The Response:
First of all, the evidence in the issues of Usûl’ud Dîn is the Kitâb (Book of Allâh), the Sunnah, and the Ijmâ (consensus) of the Salaf, as was stated by Shaykh Ishâq Rahmatullâhi Alayh in his book, “Mu’ayyan Takfîr”. A scholar cannot be the evidence. The Shaykh mentioned this as evidence from the perspective of Usûl to those who claim ignorance is an excuse regarding Asl’ud Dîn by bringing some words of Muhammad bin Abd’il Wahhâb Rahmatullâhi Alayh regarding “The Qubbah of Kawwâz”. The same principle also applies here. Those who allege declaring Takfîr upon the Tâghût and the Mushrikûn (pl. Mushrik; polytheists) is not from Asl’ud Dîn and that ignorance, forceful interpretation, etc. may be valid in this regard must first bring clear evidences from the Kitâb, the Sunnah, and the Ijmâ and refute the evidences denoting that they are from Asl’ud Dîn. Without doing this, debating by bringing some obscure words of scholars only proves that the debaters have gone astray from the Manhaj (methodology). In other words, is there an explanation for those who object the principle “whoever does not declare Takfîr upon a Kâfir is a Kâfir” by specifically quoting from the scholars of Najd while leaving behind dozens of issues that should be explained from the perspective of Usûl? We do not see any other explanation to this other than saying, “Look, even the scholars of Najd whom you follow have not taken this rule absolutely, so you too should give up this call.” Such a call would only be responded by someone who has subjected to names and crowds, not the Sharî’ah, and they would say, “If, even the scholars whom we follow did not act like this, we will also abandon it.” and they would throw whatever they learned from these scholars about the meaning of Tawhîd behind their backs. They would leave the Muhkam (clear-cut) and follow the Mutashâbih (allegorical), thereby going astray. On the other hand, those who recognise Tawhîd and follow the Muhkam Nass (textual proofs) do not change their beliefs based on doubts. Moreover, as can be seen below, even if these statements are subjected to a realistic examination and presented to the Muhkam statements of the scholars, it will be seen that these statements do not carry the meanings which are in accordance with their desires.
With regards to the details of these accounts, the statement of Shaykh Muhammad bin Abd’il Wahhâb Rahmatullâhi Alayh about the Tâghût in the area named “Kharj” is as follows,إذا عرفتم ذلك، فهؤلاء الطواغيت الذين يعتقد الناس فيهم، من أهل الخرج وغيرهم، مشهورون عندلخاص والعام بذلك، وأنهم يترشحون له، ويأمرون به الناس، كلهم كفار مرتدون عن الإسلام؛ ومن جادل عنهم، أو أنكر على من كفرهم، أو زعم أن فعلهم هذا، لو كان باطلا فلا يخرجهم إلى الكفر، فأقل أحوال هذا المجادل، أنه فاسق لا يقبل خطه ولا شهادته، ولا يصلى خلفه. بل لا يصح دين الإسلام، إلا بالبراءة من هؤلاء وتكفيرهم، كما قال تعالى: {فَمَنْ يَكْفُرْ بِالطَّاغُوتِ وَيُؤْمِنْ بِاللَّهِ فَقَدِ اسْتَمْسَكَ بِالْعُرْوَةِ الْوُثْقَى}
“(After some clarification about Tawhîd) If you have learned these, (also know that) in the eyes of people with its laymen and elite, the Tâghût that the people of Kharj and other regions believe in are famous for this (that is, they are believed in). They nominate this (this creed of Kufr) and command it to the people. All of these are Kuffâr who have become apostates from Islâm.
