← Back to Refutations
The answer to the question is as clear as daylight to anyone who is aware of just a few of the perverted beliefs of the scholars whom ALL Salafis take as Imams – since it is the leaders of a group who actually define a group. This brief article will expose a number of these abominable beliefs, and in doing so provide just a glimpse into the catastrophic consequences of the Salafi methodology, in both Aqeedah and Fiqh, which have caused even their most knowledgeable scholars to fall into Kufr and Shirk.
Despite each one of the innumerable number of salafi sects that have mushroomed thus far within record time – a natural consequence of abandonment of rigid taqleed of the 4 madh-habs – claiming to have arrived at the correct interpretation of Quran and Sunnah, there are very few matters on which all the salafi sects agree on. However, every single salafi breed, even those who are in desperate denial regarding their status as salafis, agree and follow the methodology of Aqeedah expounded by Ibn Taymiyyah, particularly in respect to the extremely literal interpretation of the Sifaat of Allah (azza wa jal).
Hence, we will limit ourselves below mainly to the beliefs of Kufr and Shirk held by Ibn Taymiyyah regarding Allah (azza wa jal). These abominable beliefs expose adequately the catastrophic consequences of the Salafi methodology. The fact a person of Ibn Taymiyyah’s vastness of knowledge – and we have no qualms in claiming that he possessed more knowledge than the combined knowledge of all the self-appointed salafi ‘mujtahids’ today – can fall so tragically into beliefs of clear kufr and shirk, is a manifest proof for the danger of adopting even the slightest independence from rigid and complete taqleed of the accepted madh-habs of fiqh and aqeedah – the danger being infinitely multiplied for everyone today, who all possess far lesser knowledge than Ibn Taymiyyah.
To re-emphasize this last point, the purpose here is less to do with the person of Ibn Taymiyyah than it is to do with the absolutely catastrophic consequences of the Salafi methodology in both Fiqh and Aqeedah, which manifested itself so vividly in someone as knowledgeable as Ibn Taymiyyah, and whose poisonously corrupt teachings are now being rabidly propagated worldwide by all sects of salafism today.
It’ll be interesting to observe how those who are quickest to judge others on the Zaahir (the apparent meaning), opposing any ta’weel whatsoever to exonerate any opponent, will now desperately resort to the most uniquely far-fetched ta’weel of the completely innovated and depraved Kalaam and beliefs below, approved by their leading Imams:
“Whoever Does Not Profess That (The Belief in Allah’s Limits) Has Disbelieved (Kufr) in The Revelation and Denied The Verses of Allah.” !!!
In his Muwaafaqah, vol. 2, p. 29, Ibn Taimiyyah states that whoever does not profess that Allah (azza wa jal) has a limit has disbelieved in revelation and denied the verses of Allah:
“Allah, exalted is He, has a limit which nobody but Him knows. It is not permitted for anybody to imagine himself a demarcation to his limit, and rather he must believe in it and consign the knowledge of it to Allah. Allah’s place also has a limit, namely [His place] on the Throne above His heavens; so that means two limits.…[Here he cited a number of texts from the Qur’an which in his opinion show that Allah has a physical limit then he says:] This and what is like it are proofs that all show that [Allah has a] limit and whoever does not profess that has disbelieved in the revelation and denied the verses of Allah.”
والله تعالى له حدّ لا تعلمه أحد غيره ولا يجوز لأحد أن يتوهم لحده غاية في نفسه ولكن يؤمن بالحد ويكل علم ذلك إلى الله ، ولمكانه أيضا حد وهو على عرشه فوق سمواته ، فهذان حدان اثنان…فهذا كله وما أشبهه شواهد ودلائل على الحد ومن لم يعترف به فقد كفر بتنزيل الله وجحد آيات الله اهــ
Valid Salafi Ikhtilaaf – Allah Has Different Number of Limits!!!
