🧵 The Wahhābī assault on Karbalāʾ: A complete history

I think Daniel Haqiqatjou might be suffering from a severe case of Stockholm Syndrome, he keeps getting rinsed with the facts but insists on coming back for another round with the sandal 🩴.

In any case, this thread is a comprehensive history of the Wahhābī assault on Karbalāʾ in 1802.

[1] The Ottoman violation of the treaty between them and the First Saudi State
[2] The Shīʾī attack on a group of civilian Wahhābī caravans
[3] The Ottomans’ refusal to punish the perpetrators
[4] The Saudi advance towards Karbalāʾ
[5] The Wahhābīs did not attack civilians
[6] Karbalāʾ had become a refuge for worst elements in society
[7] The Wahhābī assault only lasted for a few hours

https://x.com/ibmsulaymani/status/2010861867552350519

1) The Ottoman violation of the treaty between them and the First Saudi State

The Ottomans, after suffering a humiliating defeat at the hands of Saʾūd Ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, decided to cut their losses and sign a peace treaty with the First Saudi State.

Despite the truce concluded between Ibn Saʿūd and the Ottoman crescent in Baghdād, relations between the two soon grew tense once again. The cause of this tension was an aggression committed against the First Saudi State by followers of the Ottoman province in ʿIrāq.

🧵 Abū ʿUbaydah the Wahhābī: A thread

This thread will provide a series of excerpts from the martyred spokesman of Katāʾib al-Qassām, Abū ʿUbaydah Ḥudhayfah al-Kaḥlūt, that clearly show his Wahhābī/Salafī ideology.

All quotes provided are from his thesis The Holy Land Between Judaism, Christianity, and Islām.

[1] Abū ʿUbaydah references Fatḥ al-Majīd, the explanation of Kitāb al-Tawḥīd by Sh ʿAbd al-Raḥman Ibn Ḥasan, the grandson of Sh Muḥammad Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb

[2] Abū ʿUbaydah on the Shīʾah

[3] Abū ʿUbaydah quotes the words of Imām Ibn Taymiyyah concerning the cursing of the grave-venerators

[4] Abū ʿUbaydah quotes the words of Imām Ibn Taymiyyah concerning the non-legitimacy of supplication at graves, and that it is the creed of the Companions and their Successors

[5] Abū ʿUbaydah quotes the consensus which Imām Ibn Taymiyyah transmitted regarding the prohibition of traveling to graves

[6] Abū ʿUbaydah quotes the fatāwā of Sh Ibn Bāz regarding supporting Palestine 1) Abū ʿUbaydah references Fatḥ al-Majīd, the explanation of Kitāb al-Tawḥīd by Sh ʿAbd al-Raḥman Ibn Ḥasan, the grandson of Sh Muḥammad Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb

• Abū ʿUbaydah said:

❝Taking into consideration that this matter (i.e., veneration, seeking blessing, and the like) is one in which various groups among the Muslims have gone astray: they magnified graves and shrines, and they venerated saints and righteous people with what is not befitting except the Lord of the worlds. Such people are not a proof against Islām; rather, the trustworthy scholars of the Muslims have refuted them in a manner that dispels every ambiguity and clarifies the stance of the righteous Salaf—may Allāh be pleased with them all. See regarding that, for example: Fatḥ al-Majīd Sharḥ Kitāb al-Tawḥīd, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Ḥasan b. Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Wahhāb al-Najdī al-Ḥanbalī.❞

🧵 𝐓𝐡𝐞 ʿ𝐀𝐪ī𝐝𝐚𝐡 𝐨𝐟 𝐈𝐛𝐧 𝐑𝐚𝐣𝐚𝐛 𝐚𝐥-Ḥ𝐚𝐧𝐛𝐚𝐥ī (𝟕𝟑𝟔-𝟕𝟗𝟓𝐇):

[1] Taking the apparent meaning
[2] Allāh’s voluntary actions
[3] Where Allāh is
[4] His censorship of Kalām
[5] Affirming a voice for Allāh
[6] His defence of Abū Ismāʾīl al-Harawī (396-481H)
[7] His defence of ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Jīlānī (470-561H)
[8] His defence of ʿAbd al-Ghanī al-Maqdisī (541-600H)
[9] His defence of Ibn Taymīyyah (661-728H)
[10] His defence of Ibn al-Qayyim (691-751H) 𝟭) 𝗧𝗮𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴

• Ibn Rajab al-Ḥanbalī said:

❝They claimed that the apparent meanings of the Qurʾān and the Sunnah are tashbīh, tajsīm, and misguidance. From this, they derived names for those who believe in what Allāh revealed to His Messenger for which Allāh has revealed no authority. In fact, they are lies fabricated against Allāh by which they drive people away from having faith in Allāh and His Messenger.❞

📚 (Fatḥ al-Bārī 7/230)

Unfortunately for you Abū Muṣʾab @WajdiAkkari, I didn’t lie about anything. You were asked a question about the UAE’s deals with Israel, to which you replied:

“𝗜𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝘂𝗹𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝘀𝗲𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗺𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗮𝗹𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗯𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗠𝘂𝘀𝗹𝗶𝗺𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺 𝘁𝗼 𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗽𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆, 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹.”

