Kashf ush-Shubuhaat – The foreword

In order to understand Wahhabi-ism in its true context, we have to look through their writings. This particular writing is An explanation of Muhammad’ Ibn ‘Abd ul-Wahhab’s A Critical Study of Shirk, ar. Kashf ash-Shubuhaat translated and explained by Yasir Qadhi

We will be going through the whole English text and will be partially looking at the Arabic, especially in parts I know this text has been mistranslated, as major parts have been mistranslated in order to soften and water down Wahhabi-ism in order to present it in a politically correct manner to the readers of the western world. I shall begin with discourse 1 and run through the introduction of Yasir Qadhi, deal with his short-sighted arguments and proceed to go through the very words of Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab.

The Foreword: Quote of Yasir Qadhi:

“Of the most fundamental matters of Islam – in fact, the most fundamental of all fundamentals – is the fact that only Allah deserves our worship and veneration.

This simple concept is summarized in our testimony of faith, the Shahaadah: La ilaaha illa Allah, ‘There is no deity worthy of worship except Allah’.

There is not a single Muslim except that he or she cherishes the phrase, and professes belief in it. This concept [in Arabic] is known as Tawhid, and it is the basis of Islam, differentiating a Muslim from a non-Muslim.

Yet, the sad fact of the matter is that there are some who ascribe themselves to Islam and claim to be amongst its adherents while they worship other than Allah.

They might verbalise the shahaadah, but it has no meanings in their hearts, for they do not understand the implications of this simple phrase.

So you will find some of the making du’a to a grave, and others taking a pilgrimage to a religious shrine other than the ka’bah, or making sacrifices to a ‘holy saint, or seeking help from a prophet and so on.

These people all claim to be practising tawhid, yet their actions prove that they are guilty of shirk – the anti-thesis of tawhid.

What is still more amazing is that, when such people are approached and adviced to leave such acts, they become rebellious and arrogant, refusing to acknowledge the clear sin that they are guilty of.

In fact, they may even misquote verses of the Qur’an, and the ahaadeeth of the Prophet [sal Allahu alayhi wasallam] in order to justify the greatest of all evils…

“This book in the reader’s hands is perhaps the most comprehensive work for the lay-Muslim with this goal in mind. It is the explanation of a book entitled Kashf ush-Shubuhaat, which literally translates as: the Clearing of Doubts. In it the author concentrates on explaining and refuting the evidences that were used by certian Muslim groups of his time to justify acts of shirk. The author intended this work to expose the falsity and the speciousness on these arguments by proving the pagan Arabs who the Prophet [sal Allahu alayhi wasallam] fought – known as the Jahiliyyah Arabs – utilised the exact same arguments and fell prey to the same reasoning as they did.”

Quoted from p. 11-12 An explanation of Muhammad’ Ibn ‘Abd ul-Wahhab’s A Critical Study of Shirk, ar. Kashf ash-Shubuhaat

The above fallacies and grave accusations in Yasir Qadhi’s words are clearly seen.

The First Fallacy – The Definition of “Ilah”

One of the most common tactics of the Wahhabi sect is redefining the terms. The definiton of even one word is all important as it contains crucial information in the import of the sentence, and helps us to concrete our understanding on any given issue.

Through-out time and history we have known many words to change meaning and definition. This can be very difficult for readers when trying to understand such important matters as creed. It is all important to know how a word was understood in the very time frame it was used.

If we do not understand such a word according to its timeframe, then we do not reap the benefits of understanding the meaning on its true intended import. So before anything, it is all important to understand the definition of terminologies and words.

One important key word to understand is the definition of “ilah”
Wahhabis argue that ilah means a thing that’s worthy of worship. Whereas the position of scholars from Muslim orthodoxy is that ilah means absolute divinity, i.e. god

The Wahhabis translate it as there is nothing worthy of WORSHIP but Allah, yet, the most theologically correct translation is There is no GOD [whatsoever] but Allah. Clearly it reflects from both translations that there is a difference in interpretation of the definition of “ilah”.

Just for the sake of understanding the sentence clearly, take note of the following analogy; if one says the definition of a tree is that which is chopped down, it sounds almost right, but it is wrong. Chopped down is not at all the definition of a tree.

