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.