If that’s not justifying it, I don’t know what it is.

Also your friend Fāris al-Ḥammādī has made video after video justifying these deals.

“𝗡𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗝𝗲𝘄𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗹𝗲”

“𝗘𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝘆 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗸𝘂𝗳𝗳ā𝗿 𝗶𝘀 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗯𝘆 𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗮𝘂𝗹𝘁”

This is the problem with people like this, they say outlandish things, but when you pull them up on it they’ll attack you, accuse you of slander and pretend they didn’t say it.

Abū Muṣʾab @WajdiAkkari has other statements justifying the ties that surrounding countries have with Israel, as well as saying that Muslim nations aren’t obliged to mobilise in defence of Palestinians being genocided.

🧵 𝐑𝐞𝐟𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐩𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝐖𝐚𝐡𝐡𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐬𝐦 1)

https://twitter.com/ibmsulaymani/status/1890762461823058275

🧵 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐚𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐞: 𝐀𝐥𝐥 𝐦𝐲 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐬 1)

https://twitter.com/ibmsulaymani/status/1843649185800712354

When are you going to publicly apologise for your lies against Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymīyyah?

Below is my 28-minute video exposing you and your two students misquoting Ibn Taymīyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim over and over again: youtu.be/pdRA7zIYbWQ?si… x.com/yasiralhanafi/… As for the book by Ḥātim al-ʿAwnī, see this detailed 2-hour critique of it by Shaykh Fāris al-ʿAjamī:

🧵 The praise of the Indian Ahl al-Ḥadīth movement towards Muḥammad Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb

Another one of Daniel Haqiqatjou’s attempts to slander the daʾwah of Muḥammad Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb comes in the form of attempting to separate it from the daʾwah of the Ahl al-Ḥadīth in the sub-continent.

But as we’ll see, the Ahl al-Ḥadīth of India held very positive verdicts of Muḥammad Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb and sought to emulate his mission.

[1] Ṣiddīq Ḥasan Khān al-Qannūjī al-Būfālī (Died 1248-1307H)
[2] Muḥammad Bashīr Ibn al-Ḥakīm al-Sahiswānī (1245–1326H)
[3] ʿAbd al-Ḥalīm Sharar al-Laknawī
[4] Abū ʿAbdillāh Muḥammad Ibn Yūsuf al-Sāmarūdī al-Sūrtī (1307-1361H)
[5] Shaykh Muḥammad Ibn Ibrāhīm al-Jūnākirī (Died 1361H)
[6] Shaykh Abū al-Wafāʾ Thanāʾ Allāh al-Amritsarī (Died 1368H)
[7] Shaykh Muḥammad Ismāʿīl Ibn ʿAbd al-Wāḥid Ibn ʿAbdullāh al-Ghaznawī (Died 1379H)
[8] Shaykh Muḥammad Dāwūd al-Ghaznawī (1312-1355H)
[9] Al-Ḥāfiẓ Muḥammad Amīn Ibn al-Shaykh Muḥammad Yūnus (Died 1386H) 1) Ṣiddīq Ḥasan Khān al-Qannūjī al-Būfālī (Died 1248-1307H)

• In his book al-Tāj al-Mukallal, he quoted al-Shawkānī saying:

❝Some people claim that (i.e., ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz Ibn Muḥammad Ibn Saʿūd) holds the beliefs of the Khawārij. I do not think this is true, for the ruler of Najd and all his followers act upon what they learned from Muḥammad Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb, who was Ḥanbalī, and then sought knowledge of ḥadīth in al-Madīnah al-Munawwarah. He returned to Najd and began acting upon the ijtihādāt of a group of later Ḥanbalī scholars, like Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn al-Qayyim, and their likes. They are among the sternest people against those who hold beliefs in the dead.❞

📚 (Al-Tāj al-Mukallal 1/326)

🧵 𝐈𝐛𝐧 𝐀𝐛ī 𝐙𝐚𝐦𝐚𝐧ī𝐧 𝐚𝐥-𝐌ā𝐥𝐢𝐤ī (𝟑𝟏𝟎-𝟑𝟗𝟗𝐇): 𝐀𝐥𝐥ā𝐡 𝐈𝐬 𝐀𝐛𝐨𝐯𝐞 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐓𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐞

[1] Belief in the Throne
[2] Belief in the Veils
[3] Belief in the Descent 𝟭) 𝗕𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗲𝗳 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗧𝗵𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗲

• Ibn Abī Zamanīn said:

❝Chapter: Belief in the Throne: Among the sayings of Ahl al-Sunnah is that Allāh created the Throne and singled it out for loftiness and exaltation above all that He has created, then he ascended over it how he willed as he informed about himself in his statement: {The Most Merciful ascended over the throne, to Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth and whatever is in between and whatever is underground}. [20:5] And in his statement: {Then he ascended over the Throne. He knows whatever goes into the earth and whatever comes out of it}. [57:4] So, exalted is He who is far removed, and not seen, and near by His knowledge and power, and who hears all whispers.❞

📚 (Uṣūl al-Sunnah p. 88)

🧵 Your claim that Muslims didn’t study history as a discipline is patently false, and so are your claims about Ibn Khaldūn. Let’s deal with them:

On top of the fact that Islāmic history contains far more primary source material than western history, source scrutiny was a discipline studied in Islāmic history with plenty of books being written on the topic.