The chopping down happens to the tree but it is not its definition. The true definition of a tree is a root based plant, with a trunk, branches, twigs and leaves. Yes it is chopped down, but it is NOT its definition.

The problematic issue with the Wahhabi interpretation is that if it was understood this way by the pagan Arabs, they could have easily said: “We will still believe in 360 gods besides Allah, however we will only worship Allah!” According to the Wahhabi interpretation, their tawheed would have been complete!

The Sunni interpretation leaves no room for believing in another deity besides Allah. This is the first key to understanding this topic between the Wahhabis and Sunnis. More will be said of this issue and we delve deeper into the text.

The Second Fallacy – Takfeer of the General Muslim Laity 

The statements made by Yasir Qadhi above are none the less nothing more than implicit takfeer on many Muslims.

This can be see in his statements in which I have partially quoted from the above context:

“Of the most fundamental matters of Islam – in fact, the most fundamental of all fundamentals – is the fact that only Allah deserves our worship and veneration.This simple concept is summarized in our testimony of faith, the Shahaadah: La ilaaha illa Allah, ‘There is no deity worthy of worship except Allah’.
There is not a single Muslim except that he or she cherishes the phrase, and professes belief in it. This concept [in Arabic] is known as Tawhid, and it is the basis of Islam, differentiating a Muslim from a non-Muslim.”

In other words one is either a believing Muslim or a Kaafir! Yasir Qadhi continues:

Yet, the sad fact of the matter is that there are some who ascribe themselves to Islam and claim to be amongst its adherents while they worship other than Allah.They might verbalise the shahaadah, but it has no meanings in their hearts, for they do not understand the implications of this simple phrase….These people all claim to be practising tawhid, yet their actions prove that they are guilty of shirk – the anti-thesis of tawhid.

Yasir Qadhi in a nutshell tells us the creed of Muhammad b. ‘Abdul Wahhab and the very purpose of the writing of this book. We are told:

“This book in the reader’s hands is perhaps the most comprehensive work for the lay-Muslim with this goal in mind. It is the explanation of a book entitled Kashf ush-Shubuhaat, which literally translates as: the Clearing of Doubts. In it the author concentrates on explaining and refuting the evidences that were used by certian Muslim groups of his time to justify acts of shirk. The author intended this work to expose the falsity and the speciousness on these arguments by proving the pagan Arabs who the Prophet [sal Allahu alayhi wasallam] fought – known as the Jahiliyyah Arabs – utilised the exact same arguments and fell prey to the same reasoning as they did.”

It other words Yasir Qadhi is basically saying that the Wahhabi Creed holds Muslims who testify there is no god but Allah – to be upon the same shirk and the same creed as the pagan mushriks. How many more ways can he simply say that most of the Muslims of today are kuffar?

It is clearly seen from the above that Yasir Qadhi is saying

1. The Shahaadah is the crux of Islam
2. It differentiates between the Muslim and the Kaafir
3. Many Muslims only pretend to be Muslims
4. That these “pretenders” are really mushrikeen by worshipping other than Allah
5. even though they say it by tongue, it is not in their heart
6. They are upon other than tawheed.
7. The creed and reasoning of the Muslims is the same as the pagan kuffar

I.e. in a very clear tone Yasir Qadhi is saying, such Muslims are not Muslims they are Kaafir, they are Munaafiqeen, they are Mushrikeen. His words are very simple and clear-cut.

The Third Fallacy – The actions which have been deemed to be shirk

Yasir Qadhi said:

So you will find some of the making du’a to a grave, and others taking a pilgrimage to a religious shrine other than the ka’bah, or making sacrifices to a ‘holy saint, or seeking help from a prophet and so on.These people all claim to be practising tawhid, yet their actions prove that they are guilty of shirk – the anti-thesis of tawhid.

According to the words of Yasir Qadhi, the following make you a Mushrik and a Kaafir guilty of shirk in so much in violates tawheed.