In a lengthy discussion involving salafi ‘kalaam’, Ibn Taymiyyah refutes Qadi Abi Ya’la’s contention that Allah (azza wa jal) has only one limit and that limit exists from only below Him (azza wa jal). Ibn Taymiyyah ‘proves’ using some depraved kalaam that limiting Allah (azza wa jal) to just one limit is incorrect and that He (azza wa jal) must have more limits from other sides too:
(وأما ما ذكره القاضي في إثبات الحد من جهة العرش فقط فهذا قد اختلف فيه كلامه وهو قول طائفة من أهل الإثبات والجمهور على خلافه وهو الصواب)
(ولو كان مراد أحمد رحمه الله الحد من جهة العرش فقط لكان ذلك معلوما لعباده فإنهم قد عرفوا أن حده من هذه الجهة هو العرش فعلم أن الحد الذي لا يعلمونه مطلق لا يختص بجهة العرش)
“As for what Qadi said of affirming limit (hadd) from the direction of ‘Arsh only (faqat)…it is the view of a group of the people that affirm (the attributes), and the majority hold the contrary view and that is correct.”
Ibn Taymiyyah then argues that the fact the limit (hadd) of Allah is not known (as mentioned in a statement supposedly attributed to Imam Ahmad) shows that the limit is not limited to the direction of ‘Arsh, as that is known to us – hence there are limits in the other directions which we do not know!
A Note About One of the Greatest Salafi Books of Aqeedah
Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibnul Qayyim took their deviant Aqeedah methodology from Uthman ibn Sa’id ad-Darimi, whose book, an-Naqdh, is recognised by the leading Imams of all salafis as one of the greatest books on Aqeedah..
Ibnul Qayyim explicitly states in the quote below, his own and Ibn Taymiyyah’s approval and acceptance of what he describes as, “one of the greatest books ever written about the Sunnah”, and one which Ibn Taymiyyah would “recommend to the extreme and extol greatly”:
“Al-Naqd ‘alā Bishr al-Murīsi and al-Radd al-Jahmiyah [two books by Uthman ibn Sa’id al-Dārimi] are among the greatest books ever written about the sunnah [that is, belief] and the most beneficial and it behooves every student of the sunnah who desires to learn what the Companions and Followers and the imams used to believe to read his two books. Shaikh al-Islam Ibn Taimiyah, may Allah show him mercy, used to recommend this book in the extreme, and he used to extol it greatly. In these two books tauheed and the names and attributes are discussed according to rational proofs and transmitted texts in a way that is not to be found in other than them.” [Ijtima‘ al-Juyoosh al-Islaamiyah]
النقض على بشر المريسي والرد على الجهمية – من أجل الكتب المصنفة في السنة وأنفعها وينبغي لكل طالب سنة , مراده الوقوف على ما كان عليه الصحابة والتابعين والأئمة أن يقرأ كتابيه . وكان شيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية رحمه الله يوصي بهما أشد الوصية ، ويعظمها جدا ، وفيهما من تقرير التوحيد والأسماء والصفات بالعقل والنقل ما ليس في غيرهما . —الإمام ابن القيم رحمه الله في كتابه اجتماع الجيوش الإسلامية أهـ
NOTE: Uthman ibn Sai’d al-Darimi (Abu Sai’id) is not to be confused with another al-Dārimi, the famous author of the Sunan. The book an-Naqdh, one of the greatest books of Aqeedah for the Salafis, was written in refutation of the famous Mutazalite, Bishr ibn Ghiyāth al-Murīsi (218 /833; Baghdad). The two represent opposite extremes: the anthropomorphists who went to such extremes that they affirmed physical attributes to Allah (azza wa jal), and their opposite counterparts who went to such extremes that they denied real attributes of Allah (azza wa jal).
Allah Possesses Limits and Restriction, Otherwise He is Nothing!!!