The science of ḥadīth involves (but is not limited to) study of various terminologies, studies of the narrators of historical events, studies of the chains to not only detect the obvious weaknesses but also anomalies and hidden defects.

Some examples of books written on this complex science:

- Al-Muqaddimah by Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ al-Shahrazūrī (1181–1245 AD), a book that defines 65 types of ḥadīth (e.g., ṣaḥīḥ, ḍaʿīf, mutawātir) and their conditions.

- Tadrīb al-Rāwī Fī Sharḥ Taqrīb al-Nawawī (Training the Narrator in Explaining al-Nawawī’s Taqrīb) by al-Suyūṭī (1445–1505 AD)

- Fath al-Mughīth bi-Sharḥ Alfiyyat al-Ḥadīth (The Key to Understanding the Alfiyyah of Ḥadīth) by al-Sakhāwī (1428–1497), a commentary on Zayn al-Dīn al-ʿIrāqī’s Alfiyyah (1,000-line poem on ḥadīth sciences)

- Al-Kifāyah Fī ʿIlm al-Riwāyah (Sufficiency in the Science of Narration) al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī (1002–1071 AD)


Some books detailing the biographies and reliabilities of narrators:

- Al-Tārīkh al-Kabīr (The Great History) by al-Bukhārī (810-870 AD)

- Al-Jarḥ wal-Taʾdīl (Criticism and Appraisal) by Ibn Abī Ḥātim al-Rāzī (854-938 AD)

- Al-Kāmil Fī Ḍuʿafāʾ al-Rijāl (The Complete [Work] of Weak Narrators) Ibn ʿAdī (890-976 AD)

- Al-ʿIlal al-Wāridah Fī Aḥādīth al-Nubuwwah (The Defects Found in the Prophetic Ḥadīths) by al-Dāraquṭnī (918-995 AD)

Fāris al-Ḥammādī tells his followers not to discuss politics, whilst simultaneously making videos justifying normalisation with Israel and the Abraham Accords.

For individuals like this, “don’t discuss politics” is just code for “don’t promote political takes that oppose mine.”

Yesterday Fāris al-Ḥammādī repeated the lie that Ibn Bāz’s fatwā justifies normalising with Israel. It has been corrected, refuted and clarified that Ibn Bāz never justified anything close to it, yet Fāris al-Ḥammādī insists on repeating the lie.
Faris al-Hammadi Lies Against Shaykh Ibn Baz Regarding Israeli Normalisation

🧵 The overwhelming majority of revivalist traditionalist Islāmic movements have been Wahhābī.

The Wahhābīs have been the front runners at tackling secularism, atheism, feminism, and liberalism.

North Africa, Sub Saharan Africa, the Middle East, the Arabian Peninsula, the Indian Subcontinent; all have witnessed various Islāmic revivals associated with Wahhābism.

Shaykh Muḥammad Amān al-Jāmī assisted the Mujāhidīn in his own homeland of Ethiopia against the Christians during the civil war, he wasn’t an intelligence asset and there is no shred of proof for such a ridiculous accusation.

Shaykh Ibn al-ʿUthaymīn, Shaykh al-Albānī and Shaykh Ibn Bāz have countless fatāwā and recordings encouraging Muslims to support Chechnya, Bosnia, Afghanistan and even Palestine through any possible means including military means.

Shaykh ʿAbd al-Raḥman al-Saʾdī authored 6 books against atheism.

Muftī Muḥammad Ibn Ibrāhīm Āl al-Shaykh ordered funding of 1 million riyals for the printing of Islāmic books in various sciences.

Shaykh Muṭlaq al-Jāsir, Shaykh ʿAbdullāh al-ʿUjayrī and Shaykh Sulṭān al-ʿUmayrī are among the leading Wahhābi scholars alive today that have immense efforts in countering modern ideologies through books and lectures. Shaykh Muḥammad Amān al-Jāmī was unable to renter Ethiopia after leaving it, but he corroborated with the leader of the Islāmic front and donated finances to support the jihād with weapons and training, agricultural projects, the building of mosques, schools, hospitals, refugee centres and other infrastructure.

Shaykh Muḥammad Amān al-Jāmī continued funding the jihād until he died.

