RESPONSE TO THE LATE ACCUSATIONS OF THE FAKEHEAD REPORT TEAM 

CHAPTER ONE
Character Assassination Tatics  

The recent attacks on me has been nothing more than the same old character assassination we have seen many times before when people cannot handle the very subjects that are placed before them, they simply resort to attacking the character of those who presented the points. This is known as the logical fallacy of ad-hominem, which is to avoid the main issue at hand and resort to insults, name calling, character defaming etc.

When I was searching for truth in my Wahhabi days, I did not focus on the bad character of so and so, the cutting of a birthday cake with the Christians by such and such. In-fact, I looked at the very crux of the issues at hand. I realized it was pointless looking at such and such character as they are soon to be buried and forgotten, and this is important to keep in mind as a new generation will arise, as they did before, and have to go through the cycle of looking and researching through all these points yet again.

It will not concern them who Andrew Sanders is or was, yet the issues and the main topic at hand will be important for them. Therefore I find all this “he said, she said” style of debate childish and pathetic. Now I could be the biggest liar and still stand here and tell you the truth today. Refuting Andrew Sanders does not mean that if you can prove Andrew Sanders to be a liar, then you have successfully refuted the topic of one tawheed, the classical understanding of Bid’ah, the permissibility of madh-habs, the permissibility of madh-habs and so forth. No, some people need to realize that these issues will still be in their faces begging sincere research long after I am dead and buried. Therefore why should the subject be about me?

One cannot even use Mustalah al-Hadeeth and ilm ur-Rijaal as an issue and this is simply due to the fact that they are not scholars, they have not the qualification to look into biographies, sanads and matns and even make conclusions about such and such, you will find they do not even know Arabic. So the damage is only done to themselves. Besides the very first principle in Mustalah al-Hadeeth, as found in Imaam Ibn Hajar al-Asqalaani’s Nukhbaat al-Fikr is to verify the news of a Faasiq, NOT totally reject the news of a Faasiq as the opposition to my writings would have you believe. So even if I was a Faasiq, they cannot escape the issue by simply proving that I am a liar. The issue still faces them and there is no escaping it

They do not realize that when they talk about Andrew Sanders that they are making themselves look suspect. As I said before I could be the greatest criminal to walk this earth and exposing that would not debunk the issues that I have spoken about. If you debate me, my character, my grand-ma and grand-dad and manage to convince the people, fair enough, but the issues still exist, the Ahl us-Sunnah still stands strong. I am nothing, I do not know why these pathetic souls even waste their time on me and give me all this fame that they have been doing.

However, it is like this people, and I have noticed this, and I want you to notice this too. I have to admit right now, I am not a scholar of Islam, I am a simple student who studies and then presents sincere research to the people, I am simply a servant of Allah and a servant of the people. Now, I have seen the very same style attacks not just on me, but on the scholars. I have had the privilege to share the same internet page in being slandered alongside Shaykh Tahir al-Qadri and Sidi al-Hajj Abu Ja’far al-Hanbali, and I see these same people slandering and backbiting the very likes of Hamza Yusuf Hanson, Shaykh Muhammad al-Yaqoubi, even I have witnessed the fitnah and evil of the words they have about the 19th century Mujaddid Imaam Ridaa Khan al-Barelwi. So when I see the attacking these noble characters it makes me think, will they ever stop? Do these people have any manners, respect for their elders or the scholars? Simply put no.

Then I am not all surprised on their attacks on somebody comparatively as small as I am. I am simply the dirt of the dirt of the shoe of these great people they slander and I am actually somewhat pleasured that I mentioned in the same breath as them. I have been honored by these Wahhabis that they call me a Sufi, not that I attribute purity to myself, no, but i do indeed aspire to be like the Sufis, and be from amongst them on Yawm ul-Qiyaamah. They have also honoured me with the title Barelwi, even though I am not from the subcontinent, these Wahhabis have grouped me with a Shaykh ul-Islam and a true Mujaddid of his time, so I am tickled with pleasure by some of the insults of late.

To throw insults is in their nature, in-fact I can safely say it is their minhaj. It is the minjaj of Dhul Khuwasaira who stood in the Prophet’s blessed face and accused him of doing injustice with the very words “Fear Allah”. Therefore I am not at all surprised if these Wahhabis accuse me of having bad adab, or the fact they call me a liar etc. When the books released they are going to call me a whole lot but, Hasbi Allah wa Ni’mal Wakeel.