In refutation of the assertion that Allah (azza wa jal) is beyond possessing a limit (Hadd), restriction (Ghayah), or end (Nihayah), Abu Sa’id (al-Darimi) states:
“The opponent also claimed that Allah does not possess a Hadd (limit), Ghayah (restriction), or Nihayah (end). He said: And this is the basis upon which Jahm (ibn Safwan) built his misguidance and derived all of his errors. It has not reached us that anyone besides Jahm in the world preceded him with it. Someone who was discussing this with him (Jahm) said to him: I have come to know your intent oh non-Arab. You intend that Allah is nothing, because all of the creation have known that there is nothing that is called a “thing” except that it has a Hadd (limit), a Ghayah (restriction) and an attribute, and that what has no limit, restriction or attribute is nothingness.
So that which is a “thing” must necessarily be described with attributes. Nothingness is described with no limit or restriction. Your statement: He has no limit means that He is nothing.”
Abu Sa’id (al-Darimi) states:
“Allah Ta’ala has a limit that no one knows but Him and it is not allowed for anyone to imagine a limit to His limit in himself, however, he is to believe in the limit and relegate the knolwedge of that to Allah. His place (Makan) also has a limit and He is upon His ‘Arsh above the seven heavens- so these are two limits.”
قال أبو سعيد : و ادعي المعارض أيضا أنه ليس لله حد ولا غاية ولا نهاية . و هذا الأصل الذي بنى عليه جهم جميع ضلالته . وأشتق منه أغلوطاته . وهي كلمة لم يبلغنا أنه سبق جهما أحد من العالمين . فقال له قائل ممن حاوره : قد علمت مرادك أيها الأعجمي ، وتعني أن الله لا شيء لأن الخلق كلهم علموا أنه ليس شيء يقع عليه اسم الشيء إلا وله حد وغاية وصفة . وأن لا شيء ليس حد ولا غاية . و “لا حد له” يعنى أنه لاشيء . قال أبو سعيد : والله تعالى له حد لا يعلمه أحد غيره . و لا يجوز لأحد أن يتوهم لحده غاية في نفسه . ولكن نؤمن بالحد . ونكل علم ذلك إلى الله . والمكانة أيضا حد ، وهو على عرشه قوق سمواته . فهذان حدان اثنتان .
Elsewhere in his refutation of al-Mureesi he re-iterates this claim:
“The Muslims and unbelievers are agreed that Allah is in the sky and they attributed that limit to Him.”
وقد اتفقت كلمة من المسلمين والكافرين أن الله في السماء وحدوه بذلك
If Allah Wills, He May Settle/Rest/Sit on the Back of A Mosquito!!!
Ibn Taimiyyah, approvingly quoting his Imam in Aqeedah, al-Darimi, declared in two different places in his Bayaan Talbees al-Jahmiyyah:
“If He wanted He could board/get on the back of a mosquito and it would hold Him up/carry Him by His power and the gracefulness of His Lordship; so what about a great throne greater than the seven heavens and the seven earths?”
ولو قد شاء لاستقل على ظهر بعوضة فاستقلت به بقدرته ولطف ربوبيته ، فكيف على عرش عظيم أكبر من السموات السبع والأرضين السبع اهــ
By using the same rational justification and reasoning employed above, a person can just as reasonably claim that Allah’s is actually able to descend (nuzool) onto the surface of the Earth, jog (harwala) to the nearest mosquito, sit or mount (‘juloos’ or ‘istaqarra’) upon the back of the mosquito, and move (harakat) towards the Kabah Sharif.
Attaching the typical disclaimers such as, “without kayf (how)”, “In a manner that befits Him”, “unlike creation”, to beliefs such as those mentioned above, does not alter their Kufr anthropomorphic nature.