🧵 𝐈𝐛𝐧 𝐁𝐚ṭṭ𝐚𝐡 𝐚𝐥-ʿ𝐔𝐤𝐛𝐮𝐫ī (𝟑𝟎𝟒-𝟑𝟖𝟕𝐇): 𝐀𝐥𝐥ā𝐡 𝐈𝐬 𝐀𝐛𝐨𝐯𝐞 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐓𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐞 • Ibn Baṭṭah al-ʿUkburī said:

❝And the Muslims from the Saḥābah, Tābiʾīn, and all the people of knowledge from the believers, are upon agreement that Allāh Tabarak wa-Taʾālā is over His Throne above His heavens separate from His creation, and His Knowledge encompasses all of His creation, no one rejects this or denies it except ones who are upon the beliefs of the Ḥulūlīyyah.

They are a group, whose hearts have been deviated, and the Shayāṭīn tempted them, so they left the religion (of Islām). And they said: “Allāh Himself is not without a place.” They said: “He is (here) on earth, as He is in The Heavens, and He is in the same (time) in all things.” The Qurʾān and Sunnah, and the sayings of the Companions and those who followed them, from among the Scholars of the Muslims denied them (Ḥulūlīyyah).

It was said to the Ḥulūlīyyah: “Why do you deny, that Allāh Almighty is above The Throne, while Allāh said: {The Most Merciful rose over The Throne}, [20:5] and He said: {Then established Himself on the Throne. (He is) the Most Compassionate! Ask (none other than) the All-Knowledgeable about Himself}. [25:59] This is what has been reported of Allāh, that He tells about Himself that He is above The Throne.”

They said: “We do not say, He is above The Throne, for He is greater than The Throne, and if He is above The Throne, (that means) that many places are devoid of Him. So, we would have likened Him to His creation, if one of them is in His place, then He is in the same place He is in, and the rest of Him is empty of it. However we say, He is under the Seventh Earth, as He is above the Seventh Heaven, and He is in every place, no place is empty of Him, and He is not in a place without another.”

We said: “As for your statement: ‘He is not on The Throne, for He is greater than The Throne.” Allāh has willed (for) Him to be over The Throne, and is greater Than it. Allāh says: {Then He rose above (ilā al-samāʾ)}, [2:29] He said: }He is Allāh above (fī al-samāʾ)}, then Allāh said: {And on Earth He Knows} [6:3]. So Allāh informed [us], that He is in the Heaven and that His Knowledge is [here] on earth. Allāh said: {The Most Merciful rose over The Throne}, [20:5] and He said: {Then He rose over The Throne}, [25:59] He said: {To Him good words ascend}. [35:10] So is the ascent only to what is higher? He said: }Glorify the Name of your Lord, the Most High}. [87:1] So He informed [us], that He is the highest [compared] to His creation. He said: {They fear their Lord above them}. [16:50] He said: Or do you feel secure that He who is above (fī al-samāʾ) would not send against you a storm of stones?}. [67:17] He said: {To Him good words ascend, and righteous deeds are raised up by Him}. [35:10] He said: {I will take you and raise you up to Myself}. [3:55] He said: {Allāh raised him up to Him}. [4:158] He said: {To Him belongs those in the heavens and the earth, and those who are with Him are not arrogant}. [21:19] He said: {He reigns supreme over His creation}. [6:18] He said: {He is High in stations, the Lord of the Throne}. [40:15] He said: {He conducts every affair from the heavens to the earth, then it [all] ascends to Him}, [32:5] He said: {The angels and the spirit will ascend to Him}. [70:4]

These, and many more are [found] in the Qurʼān. But the cursed Jahmīyyah, Muʾtazilah, Ḥulūliyyah abstained from this and denied it. They cling to its mutashābih, seeking mischief due to [their] deviation in [their] heart, because all the Muslims have known many places, and it is not permissible for there to be from their Lord, except His Knowledge and Greatness. His Power and His Essence, the Exalted, is not in it. So did the Jahmīyyah claim that the place of Iblīs is the one in which Allāh is gathered and He is in it? Rather, the Jahmīyyah claimed that Allāh is in a state of Iblis. Do they (Jahmīyyah) claim that the people of Hell are in Hell, and that The Exalted, The Great, The Generous, is with them in it (Hell)?!

🧵 𝐌𝐲 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐃𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐞𝐥 𝐇𝐚𝐪𝐢𝐪𝐚𝐭𝐣𝐨𝐮’𝐬 𝐝𝐨𝐜𝐮𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐲: 𝐀 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐝 𝐦𝐚𝐩

I estimate the length to be similar to the documentary itself; around 3 hours.

