The Claim of Extremism of the Najdis and Their Deviation from the Ways of the Scholars

The Claim of Extremism of the Najdis and Their Deviation from the Ways of the Scholars

Introduction:

Claims regarding the Najdi call are numerous, and misconceptions about their methodology abound, whether from opponents or even from some supporters who have been influenced by the doubts of adversaries. Matters have been worsened by the affiliation of many ignorant individuals and extremists to the methodology of the Najdi call, who have employed some of their phrases—which they have memorized without understanding—engaging in unjustified excommunication (takfir) and showing disrespect to the scholars of the Islamic nation. Consequently, some have assumed that these extremists follow the methodology of the Najdi call, leading them to believe that the Najdis have committed grave errors and contradicted the scholars of the Islamic nation in a way that suggests they introduced a new school of thought. In reality, they did not contradict scholarly principles or methodological foundations, nor did they deviate from the consensus of the Muhammadan nation. There is no statement they made without precedent.

Indeed, error is possible from them and from those greater than them. However, we must place differences in their proper context without exaggerating issues and portraying them as having contradicted the self-evident principles of the Sharia.

In this paper, we will discuss the claim that the Najdis deviated from the ways of earlier scholars on matters of excommunication, and whether they built their school on scholarly principles and foundations or not. This will be addressed in eight sections:

Section One: Clarifying the Scholarly Rank of the Najdi Scholars in Islamic Sciences:

First and foremost, it is essential to understand the scholarly rank of the Najdi scholars in Islamic sciences, as discussing opinions is contingent upon knowing the rank of those who express them. If the speaker is among the firmly grounded scholars with recognized standing, his ijtihad is not to be rejected, as his speech is based on Sharia principles.

Here, it is necessary to correct what is commonly believed among the general populace of opponents: that the Najdis possess little knowledge in principles (usul) or branches (furu), and that they are simple individuals who did not acquire knowledge from its proper sources. The truth is quite the opposite. The scholars of Najd are recognized for their knowledge, jurisprudence, and extensive proficiency in the Islamic sciences.

1. Ibn Humayd—one of the most severe opponents of the call—says in his biography of the eminent scholar Abdullah Aba Butayn: “The jurist of the Najdi lands in the thirteenth century without rival…” He continues: “He would explain with excellent clarification and had an astonishing memory. If he explained an issue, he would say: ‘This is the wording of Al-Muqni’, for example, and Al-Munqiḥ added such, omitted such, and substituted such a word with this,’ with great care and deliberation. If asked about a clear issue not hidden from the lowest of his students, he would deliberate in answering until an ignorant person might think he did not know it, while in reality he knew who narrated it, who preferred it, who weakened it, and its evidence. As for his knowledge of the differences among the four Imams and others from the Salaf, narrations, and school opinions, it is astonishing. I do not know that I have seen anyone comparable to him in this regard, let alone one who rivals him…” At the end of the biography, he says: “With his death, verification in the school of Imam Ahmad was lost, for he was a marvel in it, reaching the utmost level of verification”([1]).

Observe this testimony from one of the opponents of Wahhabism, placing Aba Butayn at the rank of a verifier (muḥaqqiq). The rank of verification is that of those whose words are relied upon in the school, such as Al-Hujawi, Al-Bahuti, Mar’i Al-Karmi, and the like. This means that the eminent scholar Aba Butayn attained that rank, being the last upon whose words one could rely in the school of Ahmad. With his death, verification in the school of Ahmad ended.

It is worth noting that Ibn Humayd, the author of As-Suhub Al-Wabilah, is among the Hanbali jurists and has a commentary on Sharḥ Muntaha Al-Iradat. His praise for Aba Butayn’s knowledge contains no flattery. Despite his hostile stance toward Wahhabism and Shaykh Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab, he could not avoid stating the truth he witnessed firsthand.

Therefore, one should pause and reflect before issuing judgments of ignorance and superficiality against eminent scholars whose scholarly depth is attested to even by their opponents.

2. A number of the descendants of Shaykh Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab studied under scholars of Al-Azhar University, among them Shaykh Abdul-Rahman ibn Hasan, author of Fath Al-Majid, and his son Abdul-Latif, as well as the sons of Abdullah ibn Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab. They exchanged praise with the shaykhs of Al-Azhar University.

Shaykh Abdul-Rahman ibn Hasan says after mentioning a number of his teachers in Najd: “As for our teachers from the people of Egypt, among their virtuous scholars is Shaykh Hasan Al-Quwaysini. I attended his lessons on Sharḥ Jam’ Al-Jawami’ in usul by Al-Mahalli and Mukhtasar As-Sa’d in rhetoric and eloquence… Among them is Ibrahim Al-Bayjuri; I read with him Sharḥ Al-Khulāṣah by Al-Ashmuni up to the section on addition (idafah). I attended lessons with him on As-Sullam and with Muhammad Ad-Damanhuri on metaphorical usage (isti’arat), and Al-Kafi in the sciences of prosody and rhyme, which he taught us with his commentary at Al-Azhar Mosque, may Allah preserve it with knowledge and faith”([2]).

Indeed, Shaykh Abdul-Rahman ibn Abdullah ibn Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab held the Hanbali chair at Al-Azhar University. Al-Bitar mentioned him in his history, saying: “Shaykh Abdul-Rahman ibn Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab An-Najdi Al-Hanbali, the famous scholar, the distinguished figure whose virtue is well-known… He turned to seeking knowledge, learning, teaching, benefiting, and imparting knowledge until he became the shaykh of the Hanbali riwaq at Al-Azhar. He was evidently pious, righteous, ascetic, and devout”([3]).

The Azhari scholar Shaykh Muhammad Al-Azizi Ash-Shafi’i As-Sufi Al-Khalwati says: “When the Wahhabi dignitaries came to Egypt, among the greatest and most eminent of them was our beloved, the accomplished, virtuous master, our master Shaykh Abdullah Al-Hanbali [meaning: Shaykh Abdullah ibn Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab], and his brother, the virtuous master, our beloved of praiseworthy character and chosen actions: Shaykh Ibrahim Al-Hanbali, as well as among their notable dignitaries, the noble and intelligent: Sayyidi Abdul-Rahman ibn Abdul-Aziz, may Allah have vast mercy on him by His grace and generosity. Our beloved Shaykh Abdullah—may Allah have vast mercy on him—was among the virtuous scholars, and his son, Shaykh Abdul-Rahman Al-Hanbali, was born, who is among the intelligent and righteous people of knowledge…”([4]).

3. Indicative of the scholarly depth of the Najdis is that a number of Ash’aris retracted when they debated some of their scholars, such as the retraction of At-Tilimsani([5]) after debating Ahmad ibn Isa An-Najdi (the commentator of An-Nuniyyah), and the retraction of Shaykh Khuqayr Al-Makki, author of Mukhtasar Khuqayr in the Hanbali school, who was originally a Shafi’i student of Zayni Dahlan. After debating Shaykh Ahmad ibn Isa, he returned to the methodology of the Salafiyyah([6]).

The retraction of such individuals, despite being scholars themselves, indicates that the Najdis possessed sufficient Islamic knowledge and principled argumentation to enable them to debate eminent scholars.

The purpose of the preceding is that the popular misconception prevalent among the general populace of opponents—that the scholars of Najd are superficial and did not acquire knowledge from its proper sources—is not stated by anyone familiar with their condition and who has read their biographies in the pursuit of knowledge.

Our preceding discourse is not defensive as much as it is a description of the reality, presenting the full picture, giving each their due right with justice and fairness, and placing everything in its proper place. Then, the researcher may agree or disagree with them on specifics—that is another discussion.

Section Two: Excommunication of Tribes and Describing Them as Apostates or Polytheists:

Some people cite as evidence that Ibn Bishr, Ibn Ghannam, and other Najdis described their armies as “the armies of the Muslims,” described their wars as conquests, and described those they fought as apostates at times and as polytheists at other times.

This is considered one of the greatest misconceptions about the Najdis, repeated by opponents or some supporters. Upon verification, it does not stand on sound scholarly research.