Today’s Mujassimahs (salafis) merely parrot the kufr tajseemi literalism of their Imams in Aqeedah. For example, the prominent Salafi Shaykh, al-Uthaymeen, quotes Ibnul Qayyim who cites what appears to be a narration that is non-existent (i.e. a fabricated attribution) in Imam Ahmad’s Musnad, to support their kufr belief that Allah (azza wa jal) physically sits on his creation:
وأما تفسيره بالجلوس فقد نقل ابن القيم في الصواعق4/1303عن خارجة بن مصعب في قوله تعالى: )الرحمن على العرش استوى((1)قوله: “وهل يكون الاستواء إلا الجلوس”.ا.هـ.وقد ورد ذكر الجلوس في حديث أخرجه الإمام أحمد عن ابن عباس رضي الله عنهما مرفوعاً.والله أعلم
“With respect to the sitting, Ibn al-Qayyim has reported in As-Sawaaiq 1303/4 from Kharijah bin Mus’ab with respect to the saying of Allah the Exalted :The ayah: Ar-Rahmanu Alal Arshi Istawa, “How can the Istawa (ascension) be anything other than sitting (juloos)?” and the mention of sitting has been reported in the Hadeeth from Imam Ahmad from Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with them both, in a Marfu’ fashion. And Allah Knows best. [Majmu Fatawa (vol. 1, no. 57)]”
The source of Ibn Taymiyyah’s belief regarding Allah’s ability to sit upon the back of a creature – regardless of whether the creature be a mosquito, a camel, a horse, a created throne – is al-Darimi who stated:
“Verily, Allah is greater than all things and bigger than all creation, and the throne is not carrying Him by [its] glory and strength, nor are the carriers of the throne carrying it by their strength, nor could they bear His throne; but they carried it by His power. It has reached us that when they carried the throne, and above it was the Almighty, in His glory and His splendor, they became weak from carrying it, and they became lowly, and knelt down on their knees, until they were taught to read: ‘There is no power, nor might, except with Allah.’ Then, they bore it by the power of Allah and His will. And if it were not for that, the throne would not be able to bear Him (i.e. Allah), nor the carriers [of the throne], nor the heavens, nor the earth, nor those in them.
Had He willed, He would have settled on the back of a mosquito, so it would bear Him, by His power and the subtlety of His Lordship. Thus, what of the great throne, that is bigger than the heavens and the earth? And how do you deny, O vain one, that His throne bears Him, when the throne is bigger than the seven heavens and the seven earths? And had the throne been in the heavens and the earth, they would not have contained it, but it is above the seventh heaven. So how can you deny this, when you claim that Allah is in the earth in all its places, yet the earth is less than the throne in greatness and vastness. So how is it that the earth bears Him according to your claim, but the throne which is greater and more vast than it does not?”
إن الله أعظم من كل شيء وأكبر من كل خلق، ولم يحمله العرش عظما ولا قوة، ولا حملة العرش حملوه بقوتهم ولا استقلوا بعرشه، ولكنهم حملوه بقدرته، وقد بلغنا أنهم حين حملوا العرش وفوقه الجبار في عزته وبهائه ضعفوا عن حمله واستكانوا وجثوا على ركبهم حتى لقنوا لا حول ولا قوة إلا بالله، فاستقلوا به بقدرة الله وإرادته، ولولا ذلك ما استقل به العرش ولا الحملة ولا السموات ولا الأرض ولا من فيهن، ولو قد شاء لاستقر على ظهر بعوضة فاستقلت به بقدرته ولطف ربوبيته، فكيف على عرش عظيم أكبر من السموات والأرض، وكيف تنكر أيها النفاج أن عرشه يقله والعرش أكبر من السموات السبع والأرضين السبع، ولو كان العرش في السموات والأرضين ما وسعته ولكنه فوق السماء السابعة، فكيف تنكر هذا وأنت تزعم أن الله في الأرض في جميع أمكنتها والأرض دون العرش في العظمة والسعة، فكيف تقله الأرض في دعواك ولا يقله العرش الذي هو أعظم منها وأوسع
“He (Allah azza wa jal) is a Body and Has a Direction.” !!!