The upcoming response to Daniel Haqiqatjou will be split into 4 parts:

Part 1: A background to Daniel’s behaviour
Part 2: Istighāthah
Part 3: The History of Wahhabism and its ideology
Part 4: The Rāfiḍī Shīʾah 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝟭: 𝗔 𝗯𝗮𝗰𝗸𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗗𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗲𝗹’𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗶𝗼𝘂𝗿

Contrary to what many people believe, Daniel’s recent tirades against Wahhabism are less to do with truth and are actually his way to settle personal issues he has with certain individuals, namely: Jake Brancatella, then Farid Responds, then Adnan Rashid. A timeline demonstrating this will be shown, and how cosplaying as a salafī/wahhābī wasn’t an issue when it suited him.

Daniel’s failure at getting Sunnīs to normalise with the Rāfiḍah and the Irānian regime also has a lot to do with this, but we’ll get to that later.

Daniel’s attempts to spite his critics led him to make a number of false claims about miscellaneous creedal topics, such as:

- Those who make tabdīʾ of Ashʾarīs are ignorant

- Allāh being above the throne is an unclear matter with tolerated differing

- The Qurʾān being uncreated is a secondary ʿaqīdah point
- Butchers Ibn Taymīyyah’s view on tafwīḍ

- Falsely attributes the lafẓī view to al-Bukhārī

- Lies about the Ahl al-Ḥadīth making takfīr on al-Ṭabarī

- Falsely attributes taʾwīl to Aḥmad Ibn Ḥanbal

- Falsely accuses Wahhābīs of believing in an eternal universe

- Accuses Wahhābīs of falsely attributing al-Radd ʿAlā al-Jahmīyyah to Aḥmad Ibn Ḥanbal (after once accepting its attribution)

- Misrepresents al-Saffārīnī’s view on the Ashʾarīs

- Claims Ibn Taymīyyah believed that the disbelievers will eventually be placed in jannah

These claims will be addressed in a brief manner, but some of these claims deserve separate videos to refute. The point of part 1 is to display Daniel’s (de)evolution and its results, it will serve as an introduction and will be comparatively shorter than parts two, three and four.

🧵 𝐒𝐡𝐚𝐲𝐤𝐡 𝐌𝐮𝐪𝐛𝐢𝐥 𝐈𝐛𝐧 𝐇ā𝐝ī 𝐚𝐥-𝐖ā𝐝𝐢ʾī: 𝐏𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜 𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐦 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚𝐝𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐮𝐥𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐌𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐢𝐦 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝

[1] Shaykh Muqbil says the rulers of the Muslims are lackeys of America and Russia and don’t care about the Muslims

[2] Shaykh Muqbil says the surrounding countries are guardians for Israel

[3] Shaykh Muqbil says the rulers pretend to care about Palestine but they actually don’t

[4] Shaykh Muqbil says the rulers crack down on religious Muslims 𝟭) 𝗦𝗵𝗮𝘆𝗸𝗵 𝗠𝘂𝗾𝗯𝗶𝗹 𝘀𝗮𝘆𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝘂𝗹𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗠𝘂𝘀𝗹𝗶𝗺𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗸𝗲𝘆𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗔𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗱𝗼𝗻’𝘁 𝗰𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗠𝘂𝘀𝗹𝗶𝗺𝘀

• Shaykh Muqbil was asked:

❝The phrase “takfīr” (declaring someone a disbeliever) of some rulers has become widespread on the tongues of students of knowledge. So when does a ruler become a disbeliever?❞

• Shaykh Muqbil replied:

❝This issue that some students of knowledge are preoccupied with — we see that it is neither in the interest of the daʿwah nor in the interest of Islām and the Muslims. The matter of Muslim rulers is well known: they have ceased to care about the religion of Islām and are indifferent to it. But as for the issue of declaring a ruler to be a disbeliever (takfīr), it is not permissible to judge a ruler as a disbeliever unless he makes permissible what Allāh has forbidden, and that is under three conditions:

1. That he does so knowingly,
2. That he is not under compulsion,
3. That he sees the imported law as being like the rule of Allāh or better than it.

{Do they then seek the judgment of [pre-Islāmic] ignorance? And who is better in judgment than Allāh for a people who have certainty?} [5:50]

If that is the case, then someone like Ḥāfiẓ al-Asad, or the leader of misguidance al-Khomeini, or the government of Aden which openly declared its adherence to communism — such people, their disbelief is clear, so do not be concerned.

It should be known that the rulers of the Muslims have come to no longer care about the affairs of the Muslims and have become lackeys of America and Russia. We ask Allāh to guide them back to the truth in a beautiful return. And praise be to Allāh, there are signs that the Muslim youth today will accept nothing except the Book of Allāh and the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allāh — peace and blessings be upon him and his family. So the rulers will return to the Book and the Sunnah, and we advise them to return sincerely, seeking reward from Allāh — not like the one described in the saying:

He prayed and fasted for something he sought; when he got it, he neither prayed nor fasted.