The response to this is from several perspectives:

First Perspective: Describing people of war (ahl al-harb) with disbelief (kufr) and apostasy (riddah) is not reprehensible among the people of the Sharia and historians; rather, it is a common practice among earlier scholars, though contemporaries may be ignorant of it.

1. Ibn Manthur says: “It is said of the people of war: ‘They have disbelieved,’ meaning they disobeyed and refused. Kufr (disbelief) is the opposite of gratitude (shukr). Kufr: denial of blessing, which is the opposite of gratitude. And Allah’s saying: {Indeed, we are disbelievers in all of them} means: deniers”([7]).

Imam Ash-Shafi’i said: “Apostasy (riddah): turning away from what they were upon through disbelief (kufr), or turning away by withholding the truth. He said: Whoever turns away from something, it can be said: he apostatized from such and such”([8]).

2. The Najdis’ description of their army as the army of the Muslims is based on the fact that they were with the Imam. It is customary among the people of the Sharia to name the Imam’s army as the army of the Muslims even if they are fighting Kharijites or those refusing to comply with some aspects of the Sharia.

Historians have conventionally referred to the Imam’s army as “the Muslims” even if those they fought were also Muslims. An example is what Al-Khatib Al-Baghdadi mentioned: “Those who rebelled against Ali at Nahrawan were four thousand in armor. The Muslims attacked them and killed them, and only nine from the Muslims were killed”([9]).

Historians of that period followed that description, as in the text of Tarikh Al-Fakhri: “In the year 1176, the Muslims invaded Al-Ahsa”([10]), and in Tarikh Ibn La’bun: “In the year 1194, the armies of the Muslims marched against the people of Az-Zulfi”([11]).

Undoubtedly, the Najdis were influenced by the terminology of the people of the Sharia and historians, and it became customary among them. Even King Abdul-Aziz, the founder of the third Saudi state—known for his tolerance toward others, as attested by opponents—described his army as “the Muslims” in the Battle of As-Sabalah, which occurred between him and the Ikhwan. He said in his message to the Emir of Kuwait: “Therefore, the Muslims launched an attack on them on the nineteenth of last month, killed them, and taught them a severe lesson”([12]).

It is known that the Ikhwan Man Ta’a Allah movement are not disbelievers; they are people strict in Islam. Yet, the Najdis referred to themselves as Muslims when fighting them.

3. Ash-Shawkani described the wars of Ibn Saud as conquests and mentioned that the Najdi lands entered into the religion of Islam after being in a state of ignorance (jahiliyyah). This does not indicate that Ash-Shawkani was an excommunicator (takfiri) or necessarily excommunicated opponents of Wahhabism.

Among what Ash-Shawkani said, praising their wars: “Those lands had been dominated by matters of ignorance, and Islam had become strange within them. Then Muhammad ibn Saud died, after some of the Najdi lands had entered the religion. His son Abdul-Aziz took his place and conquered all the Najdi territories, the ‘Arid regions, Al-Ahsa, and Al-Qatif, and went beyond that to conquer many of the Hijazi lands”([13]).

Second Perspective: Those among the tribes whom they excommunicated were not excommunicated in a general sense; rather, it is a case of “the general term intended to refer to the specific.” Excommunicating a village means excommunicating its decision-makers (dhawu al-hall wal-‘aqd) upon whom the proof has been established. They are described as polytheists or apostates and the like by way of predominance (taghlib), and it is permissible for the ruler to fight the village while considering that among its inhabitants are Muslims.

Shaykh Hasan and Shaykh Abdullah, the sons of Shaykh Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab—may Allah have mercy on them—pointed this out, saying: “It may be ruled that the people of this village are disbelievers, their ruling is that of disbelievers, but it is not ruled that every single individual among them is a disbeliever in person; because it is possible that among them is one who is upon Islam, excused for not emigrating, or he manifests his religion and the Muslims do not know about it”([14]).

This is a matter permissible in Sharia by analogy to the rebellious group (at-ta’ifah al-mumtani’ah). Jurists agreed that if a group refusing a religious obligation is summoned by the sword of the Imam, they are called apostates. They differed on whether it is apostasy from Islam or apostasy from accepting the truth. Undoubtedly, the Najdis chose the opinion of apostasy from Islam because, in their view, worship of graves is among the nullifiers of Islam, not merely refusal of some aspect of the Sharia.

In any case, both opinions are considered, and there is no blame on those who adopt this or that opinion. It is—as we mentioned—a case of the general intended to refer to the specific, i.e., the ruling of disbelief is specific to the leaders of the village, not the common folk—as per the previous statement of the Shaykh’s sons.

Al-Jabarti reported that the Saudi forces in their war with the Ottoman state did not pursue the defeated; rather, they treated them as rebels (bughat). This is what Al-Jabarti stated in his narration of the events of the defeat of the Ottoman armies at the hands of the call’s battalions([15]).

Third Perspective: The Najdis’ excommunication of some tribes was not due to one or two issues; rather, it was excommunication based on the totality of their conditions and beliefs. Among the tribes were those who denied resurrection, deemed permissible what is forbidden, and some claimed they were not obligated by the Sharia, just as Al-Khidr was not obligated by the Sharia of Musa. They believed in the extremist beliefs of the Unity of Existence (ittihadiyyah) adherents. In every tribe, there were those who claimed knowledge of the unseen, communicated with angels and jinn, and invoked them besides Allah, such as the two shaykhs: Taj and Shamsan([16]).

This is not an exaggeration by the Wahhabis in describing the general conditions—as some contemporary writers have claimed. Rather, many Ash’aris, such as Shaykh As-Sanusi, Al-Bayjuri, and Al-Khalili, shared in describing these conditions and mentioned that many of the desert dwellers (ahl al-badiyah) were apostates due to their false beliefs([17]). Indeed, Al-Khalili Al-Ash’ari, in his fatwas, added the obligation to fight them and enslave their women if they persisted. Among what he said about the Arab Sadanah, Bani ‘Atiyyah, and others from the Arabs of Syria, Egypt, Hijaz, and other desert Arabs: “Whoever deems permissible a ruling whose prohibition is known in the religion of our Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is a disbeliever. If they are warned and admonished repeatedly, it becomes permissible to kill them, fight them, and take their wealth. Then the condition of their women is considered: if they are believing women, coerced, with no sin upon them, they are taught the rulings; if not, it becomes permissible to enslave them and sell them as captive women… This is their ruling while they are disbelievers. From this, it is known that it is permissible to kill them absolutely in this condition, and their killer is rewarded. The reward of the fighter against them is like the reward of the fighter against the people of war, with sincerity of intention; for he is a fighter in the path of Allah. And Allah knows best”([18]).

The Hanafi scholar San’ullah, who predates Wahhabism by about a century, described the general conditions in the Arabian Peninsula and mentioned that they believe in the benefit and harm emanating from the saints (awliya) themselves([19]).

Ash-Shawkani also mentioned the like and then said: “This is among the clearest evidence indicating that their polytheism has exceeded the polytheism of those who said: Indeed, He is the second of two or the third of three”([20]).

The preceding serves as historical documents preventing the accusation of Shaykh Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab and his followers of extremism in excommunication. One must carefully study the conditions of that time period with justice and fairness before hastily issuing judgments against the scholars of that era.

Section Three: Citing Verses Revealed Regarding Polytheists and Applying Them to Muslims:

It is strange that opponents claim that the Najdis applied verses revealed regarding polytheists to people from this Muhammadan nation. Were it not for the prevalence of this claim and its acceptance by many, we would not have given it weight. For what is the benefit of the Quran if it is not used as evidence in matters of dispute?!

This is not solely the practice of the Wahhabis—as some claim—but rather a matter that is customary among scholars without objection.

Al-Fakhr Ar-Razi says in his interpretation of Allah’s saying: {And they worship besides Allah that which neither harms them nor benefits them, and they say, “These are our intercessors with Allah”} [Yunus: 18]: “They placed these idols and statues in the images of their prophets and notables, and claimed that when they occupied themselves with worshiping these statues, those notables would be intercessors for them with Allah Almighty. Its equivalent in this era is the occupation of many people with venerating the graves of notables, believing that if they venerate their graves, they will be intercessors for them with Allah”([21]).