In his Bayaan Talbees al-Jahamiyyah, Ibn Taimiyyah using his own twisted version of Kalaam, clearly affirms that Allah (azza wa jal) has a body and a direction:
“It is known that the vision [of Allah in the afterlife] which the Lawgiver has told [us] about cannot be affirmed while negating [for Allah] what they regard as a ‘body’. Rather, affirming it [i.e. vision] necessitates [affirming for Allah] what they regard as a ‘body’ and ‘direction’. It is clear that whoever tries to combine these two [i.e. affirmation of vision and negation of ‘body’ and ‘direction’] is stubbornly refusing what is established by reason and by the senses.”
فقد علم أنه لا يمكن إثبات الرؤية التي أخبر بها الشارع مع نفي ما يقولون إنه الجسم ، بل إثباتها مستلزم لما يقولون إنه الجسم والجهة. فقد تبين أنه من جمع بين هذين فإنه مكابر للمعقول والمحسوس وهذا مما قد بينه بالدليل فيقبل منه اهــ
Allah (azza wa jal) Has a Size !!!
Ibn Taymiyyah argues that is impossible for Allah (azza wa jal) not to have a size:
فأما كون الشيء غير موصوف بالزيادة والنقصان ولا بعدم ذلك وهو موجود وليس بذي قدر فهذا لا يعقل (Talbîs al-Jahmiyyah)
Salafi shaykh Haitham Hamdan, an administrator of the multaqa hadith forums, defends this abhorrent aqeedah with typically stupid salafi Kalaam:
“Yes this is what this great scholar is saying. And “Salafis” agree with him. It is impossible for a creature to be present outside the human mind (not to be a mere mental being); and not have a size. A mere mental being does not have a size or place. Example: numbers. They are mere mental beings with no existence outside the human mind. It is OK for them not to have a size. Something that exists outside the mind must have a size and place.”
Hell-Fire Will Shut Down Eventually!!!
The writings of Ibn Taymiyyah’s own students have confirmed that this was the final view held by Ibn Taymiyyah, after having held the correct belief in his previous works. For example, Ibnul Qayyim reveals how he sought guidance from his shaykh, Ibn Taymiyyah, during his very last days, regarding the question of everlasting chastisement:
“I had asked Shaykh al-Islam [about everlasting chastisement]. He said to me, “This issue is very great”, and he gave no reply concerning it. Some time had passed after that when I saw in the commentary of ‘Abd b. Hamid [or Humayd] al-Kiththi one of those traditions I have mentioned. So, I sent the book to [Ibn Taymiyya] while he was in his last session (fi majlisihi al-akhir). I marked that place [in the book], and I told the messenger, “Say to him, “This place is difficult for him [i.e. Ibn Qayyim], and he does not know what it is.” Then, he wrote his famous work about it. whoever has the grace of knowledge, let him bring it forth, and above each one having knowledge is one who is All-Knowing.” (Shifa’ al-alil,pp. 564-65 – see autobiographical note).
The famous work which Ibn Taymiyyah wrote during his final days is called, “Al-Radd ‘ala man qala bi-fana’ al-janna wa al-nar.”
Using some twisted salafi kalaam, Ibnul Qayyim shows how to get round the categorically explicit verses of the Qur’an which emphasize the eternal nature of the punishment of the hell-fire, by analogizing it with a worldly prison:
“Yes, considering the ayats that are so clear in meaning, it is impossible to deny that kafirs will forever remain in Jahannam and will never be able to leave Jahannam. As a result, they will be punished there as long as Jahannam exists. But when the time comes Allahu ta’ala will annihilate Jahannam; in this way, in agreement with the clear meanings of the ayats, there will never be ‘exit from Jahannam for kafirs’…..There is a difference between a convict who leaves a prison that continues to exist and a convict whose imprisonment ends because the prison is damaged and destroyed.”
Although some Salafi scholars such as al-Albani and Sulayman al-Ashqar have treated this belief as merely a tolerable slip of Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibnul Qayyim- a belief which happens to be “only” Kufr – other Salafis have accepted this view to be an acceptable difference of opinion! More will be added here from the Salafi Imams regarding this Kufr belief that goes against the Ijma’ (consensus) of the whole Ummah.
Those at the Top of Skyscrapers Are Closest to Allah (azza wa jal)!!!