Whoever argues for them, rebukes those who declare Takfîr upon them, or alleges that this act of theirs does not take them to Kufr even if it is Bâtil (false); at the least the condition of these defenders is that they are Fâsiq (corrupt), whose writings and testimony are not accepted and Salâh (prayer) is not prayed behind them. On the contrary, the religion of Islâm will not be valid unless with complete distancing from these people and declaring Takfîr upon them. As Allâhu Taâlâ said,
“So whoever disbelieves in the Tâghût and believes in Allâh has grasped the Urwat’ul Wuthqâ (firmest handhold).” (al-Baqarah 2/256)[1]
Now, if we look at the first part of the quote, it is understood from the words of the Shaykh Muhammad bin Abd’il Wahhâb Rahmatullâhi Alayh that people who do not declare Takfîr upon the Tâghût can sometimes be regarded as Fâsiq.
If this is correct, then the Shaykh Rahmatullâhi Alayh allegedly does not consider declaring Takfîr upon the Mushrikûn to be from Asl’ud Dîn, also he allegedly does not recognize those who do not declare Takfîr upon the Mushrikûn as people who nullify Asl’ud Dîn. This is exactly what the opponents are trying to prove. Whereas, this is in contrast with what the Shaykh mentioned right after this. This is because right after this, he says that Islâm is invalid without declaring Takfîr upon the Tâghût, or if the pronoun turns to them, he says that Islâm is invalid without declaring Takfîr upon the Fâsiq who do not declare Takfîr upon the Tâghût. If he is mentioning this, then it is what some people name the third person in Silsilah! He also highlights the fact that this is linked to rejecting the Tâghût, which is the Nafy (negative) part of Kalimat’ut Tawhîd consisting of La Ilaha. Now, according to these people, is the Shaykh making statements which contradict each other in the same paragraph? Such that he states declaring Takfîr upon the Mushrikûn and the Tâghût is from Asl’ud Dîn, then he states some people who do not declare Takfîr upon the Tâghût are sinful Muslims who have actualized Asl’ud Dîn?
If we accept that the Shaykh is actually talking about two identical issues, that is, him mentioning people who know the Shirk of the Tâghût and Mushrikûn but refrain from declaring Takfîr upon them, then we would have admitted that the Shaykh contradicts his own creed. Otherwise, we will have to admit that he is talking about another issue and details in the part wherein he mentions the Fâsiq. This is because the Shaykh has reiterated in many places -not just here- that Takfîr is from Asl’ud Dîn.
For example, he says in the treatise named “The Essence of the Religion of Islâm”[2],أَصْلُ دِينِ الْإِسْلاَمِ، وَقَاعِدَتُهُ: أَمْرَانِ؛
اَلْأَوَّلُ: اَلْأَمْرُ بِعِبَادَةِ اللّٰهِ وَحْدَهُ لاَ شَرِيكَ لَهُ؛ وَالتَّحْرِيضُ عَلَى ذٰلِكَ، وَالْمُوَالاَةُ فِيهِ، وَتَكْفِيرُ مَنْ تَرَكَهُ.
اَلثَّانِي: اَلْإِنْذَارُ عَنِ الشِّرْكِ فيِ عِبَادَةِ اللّٰهِ، وَالتَّغْلِيظُ فِي ذٰلِكَ ، وَالْمُعَادَاةُ فِيهِ، وَتَكْفِيرُ مَنْ فَعَلَهُ.