As-Sawi, in his interpretation of Allah’s saying: {Say, “O People of the Scripture, come to a word that is equitable between us and you – that we worship none but Allah and not associate anything with Him and not take one another as lords besides Allah.” But if they turn away, then say, “Bear witness that we are Muslims.”} [Al ‘Imran: 64], said: “This verse, although addressed to the Jews and Christians, its implication extends to those who associate others with Allah from among the Muslims, such as those weak in faith who believe concerning the saints that they harm and benefit by their own essences, permit what Allah has forbidden, and forbid what Allah has permitted. Moreover, they introduce great innovations for which Allah has sent down no authority, making those innovations means to these saints, claiming they are saving even if they contradict the Sharia, thinking they are upon something. Unquestionably, they are the liars”([22]).

Thus, As-Sawi Al-Ash’ari applied verses originally revealed regarding disbelievers to groups from among the Muslims.

Section Four: The Stance of the Najdi Scholars Toward Later Scholars (al-Muta’akhkhirin):

Among the matters that need correction in scholarly circles is the widespread assumption about the scholars of the Najdi call that they excommunicate some later scholars who have errors, such as As-Subki, Al-Haytami, Al-Qastallani, Zakariyya Al-Ansari, Ibn Al-Jazari, and the like. This assumption is held by opponents and extremist Salafis alike, and it is an erroneous assumption, far from the truth.

The reader may be surprised that the truth is quite the opposite. They show loyalty to them, invoke mercy upon them, and cite their statements in their works.

Firstly, Shaykh Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab—may Allah have mercy on him—used to argue with his opponents using the words of later scholars. He said: “I said to them: I argue with the Hanafi using the words of later Hanafis, and with the Maliki, Shafi’i, and Hanbali—I argue with each using the books of later scholars from their school whom they rely upon. When they refused that, I transmitted to them the words of scholars from every school and mentioned what they said after the call regarding graves and vows to them became known. They turned away from it, acknowledged it, and it only increased their aversion”([23]).

Secondly, Shaykh Abdullah ibn Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab says: “Similarly, we do not declare as a disbeliever one whose religiosity is sound, whose righteousness is famous, whose piety and asceticism are known, whose conduct is good, and who has reached the level of advising the nation by dedicating himself to teaching beneficial sciences and authoring in them, even if he erred in this issue or others—i.e., seeking aid from the Prophet. Like Ibn Hajar Al-Haytami, for we know his words in Ad-Durr Al-Munazzam, and we do not deny the vastness of his knowledge. Therefore, we value his books like Sharḥ Al-Arba’in and Az-Zawajir, and we rely on his transmission when he transmits, for he is among the scholars of the Muslims”([24]).

The eminent scholar Aba Butayn says: “As for the opponent’s statement—meaning Ibn Jurjis—: If the statements of scholars like Al-Baydawi, Al-Qastallani, and others were of any benefit to you, we would have mentioned them, but they are erased with a single phrase: that they are disbelievers. End quote.”

Aba Butayn responded: “As for his false accusation against us that we declare the scholars of the Muslims as disbelievers, he has fabricated a lie against Allah and His Messenger. Allah Almighty said: {Only those who do not believe in the verses of Allah invent falsehood} [An-Nahl: 105]. We supplicate for Muslims in general and for their scholars in particular, saying: {Our Lord, forgive us and our brothers who preceded us in faith and put not in our hearts hatred toward those who have believed. Our Lord, indeed You are Kind and Merciful} [Al-Hashr: 10]. Despite that, we say as we have been instructed: Every statement is accepted or rejected except that of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him). They have slips, and in the famous hadith: ‘Beware of the slip of the scholar.’ So if a slip from any of them becomes clear to us, we do not follow him in it and we supplicate for him”([25]).

Thirdly, whoever examines the works of the Najdis will find glowing praise for later scholars:

1. Shaykh Abdul-Rahman ibn Hasan said after transmitting Imam An-Nawawi’s verification on an issue: “Look at what An-Nawawi—may Allah have mercy on him—narrated… and this Imam is sufficient for you”([26]).

2. Shaykh Abdul-Rahman would describe some later scholars as “Shaykh al-Islam,” even though they were Ash’aris or influenced by them. Here are some examples:

• He said in the context of discussing a creedal issue: “And Shaykh al-Islam Al-Balqini said: I extracted what is in Al-Kashshaf of the insinuations of Mu’tazilism using minute scrutiny”([27]). He called Al-Balqini “Shaykh al-Islam.” Reflect on that.

• In his book Al-Iman wa Ar-Radd ‘ala Ahl Al-Bida’ (Faith and Refutation of the People of Innovation), he mentioned Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar and called him “Shaykh al-Islam Al-Hafiz,” and mentioned Zakariyya Al-Ansari and also called him “Shaykh al-Islam.” He says: “From Shaykh al-Islam Zakariyya Al-Ansari from Al-Hafiz Shaykh al-Islam Ahmad ibn Ali ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani, author of Fath Al-Bari. Most of the transmissions of those we mentioned from our shaykhs for the books trace back to him”([28]).

3. The Najdis’ works written on excommunication, such as Abdullah’s epistle Al-Kalimat An-Nafi’ah ‘an Al-Mukaffirat Al-Waqi’ah or Al-‘Udhru bil-Jahl (Excuse due to Ignorance) by Shaykh Aba Butayn and others, relied primarily on the texts of later jurists, such as Ibn Daqiq Al-‘Id, Ibn Hajar Al-Haytami, and others. They invoke mercy upon them when mentioning their words. Among that is what Shaykh Abdullah ibn Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab said: “We begin with their words on major polytheism (shirk akbar) and their excommunication of its people when it occurred in their time from some who ascribed to Islam and the Sunnah, because that is the important matter. We say: As for the words of the Shafi’is, Ibn Hajar—may Allah have mercy on him—said in his book Az-Zawajir regarding the commission of major sins…”([29]).

He mentioned Al-Haytami, citing him as evidence and invoking mercy upon him, which refutes this widespread misconception about them.

The purpose of the preceding is that the Najdi scholars—whether one agrees or disagrees with their ijtihads—did not deviate from the ways of earlier scholars, nor did they disregard later scholars. Rather, they are followers of the scholars of the Muhammadan nation.

No weight is given to the ignorant or some contemporary students of knowledge who ascribe to the Najdis, among whom some have gone to extremes in excommunication or disregarded earlier scholars. The fault lies with these ignorant individuals who did not understand the scholars’ words correctly. A scholar may utter a word that has a valid interpretation and conditions according to him, but the ignorant person takes it and adheres to its implications without the conditions.

In this regard, Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah says: “The well-known people—i.e., the scholars—may say from the issues and evidences what is true or contains a semblance of truth. If the ignorant take that and alter it, it becomes from the greatest falsehood and misguidance”([30]).

He also says: “The ignorant is like a fly that only lands on the wound, not on the healthy”([31]).

Section Five: Do the Najdis Consider All Grave Innovations as Major Polytheism?

Among the popular misconceptions is that the Najdis consider all grave innovations as major polytheism in general, without distinguishing between levels of innovations. This assumption has no connection to reality. Rather, they differentiate between levels of grave innovations: some are major polytheism, some are forbidden innovations, and some are matters of juristic disagreement. Even major polytheism, in their view, has levels, and innovations also have levels. This becomes clear in the following:

1. Seeking blessings (tabarruk) and circumambulating (tawaf) a grave is not major polytheism by itself:

Shaykh Ibn Baz says: “Circumambulating graves: if one circumambulates seeking nearness through that to the occupant of the grave, it is like if one invokes him and seeks aid from him; it becomes major polytheism. As for if one circumambulates thinking that circumambulating graves is a means of nearness to Allah, as people circumambulate the Ka’bah, without intending the deceased, this is from the innovations and means to polytheism that are dangerously forbidden”([32]).

Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymin says regarding seeking blessings at graves by touching and kissing: “If he believes that they benefit independently of Allah Almighty, this is polytheism in Lordship (rububiyyah), taking one out of the religion. If he believes it is a cause and does not benefit independently of Allah, he is misguided and incorrect, and what he believes is from minor polytheism (shirk asghar)”([33]).