CHAPTER TWO
Sincerity in Research
VS
Google Scholarship

In order to study into the Wahhabi cult and what they truly belive I have had to go and purchase the books, read them first hand, analyze the arguments and see if they stand true. I have not just read the books in plain English, no, I have also gone through the Arabic text as terminologies are important to understand and can be to easily overlooked and at worst, misunderstood. Without boast I have acquired all of Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab’s works in Arabic, even the texts that have not been translated into English as of yet. Therefore, in order to know what I am talking about I have made great purchases of Wahhabi books here and there and have read them for myself.

Not only Wahhabi books, I have had to invest in many classical books on creed, tafseer, hadeeth etc just to find and verify what has been said here and there, I spend many hours reading, translating, cross referencing and taking notes. The most important thing about my research is that I am dedicated to eye verification and having the satisfaction of knowing I have seen such evidences for myself.

When dealing with the Wahhabi books and the mention of such and such scholars, I have always marked down these scholars, the day there were born and the day that they died and then I would seek out their biography and see what other scholars affirmed their authenticity and then I would go to their books and see what they actually said. By doing this I have filtered the information given to me by the Wahhabiyyah to simply put it under the spotlight of investigation.

Can my opposition say the same? Have they gone out and spent their hard-earned cash on books, verified information for themselves, or have they simply resorted google.coming any and everything they can find on forums throughout the internet? One such group who called themselves the “Fakehead Report Team” penned a refutation upon me, but when I analyzed every evidence they had used, I found them to have plagiarized they’re so called refutation partially from Dar us-Salaam’s edition of al-Aqeedah ul-Wastiyah by Ibn Taymiyyah, the Salafi publications forum, and so forth.

Even their footnotes were stolen, as they did not even take care to tidy up the refutation and make sure all the spelling was consistent, so in one footnote they made it look like they quoted from Imaam Muwaffaq ud-Deen’s al-Mughni but had spelled it al-Moghni and Mughni in the other footnote. When I threw their evidences in the google search engine, I knew exactly where they had been stealing their answers from.

Did they actually go back to the evidences and verify them for themselves? no. Moreover are they prepared to look into my research and verify? No. Thus their refutation is nothing but asbaiyyah, group mentality and as Allah says in the Qur’an: “But the people divided their religion among them into sects – each faction, rejoicing what it has with them” Surat Al-Mu’minun, ayah 23. So their efforts can be narrowed down to a simple tribalisitic attempt to defend their group, which is in fact the Jahiliyyah trait known as Asbiyyah. I had hoped for better from a people claiming to be sincere students of the deen, and furthermore a “Report Team” who have done taqleed of the nearest Wahhabi apologetic paper they could get their hands on.

Well, at least I can boast that all of my research has been of my own back and i have not had to rely on Shaykh ul-Islam google.com to aid me at all. The challenge is to throw the work that is done in the google search engine, and you will most certainly find, that I am not a copy and paste clown.

 CHAPTER THREE
What is a Barelwi?

The Wahhabis often through the term Barelwi around and pin it to those who disagree with their false creed. But what is a Barelwi? Well according to the the Wahhabis [who often pose the question what is a Wahhabi but are too dumb to get it], a Barelwi is anybody who follows the creed of the great subcontinent reviver of the deen [Mujaddid] Imaam Ridaa Khan who was from the in Bareilly district, Uttar Pradesh, India. Hence the name al-Barelwi.

In simple terms, Barelwis are named after the Imaam who was from a location by the same name. However, the claim what we should be really looking at right here is did Imaam Rida Khan al-Barelwi bring anything new? Did he innovate? Was he the founder of a new creed? Or can this creed be found within the chain of revivers that have been sent every 100 years to revive the deen and dispell the bid’ah? Can Imaam Rida Khan al-Barelwis creed be proven from the Qur’an and the Sunnah and the classical understanding of the first three generations? No not at all! We in fact find his creed in accordance with the great Sunni scholars that went before him. Imaam Rida Khan al-Hindi was simply one of the revivers of this age.

It could have been that if I was born in another time, they would have named me or anybody else who defended the Sunni creed after the Mujaddid of that time. Like If it was Imaam al-Ghazali’s time, they would have called me a Ghazali, etc. So again, it is truly an honor to be labelled a Brelewi, even though I am not. Only a few of his books have been translated and read by myself, however I have judged the creed of the people that follow him and quote his positions and I have found that his creed and works are in accordance with the Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah.