Rather, we advise the rulers of the Muslims and the people of the Sunnah to return to Allāh Almighty. What has happened to them from the leader of misguidance, al-Khomeini, is due to our own deeds and theirs. Indeed, America and Russia will not benefit the rulers of Muslims in the least. O ruler, they do not care about you — all that matters to them is that someone implements their agendas; that is what concerns them. I have mentioned something about this in the issue of takfīr in al-Makhraj Min al-Fitnah because there is not enough time to elaborate now. For example, a person may be excused due to ignorance. Allāh the Exalted said: {And We never punish until We have sent a messenger} [17:15], and He also said: {And Allāh would not lead a people astray after He had guided them until He made clear to them what they should avoid} [9:115].❞

📚 (Ijābat al-Sā ʾil ʿAlā Ahm al-Masāʾil p. 568)

🧵 𝐃𝐨 𝐀𝐬𝐡ʾ𝐚𝐫ī𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐌ā𝐭𝐮𝐫ī𝐝ī𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐨𝐧 𝐟𝐚𝐛𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐨𝐨𝐤𝐬? 𝐅𝐥𝐢𝐩𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐩𝐭

One of the most commonly repeated tropes you hear from the opponents of Sunnī orthodoxy are the “fabricated” works that are allegedly the basis for the Sunnī creed.

In light of this phenomena, let’s have some fun by applying the false conditions they mandate on our works onto their books, the books of the Ashʾarī and Māturīdī kalām schools. Their creedal works consist of manuscripts with no chains, dates, unknown scribes and narrators, and sometimes even liars!

[1] Kitāb al-Tawḥīd by Abū Manṣūr al-Māturīdī (d. 333H)
[2] Kitāb al-Ghunyah by al-Mutawallī (d. 478H)
[3] Kitāb al-Lumaʾ Fī al-Radd ʿAlā Ahl al-Zaygh wal-Bidaʾ by Abū al-Ḥasan al-Ashʾarī (d. 324H)
[4] Maqālāt al-Islāmiyyīn by Abū al-Ḥasan al-Ashʾarī
[5] Istihsān al-Khawḍ Fī ʿIlm al-Kalām by al-Ashʾarī
[6] Mujarrad Maqālāt al-Ashʾarī by Ibn Fūrak (d. 406H)
[7] Mushkil al-Ḥadīth wa-Bayānuh by Ibn Fūrak
[8] Sharḥ al-ʿĀlim wal-Mutaʿallim by Ibn Fūrak
[9] Al-Ḥudūd Fī al-Uṣūl by Abū Bakr Ibn Fūrak
[10] Kitāb al-Bayān by al-Bāqillānī (d. 403H)
[11] Kitāb al-Inṣāf (also titled Risālat al-Ḥurrah) by al-Bāqillānī
[12] Kitāb al-Tamhīd by al-Bāqillānī
[13] The Book of the Questions of the People of Rayy by al-Bāqillānī
[14] Laṭāʾif al-Ishārāt by Abū al-Qāsim al-Qushayrī (d. 465H)
[15] The Complaint of Ahl al-Sunnah by al-Qushayrī
[16] The Creed of Abū Isḥāq al-Isfarāʾīnī (d. 418H)
[17] Al-Tabṣīr Fī al-Dīn by Abū al-Muẓaffar al-Isfarāʾīnī (d. 471H)
[18] Al-Shāmil by al-Juwaynī (d. 478H)
[19] Al-Asmāʾ wal-Ṣifāt by ʿAbd al-Qāhir al-Baghdādī (d. 429H)
[20] ʿIyār al-Naẓar by ʿAbd al-Qāhir al-Baghdādī 𝟭) 𝗞𝗶𝘁ā𝗯 𝗮𝗹-𝗧𝗮𝘄ḥī𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝗮𝗹-𝗠ā𝘁𝘂𝗿ī𝗱ī (𝗱. 𝟯𝟯𝟯𝗛)

The book has been edited in all of its editions based on a single manuscript housed at the University of Cambridge in the UK.

The scribe of the manuscript did not record his name, there is no chain of transmission (isnād), and the date of copying is unknown—though from its apparent condition, it seems to be relatively late.

To cite the statement of the book’s editor, al-Damanhūrī, as evidence, he said:

❝The date of copying this manuscript was certainly before 1150H, since this was the second recorded ownership of the copy in that year, so it must have been copied before the first ownership, which is unknown. This means it is a late manuscript that was in circulation in the 12th century Hijrah, creating a gap of approximately 800 years between it and the death of al-Māturīdī.❞

Accordingly, the book is not valid for anyone who adheres to the requirement of a verified isnād in manuscript transmission, due to both a break in the chain and the anonymity of the scribe.

Observations:

1. There is a massive gap between the time of al-Māturīdī’s death and the likely date of the manuscript, yet neither the Ashʾarīs nor the Māturīdīs hesitate to attribute the book to him.