2. The Najdis do not excommunicate one who seeks intercession (tawassul) through the righteous or one who supplicates to Allah at the grave:

Shaykh Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab said: “The supplication practiced in this era is of types:

The first type: Supplicating Allah alone without partner, with which Allah sent His Messenger (peace be upon him).

The second type: Supplicating Allah and supplicating along with Him a prophet or saint, saying: ‘I want his intercession; otherwise, I know that none benefits or harms except Allah, but I am sinful, and I supplicate this righteous one so that he may intercede for me.’ This is what the polytheists did, and the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) fought them until they left it, and they did not invoke anyone along with Allah, neither for seeking intercession nor benefit.

The third type: Saying: ‘O Allah, I seek nearness to You through Your Prophet’ or through the prophets or the righteous. This is not polytheism, and we did not forbid people from it considering it polytheism. However, it is mentioned from Abu Hanifah, Abu Yusuf, and others that they disliked it, but it is not among what we and others differ about”([34]).

He also said: “Their statement regarding seeking rain (istisqa): ‘There is no harm in seeking intercession through the righteous,’ and Ahmad’s statement: ‘One seeks intercession through the Prophet (peace be upon him) specifically,’ along with their statement: ‘A creature is not sought for aid (istighathah),’ the difference is very clear. This speech is not part of our discussion. Some permitting seeking intercession through the righteous, some restricting it to the Prophet (peace be upon him), and most scholars prohibiting it and disliking it—this issue is from juristic issues. If the correct opinion according to us is the opinion of the majority that it is disliked, we do not denounce one who does it, and there is no denunciation in matters of ijtihad… Or he intends a known grave—meaning Al-Karkhi’s—or another, supplicates near it, but supplicates only to Allah, sincere to Him in religion. Where is this from what we are discussing?!”([35]).

In the two preceding texts, the Shaykh considers the issue of tawassul a juristic issue; indeed, he chose only dislike (karahah), not prohibition (tahrim), does not denounce one who does it, and does not forbid people from it. Indeed, the Najdis among the Shaykh’s followers consider seeking intercession through the righteous a forbidden innovation—which is also the choice of Ibn Taymiyyah—but they do not show severity in it because its evidences have become ambiguous to later people, and it was held by eminent jurists from the four schools.

Shaykh Sulayman ibn Abdullah said: “Know that seeking nearness (tawassul) through the essence of a creature or his status is other than asking him and supplicating him. Seeking nearness through his essence or his status is to say: ‘O Allah, forgive me, have mercy on me, and admit me to Paradise through Your Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him),’ or through the status of Your Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), and the like. This is an innovation, not polytheism”([36]).

Among the responses of Imam Muhammad ibn Saud when asked by the Moroccan judge: “We have been informed that you prevent visiting him (the Prophet) (peace be upon him) and visiting other dead despite its established authenticity in the authentic books that cannot be denied,” he said: “Allah forbid that we deny what is established in our Sharia! Did we prevent you when we knew that you know its manner and etiquette?! We only prevent the common folk who associate servitude with divinity and ask the dead to fulfill their needs that only Lordship can fulfill. The manner of visitation is to reflect on the condition of the dead, remember the visitor’s fate to what the visited has gone to, then supplicate for him for forgiveness, seek intercession through him to Allah Almighty, and ask Allah Almighty, the sole granter and withholder, through the status of that deceased—if he is among those suitable to seek intercession through. This is the statement of our Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal—may Allah be pleased with him. Since the common folk are extremely distant from comprehending this meaning, we prevented them as a blocking of the means (sadd adh-dhara’i). So what contradiction is in this amount?!”([37]).

3. The Najdis do not excommunicate for bowing (ruku’) and prostrating (sujud) to other than Allah except with the intention of worship:

The eminent scholar Shaykh Muhammad ibn Ibrahim said: “Bowing when greeting is forbidden if intended as a greeting. As for if intended as worship, it is disbelief”([38]).

Shaykh Abdul-Aziz Abdul-Latif said: “It is known that the prostration of worship based on humility, submission, and veneration for Allah alone is from the monotheism upon which the call of the messengers agreed. If directed to other than Him, it is polytheism and censure. However, if one of them prostrates to a father or scholar and the like, intending it as a greeting and honor, this is from the forbidden matters less than polytheism. As for if he intends humility, nearness, and submission to him, this is from polytheism”([39]).

This conforms to the position of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah and the Hanbali scholars. Ibn Taymiyyah said: “Prostration is of two types: prostration of pure worship, and prostration of honor. As for the first, it is only for Allah”([40]).

Ar-Rahibani Al-Hanbali said: “Prostration to rulers and the dead with the intention of worship is disbelief, unanimously, by the agreement of Muslims. Greeting a creature with prostration is a major sin among the greatest major sins”([41]).

In contrast, a group of Shafi’is held that prostration to other than Allah is disbelief absolutely, whether intended as worship or greeting, and no consideration is given to his intention. Their evidence is that custom has established—in this nation—that prostration is for worship. Among those who held this is Shaykh al-Islam Zakariyya Al-Ansari, and it was chosen by Ibn Hajar Al-Haytami([42]).

Shaykh al-Islam Zakariyya Al-Ansari said in Manhaj At-Tullab in the book of apostasy: “Or throwing a mus’haf into a garbage dump or prostrating to a creature. End quote.” The scholar Al-Jamal commented in his marginal notes: “Meaning even if to a prophet, even if he denies belittlement or his heart does not match his limbs, because the apparent state contradicts him… However, if a strong indication indicates that the action does not indicate belittlement, such as the prostration of a captive in enemy territory in the presence of a disbeliever out of fear from him, then there is no disbelief”([43]).

Ibn Hajar Al-Haytami said in Tuhfat Al-Muhtaj in the books of apostasy: “Like throwing the mus’haf… or prostrating to an idol, sun, or other creature, and magic involving something like worship of a planet, because he affirms a partner for Allah Almighty. Al-Juwayni claimed that the action by itself is not disbelief; his son refuted him. However, if a strong indication indicates that the action does not indicate belittlement, such as if the throwing was out of fear of a disbeliever taking it, or the prostration of a captive in enemy territory in their presence, then there is no disbelief. Bowing (ruku’) is excluded because its form occurs customarily for creatures often, unlike prostration. However, it appears that the distinction between them is when absolute, unlike if one intends to honor a creature with bowing as Allah is honored with it; then there is no doubt in disbelief at that time”([44]).

Thus, Al-Haytami distinguishes between prostration and bowing because bowing occurs customarily as a greeting, so it does not indicate disbelief by itself. As for prostration, it does not occur customarily except as a religious rite, so he considered it disbelief absolutely, whether the prostrator claims greeting or worship.

However, the majority disputed them and argued that some Companions prostrated to the Prophet (peace be upon him), and he forbade them and did not excommunicate them, which invalidates the argument based on custom in this nation. The response to that is: The Companions did not repeat that after being forbidden, and custom thereafter to this day established that prostration became only from the rites, which strengthens what Al-Haytami held.

In any case, the issue remains a matter of ijtihad, and both opinions agree that prostration to other than Allah is a major sin, whether with the intention of worship or not.

4. Seeking aid (istighathah): Some of it is clear, some is ambiguous:

Many people think that the Najdis excommunicate absolutely for seeking aid from the Prophet. The truth is that it is not of one level according to them. Some of it is clear and evident, and some is ambiguous. The clear and evident is the direct and explicit supplication to a creature for what only Allah can do.

As for asking for supplication or intercession from the occupant of the grave, there is disagreement among the people of knowledge. Some consider it an innovation, some consider it major polytheism, and some report the disagreement without giving preponderance.

Even those who chose that it is major polytheism did not consider it among matters so evidently clear that its doer is excommunicated immediately. This will be clarified.

Among those who considered it only an innovation: Shaykh As-Sahsawani, Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymin, and others. Among those who reported the disagreement in it: Shaykh Ibn Baz and others.

As-Sahsawani says regarding asking for supplication: “If that invoked is dead and called upon at his grave, this is not polytheism but an innovation. In any case, the believer should avoid supplicating other than Allah, and that is the statement without extremism or negligence”([45]).

Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymin says: “Asking the dead to ask Allah, or asking him to fulfill a need, there is a difference between them. If asked to fulfill a need, this is major polytheism. If asked to ask Allah, this is innovation and misguidance; because when the dead dies, his deeds are cut off, and supplication is from his deeds, so how can you ask him for what is not possible?! From that is if you say: ‘O Messenger of Allah, intercede for me,’ for this is forbidden and a reprehensible innovation. But if you say: ‘O Messenger of Allah, save me from the Fire,’ that would be major polytheism”([46]).

Shaykh Abdul-Aziz ibn Baz reported the disagreement when mentioning the statement of Malik Ad-Dar: “O Messenger of Allah, ask for rain for your nation, for they have perished.” The Shaykh said: “What this man did is reprehensible and a means to polytheism; indeed, some people of knowledge made it from the types of polytheism”([47]).

As for those who consider asking the dead for supplication as major polytheism, they are many among the Najdi scholars, and it is the apparent meaning of the words of the eminent scholar Abdullah in his epistle to the people of Mecca.

This opinion is not unique to the Najdis; it was also said by the Hanafi scholar Mulla Isma’il Ad-Dehlawi Al-Hanafi in his epistle Taqwiyat Al-Iman (Strengthening Faith) and he asserted its polytheistic nature.

Mulla Ad-Dehlawi says: “Thus it becomes clear from that that those who seek aid and think they have not associated partners—they did not ask them to fulfill the need, but only asked them for supplication—even if they did not associate partners through asking to fulfill the need, they associated partners through calling (nida), for they thought that they hear their call from afar as they hear their call from near”([48]).

However, despite that, it is among the ambiguous matters according to them, and its doer is not excommunicated immediately. Rather, clarification and continuous explanation are necessary. Shaykh Abdullah ibn Jibrin says: “Also because of the barrier of interpretation (ta’wil), the scholars did not excommunicate some of those who go to extremes regarding the dead and ask them for intercession with Allah Almighty”([49]). Then he mentioned the words of Abdullah ibn Shaykh Muhammad in his epistle Mubahathah ma’ Ahl Makkah (Discussion with the People of Mecca), where he considered the later scholars to be like erring interpreters ([50]).

In summary of the preceding: The Najdis distinguish well between levels of grave innovations. Not all of them are considered disbelief according to them—as some think. No consideration is given to the ignorant or some contemporary students of knowledge who ascribe to them, who have harmed the call. Rather, consideration is given to the words of the scholars from their actual books.

Thus, narrowing the scope of excuse according to them is specific to matters that are very clear and evident, such as supplicating to other than Allah for what only Allah can do. This type, As-Sahsawani described as necessitating belief in the effect in the saints, meaning attributing some characteristics of the Lord to creatures. That is, they excommunicate for a clear matter without doubt.

The remaining inquiry is: Is supplicating to saints for what only Allah can do among the evident matters or not? And is one excused due to ignorance in it or not?

If the discussion is confined to this issue, the matter is straightforward—insha’Allah—even if Ibn Taymiyyah’s opinion differs from theirs regarding excuse due to ignorance. This does not detract from them, nor does it harm scholarly discussion; because the issue of excommunicating a specific individual who commits an act of disbelief is from the permissible matters of disagreement, as stated by Mulla Ali Al-Qari Al-Hanafi and others, and his words will come.

Section Six: Is Not Excusing Due to Ignorance in Evident Matters Specific to the Najdis?

The principle is that evident matters (known necessarily from the religion) do not admit excuse due to ignorance. This is not the statement of the Najdis alone; rather, it is the statement of many Muslim jurists, and some have reported it as consensus.

Al-Qadi ‘Iyad said: “No one is excused in disbelief due to ignorance, nor by claiming a slip of the tongue”([51]). His meaning: in evident matters.

From that is what came in the book Ad-Durar—from the Hanafi books: “That whoever speaks a word of disbelief even if he does not believe it, or does not know that it is a word of disbelief, but uttered it by choice, has disbelieved according to the majority of scholars, and is not excused due to ignorance”([52]).

Mulla Ali Al-Qari Al-Hanafi says: “As for if one spoke a word and did not know that it is disbelief, in the fatwas of Qadikhan the disagreement is reported without preponderance, where he said: It is said: He does not disbelieve due to his excuse by ignorance; and it is said: He disbelieves and is not excused due to ignorance. I say: The more apparent is the first, except if it is from the category of what is known necessarily from the religion, for then he disbelieves and is not excused due to ignorance”([53]).

As-Suyuti said: “Everyone who is ignorant of the prohibition of something common among most people, his claim of ignorance is not accepted, unless he is new to Islam or grew up in a desert where such is obscure, like the prohibition of adultery, murder, alcohol, speaking in prayer, and eating during fasting”([54]).

The reader may be amazed to know that Ibn Hajar Al-Haytami also does not excuse due to ignorance in disbelief-inducing actions and does not consider the intention of the heart or circumstantial indications. He limited excuse to those in a remote place or new to Islam—exactly like the Najdis.

Ibn Hajar Al-Haytami says: “The basis for ruling disbelief is apparent matters, and no consideration is given to the purpose and intentions, nor to circumstantial indications of his state. However, one claiming ignorance is excused—if excused—for being new to Islam or far from scholars”([55]).

Note the parenthetical phrase “(if excused)” as if he doubts even the one new to Islam. If any Najdi had said this, ears would have perked up, and the world would have risen against him.

But perhaps someone says: Al-Haytami permits seeking aid from the Prophet and does not consider it disbelief, so how can he be cited as evidence?!

The answer to that is from two angles:

First: There is no problem in that. Scholars may differ in specific issues and agree on Sharia foundational principles.

Second: Seeking aid from the Prophet according to Al-Haytami is not from supplication (du’a), nor is it from asking for what only Allah can do. Rather, it is seeking nearness (tawassul) and intercession (tashaffu’) through the Prophet, and he calls it istighathah terminologically. Al-Haytami is not unique in that; rather, many later scholars call tawassul istighathah.

Al-Alusi stated that: “As for his statement—i.e., An-Nabhani’s—: ‘As-Subki, Al-Qastallani, As-Samhudi, and Ibn Hajar in Al-Jawhar Al-Munazzam said: And seeking aid from him and others is in the meaning of seeking nearness to Allah Almighty…’ It is said: The issue of seeking aid from him and through his status is not the issue of dispute. What the people of knowledge mean is to ask Allah through the status of His servant and Messenger, not to ask the Messenger himself”([56]).

Shaykh Abdul-Latif Al ash-Shaykh says: “Among them are those who apply it to asking Allah and supplicating Him through the status of His Prophet or the right of His righteous servant or His righteous servants. This is the predominant usage in the speech of later scholars like As-Subki, Al-Qastallani, and Ibn Hajar—i.e., Al-Haytami”([57]).

As for direct and explicit supplication according to Ibn Hajar Al-Haytami: it is from major disbelief that takes one out of the religion. Al-Haytami transmitted the words of Ibn Muflih—affirming them—regarding the disbelief of one who takes intermediaries whom he supplicates and relies upon([58]).

According to Al-Haytami’s principles, he does not excuse due to ignorance in it and does not consider intention and purpose—as mentioned. So his school is the school of the Najdis in matters of excommunication; indeed, he is more severe than them in some issues like the issue of prostration, because the Najdis distinguish between prostration of worship and prostration of greeting, following the majority of scholars. As for Al-Haytami and a group of Shafi’is, they consider the prostrator to other than Allah a disbeliever absolutely, as previously clarified.

Whoever thinks that the opinion of excommunicating the supplicator to other than Allah—or at least excommunicating the apparent statement—is specific to Ibn Taymiyyah and the Wahhabis does not know the religion of Islam. This type has not been disagreed upon regarding the disbelief of its statement by any of the Muslim scholars. Whoever attributes to At-Taqi As-Subki or the Ash’aris that they permit this type has erred against them.

Abu Zur’ah Al-‘Iraqi Al-Ash’ari—student of As-Subki—when asked about seeking nearness through the saints, said: “As for his statement—i.e., the one seeking nearness—: ‘I ask from you that such and such be attained for me,’ this is a reprehensible matter. Asking is only from Allah Almighty, and seeking nearness to Him through righteous deeds or their doers, alive or dead”([59]).

Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani said in his discussion about the grave of As-Sayyidah Nafisah: “Some scholars reported that the Egyptians used to call supplication at her [grave] ‘the tried antidote.’ Some of the common folk, rather all of them, went to extremes in that, to the extent that some of them fall into disbelief without realizing. And Allah is the one whose aid is sought”([60]).

Shaykh Abdullah Al-Ghumari As-Sufi Al-Ash’ari says: “It has become widespread among many people in their seeking nearness and visits to the saints; they expanded in that in an unacceptable manner and went beyond the prescribed limit, uttering reprehensible phrases like: ‘O master, heal me,’ ‘I rely on you, O Prophet’… to phrases of this sort whose apparent meaning necessitates disbelief”([61]).

Shaykh Ahmad Al-Ghumari, the shaykh of the Sufis, says: “And we see them swearing by them and uttering concerning them what is apparent clear disbelief, indeed it is disbelief truly without doubt… Many of the ignorant common folk in Morocco utter what is clear disbelief concerning our master Abdul-Qadir Al-Jilani, whose shrine is in Baghdad. Similarly, we see some of them do that with whom they believe among the living: they prostrate to him, kiss the ground before him while prostrating, place their hands behind them as a sign of submission and extreme beseeching and seeking refuge, and ask him in that state for healing, wealth, offspring, and the like of what is not asked except from Allah Almighty…” He mentioned matters and then said: “This is disbelief”([62]).

Section Seven: Can Supplicating Other Than Allah Be Included Among Evident Matters?

The answer: Supplicating other than Allah can legitimately be included among evident matters, for three reasons:

First: Supplication is from the manifestations of worship, and directing worship to other than Allah is disbelief by consensus.

Second: The concomitant belief in the effect in the saint, for the supplicator—in this manner—does not supplicate him except while believing in effect by his essence; otherwise, his going and beseeching him would be a kind of futility. As-Sahsawani alluded to that([63]).

Third: Supplicating other than Allah for what only Allah can do is a kind of attributing words and descriptions to a creature that are only said concerning the Creator. It involves belittling the status of Allah Almighty, which necessitates disbelief according to jurists, as will come.

Al-Qadi ‘Iyad says: “If one ascribes to a creature speech that is only fitting for the Creator, not intending disbelief and belittlement, nor intending atheism, if this is repeated from him and he is known for it, it indicates his playing with his religion and belittling the sanctity of his Lord, and his ignorance of His great majesty and grandeur. This is disbelief without doubt”([64]).

Al-Qadi ‘Iyad means one who says to a creature speech that is specific to the right of Allah, whether this creature is alive or dead, like one who says to a king: “O possessor of favor and blessing, and O possessor of majesty and honor.” Then what about one who says: “Guide me among those You have guided and bless me in what You have granted,” or “Heal me and grant me well-being or send down rain,” and the like of what may not be ascribed except to Allah?!

With this perspective, the statement of some contemporaries is invalidated: that belief in divinity or independence is necessary; because excommunication has another angle, which is his belittling the sanctity of his Lord by attributing words to him that are specific to Allah Almighty, as Al-Qadi ‘Iyad said.

Abu Al-Fath Ash-Shahrastani says: “Whoever raises a need to one to whom needs are not raised has associated partners completely”([65]).

Al-Hafiz Ibn Abdul-Hadi said: “If a person came to the bed of the deceased, supplicating him besides Allah and seeking aid from him, this would be forbidden polytheism by the consensus of Muslims”([66]).

Abu Al-Ma’ali Al-Juwayni said: “The scholars of usul agreed that whoever utters a word of apostasy and claims that he intended a metaphor (tawriyah) has disbelieved outwardly and inwardly”([67]).

This transmission from Al-Juwayni nullifies the statement of some later scholars that the supplicator to other than Allah does not disbelieve if he intended seeking nearness. This speech should not be heeded by any rational person. Whoever says: “O Badawi, heal me, grant me well-being, and provide for me,” then claims that the supplicator intended seeking nearness or intended that Al-Badawi supplicate for him has made people laugh at his intellect. If this interpretation were allowed, every speech of humans would become interpretable, and the Sharia would turn into sophistry.

Yes, one may be excused due to ignorance until taught—and excuse due to ignorance is a considered opinion—but claiming that the speech itself is not disbelief is problematic.

As for the claim of some contemporary Ash’aris that disbelief does not relate to the actions of the servants but only to their beliefs, this is a false, invented statement not said by any of the Muslim scholars, neither from the Ash’aris nor others. Jurists mentioned that disbelief relates to beliefs, actions, and statements.

Ad-Dimyati Al-Ash’ari says: “The summary of speech on the types of apostasy is that they are confined to three divisions: beliefs, actions, and statements, and each division branches into many branches”([68]).

Al-Kashmiri Al-Hanafi Al-Maturidi said: “They agreed on some actions that they are disbelief, even though it is possible in them that one does not strip away from affirmation (tasdiq); because they are actions of the limbs, not the heart. Such as jesting with a word of disbelief even if he does not believe it, and prostrating to an idol, and killing a prophet, and belittling him, the mus’haf, and the Ka’bah. They differed on the aspect of disbelief in them after agreeing on excommunication”([69]).

Reflect on Al-Kashmiri’s statement: “(does not strip away from affirmation… and prostrating to an idol).” This is explicit that the cause is merely the action, not based on belief in divinity.

By juristic analogy (qiyas usuli): what is said about prostration is said about supplication, with no difference. Supplicating an idol is like prostrating to it, exactly the same.

Even those who gave preponderance to the Murji’ah school and said that faith is affirmation (tasdiq) did not stipulate belief in actions whose appearance is worship, for two reasons:

1. Because the indications of the action itself point to the belief of the heart.

2. The action is from the rites specific to Allah, so its doer is mocking the status of his Lord and denying His Prophet—even without belief.

In this regard, Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali says: “If it is said: Prostration before an idol is disbelief, and it is a mere action! It does not fall under these connections, so is it another principle? We say: No, for the disbelief is in his belief of venerating the idol, and that is denial of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) and the Quran. But his belief is known sometimes by explicit statement of his tongue, sometimes by indication if he is mute, and sometimes by an action that indicates it decisively, like prostration”([70]).

Al-Ghazali mentioned his disbelief from another angle other than belief in divinity, which is denial of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him). For even if he did not believe in divinity or worship, he disbelieved from another angle, which is denying the Prophet—an important point from Al-Ghazali. To that can be added the derivation of Al-Qadi ‘Iyad: mocking the status of Allah.

Therefore, Al-Kashmiri said: “They differed on the aspect of disbelief in them after agreeing on excommunication”([71]).

This is an issue overlooked by some scholars in later centuries who said that belief in independent effect is a condition for ruling disbelief. This is a mistake because excommunication has multiple angles, not just one. The supplicator to other than Allah has ascribed to the creature words that are not fitting except for Allah, so he is belittling the status of his Lord, and thus the problematic aspect imagined by some contemporaries is removed.

Al-Fakhr Ar-Razi reported consensus that worship does not require belief in divinity or effect; it suffices that a person performs an action that is from the manifestations of worship or rites.

Al-Fakhr Ar-Razi says: “Know that it is impossible for a rational person to say to Musa: ‘Make for us a god as they have gods, a creator and manager’; because what is obtained by Musa’s making and estimation cannot be a creator and manager. Whoever doubts that is not of complete intellect. The closest is that they asked Musa (peace be upon him) to specify for them idols and statues through whose worship they seek nearness to Allah Almighty. This statement is what Allah narrated from the worshipers of idols when they said: {We do not worship them except that they may bring us nearer to Allah in position} [Az-Zumar: 3]. When you understand this, one may say: Why was this statement disbelief? We say: All the prophets (peace be upon them) agreed that worship of other than Allah is disbelief, whether they believed in that other that it is a god of the world, or believed in it that its worship brings them nearer to Allah Almighty; because worship is the ultimate veneration, and ultimate veneration is only fitting for one from whom ultimate favor and honor emanate”([72]).