1. Calling upon the inhabitant of the grave
2. Visiting a “Religious Shrine”
3. Making sacrifices to a Holy Saint
4. Seeking help from a Prophet

Therefore, anybody who goes to the grave and calls upon the inhabitant of the grave, addressing them as Yaa fulaan wa fulaan i.e. “O so and so..” whether it be Yaa RasulAllah or Yaa Shaykh abd ul-Qaadir, then, according to the Wahhabi creed this is shirk because you are calling upon others besides Allah!

Yet, we have numerous evidences, each documented by early Imaams and the revivers of Islam, that explicitly state this was indeed the practice of the Sahaabah and the Tabi’een, in which they would go to the Prophet’s grave and address him with the utmost respect, ask intercession from him, or even ask for a need to be fulfilled. Not one of the Sahaabah ever condemned this practice nor did they ever equate it with an act of worship under the pretext that this particular type of calling was the Du’a of worship.

It was indeed the believe of the Salaf that the Prophets, or saints for that matter, did not possess any divinity nor even the divine ability to help, yet they believed that the Prophets and such righteous people held great rank with Allah, thus Allah would grant help through them. This is the same creed of the Ahl us-sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah today, that Allah accepts the tawassul through the Prophets and the righteous, and grants favours through their blessings.

The scholars of the Ahl us-Sunnah wal jamaa’ah have been honest in presenting these evidences in each century since the Salaf, and it is by their isnaad that these reports have reached us, and we affirm that Allah has sent these revivers every year and that the true teachings of Islam did not simply disappear in that a blessed guided ummah became degenerate to only be revived with the coming of Muhammad Ibn ‘abd ul-Wahhab.

Whoever believes such actually believes that the Holy Prophet lied when he said “Wallahi I do not fear major shirk for my Ummah” and such a people also suggest with the implications of their creed that the Holy Prophet sal Allahu alayhi wasallam failed to eradicate idolatry from Arabia.In which we know well that Shaytaan has lost all hope in being worshipped in Arabia. Meaning Shaytaan has lost all hope of taghut of poisoning the Muslim community in its heart and ever again.

This refutation is written to serve as a light to those who are blinded to the darkness of the Wahhabi doctrine. We are all indeed human and make mistakes and err in our judgement, however, the Prophet sal Allahu alayhi wasallam was the final brick of the house of the Prophets, and it was by him that Allah completed this deen and “left us upon a way that is as clear as daylight”
Even if Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab never made claim to Prophet-hood explicitly, his actions in judgement and his accusations against the Muslims of the Sunnah indeed contradicted the divine guidance in so much that it was none the less an attempt to claim implicit prophet-hood, even if Muhammad ibn ‘abdul Wahhab had intended this or not. The claim that he came to destroy idolatry is blasphemous. It was only for Muhammad Ibn Abdullah that Allah revealed “The truth has come and the falsehood has perished” and this ayah was revealed on the total obliteration of idolatry in the hijaaz.

However, despite this fact, it is amazing to see that after having the evidences presented to them, and after having read such evidences, they choose to follow blindly those who mislead them with nothing more that Khawaarij patterned theology and rhetoric. Books full of lies and slander against the Sufis, accusing them of worshipping graves or worshipping the inhabitants of the grave. It is interesting to note that the accusers cannot even make up their minds whether their perceived enemies are worshipping the grave or the inhabitant of the grave as they wander back of forth, lost in the heat of their slanderous accusations.

Therefore, it is of no surprise that we see false accusations that Sufis prostate to these graves whilst the accuser desperately documents YouTube videos of common laymen Muslims kissing the grave and rubbing his face on a grave for blessings, even if one were to do this for Allah in the masjid whilst facing the ka’bah, it could not be even defined as a prostration according to the Shari’ah. Plus we will also demonstrate throughout this text, seeking barakah from the graves of the Prophets by kissing it, rubbing it is indeed an accepted practice, although disliked by some scholars, but has never been deemed as shirk by any of the Salaf as even some of the Salaf did such things and was never accused of shirk.