2. Al-Damanhūrī asserts with certainty in the introduction to his edition that the book is indeed by al-Māturīdī, and he makes no mention of the newly invented methodology promoted by certain ignorant individuals active on social media. This places him among the other scholars who edited Ashʾarī/Māturīdī texts and rejected those fabricated criteria.

🧵 𝐃𝐢𝐝 𝐈𝐛𝐧 𝐓𝐚𝐲𝐦ī𝐲𝐲𝐚𝐡 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐡𝐢𝐬 ʿ𝐚𝐪ī𝐝𝐚𝐡 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐚𝐧 𝐀𝐬𝐡ʾ𝐚𝐫ī 𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐧 𝐥𝐢𝐟𝐞?

[1] The report in question
[2] Ibn Taymīyyah’s return from Egypt
[3] Ibn Taymīyyah’s books
[4] Ibn al-Qayyim’s transmissions
[5] What really happened 𝟭) 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻

• Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī said:

❝An investigation [of his views] was conducted with several scholars [in Cairo] and a written statement was drawn in which he said: “I am Ashʾarī.” His handwriting is found with what he wrote verbatim, namely: “I believe that the Qurʾān is a meaning which exists in Allāh’s Entity, and that it is an Attribute from the pre-eternal Attributes of His Entity, and that it is uncreated, and that it does not consist in the letter nor the voice, and that His saying: {The Merciful established Himself over the Throne} [20:4] is not taken according to its apparent, and I don't know in what consists its meaning, nay only Allāh knows it, and one speaks of His descent in the same way as one speaks of His istiwāʾ.” It was written by Aḥmad Ibn Taymīyyah and they witnessed over him that he had repented of his own free will from all that contravened the above. This took place on the 25th of Rabīʾ al-Awwal 707H and it was witnessed by a huge array of scholars and others.❞

📚 (Al-Durar al-Kāminah 1/148)

So to summarise, his “repentance” to the Ashʾarī creed took place on the 25th of Rabīʾ al-Awwal 707H in Egypt.

🧵 𝐌𝐞𝐠𝐚 𝐓𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝: 𝐇𝐨𝐰 𝐑𝐚𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐖𝐚𝐬 𝐒𝐡𝐢𝐫𝐤 𝐈𝐧 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐏𝐞𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐮𝐥𝐚? 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐖𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝 𝐓𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐲

A thread containing over 90 different sources, exposing the rampant practice of shirk, superstition and irreligiosity within the Muslim world before, during and after the time of Muḥammad Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb.

[1] European explorers
[2] Muslim scholars, historians & travellers
[3] Opponents of Wahhābism
[4] Wahhābī testimonies 𝟭) 𝗘𝘂𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗻 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗹𝗼𝗿𝗲𝗿𝘀

In the journey of the French envoy Jan A’outr around the year 1150H, he reports on the shrines and the practices performed at them, as he visited some and witnessed these rituals firsthand.

🧵 𝐈𝐛𝐧 𝐊𝐚𝐭𝐡ī𝐫’𝐬 𝐏𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐬𝐞 (𝟕𝟎𝟏-𝟕𝟕𝟒𝐇) 𝐅𝐨𝐫 𝐈𝐛𝐧 𝐓𝐚𝐲𝐦ī𝐲𝐲𝐚𝐡

1) The breadth of Ibn Taymīyyah’s knowledge
2) Ibn Kathīr praises Ibn Taymīyyah’s defense of al-Ḥamawīyyah
3) Ibn Taymīyyah won the debates against his opponents regarding al-Wāsiṭīyyah
4) Ibn Taymīyyah’s run in with the Aḥmadī Ṣūfī group
5) Ibn Kathīr praises Minhāj al-Sunnah by Ibn Taymīyyah
6) When the government took the pens and papers away from Ibn Taymīyyah
7) Ibn Kathīr defends Ibn Taymīyyah’s position on visiting graves
8) Ibn Taymīyyah’s funeral
9) When a young Ibn Taymīyyah delivered his famous tafsīr
10) Ibn Taymīyyah’s activism against superstition
11) Ibn Taymīyyah destroyed public consumption of alcohol
12) A Shāfiʾī scholar who was proud of giving Ibn Taymīyyah an ijāzah • Ibn Nāṣir al-Dīn al-Dimashqī said about Ibn Kathīr:

❝He wrote biographies of Shaykh Taqī al-Dīn and referred to him as “Shaykh al-Islām” in numerous writings, and his words about him are countless in his historical works.❞

📚 (Al-Radd al-Wāfir p. 163)

🧵 𝐒𝐡𝐚𝐲𝐤𝐡 ʿ𝐀𝐛𝐝 𝐚𝐥-𝐑𝐚ḥ𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐥-𝐁𝐚𝐫𝐫ā𝐤’𝐬 𝐕𝐞𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭 𝐑𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐍𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐖𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐉𝐞𝐰𝐬 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐚𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞

The al-Bayān magazine conducted a series of interviews with the Shaykh regarding these issues, which they then published.