Note that Ar-Razi did not make belief in divinity or lordship a condition in the concept of worship, unlike the statement of the grave-worshipers that it is the criterion of worship. Rather, worship according to Ar-Razi is defined by actions and statements that are not permissible except for Allah. Therefore, he said: “Because worship is the ultimate veneration, and ultimate veneration is only fitting for one from whom ultimate favor and honor emanate.”

In summary of the preceding: Directing manifestations of worship to other than Allah is disbelief, and the Najdis are preceded in narrowing the scope of excuse in evident disbelief-inducing matters.

Yes, we may agree or disagree on whether supplicating other than Allah falls under evident matters; for evident matters are relative, differing according to time and place. However, despite this relativity, it is also a matter of ijtihad and probability (zanni). The view of one who considers it obscure cannot be imposed, and then those who consider it evident are judged as being from the Khawarij or having a defect in creed.

Among those reported to not excuse due to ignorance in major polytheism: Ibn ‘Aqil, Ibn Al-Qayyim, Ash-Shawkani, and others.

Abu Al-Wafa’ Ibn ‘Aqil says: “When religious obligations became difficult for the ignorant and riffraff, they turned from the statutes of the Sharia to venerating statutes they placed for themselves.” He said: “They are disbelievers, in my view, by these statutes: like venerating graves and honoring them with what the Sharia forbade, such as lighting fires, kissing them, perfuming them, addressing the dead with needs, writing notes therein: ‘O my master, do such and such for me,’ taking soil for blessing, pouring perfume on graves, traveling to them, and hanging rags on trees, following those who worshiped Al-Lat and Al-‘Uzza”([73]).

Ibn Al-Qayyim says: “Chapter: One who worships other than Allah Almighty—be it a messenger, prophet, jinn, shaykh, or other—disbelieves. Some ignorant ones who ascribe to the religion of Islam may fall into this out of ignorance. From that are those who ascribe to shaykhs like Shaykh Ahmad Ar-Rifa’i, Shaykh Yunus, Shaykh ‘Adi, or others; for they are deified by their remembrance and love besides Allah, devoted to their graves, kissing them, prostrating to them, seeking aid from them, and asking for forgiveness and fulfillment of needs. This is the origin of idol worship”([74]).

Ash-Shawkani, in response to a question: Is the ignorant excused—i.e., in the polytheism of graves—because they say: Action is dependent on knowledge, and likewise obligation? He answered: “One who falls into polytheism out of ignorance is not excused; because the proof has been established against all creation with the sending of Muhammad (peace be upon him). So whoever is ignorant has brought it upon himself due to turning away from the Book and the Sunnah”([75]).

The most just statement on the issue of excuse due to ignorance is what Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymin said: that it is from the juristic ijtihadi issues([76]), with the observation that clarity and obscurity are relative matters in the vast majority of issues, differing from person to person, place to place, and time to time.

The disagreement in the issue was previously transmitted in the words of Mulla Ali Al-Qari Al-Hanafi([77]).

Section Eight: Does the School of Not Excusing Necessitate Excommunicating Sufis or Excommunicating Most People?

The answer is that this does not necessarily follow, and it is clarified from two perspectives:

First Perspective: What Shaykh Abdul-Rahman Al-Mu’allimi Al-Yamani mentioned. Although he is among those who say excuse due to ignorance, he responded to those who accuse the Wahhabis of excommunication because of this issue, saying: “It is not befitting for the fair-minded to blame one who said the excommunication of the supplicator, the one seeking aid, and the believer in the mentioned manner, even if it necessitates on their opinion excommunicating most of the nation. Just as no Muslim dares to criticize Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal for his statement: ‘Whoever leaves one of the obligatory prayers has apostatized,’ even if he acknowledges its obligation, even though this opinion necessitates that most of the nation are apostates; because there is no city inhabited by Muslims except that those who leave prayer among them are more than those who pray. If you extend your gaze to those who pray, you will find many of them do not perform their prayer correctly despite the possibility of learning, so they join those who leave based on the evidence of the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) statement to the one who performed prayer badly: ‘Pray, for you have not prayed'”([78]).

Second Perspective: The issue is theoretical more than practical because it is difficult to track people’s behaviors and conditions, since the levels of polytheistic matters vary. Some are decisively polytheistic, like direct supplication for what only Allah can do. Some are not decisively polytheistic and are subject to consideration, like asking the dead for supplication. Some are innovation and a means to polytheism, like seeking blessings and circumambulating the grave without the intention of worship. Some are not polytheistic at all, like seeking nearness through the righteous or visiting graves and the like, which the majority of the four schools—even from the Hanbalis and Ahl al-Hadith—permitted.

Knowing that, it becomes difficult to track every individual among the Sufis and monitor their conditions and behaviors at shrines, because among them are those who seek nearness, those who circumambulate, those who visit, those who do none of that but go for prayer and remembrance only, and so on.

Allah Almighty did not task the Muslim with monitoring people’s conditions or behaviors, as this is from extremism and burdensome imposition that is prohibited, and because the principle regarding a Muslim is Islam, and disbelief is the incidental matter, and certainty is not removed by mere doubt and conjecture.

Accordingly, the necessity of excommunicating people does not apply to the Najdis at all, and their epistles are replete with disavowal of excommunicating the nation.

The point from the preceding is that the issue is theoretical more than practical because the Sharia did not command monitoring people, and the disagreement—as long as confined among the people of knowledge, not among the ignorant and extremists—approaches theoretical, conventional disagreement.

Whoever deserves excommunication is excommunicated, and there is no problem in that. One should not shy away from excommunicating whoever deserves it. This tendency found among some opponents of the call is an extremely Murji’ite tendency not known to the jurists of the Muslims. Jurists proceeded to excommunicate for phrases easier than supplicating other than Allah. Some even said: Whoever says to a man wanting to embrace Islam: “Wait until you perform ghusl” has apostated from Islam! Then what about one who supplicates other than Allah and ascribes to him speech not fitting except for Him?!

Jurists excommunicated for simple phrases and did not excuse due to ignorance in them. Many of these were mentioned by Imam Al-Qarafi Al-Maliki in Al-Furuq. After mentioning some disbelief-inducing supplications, he said: “The questioner should beware of these supplications and what is similar to them with intense caution due to what they lead to of the wrath of the Judge, eternal abode in the Fire, invalidation of deeds, dissolution of marriages, and permissibility of lives and wealth. All this corruption results from a single one of these supplications, and one does not return to Islam nor are most of these corruptions removed except by renewing Islam and uttering the two testimonies. If he dies upon that, his affair is as we mentioned. We ask Allah Almighty for safety from the causes of His punishment. The root of every corruption in this world and the Hereafter is ignorance, so strive to remove it from yourself as much as you can, just as the root of every good in this world and the Hereafter is knowledge, so strive to acquire it as much as you can. And Allah Almighty is the helper for all good”([79]).

Many jurists explicitly stated that matters of disbelief pass on the tongues of the common folk, taking them out of Islam, as mentioned by Al-Haytami and Ad-Dimyati([80]). Indeed, some, like As-Sanusi, Al-Bayjuri, and Al-Khalili, went to extremes and explicitly stated that many of the desert dwellers are apostates due to their false beliefs, as clarified at the beginning of this research.

If this is the speech of many Ash’aris, and we have not seen anyone accuse them of unjust excommunication—even though some of what they mentioned as disbelief-inducers is not conceded to them—then what prevents, legally and rationally, excommunicating one who supplicates other than Allah Almighty and ascribes to a creature words permissible only concerning the Creator?!

Conclusion:

Whoever looks with the eye of fairness and freedom from partisanship cannot but acknowledge that the Najdis did not deviate from the ways of earlier jurists. Rather, they are followers of them, honoring the jurists of this Muhammadan nation from the four schools. Also, they did not excommunicate people unjustly, whether we agree or disagree with them on issues. Thus, the disagreement remains within the acceptable scholarly framework. No consideration is given to the ignorant, extremist groups, or students of knowledge who ascribe to them then understood their words by implications without adhering to their conditions. Consideration is given to the speech of the people of knowledge from their actual books.