وَالْمُخَالِفُونَ فِي ذٰلِكَ أَنوَاعٌ:
1- فَأَشَدُّهُمْ مُخَالَفَةً؛ مَنْ خَالَفَ فِي الْجَمِيعِ،
2- وَمِنَ النَّاسِ مَنْ عَبَدَ اللّٰهَ وَحْدَهُ، وَلَمْ يُنْكِرِ الشِّرْكَ، وَلَمْ يُعَادِ أَهْلَهُ،
3- وَمِنْهُمْ: مَنْ عَادَاهُمْ، وَلَمْ يُكَفِّرْهُمْ،
4- وَمِنْهُمْ: مَنْ لَمْ يُحِبَّ التَّوْحِيدَ، وَلَمْ يُبْغِضْهُ،
5- وَمِنْهُمْ: مَنْ كَفَّرَهُمْ، وَزَعَمَ أَنَّهُ مَسَبَّةٌ لِلصَّالِحِينَ،
6- وَمِنْهُمْ: مَنْ لَمْ يُبْغِضِ الشِّرْكَ، وَلَمْ يُحِبَّهُ،
7- وَمِنْهُمْ: مَنْ لَمْ يَعْرِفِ الشِّرْكَ، وَلَمْ يُنْكِرْهُ،
8- وَمِنْهُمْ: مَنْ لَمْ يَعْرِفِ التَّوْحِيدَ، وَلَمْ يُنْكِرْهُ،
9- وَمِنْهُمْ: - وَهُوَ أَشَدُّ الْأَنْوَاعِ خَطَرًا - مَنْ عَمِلَ بِالتَّوْحِيدِ، لٰكِنْ لَمْ يَعْرِفْ قَدْرَهُ، وَلَمْ يُبْغِضْ مَنْ تَرَكَهُ، وَلَمْ يُكَفِّرْهُمْ،
10- وَمِنْهُمْ: مَنْ تَرَكَ الشِّرْكَ، وَكَرِهَهُ، وَلَمْ يَعْرِفْ قَدْرَهُ، وَلَمْ يُعَادِ أَهْلَهُ، وَلَمْ يُكَفِّرْهُمْ؛ وَهٰؤُلاَءِ: قَدْ خَالَفُوا مَا جَاءَتْ بِهِ الْأَنْبِيَاءُ، مِنْ دِينِ اللّٰهِ سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَى
“Aslu Dîn’il Islâm (The essence of the Religion of Islâm) and its Qâ’idah (principles)” consist of two directives:
1. The command of worshipping Allâh Taâlâ alone without associating partners, encouraging this, basing the Muwalât (collaboration) on it, and declaring Takfîr upon the one who forsakes it.
2. Warning against Shirk in Ibadâh (worship) to Allâh, being harsh regarding it, basing enmity upon it, and declaring Takfîr upon the one who acts upon it.
Those in opposition to this are of numerous varieties:
1- The worst variety among them -with regards to being in opposition- is the one who opposes all of it.
2- Among the people are those who worship Allâh alone, however, neither rejects Shirk nor shows enmity towards its people.
3- Among them are those who show enmity towards the Mushrikûn however does not declare Takfîr upon them.
4- Among them are those who neither love Tawhîd nor hate it.
5- Among them are those who declare Takfîr upon the People of Tawhîd and claimed that Tawhîd is cursing the Sâlihûn (pl. Sâlih; righteous ones).
6- Among them are those who neither hate Shirk nor love it.
7- Among them are those who neither recognize Shirk nor reject it.
8- Among them are those who neither recognize Tawhîd nor reject it.
9- Among them -and it is the most treacherous type- are those who act upon Tawhîd, however does not recognize (comprehend) its value and neither shows hatred to those who forsake Tawhîd nor declares Takfîr upon them.
10- Among them are those who forsake Shirk and dislike it, however, neither recognizes (comprehends) the value (true nature) of Shirk nor shows enmity towards its people and does not declare Takfîr upon them.
These have opposed what the Anbiyâ (pl. Nabî; the prophets) came with from the Dîn (religion) of Allâh Subhânahû wa Taâlâ.
As seen, he regarded declaring Takfîr upon the Mushrikûn to be from Asl’ud Dîn and has stated that those who doubt in this regards has opposed Tawhîd, the call of all messengers.
In the commentary of this pamphlet authored by his grandson Abd’ur Rahmân bin Hasan Rahmatullâhi Alayh it is also stated that declaring Takfîr upon the Mushrikûn is included in La Ilaha Illallâh itself.