In a number of separate threads we will be going through the Wahhabi’s Ehsan Elahi Zaheer’s “The Reality of  Barelwi-ism” book and refute the many lies therein that fakehead Wahhabis insincere in their research tend to brandish against the Imaam without verifying the facts. But until then, we shall move on from the Barelwi defense.

 CHAPTER FOUR
The Forgery Letter 

Before we move on, let me clarify the “A letter of remorse by Andrew Sanders” letter posted on the 6th of May 2010.

What the fakehead team did here is write a letter and attribute it to me, whether it was to claim that I actually said those things, or that they wish to dictate some terms for me to agree to, I found the letter to be somewhat childish. The only reason I am responding now is due to the number of people requesting me to clarify the matters spoke of in this letter.

1. They make the boastful claim that

“After the destruction of The Avalanche, to no avail Andrew has not came back and refuted our points raised in our refutation of his book.”

I do not have to even boast to make any refutation to this point. I will simply let the readers decide for themselves. Afterall, I do not have all the time in the world to go around refuting everybody.

They further said:

“Not only that, he has been challenged to come face to face with the fakehead report team to discuss the issues publicly or privately (with the condition the debate is recorded), yet he has refused.”

I have publically stated that I will discuss publically with them as long as they do not make the issue about Andrew Sanders. This is something they do not seem to understand. We just have to look at their blog and their style of attack to know they are not interested in any pursuit of truth, but rather they wish to rowdy the crowd and brandish the torched flames and pitchforks in my face like it was a witch-hunt. I am only for the facts and nothing but the facts. I am uninterested in hearing how much my underpants smell etc.

They further said:

“Also He has made pathetic attempts of trying to compete with The Fakehead Report Team by having his own Facebook page for people to be members of and fall for his deceit (of which 3 of the members is Andrew himself)”

It is true, I made a Facebook group, and I did wrong by labeling them dogs, which I will now publically apologize for, as that was bad adab on my part. I had about 40 members, and three of the “members” were profiles belonging to me. Yet Hamza is making out that I am trying to pose as three different people. This is a lie on his behalf.

People knew I had an account called Lumat ul-I’tiqaad [traditonal Hanbali], Abdur Rasheed and Andrew Sanders. the Lumat account was to advertize the translation I rendered, my Abdur-Rasheed was to specifically communicate with my Muslim friends, and my Andrew Sanders was to keep in touch with family members etc, yet as time went on I could not keep all accounts separate.

None the less, the people knew I held all three accounts. I did not for one second masquerade as somebody else as the fakehead team wishes you to believe.

The fakehead team should know well this statement from the Salaf:

“The believer looks for excuses, the hypocrite seeks faults”

They further said:

“However it is not the be all and end all for our dear Ash’arite friend, Andrew Sanders. We at the fakehead report are merciful to our brothers!So here, we have composed a letter of remorse for Br Andrew in which he can use publicly to denounce his baatil beliefs and be upon the Sunnah of As- Salaf (1st Three Generations).”

1. Wahhabis call me an Ash’ari as I am a threat to their false pretence of the Hanbali creed. They are upon the creed of the Zahiri cult which claims to know the apparent meanings of Allah’s mutashaabihaat Attributes. In reality they are the blameworthy people who Allah speaks of in Surah al-Imran ayah 7, as it is they who not only seek the meanings of Allah’s Attributes, but claim to know. This can be seen by the way they understand “We leave it upon its Zahir and pass it by”

Whilst traditional Hanbalis understand from this, we affirm the visual wording [of the mutashaabihaat] but do not know its meaning and modality, the Zahiri Wahhabis say “We take it upon its most literal meaning”. More will be said when I discuss this point further.

2. They are not merciful to their brothers at all. They have tried to put shame on my name, advocated violence on me publically, threatened to raid my house and hurt my family, lied upon me and backbiting me in a number of public forums, displayed my photo publically, accused me of sharing pornographic emails with their wives and attributed to me other vile actions, even dropped my name to Saudi authorities that I will not be able to enter the hijaaz and that my visa applications would be rejected. I do not call this merciful at all. They have done a lot more to other people too, and we are awaiting the return of a brother called ‘Abdul Wadood [Phillip] to return from Syria and share his horrible experience of knowing these guys personally.

