Except His Sovereignty’, and it is also said: ‘Except whatever  was done for the sake of His countenance’.”  Albânî blurts out:  “No true believer would say such a thing.” 

16)  He fabricated a physical position  to Allah, namely above the  ‘Arsh (Throne), which he named  al-makân al-‘adamî  – ‘The non-existent place’.

17) In imitation of the Mu‘tazilah, he declared  tawassul  (seeking means) as prohibited acts in Islam  (harâm) tantamount to idolatry (shirk) in open denial of the numerous sound and explicit narrations  to that effect, such as al Bukhârî’s narration of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) from  Ibn `Umar: “Truly the sun shall draw so near on the Day  of Resurrection that sweat shall reach to the mid-ear, whereupon they shall ask  help from Âdam , then from Mûsâ  , and thereafter from Muhammad   who will intercede and that day Allah shall raise him to an Exalted Station, so that  all those who are standing [including the unbelievers]  shall glorify him (yahmaduhu ahl ul-jam`i kulluhum).”

19) Like the rest of the Wahhâbî  innovators he declares the Ahl us Sunnah, namely the Ash ‘arîs, Ma‘tûrîdîs, Atharis and Sûfiyâ’ to be outside the pale of Islam,  although Allah and His Prophet  praised them! Upon revelation of the verse  “Allah shall bring a people whom He loves and who love Him”  (5:54), the Prophet    pointed to Abû Mûsâ al-Ash ‘arî (radhiyallahu anhu) and said:  “They are that man’s People.”  Al-Qush ayrî, Ibn ‘Asâkir, al-Bayhaqî, Ibn al-Subkî, and others said that the followers of Abû al Hasan al-Ash‘arî (rahimahullah) i.e. Ash‘aris who were mostly Sûfîs – are included among Abû Mûsâ al-Ash ‘arî’s (radhiyallahu anhu’s) people.

As for the Ma‘turîdîs, they are referred to in the narration of the Prophet  from  Bishr al-Khath‘amî or al-Ghanâwî (sahîh) chain according to al-Hâkim, al-Dhahabî, al-Suyûtî, and alamî with a sound:  “Truly you shall conquer Constantinople and truly what a wonderful leader will her leader be [Sultân Muhammad Fâtih ], and truly what a wonderful  army will that army be!”  Both the leader and his army  were classic Hanafî  Ma‘tûrîdîs and it is known that Sultân Muhammad Fâtih loved and respected the Sûfiyâ’. Moreover, enmity against the Ash‘arîs, Ma‘tûrîdîs, and Sûfiyâ’, is  nifâq (hypocrisy) of the highest order and manifest enmity against the Ummah of Islam  as most of the ‘Ulamâ’ of Islam  are thus described.

20) He  issued  the  fatwâ  that Muslims should exit Palestine en masse leaving it to the Jews as, he reasoned, it is part the Abode of War (dâr al-harb). This fallacious reasoning seems to bear the hallmark of complicity as displayed all too often by the Wahhabî traitors. 

21) He prohibits performing more than 11  raka‘ât  (cycles) in  Tarâwîh prayers in blatant rejection of the Prophet’s  explicit command to follow his  Sunnah  as well as the precedent  of the rightly-guided Khalîfs  after him.

22) He prohibits retreat (i`tikaf) in any but the Three Masjids.

23) He considers it an innovation to visit relatives, neighbors, or friends on the day of E‘Îd and prohibits it.

24) He considers it an innovation to pray four  raka‘ât  between the two adh âns  of  Jumu‘ah  and before  Salâh, although it is authentically narrated that  “…the Prophet  prayed four raka‘ât before Jumu‘ah and four raka‘ât after it.” 

25)  He gives free rein to his propensity to insult and vilify the ‘Ulamâ’  of the past as well as his contemporaries. As a result it is difficult to wade through his writings without  being affected by the nefarious spirit that permeates them. For example, he considers previous editors and commentators of al-Bukh ârî’s  al-Adab al-Mufrad  (Book of Manners) ‘sinful’, ‘unbearably ignorant’, and even ‘liars’ and ‘thieves’. Such examples  actually fill a book compiled by Shaykh Hasan ‘Alî  al-Saqqâf entitled Qamûs Shatâ’im al-Albânî wa Alfâzihî al-Munkara al-Latî Yatluquhâ `alâ `Ulamâ’ al-Ummah  (‘Dictionary of al-Albânî’s Insults and the Heinous Words He Uses Against the Scholars of the Muslim  Community’). Al-Qurtubî said:  “One of the knowers of Allah has said: A certain group that has not yet come up in our time but shall show up at the end of time, will curse the scholars and insult the jurists.

26) He compares Hanafî  fiqh  to the Gospel, ie. corrupt and unreliable.

27) He calls people to emulate him rather than the  Imâms  and founders of the Four Schools of Islamic Jurisprudence.

28) He derides the  fuqahâ‘  of the  Ummah  for accepting – in their overwhelming majority – the  hadîth  of Mu‘âdh  ibn Jabal on  ijtihâd  as authentic then rejects the definition of knowledge (‘ilm) in Islam  as pertaining to  fiqh  claiming that it pertains to  hadîth  only. This despite the fact that the ‘Ulamâ  of the  Ummah  have explicitly stated that a hadîth  master without  fiqh  is a misguided innovator! 

29) He revived Ibn Hazm’s  anti-Madhhabî  claim that differences can never be a mercy in any case but are  always a curse on the basis of the verse “If it had been from other than Allah they would have found therein much discrepancy.” (4:82). Imâm  al-Nawawî long since refuted this view in his commentary on  Sahîh  Muslim  where he said: “…no-one says this, except an ignoramus or one who affects ignorance.”  Similarly, al-Munawî  said in Fayd al-Qadîr:  “This is a contrivance that showed up on the  part of some of those who have a sickness in their heart.

30)  He perpetuates the false claim  first made by Munir Agha the founder of the Egyptian Salafiyyah Press,  that Imâm  Abû Muhammad al Juwaynî – the father  of Imâm al-Haramayn  – “repented” from Ash‘arî doctrine and supposedly authored a tract titled  Risâlah fi Ithbât al Istiwâ’ wa al-Fawqiyyah  (‘Epistle on the Assertion of ‘Establishment’ and ‘Aboveness’).

This spurious attribution continues to be promoted without verification – for obvious reasons – by the Wahhabîs who adduce it to forward the claim that al-Juwaynî embraced anthropomorphist concepts. The Risâlah in question is not mentioned in any of the bibliographical and biographical sources nor does al-Dhahabî cite it in his encyclopedia of anthropomorphist views entitled ‘al-‘Uluw’. More conclusively, it is written in modern argumentative style and reflects typically contemporary anthropomorphist obsessions.


One thought on “Al-Albani and Freemasonry”

  1. Origins of the Salafi’s: Salafi’s where originally a separatist group created by the british 100 years ago in Egypt to topple the Egyptian government, the British created a number of groups back then throughout Ottoman lands aimed at weakening it, eventually they succeeded after WW1. After WW2 when the British Empire was succeeded by the US they inherited all the British allies including the Salafi sect who switched allegiance. This is why today in every western country Salafi groups dominate and not the orthodox madhhabs who represent 99% of muslims, because the west supports them and uses them for separatist activities in their lands and the muslim world.

    Chapters 13 and 14 of the research notes in this book cover the origins of the Salafi’s and the leaders who created them in detail, just like the west is run by occult societies this group is also occult their founder Jamal al Deen al Afghani who was the teacher of Muhammad Abduh, through his students was also responsible for the creation of the Nazi party:


Leave a Reply

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

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s