Again, Shaykh Muhammad Rahmatullâhi Alayh says the following in his pamphlet named “The Nullifiers of Islâm”[3],مَنْ لَمْ يُكَفِّرِ الْمُشْرِكِينَ، أَوْ شَكَّ فِي كُفْرِهِمْ، أَوْ صَحَّحَ مَذْهَبَهُمْ، كَفَرَ.
“Whoever does not declare Takfîr upon the Mushrikûn (indict polytheists to be disbelievers), or has doubts about their Kufr, or considers their Madhhab (beliefs) to be correct has committed Kufr [by Ijmâ].”
In short, if the Shaykh said that a person who does not declare Takfîr upon the Mushrikûn can remain a Muslim in some cases, this contradicts his other statements. Since contradictory speech on creed-based issues is the last possibility that can be taken into consideration regarding a scholar, what might the Shaykh Rahmatullâhi Alayh intend in his statement about the people of Kharj?
The possibility that seems to be the strongest in our eyes is that the Shaykh Rahmatullâhi Alayh was referring to some people who allege that the Mushrikûn do not commit ash-Shirk’ul Akbar (major polytheism) by either rejecting the fact that they commit Shirk or by making forceful interpretations in this regard. Such people exist today as they did exist in the era of the Shaykh and after him.
Hence, Shaykh Abâ Butayn Rahmatullâhi Alayh who is of the latter-era scholars of the Najd, authored the book “al-Intisâr” in refutation to such people who defend the Mushrikûn in various manners and try to prove that they were not Kuffâr. Alongside answering their claims such as ignorance being an excuse in Shirk and their open Kufr, he also responds to their claims such as the grave-worshippers not actually asking the dead for help, which are comprised completely of blasphemy and making eversion of the truth.[4]
Likewise, Shaykh’ul Islâm Ibnu Taymiyyah Rahmatullâhi Alayh said about the leader of those who adhere to the Wahdat’ul Wujûd (Unity of Existence) and the head of the Tâghût of his time Ibnu Arabî and his followers,وَمَنْ لَمْ يُكَفِّرْهُمْ فَهُوَ أَكْفَرُ مِنْ الْيَهُودِ وَالنَّصَارَى
“Those who do not declare Takfîr upon them are more Kâfir than the Jews and Christians.”[5]
Elsewhere he says,وَيَجِبُ عُقُوبَةُ كُلِّ مَنْ انْتَسَبَ إلَيْهِمْ أَوْ ذَبَّ عَنْهُمْ أَوْ أَثْنَى عَلَيْهِمْ أَوْ عَظَّمَ كُتُبَهُمْ أَوْ عُرِفَ بِمُسَاعَدَتِهِمْ وَمُعَاوَنَتِهِمْ أَوْ كَرِهَ الْكَلَامَ فِيهِمْ أَوْ أَخَذَ يَعْتَذِرُ لَهُمْ بِأَنَّ هَذَا الْكَلَامَ لَا يَدْرِي مَا هُوَ أَوْ مَنْ قَالَ إنَّهُ صَنَّفَ هَذَا الْكِتَابَ وَأَمْثَالَ هَذِهِ الْمَعَاذِيرِ الَّتِي لَا يَقُولُهَا إلَّا جَاهِلٌ أَوْ مُنَافِقٌ؛ بَلْ تَجِبُ عُقُوبَةُ كُلِّ مَنْ عَرَفَ حَالَهُمْ وَلَمْ يُعَاوِنْ عَلَى الْقِيَامِ عَلَيْهِمْ
“Anyone who adheres himself to them, defends them, praises and extolls them, gives value to their books, is renowned to help and support them, dislikes speaking about them or tries to excuse them with the pretext that he does not know the nature of their words, whether he has actually written this book or not, and similar excuses that could only be put forward by an ignorant or hypocrite, should be punished. Likewise, everyone who knows their situation but does not help to stand against them should be punished.”[6]
In the continuation, he says,وَمَنْ كَانَ مُحْسِنًا لِلظَّنِّ بِهِمْ - وَادَّعَى أَنَّهُ لَمْ يَعْرِفْ حَالَهُمْ - عَرَفَ حَالَهُمْ فَإِنْ لَمْ يُبَايِنْهُمْ وَيُظْهِرْ لَهُمْ الْإِنْكَارَ وَإِلَّا أُلْحِقَ بِهِمْ وَجُعِلَ مِنْهُمْ.