It is of no surprise to hear the accusers repeatedly claim that the Sufis and the rest of the “ignorant Muslims” do tawaf around graves and holy shrines. No such evidence has ever been documented of a people doing tawaf around the graves of the Prophets or the pious, not even one YouTube video has been documented in the favour of the accuser. Yet we find it strange that even Yasir Qadhi boldly claims that:

“One finds people frequently raising their hands to the grave, and making du’a to the Prophet [sal allahu alayhi wasallam] himself, asking him to fulfill their needs, which is pure shirk [and he means by this, major shirk]. Others seek his intercession, praying to him to make du’a to Allah for their requests, and this too is prohibited, and leads to shirk. In fact, the extremists amongst such people actually perform tawaaf around the Prophet’s grave, and prostrate to it, which, without a doubt, are forms of major shirk” p. 195

We can clearly see the filthy lies in the above statement. It is not to hard to imagine the impossibility of doing tawaaf around the Prophet’s grave, let alone somebody actually daring enough to turn their back to the kab’ah and prostate to the grave as one would prostrate to Allah. Whoever has been to umrah or Hajj would be wise enough to know that you cannot do such action morally.

To suggest that even the most ignorant muslims are this ignorant demonstrates arrogance in the accusation itself. How is Yasir Qadhi going to support these accusations before Allah? Thus, I cannot but help find such stupendous claims as tawaf around holy shrines, graves, and sacrificing to saints as nothing but lies and below the belt tactics, in order to play on peoples prejudice against the Ahl us-Sunnah. However, instead of seemingly sweeping these issues under the rug here, inshaAllah, we will address each accusation and shatter the falsehood of Wahhabi preachers such as Yasir Qadhi and others.

We shall continue with this book and lay out the much called for evidences within each argument of Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhabs book. Whether the reader accepts the truth or not, know that the obligation of seeking truth is through sincerity, not through seeking the nearest partisan response and adopting that. This would not be research, it would be simply looking for any nearest hope of an evidence to clarify your prejudice towards the truth. This is what Yasir Qadhi speaks of when he says:

“In fact, they may even misquote verses of the Qur’an, and the ahaadeeth of the Prophet [sal Allahu alayhi wasallam] in order to justify the greatest of all evils…”

Had he have bothered to verify such evidences with the revivers of Islam and their actual beliefs regarding such matters, instead of seeking verification through his Saudi approved elders, he might have been enjoying the fruits of salvation. We can only pray for Brother Yasir Qadhi that he drops this partisan approach and adopts humility in accepting the evidence.

6 thoughts on “Kashf ush-Shubuhaat – The foreword

  1. Qul ha ti burhanakum inkuntum sodiqun.
    After a lenghty rebuttal, there is a not single ayah from the quran nor the source and status of hadith being presented here. I consider this piece as a mere jibberrish nonsense instead of an intelligent piece.

    • If the Foreword did not give a hint to you that this is only the beginning, then the lack of intelligence is on your part. Since you have offered no point whatsoever, but has blubbered what is a coined a “Jewish groan” – which is nothing more than an emotional rant signifying nothing, holding no weight, then it is your statement that lacks substance. You have just come here to bark, and very well, you do not know what tree you are barking up. This mission continues whilst you do nothing but sulk and cry about it

  2. Jk for replying. I have the same copy of kashfush shubuhaat. The aqeedatu wasitiyah I have is the one printed by shaikh uthaymeen foundation and his commentary on it. Please do inform me when you have any analyses on it. Jk. Also do you know of a recognised scholar who have written a radd on aqeedatu wasitiyah?

    • Salamun ‘alaykum

      When I read through it, I cannot remember ever seeing Ibn Taymiyyah say anything but the Sunni Creed, although the commentator was saying some really weird things. I will however double check my notes and draw something up for you, Wasallam

    • Salamun ‘alaykum

      InshaAllah we will be working on it asap, the best copy is the red cover copy of Kashf printed by al-Hidayah and commented on by Yasir Qadhi, it is this edition that we have taken apart and will be discussing.

      With al-Aqeedat ul Wastiyyah, we have the Dar us-Salam edition, with the white cover, and has a commentary to it by Muhammad Khalil Harris

You are welcome to comment and ask a valid questions, however there are a few guidelines and conditions to your comments being approved. Messages like "your a heretic, you do not know what you are talking about, you have no knowledge, you are an enemy of Islam, stupid Sufi" are usually rejected. Consider your words carefully..

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s