Perhaps the following tenet of Aqeedah expounded below by al-Darimi, is the reason why today’s Najdi’s are vociferously competing with each other in building the tallest skyscrapers:
“He [al-Murīsi] said: “Don’t you see that you cannot say that whoever went up on a mountain is closer to Allah.” It should be said to this objector who claims that about which he has no knowledge: Who told you that the top of the mountain is not nearer to Allah than the bottom of it? Because those who believe that Allah is above His Throne and above His skies know for certain that the top of the mountain is closer to the sky than the bottom of it and that the seventh sky is closer to the Throne of Allah than the sixth, and that the sixth is closer to it than the fifth and so on down to the earth. Similarly, Ishāq ibn Ibrahīm al-Hanzali [ibn Rahaweh (d. 238)] reported that Ibn al-Mubārak said: “The top of the minaret is closer to Allah than the bottom of it.” Ibn al-Mubārak told the truth for whatever is closer to the sky is closer to Allah.
Notwithstanding, Allah is close to all His creation the near and the far and He is not far away from anything in His creation. Yet some of His creation is closer to Him than other as we explained about the skies and the earth. Likewise, with His angels, for the bearers of the Throne are closer to Him than all the [other] angels that are in the seventh sky.”
Allah’s Chair is So Vast That After Sitting Down Upon It, Only a Space of Four Fingers Remain !!!
“Verily, His chair can hold the skies and the earth, and verily He sits down on it and there is no space left over in it except the space of four fingers,” and he extended his four fingers.
إن كرسيه وسع السموات والأرض وإنه ليقعد عليه فما يفضل منه إلا قدر إربع أصابع – و مدّ أصابعه الأربع .
THE MASK RIPPED OFF BY THEIR OWN HANDS
It is only recently that the Salafis themselves have published and propagated the Kitaabs, Naqdh Daarami, Kitaabut Tauheed of Ibn Khuzaimah, and As-Sunnah of Abdullah Bin Al-Imaam Ahmad (this is not a reference to Imaam Ahmad Bin Hambal), which explicitly expose the real Kufr nature of the Salafi Aqeedah. If the Salafis had not published these three kitaabs, these corrupt beliefs of Kufr and Shirk held by the likes of Ibn Taymiyyah, would have remained somewhat concealed.
In Ghazwal Juyoosh on page 88, Ibn Qayyim, the student of Ibn Taimiyyah, mentions that the latter frequently emphasised the need to publish Daarimi’s book, An-Naqdh. Ibn Taimiyyah held this book in the highest regard. In the introduction of An-Naqdh of Daarimi, it is mentioned that this book is being published in accordance with the instruction and directive of Ibn Taimiyyah and Ibn Qayyim, and both are in agreement with the views expressed by Daarimi.
Thus, the haze and the veil which had concealed the vile anthropomorphic concepts of Ibn Taimiyyah have been lifted. In view of the publication of the aforementioned three books of kufr, every person now has access to the views, beliefs and concepts of Ibn Taimiyyah. Everyone can ascertain first-hand the kufr of the Salafis. Sight should not be lost of the fact that the Salafis themselves of our age have published these three books of kufr which are loaded with anthropomorphic copro-kufr beliefs and concepts.
Despite the Salafis of our age denying and concealing on the basis of their doctrine of Taqiyah, their actual beliefs of a physical deity with physical limbs akin to the gods of the Greeks and Hindus, their publication of the books of kufr held in high esteem by their imaam, Ibn Taimiyyah, has ripped off their evil mask behind which they have tried to hide their anthropomorphic understanding of Allah Azza Wa Jal.
May Allah Ta’ala save us from all this kufr which deranged minds have conjectured. Says the Qur’aan:
“So has Allah cast rijs (filth) on those who have no intelligence.”