3. As for the letter, they admitted to composing these points, so please be aware, that this letter they have placed on their website is a fraud and none of it is written by me. I will now discuss the points:

It reads;

“Asalaamu alaikum wa rahmatullaahi wa barakaatu.Dear Fakehead Report Team and Fakehead Report subscribers,This is a letter to notify you all how remorseful I am for my previous beliefs and actions.I feel it is time for me to denounce my baatil beliefs of what I upheld not long ago, as it has been made clear to me I was upon falsehood due to the thundering refutation the good folks at The Fakehead Report Team composed on my book.It has been made apparent i was confused, and Alhamdullillaah truth has stood clear from falsehood.I would like to denounce the following beliefs and practices I regrettably promoted and apologize for the horrendous actions I committed”

I do not have to say anything, as you, the reader can already smell their boastful behaviour. To continue with their letter:

CHAPTER FIVE
The Issue of Tafweed
& Salafi Beliefs 

In the next point of their forged letter they dare to bring up the delicate issue of tafweed and spin more false accusations. They say:

“1. Tafweed with Allaah’s Names and Attributes – This was NOT the practice of the Salaf to which I now realise. Ash’ari creed amongst the Salaf- I realise this creed was not found amongst the salaf and that it was introduced by deviants after the 1st 3 generations.

Tafweed in simple terms means to consign the knowledge of the Mutashaabihaat ayaat that refer to Allah’s Divine Attributes back to Allah. The claim of the fakehead report team that tafweed was not a practice of the Salaf and was somehow innovated after the first three generations is a great misconception on their behalf.

We find the basis of tafweed in the Qur’an in more than one ayah! And it is this understanding which the first three generations are upon! To prove this point to the Salafis we have compiled this article which is a simple question and answer exercise to help them find the truth [The Salafi IQ Test]. But right here, i shall discuss tafweed of the Salaf and
the revivers that come after them breifly, and of course, with evidence.

One ayah to be presented is, as mentioned before, Surat ul-Imran ayah 7 which speaks specifically about the mukhamaat and the mutashaabihaat:

The Arabic says

Wa ma ya’lamu taweelahu illa Allah, wa ar-Rasikhun fi al-ilm yaquloona aamanaa bihi kullum- min ‘Indi Rabbinaa i.e. “None knows their meaning except Allah, and those firmly grounded in the knowledge [fi al-ilm] say:’We believe in it [i.e. the knowledge] yet all of it is WITH our Lord”

What can can clearly see from this ayah when analized gramttically that the personal pronoun in “bihi – i.e. in it” has its place of return [irja’] which returns to the last subject, which in this case is the knowledge. So in effect, the people who say “we believe in it”, they are refering to the knowledge of the Mutashaabihaat. Secondly when we read the word kull, this emcompasses all, i.e. every, just as it does in the hadeeth kulla bid’atin dalaalah – Every innovation is misguidance” so all of the knowledge is …..with? – with Allah!

But let us notice the word with, which is ‘Inda [in the gentive state due to the prepostion “min”. There are two words that are reguraly used for “with” in the Arabic language. Ma’a and ‘Inda. The difference between them is that ma’a denotes a withness that can be anywhere in any place.

For example somebody is telling me I want to set up a business over the phone and he wants me to partake I would reply in Arabic Ana ma’a ka, i.e I am with you [in purpose]. With ‘Inda, however, this denotes a phsical withness as in ‘Indy qalam, i.e. I have a pen with me. So when we say that all of the knowledge is WITH Allah, then by Allah that is what we mean.

This is what we call tafweed, tafweed ul ma’na – consingin the knowledge of the meaning back to Allah, and tafweed ul kayfa, consigning the knowledge of the modality back to Allah.

It is for this reason the fakehead team call me a fake Hanbali, an Ash’ari in disguise, because their creed teaches them that such beleifs are evil. Take for example the paragrapgh that the fakehead team plagurized from Ibn Taymiyyah’s Sharh al-Aqeedah al-Wastiyyah page 34 [and yes plagurized. They claim when they copy and paste something its permissable, but when I remotely say anything that ressembles Abu Ja’far al-Hanbalis point, they accuse me of stealing from him, subhanAllah al-Azeem! sheer hypocrisy]. Here is the quote:

“It is wrong to say that Tafweed was the creed of the Salaf. It was the Ash’ariyyah of the later times who ascribed this thing to the Salaf. The Salaf did not do Tafweed while trying to find out the meaning of something nor did they read anything whose meaning they did not understand. On the other hand, they understood the meaning of the passages of the Qur’an and the Sunnah, and proved these meanings in favour of Allaah. Albeit, they would submit the knowledge of the reality and state of these meanings to Allah.”