[1] What is the doctrinal duty of Muslims toward the Jews and their state?
[2] What is the Islāmic ruling on supporting Muslims in Gaza, and what forms can this support take?
[3] Do the mistakes of fighters in Gaza or elsewhere justify abandoning support for them?
[4] What is the ruling on peace and normalisation with the Jews? And what is the legitimacy of agreements leading to this? 𝟭) 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗼𝗰𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗱𝘂𝘁𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝗠𝘂𝘀𝗹𝗶𝗺𝘀 𝘁𝗼𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗝𝗲𝘄𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲?

• Shaykh ʿAbd al-Raḥman al-Barrāk said:

❝Praise be to Allāh, and peace and blessings upon His servant and Messenger, our Prophet Muḥammad, and upon his family and companions.

The Jewish nation has historically been one of the most corrupt groups among the peoples of the earth, both in ancient and recent times. Allāh has exposed the misdeeds of the Jews and detailed their wrongdoings, especially for those who reflect upon the chapters of al-Baqarah, Āl ʿImrān, al-Nisāʾ, and Al-Māʾidah in the Qurʾān.

Allāh mentioned not only the transgressions of their ancestors but also their behavior during the time of the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ, illustrating the intense hostility they have shown towards believers, like idolaters, by fostering corruption and instigating conflict. As Allāh says: {Every time they kindle the fire of war, Allāh extinguishes it. And they strive to create corruption on earth. And Allāh does not love the corrupt}. [5:64]

Since Allāh sent ʿĪsā (peace be upon him) as a messenger to humanity, it was the Jews among the Children of Israel who denied and disbelieved in him. Allāh describes their opposition to His servant and messenger, ʿĪsā, the son of Maryam, and to his mother, as well as their subsequent disbelief in rejecting our Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ: {So they have incurred wrath upon wrath. And there is a humiliating punishment for the disbelievers}. [2:90]

The Qurʾān frequently mentions Allāh’s wrath in reference to them, beginning with His words in Al-Fatihah: {Not of those who have incurred [Your] anger nor of those who are astray}. [1:7] For this reason, scholars refer to the Jewish nation as “the nation of anger” and describe them as “the killers of prophets” and “brothers of apes and pigs,” using terms that Allāh Himself employed in the Qurʾān. Therefore, it is obligatory to resent and oppose them, disassociate from them, and believe they are disbelievers, even if they claim adherence to the Tawrāh. If any Muslim believes they follow a correct religion, then that Muslim has apostatized, even if they claim to be Muslim.

As for the current state [of Israel], it is seen as a state built on oppression and the occupation of Muslim lands. It is incumbent upon Muslims, whenever they are able, to do jihād against them and to seek to liberate Palestine from their occupation, due to their disbelief and oppression. Allāh says: {Fight those who do not believe in Allāh or in the Last Day and who do not forbid what Allāh and His Messenger have forbidden, and who do not follow the religion of truth, among those who were given the Scripture, until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled}. [9:29] And He also says: {Fight in the way of Allāh those who fight you, but do not transgress. Indeed, Allāh does not like transgressors. And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you}. [2:190-191]❞

🧵 𝐒𝐡𝐚𝐲𝐤𝐡 𝐌𝐮ḥ𝐚𝐦𝐦𝐚𝐝 𝐀𝐦ā𝐧 𝐚𝐥-𝐉ā𝐦ī 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐄𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐨𝐩𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐌𝐮𝐣ā𝐡𝐢𝐝ī𝐧

A lesser known fact about Shaykh Muḥammad Amān al-Jāmī is that he spent his life in support of the Mujāhidīn in Ethiopia through various means. • Shaykh Muṣṭafā Ibn ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Hūsāwī said:

❝Shaykh Muḥammad Amān, along with His Eminence Shaykh Abd al-ʿAzīz Ibn Bāz, contributed and participated in supporting and endorsing the jihād that had been ongoing in the Shaykh’s country (Ethiopia) for more than 30 years. They collected donations to support the jihād there through the Islāmic Front for the Liberation of Oromia (Ethiopia). The Shaykh even intended to endow a property to have its proceeds directed towards this jihād, and this was just ten days before his death. Jihād for the sake of Allāh was his constant pursuit. He strove with his speech, wealth, and influence, though he was unable to participate in jihād personally in his country due to compelling circumstances. In fact, he had not been able to enter his country since he left it in 1369H, despite his attempts.

The aforementioned front is based in Ethiopia. It operated secretly for a period of time, about 25 years, before emerging. It was founded by Shaykh ʿAbd al-Karīm Ibrāhīm Ḥāmid (Jaraba Gada) under the supervision of Shaykh Muḥammad Amān al-Jāmī, along with a group of young people from Oromia. The front continued its efforts, training, and preparation for jihād over a long period. Eventually, it began to take control of some areas in Oromia. Whenever it seized and secured a region or village, it established Friday and congregational prayers, which endeared it to Muslims throughout Ethiopia, who secretly supported it.