ATTITUDE OF SALAF-US-SAALIHEEN TOWARDS DEVIATIONS
It is worth reminding that the Salaf-us-Saliheen, whom many deceptively claim to follow, did not recognise any such stupid ‘unity’ slogan as trumpeted by modernists of all breeds today. The slightest deviation from the Haqq was abominable to the Salaf-us-Saliheen. In their eyes there was no such creature as a ‘good’ deviant or a ‘moderate’ deviant. Deviation has no moderation. One person’s stupid idea of ‘moderate’ is another stupid person’s idea of ‘extremism’ – and vice versa. Furthermore, those who pipe the stupid ‘unity’ slogan are extremely selective with the type of deviants they are willing to consort with. While they will regard as deviants other sects who differ with them significantly, they will suddenly bury their heads in the sand, and resort to farfetched ta’weel (baseless interpretation) to explain away the perverted beliefs held by the leading Salafi Imams, only a glimpse of which has been revealed in this short article.
Those who hold a ‘softspot’ for a particular salafi breed of their inclination, will of course find the contents of this article extremely difficult to digest, since the Salaf-us-Saliheen have made explicitly clear that such a ‘softspot’ is in fact Nifaaq – an abominable type of hypocrisy lurking only in darkened hearts. A future article will expound in more detail regarding this ‘extreme’ attitude towards deviations held by the Salaf-us-Saliheen who would regard the danger posed to the Ummah by deviant sects to be worse than that of the Kuffaar, and who would adhere firmly and unwaveringly to the teaching of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) that honouring a deviant aids in the destruction of the Deen and causes the Arsh to shudder.
In fact, the ‘Zulm’ (oppression) of the Kuffaar upon this Ummah is merely a punishment by Allah (azza wa jal) for our flagrant tolerance for such deviations. as indicated by numerous Aayaat of the Qur’an and Ahadith,
IJMA’ (CONSENSUS) OF THE SALAF-US-SALIHEEN ON DISSOCIATING (BARAA’) FROM THE PEOPLE OF DEVIATED SECTS
ANOTHER UNPALATABLE (GHAREEB) TEACHING OF THE DEEN NEGLECTED BY THE UMMAH RESULTING IN THE PUNISHMENT OF ALLAH (AZZA WA JAL)
A GLIMPSE INTO THE ATTITUDE OF THE SALAF-US-SALIHEEN
NOTE: “Deviates” or “Men of innovation” refer to those who have innovated into Islam that which is not part of it, such as attributing direction (jiha), body (jism), size, sitting (juloos), etc. and other human qualities to Allah (azza wa jal), as the Salafi sect does, or attributing Knowledge of the Unseen (Ilmul Ghayb), Omnipresence (Haazir Naazir), Mukhtaar Kul (divine choice and power), and other divine qualities to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), as the Barelwi sect does.
Fudhayl ibn Iyaadh said:
“Do not trust a deviant concerning your Deen. Do not seek his advice in your affairs. Do not sit with him since whoever sits with a deviant, Allah will cause him to become BLIND.” – (Note: Far worse than ‘sitting’ is listening to the ‘deeni’ talks of deviants, regardless of the ‘benefits’ every single deviant has.)
“Indeed, I love those whom Allah loves. They are those whom the Companions of Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam) are safe. I hate those whom Allah hates. They are the people of the deviant sects and innovations.”
“Whoever sits with a deviate, then beware of him. Whoever sits with a deviant has not been given wisdom.”
“I (would) love that there was a fort of iron between me and a deviate.”
“That I eat with a Jew and a Christian is more beloved to me than that I should eat with a deviate.”
“The souls [are part] of pre-arranged armies; so whichever of them knew each other will come together, and those who did not will be separate. And it is not possible that a person of Sunnah assists a deviate except due to Nifaaq (an abominable type of hypocrisy lurking in filthy hearts).”
“I met the best of people, all of them people of the Sunnah and they used to forbid from accompanying the people of innovation.”
“Allah has angels who seek out the gatherings of Dhikr – so look to whose gathering you sit in – let it not be with the person of innovation since Allah will not look to them, and the sign of Nifaaq is that a man gets up and sits with an deviant.”