This, and may Allah send prayers upon our Prophet Muhammad and his family and companions and grant them peace.

---

(References)

([1]) As-Suhub Al-Wabilah ‘ala Dara’ih Al-Hanabilah (2/531, 533).
([2]) From the book: Al-Iman wa Ar-Radd ‘ala Ahl Al-Bida’ (p. 53), printed within Majmu’at Ar-Rasa’il wa Al-Masa’il An-Najdiyyah, also transmitted by the author of ‘Ulama’ Najd wa Ghayruhum.
([3]) Hilyat Al-Bashar fi Tarikh Al-Qarn Ath-Thalith ‘Ashar (1/839).
([4]) Kitab Al-Ijazah Al-‘Ilmiyyah fi Najd, Qira’ah Istiqra’iyyah (2/518-521). See also: The manuscript of the ijazah in the handwriting of the issuer preserved in Leiden Library, No. (2496).
([5]) See: ‘Ulama’ Najd Khilala Thamaniyat Qurun (1/438).
([6]) Mashahir ‘Ulama’ Najd wa Ghayruhum by Al-Bassam (1/302).
([7]) Lisan Al-‘Arab (5/144).
([8]) Kitab Al-Umm (9/206).
([9]) Tarikh Baghdad (1/536).
([10]) Tarikh Al-Fakhri (p. 139).
([11]) Tarikh Ibn La’bun (p. 191).
([12]) Al-Ikhwan As-Su’udiyyun fi ‘Aqdayn (9/204).
([13]) Al-Badr At-Tali’ (1/182).
([14]) Ad-Durar As-Saniyyah fi Al-Ajwibah An-Najdiyyah (10/145).
([15]) Tarikh Al-Jabarti (3/337).
([16]) Tarikh Ibn Ghannam (1/8, 217, 225). See also: The epistle of Shaykh Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab to Abdullah ibn Suhaym in Tarikh Ibn Ghannam (1/210, 333).
([17]) See: Sharh ‘Aqidah Ahl At-Tawhid Al-Kubra (p. 37), and Hashiyat Al-Bayjuri ‘ala Jawharat At-Tawhid (p. 78).
([18]) Fatawa Al-Khalili (2/282).
([19]) Sayf Allah ‘ala man Kadhaba ‘ala Awliya’ Allah (p. 27).
([20]) Nayl Al-Awtar (4/95).
([21]) Mafatih Al-Ghayb (16/58).
([22]) Hashiyat As-Sawi ‘ala Al-Jalalayn (1/150).
([23]) Ar-Rasa’il Ash-Shakhsiyyah (p. 38).
([24]) Ad-Durar As-Saniyyah fi Al-Ajwibah An-Najdiyyah (1/222).
([25]) Ad-Durar As-Saniyyah (12/177).
([26]) Ad-Durar As-Saniyyah (8/270).
([27]) Ad-Durar As-Saniyyah (11/172).
([28]) Kitab Al-Iman wa Ar-Radd ‘ala Ahl Al-Bida’—printed within Majmu’at Ar-Rasa’il wa Al-Masa’il An-Najdiyyah (p. 21).
([29]) Al-Kalimat An-Nafi’ah ‘an Al-Mukaffirat Al-Waqi’ah (p. 9).
([30]) Naqd Al-Mantiq (p. 120).
([31]) Minhaj As-Sunnah An-Nabawiyyah (6/150).
([32]) Fatawa Nur ‘ala Ad-Darb (1/258).
([33]) Majmu’ Fatawa wa Rasa’il Ibn ‘Uthaymin (2/231).
([34]) Ad-Durar As-Saniyyah (2/43).
([35]) Mu’allafat Ash-Shaykh—Al-Qism Ath-Thalith, Al-Fatawa (pp. 59, 60, 68, 69).
([36]) Ad-Durar As-Saniyyah (2/165-166).
([37]) Al-Jaysh Al-‘Arimram Al-Khumasi, Aknusus (1/291-292), and Al-I’lam bi man Halla Marrakash wa Ighmat min Al-A’lam, ‘Abbas As-Samalali (6/171).
([38]) Fatawa wa Rasa’il Ash-Shaykh Muhammad ibn Ibrahim Al ash-Shaykh (1/109).
([39]) Nawaqid Al-Iman Al-Qawliyyah wa Al-‘Amaliyyah (p. 278).
([40]) Majmu’ Al-Fatawa (4/361).
([41]) Matalib Uli An-Nuha (6/278).
([42]) Their evidence is that prostration of honor was only known in previous nations, so whoever does it from this nation has come with a manifestation of worship.
([43]) Hashiyat Al-Jamal ‘ala Sharh Al-Minhaj (7/571).
([44]) Tuhfat Al-Muhtaj fi Sharh Al-Minhaj (9/90).
([45]) Siyanah Al-Insan (p. 238).
([46]) At-Ta’liq ‘ala Iqtida’ As-Sirat Al-Mustaqim No. (1359).
([47]) Shaykh Ibn Baz’s commentary on Fath Al-Bari (2/575). See also: Sharh Sahih Al-Bukhari, Ar-Rajihi (2/708).
([48]) Risalah Taqwiyat Al-Iman (p. 35).
([49]) Tashil Al-‘Aqidah Al-Islamiyyah (p. 243).
([50]) Ad-Durar As-Saniyyah fi Al-Ajwibah An-Najdiyyah (1/222).
([51]) Kitab Ash-Shifa (2/231).
([52]) Majma’ Al-Anhur (1/696).
([53]) Sharh Al-Fiqh Al-Akbar (pp. 244-245).
([54]) Al-Ashbah wa An-Naza’ir (p. 200).
([55]) Al-I’lam bi Qawati’ Al-Islam (1/185).
([56]) Ghayat Al-Amni fi Ar-Radd ‘ala An-Nabhani (p. 281).
([57]) Minhaj At-Ta’sis (p. 267).
([58]) Al-I’lam bi Qawati’ Al-Islam (p. 213).
([59]) Fatawa Al-Faqih Waliyy Ad-Din Abu Zur’ah Al-‘Iraqi (pp. 166-168).
([60]) See: Al-Jawahir wa Ad-Durar by As-Sakhawi (p. 944).
([61]) Ar-Radd Al-Muhkam Al-Matin, transmitted by Dr. Faruq Hamadah in his book: Al-Hafiz An-Naqid Abdullah Al-Ghumari (p. 95).
([62]) Ihya’ Al-Maqbur (p. 19).
([63]) Siyanah Al-Insan min Waswasah Ash-Shaykh Dahlan (p. 213).
([64]) Ash-Shifa (2/1065).
([65]) Al-Milal wa An-Nihal (2/94).
([66]) As-Sarim Al-Munki fi Ar-Radd ‘ala As-Subki (1/325).
([67]) See: Nihayat Al-Muhtaj (7/414).
([68]) I’anat At-Talibin fi Hall Alfaz Fath Al-Mu’in (4/149).
([69]) Ikfar Al-Mulhidin fi Daruriyyat Ad-Din (p. 68).
([70]) Al-Iqtisad fi Al-I’tiqad (p. 160).
([71]) Ikfar Al-Mulhidin fi Daruriyyat Ad-Din, Al-Kashmiri (p. 68).
([72]) Mafatih Al-Ghayb (14/232).
([73]) See: Talbis Iblis (p. 448).
([74]) From the book Al-Kaba’ir by Ibn Al-Qayyim—which is lost—transmitted from Al-‘Aqid Ath-Thamin by As-Suwaydi (p. 125).
([75]) Al-Fath Ar-Rabbani min Fatawa Al-Imam Ash-Shawkani (1/145).
([76]) Majmu’ Fatawa Ash-Shaykh Al-‘Uthaymin (2/ Answer to Question 224).
([77]) Sharh Al-Fiqh Al-Akbar (pp. 244-245).
([78]) Tahqiq Al-Kalam fi Al-Masa’il Ath-Thalath—within Athar Al-Mu’allimi Al-Yamani— (4/448).
([79]) Al-Furuq (4/265)—’Alam Al-Kutub
([80]) See: I’anat At-Talibin (4/149).

See the original Article in Arabic here: https://salafcenter.org/9572/#_ftn44