See the pdf on page 20 found on this link:

[This can be no longer found on their site. They have deleted this file for some reason, however I preserved it]

They then quote the following from Shaykh Muhammad ibn Saalih ibn ‘Uthaymeen in attempt to refute tafweed:

“This statement, if taken unconditionally, contains a point of scrutiny. The wording, “their apparent meanings” is somewhat vague and needs clarification.If what is intended by “their apparent meanings” is what evident from the texts of attributes befitting Allaah without making Tashbeeh [55], then this is exactly what is intended. Whoever says that this is not the intended meaning then he is misguided if he actually believes that, and he is a liar or mistaken if he attributes this to the salaf.If what is intended by “their apparent meanings” is what is evident to some of people in that the apparent meaning is to make Tashbeeh of Allaah with his creation is something impossible. And, the apparent meaning of the Qur’aan and Sunnah would never be something impossible. Whoever thinks this is what is meant by “their apparent meanings”, then his mistake is to be clarified to him. It is to be clarified that the apparent meaning as well as the detailed meaning is to affirm the Attributes in a manner that befits Allaah and is specific to him.
In this way, we would be giving the texts their rights in wording and meaning, and Allaah knows best.” [Said to be from Sharh al-Aqeedat ul-Wastiyah, however their reference does not pan out]

The statement of Shaykh Uthaymeen demonstrates that the Salafiyyah are in confusion about the principle and defintion of the Zaahir when it comes to Hanbali ‘Aqeedah, and the Salafiyyah are often mistaken in thinking that fiqh terminology “Zaahir” holds the same defintion when it comes to ‘Aqeedah. This is not the case.

As with many other defintions, the meaning of the word changes due to its respective science. In ‘Aqeedah matters, Zaahir does not refer to the literal transparrent meaning, but it refers to what is seen by the visable eye when reading a text. Thus when it is said “we pass the text by on its Zaahir”, the priciple happening here is that the visable wording is being affirmed, even though the meaning is not known. It is simply passed by without meaning and without modality.

Thus Shaykh Uthaymeen is in deep error when he says: “If what is intended by “their apparent meanings” is what evident from the texts of attributes befitting Allaah without making Tashbeeh”

The reason for this is that we do not say this is the apparent meaning, this is to claim to know the meanings! We say we affirm the meaning without knowing it, seeing the visable wording [Zaahir] of the text and passing it by, and none knows its taweel except Allah, we believe in this knowledge, we do not know what it means or how it is, this knowledge is with Allah, hence we consign it back to him! This is tafweed!

This is the Creed of Imaam Ahmad b. Hanbal as he understood it and wrote it down in his Kitaab al-I’tiqaad [being translated at present by Saladin Publishing], it is the creed of Imaam Muwaffaq ud-Deen Ibn Qudaamah al-Maqdasi how he repeated it in his Lum’at ul-I’tiqaad [already available from Saladin Publishing] and this is the creed of Imaam Abdur Rahmaan Ibn al-Jawzi upon how he defended it from the Neo Hanaabilah in his Daf ush-Shubah wal-Tashbeeh. This is the Hanbali creed I follow, and now it is my burden to prove that I am following the true Hanbali creed and that the fakehead report team, along with all the scholars they blindly follow are in-fact the Neo-Hanaabilah.

Imaam Muwaafaq ud-Deen Ibn Qudaamah al-Maqadasi in his poetic treatise and mukhtasar of Imaam Ahmad’s Kitaab al-I’tiqaad gives us the Hanbali creed in it’s truth in many places. Ibn Qudaamah al-Maqdasi makes his creed abundantly clear, especially when read in ‘Arabic. He says:

لَا تُمَثِّلُهُ اَلْعُقُولُ بِالتَّفْكِيرِ, وَلَا تَتَوَهَّمُهُ اَلْقُلُوبُ بِالتَّصْوِيرِ

which means He cannot be represented by the use of the intellectual mind through reflection, nor can He be imagined with the use of any self thought illustration. p. 21, Lum’at ul-I’tiqaad

Our mind has no choice but to do tafweed!