“Do not sit with a man of innovation; Allah has rendered his deeds futile and taken out the light of Islam from his heart, and if Allah loves a servant he grants him good and pure food (i.e. not doubtful).”
Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (rahmatullahi alayh), said:
“The graves of Ahlus Sunnah who committed major sins are (still) gardens (from Paradise) whilst the graves of the deviants who were pious ascetics are pits (from the Fire). The sinners from Ahlus Sunnah are (still) the friends of Allah, whereas the pious ascetics of deviated sects are the enemies of Allah.”
”It is neither permissible for anyone to sit with the people of deviated sects, nor mix with them, nor socialize with them.”
Aboo Al-Jawzaa (d. 83H) said,
“That apes and pigs live next to me is more loved by me than if one of them (a person of a deviated sect) lives next to me.”
Imam Sufyan Ath-Thawri (rahimahullah) said:
“If you loved a man for the sake of Allah and then he introduced a deviation in Islam [or you became aware of his deviance] and you did not hate him for it, then you did not really love him for the sake of Allah.”
Qaadee Aboo Ya’laa said,
“There is consensus (Ijmaa’) among the sahaabah and the taabi’een on dissociating and cutting-off (Baraa’) from the people of deviated sects.”
Sa’eed ibn Jubair said,
“That my son accompanies a sinful and cunning scoundrel who is from Ahlus Sunnah is more beloved to me than that he accompanies a devotional and worshipful person from a deviant sect.”
Al-Hasan Al-Basree said,
“Do not sit with a deviate, for surely he will disease your heart.”
Muhammad ibn an-Nadr al-Haarithee said:
“Whoever listens to a deviant – and knows that he is a deviant – then protection is taken away from him, and he is left to himself.”
Ibraheem Ibn Maysarah (d. 132H) said,
“Whoever honours (or praises) a deviant has aided in the destruction of Islaam.”
Many reliable authorities have also related the above statement as a Hadith of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).
Aboo Anas Hamad Al-‘Uthmaan said:
“The evil of the Jews and Christians is open and clear to the common Muslims; as for the people of deviated sects, then their harm is not clear to every person. This is why the Scholars see that to refute the people of deviated sects takes precedence over refuting the Jews and Christians.”
Sa’eed Ibn Jubayr said,
“For my son to accompany a wicked sinner is more beloved to me than for him to accompany a deviant who performs great worship.”
Aboo Qilaabah said,
“Do not sit with the people of deviated sects, and do not debate with them, for indeed, I do not feel safe that they will not drown you in their misguidance and confuse you with regards to that which you used to know.”
Imam Shaatibee expounding on the Ijma’ (consensus) of the Salaf-us-Saaliheen states:
“For indeed the saved sect – and they are Ahlus-Sunnah Wal-Jamaa’ah – are commanded with disassociating themselves from the people of deviant sects, expelling them and punishing severely anyone that follows in their direction, whether by killing or other than that. The scholars have warned us against accompanying and sitting with them. That is the best way for showing hostility and hatred to them.”
Imam Shaatibee states that deviates must be exposed and banished:
“When these groups begin to call to their misguidance and beautify it in the hearts of the common people and those who have no knowledge, then indeed, the harm that these individuals cause to the Muslims is just like that of the harm that the Devil causes. So they are devils from among mankind.
Therefore, it must be openly proclaimed that they are people of innovation and misguidance, and that they are associated with the deviant sects, if there is sufficient evidence that shows that they are from among them. So the likes of these individuals must be exposed and banished.” [Al-‘Itisaam, 2/228]
[More beliefs of Kufr and Shirk of the Salafi Imams will added to this article soon insha-Allah….]
I understand that many classical, accepted scholars have warned against Ibn Taymiyyah or even pronounced him to be deviant or Kaafir. However, what about the many accepted scholars who had praised Ibn Taymiyyah? Why is there so much discrepancy amongst the classical scholars on the deviance or non-deviance of Ibn Taymiyyah?
To be added soon insha-Allah