Ibn Qudaamah al-Maqdasi further says:

مَوْصُوفٌ بِمَا وَصَفَ بِهِ نَفْسَهُ فِي كِتَابِهِ اَلْعَظِيمِ, وَعَلَى لِسَانِ نَبِيِّهِ اَلْكَرِيمِ
وَكُلُّ مَا جَاءَ فِي اَلْقُرْآنِ, أَوْ صَحَّ عَنْ اَلْمُصْطَفَى -عَلَيْهِ اَلسَّلَامُ- مِنْ صِفَاتِ اَلرَّحْمَنِ وَجَبَ اَلْإِيمَانُ بِهِ, وَتَلَقِّيهِ بِالتَّسْلِيمِ وَالْقَبُولِ, وَتَرْكُ اَلتَّعَرُّضِ لَهُ بِالرَّدِّ وَالتَّأْوِيلِ, وَالتَّشْبِيهِ وَالتَّمْثِيلِ

وَمَا أَشْكَلَ مِنْ ذَلِكَ وَجَبَ إِثْبَاتُهُ لَفْظًا, وَتَرْكُ اَلتَّعَرُّضِ لِمَعْنَاهُ, وَنَرُدُّ عِلْمَهُ إِلَى قَائِلِهِ, وَنَجْعَلُ عُهْدَتَهُ عَلَى نَاقِلِهِ, اِتِّبَاعًا لِطَرِيقِ اَلرَّاسِخِينَ فِي اَلْعِلْمِ, اَلَّذِينَ أَثْنَى اَللَّهُ عَلَيْهِمْ فِي كِتَابِهِ اَلْمُبِينِ

Allah has described Himself with the descriptions contained within the Qur’an, and by what has been spoken upon the tongue of His Noble Prophet sal Allahu alayhi wasallam. It is incumbent [waajib] to believe in the Attributes of the All Merciful  that are mentioned in the Qur’an and the authentic traditions of the chosen Prophet Muhammad al-Mustafaa sal Allahu alayhi wasallam.

These [Attributes] are to be accepted whole heartedly with full submission, abandoning the acts of opposing them by rejection [rad], interpretation [ta’weel], deducing similarities [tashbeeh], or claiming that Allah is identical to His creation [tamtheel]. As for what appears to be ambiguous, we are obliged [being waajib] to make affirmation [of such Attributes of Allah leaving off any rejection to their meaning. We are to consign its knowledge to its narrator, committing its authority to the transmitter, thereby following the path of those who are firmly grounded in knowledge. Lum’at ul-I’tiqaad, p. 25-26

Notice that he said

“We are to consign its knowledge to its narrator, committing its authority to the transmitter, thereby following the path of those who are firmly grounded in knowledge.”

This is tafweed

To concrete this understanding further, Imaam Ibn Qudaamah al-Maqdasi quoted from Imaam Ahmad b. Hanbal as saying:

وَ مَا أَشْبَهَ هَذِهِ اَلْأَحَادِيثِ نُؤْمِنُ بِهَا, وَنُصَدِّقُ بِهَا, لَا كَيْفَ, وَلَا مَعْنَى

“Whatever is similar from the Ahaadeeth, we are to believe in them and to give confirmation of them, without giving modality [saying how], and without giving a meaning to them Lum’at ul-I’tiqaad, pgs 28-29

This is Imaam Ahmad b. Hanbal doing tafweed al kayfiyyah and tafweed ul-ma’niyyah

Ibn Quddamah quotes from another scholar firmly grounded in knowledge, Imaam Ash-Shaafi’ who says

 آمَنْتُ بِاَللَّهِ وَبِمَا جَاءَ عَنْ اَللَّهِ عَلَى مُرَادِ اَللَّهُ, وَآمَنْتُ بِرَسُولِ اَللَّهِ, وَبِمَا جَاءَ عَنْ رَسُولِ اَللَّهِ, عَلَى مُرَادِ رَسُولِ اَللَّهِ

“I believe in Allah  and what has come to us from Allah on the import Allah  intends them, and I believe in the Messenger of Allah sal Allahu alayhi wasallam, and what has come to us from the Messenger of Allah sal Allahu alayhi wasallam on the import the Messenger of Allah  intended them” Lum’at ul-I’tiqaad, p. 30

Imaam ash-Shaafi’ is doing tafweed!

Please note how all Imaam’s here did not claim to know the meaning, but rather they affirmed and consigned the meaning without knowing the intended meaning. This is indeed performing both Tafweed ul-Kayf  wa Tafweed al-Ma’ana.

To drive the nail further, Imaam Barbahaaree, who is said by the Salafis to be one of the earliest Hanbali authorities says this in his creedal treatise Sharh us-Sunnah:

“The saying ‘Allah created Adam in His image’ and the saying “I saw my Rabb in the most beautiful form” and the likes of such ahaadeeth, then we accept them, affirm them and perform tafweed [of their meaning]. We do not explain any of them by desire and to have imaan in them is waajib. Anybody who explains them according to his personal opinion or denies them is a Jahmi” Sharh us-Sunnah, pgs 116-117, Makatabah al-Furqaani print, 1429ah.

Now lets see what the Salafiyyah have to say about the tafweed that Imaam Ibn Qudaamah al-Maqdasi has laid down as a priciple for the creed. Shaykh Uthaymeen rivals against the Hanbali madh-hab in Aqeedah, and we can clearly see this when he said:

“As for what is stated here in al-Lum’ah, then it is in conformity with the views of tafweed and that is from the most evil and vilest of views”. P. 29

We see clearly from this statement that he is disagreeing with Imaam Muwaffaq ud-Deen on his act of assigning the true knowledge back to Allah regarding His Mutashaabihah Attributes.Not only this, but this also demonstrates that the Wahhabis are not upon the creed of Imaam Muwaffaq ud-Deen who is classified in consensus to be one of the greatest scholars and representatives of the Hanbali madh-hab. Thus the Wahhabis are not Hanbalis is creed like they would like you to think.

Yet they somehow find the guts and bravery to suggest I am the Neo Hanbali. Trust me Ikhwaan,these dudes have mental issues. This is further seen from their creed, because the oppisite to not doing tafweed, is using you imagination to picture Allah. They have much anthropomorphism happening in their creed, whereas we Hanbalis are safeguarded. Here are just a few examples:

In the commentary of Lum’at ul-I’tiqaad by Muhammad Bin Saleh al-Uthaimeen, we find the commentator saying:

“with regards to the texts of the Qur’an and the Sunnah, it is obligatory (concerning Allah’s Names and Attributes) to leave their proofs and implications upon their literal meanings without changing them. This is because Allah revealed the Qur’an in a plain ‘Arabic language and the Prophet (salAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam) used to speak with the ‘Arabic language. Therefore it is obligatory to leave the implications of the words of Allah and the Messenger as they are in that language.” P. 16

This is problematic due to the fact that the real meaning of hand is a literal hand and this is the implication that the Salafi creed teaches. They are placing physical descriptions into the minds of people when they imply that Allah has real physical hands, and this is more of an innovation than delving into the howness and modality of Allah’s hand.

It shall be echoed again and again through that the traditional Hanbali madh-hab teaches to accept the wording of the text and pass it by, even if we do not know the meaning! We are to accept the meaning even if we do not know the meaning in the sense that Allah intended it, without knowing how.

The Salafi creed teaches that they know the real meaning of Allah’s Attributes and do not enquire into the modality whereas Muslim orthodoxy teaches that we may know the linguistic meanings of the Attributes that Allah has mentioned for Himself, however, we cannot reach the knowledge of what Allah means by His Hand, His Face, etc. to apply the linguistic meanings to Allah’s Attributes would be to expose the how, the modality etc. again such knowledge is impossible to know in this lifetime.

Never once have any of the Salaf [the first three generations] ever said that the Attributes of Allah should be understood in the haqeeqah [literal] sense. In fact they have said again and again that the wording of the text kept upon it’s prima facie [Zaahir] and passed by without seeking it’s meaning.

To say that Zaahir [prima facie] means haqeeqah and haqeeqah means Zaahir only exposes their folly in misunderstanding what Zaahir means.

When discussing Surah 5 ayah 64, al-Uthaimeen wrote:

“Indeed, what is literally apparent from this ayah is that Allah has two actual hands…” p. 17

One can clearly see the cogs of the Salafi thinker at work. It is obvious he is using his mind for what should not be imagined! This is none the less anthropomorphism. Did he even understand the very first page of Lum’at ul-I’tiqaad when Imaam Muwaffaq ud-Deen mentioned the word tasweer?

Commenting on the Istiwaa, al-Uthaimeen manages to contradict the whole teaching of Imaam Muwaffaq ud-Deen’s Lum’at ul-I’tiqaad by saying in point 10:

“The rising of Allah over His throne, which means His elevating and settling over it in a manner that is befitting for Him”.

What al-Uthaimeen has done here is that he has made ta’weel by attempting to explain the meaning and modality in which is his very own interpretation of the Istiwaa. One who reads the text Lum’at ul-I’tiqaad with an orthodox understanding will notice that there is a great difference between the creed and principles of author and the creed and principles of the commentator.

The Istiwaa could have only been known by Imaam Maalik in the linguistic sense, for to know the true intended meaning of the Istiwaa would be to know the modality, and this is not what Imaam Maalik meant.

One Wahhabi book actually got it right when it was written:

“Maalik said: the Istiwaa is known – in the linguistic sense – but how it happened is unknown, and asking about it is bid’ah [innovation], as Umm Salmah has said. And this is sufficient”.

This passage may have been translated from Imaam al-Qurtubi’s tafseer, 2/219. However, it is also found in p. 269 of the Islamic Creed Series, vol . 1 by ‘Umar S. Al-Ashqar’s Belief in Allah.

Take note however, to how it has been translated on p. 29 of the Explanation of the Sufficiency in Creed, where it is clearly written“The rising is well known… “ this type of translation is ta’weel within itself!

This translation is problematic for two reasons:

a. The translator has delved into literal interpretation [ta’weel al-haqeeqah – describing the reality] by expressing a definite action and a meaning to al-Istiwaa

b. He has grammatically erred in his translation. What has been translated as well known should in fact be translated as “not unknown” [ghayr majhul].

Such Wahhabi deliberate tampering and mistranslation of terms demonstrate their agenda. This also demonstrates the author to lack command in the ‘Arabic lauguage and it’s related grammar rules. The translator seems to make his own Ism Mubaalaghah [noun of exaggeration] in his translated sentence where as in the original ‘Arabic there is no noun of exaggeration.

He places his own words “well known” which either demonstrates he is highly mistaken and has an agenda to boost and twist the intended meaning and context of Imaam Maalik’s statement. The translator took his statement from Muhammad Ibn Ibraheem book Fatawaa wa Rasaa’il

There are said to be 15 different linguistic meanings for the ‘Arabic word al-Istiwaa. They are as follows:

1. Istaqraa – meaning to settle. We can see this from the passage in Surah [11], ayah 4, in which the Ark of Noah came to rest [Istaqraa] upon mount Judi
2. Irfafaa’ meaning to rise or to ascend. This is the meaning according to Ibn Abbas [? Is it? See Tanweer ul-Miqbaas on the passages of al-Istiwaa]
3. ‘Alaa – meaning above, over or upon, to rise above or tower upon. See Tafseer Mujaahid, and see the statement of Mujaahid found within Saheeh al-Bukhaari, 20:5
4. Istiqama – to be steadfast or to be firm, this can be seen from Surah [48], ayah 29
5. To attain maturity as in Surah [28] ayah 14
6. Qahara, Istiwala – meaning to subdue, or conquer, prevail or overcome. The Mu’tazilah say this in regards to Surah 20, ayah 5
7. To mount [Saida] as found in Surah 23, ayah 38 and Surah 43, ayah 13

One of the forerunners of the Ash’ariyah in this day of age is Shaykh Muhammad Hisham Kayybani who said regarding the meaning of al-Istiwaa:

“The best explanation of any ayah is its recitation; leaving it as it was revealed and unexplained. This was the way of Malik, al-Shafi’, al-Awzai, Ahmad, and the rest of the Salaf with regard to this ayah. However, due to the influence of those who have continued to impose physical limitations on the Creator since the time of the Salaf, it has been, and is still an obligation of the Muslims to clarify the ambiguities that may otherwise be used to lead believers astray”. P. 99-100, Islamic Doctrine, vol. 1, Beliefs.

To say that Allah is sitting [bi-adh-Dhaat] in person, or in the most literal sense [haqeeqah] would be to say that we know how the Istiwaa was done, which is impossible for such a human to possess such knowledge. The consensus of the Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah regarding this position is that they do not know the modality, the howness. They only know the linguistic meanings according to the limited understandings of what is found in the Lexicins and Dictionaries. The fact of the matter is, words can limit Allah, yet Allah is indeed unlimited.

One of the descendants of Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab, Muhammad Ibn Ibraheem Aali ash-Shaykh, commented upon Lum’at ul-I’tiqaad saying:

“And we must believe that these Names and Attributes are in their actual literal sense… and that they bear actual meanings that are befitting to Allah’s honor and grandness. The meaning of these Names and Attributes are clear and well known from the Qur’an, just like anything else. There is no obscurity, vagueness, or mystery in them…. p 29, Lum’ah

With this said, we can now clearly see their game. And this is just the tip of the Iceberg! Let us now move onto the next issue.

CHAPTER SIX
The Issue of Bid’ah
& Mawlid un-Nabi 

being compiled, should be ready shortly after Muharram inshaAllah.