“Those who indulge in good thinking about such people and allege that they do not know of their situation should now know about their circumstance, even if he does not oppose them and openly denounce them. Otherwise, he will be accounted from them and will be considered from them.”[7]
He also said,وَمَنْ شَكَّ فِي كُفْرِ هَؤُلَاءِ بَعْدَ مَعْرِفَةِ قَوْلِهِمْ وَمَعْرِفَةِ دِينِ الْإِسْلَامِ فَهُوَ كَافِرٌ كَمَنْ يَشُكُّ فِي كُفْرِ الْيَهُودِ وَالنَّصَارَى وَالْمُشْرِكِينَ.
“Those who doubt these people being Kâfir after learning about their views and after learning the religion of Islâm, are Kâfir, just like those who doubt the Kufr of the Jews, Christians, and Mushrikûn.”[8]
All of these statements are available in the 2nd volume of Majmû’ul Fatâwâ.
As seen, the Shaykh Rahmatullâhi Alayh has distinguished between those who defend the supporters of Wahdat’ul Wujûd by knowing and accepting what they defend and those who exonerate from them the ideologies of Kufr and claim that others have shoved them in their books or continue to defend Ibnu Arabî and his group by delving in good thinking, as was common in the latter era and in our era. While declaring Takfîr upon those who do this intentionally, he did not declare Takfîr upon those who did this while finding a Shar’î cover for themselves and stated that they should be punished. This is because the first category avoided declaring Takfîr upon these people by labelling Kufr as Îmân, whereas the second category accept Kufr to be Kufr, however they exonerate Ibnu Arabî and his likes from carrying this Kufr. Anyhow, the Shaykh did not consider those who defend Ibnu Arabî and his followers to be righteous Muslims, no matter what their forceful interpretation is. This is because anyone who is not an ignoramus or an unruly hypocrite would be able to determine the views of Ibnu Arabî and the other defenders of Wahdat’ul Wujûd and would be able to understand that these people are unruly Kuffâr. If a person does not understand this and does not admit it, then he has fallen into this situation only because of his laxness and laziness in investigating the truth. This is the state of the advocators of the grave-worshippers. If this person is alleging that these people are not seeking help from the dead and that they only fell into the Bid’ah type of Tawassul which is Shirk’ul Asghar (minor Shirk), then the lightest state of such person is that he is a lying Fâsiq, since he denies the wide-spread reality regarding the grave-worshippers. The testimony of such person will not be accepted, nor will Salâh be prayed behind him since he is a Fâsiq (corrupt person). As the Shaykh indicates, those who know the Shirk of these people and persists to not declare Takfîr upon them has not actualized Asl’ud Dîn, since he has named apparent Kufr as Islâm. This is what we understand from this statement of the Shaykh. Those who allege, that the Shaykh meant something other than this and that the Shaykh considered the one who does not declare Takfîr upon the people of Shirk after having acknowledged and confessed the Shirk which they perform as Fâsiq, are required to bring forth an evidence. If we were to assume that the explanation we brought forth is void, in the end, this statement is a probable statement and it cannot be an evidence for them nor us. In any case, what they have to do is to be silent about this issue since there cannot be evidence in cases where there is probability.
In another cited statement addressing some of his brethren the Shaykh says the following[9],بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
إلى الإخوان، سلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته.
وبعد: ما ذكرتم من قول الشيخ: كل من جحد كذا وكذا، وقامت عليه الحجة، وأنكم شاكون في هؤلاء الطواغيت وأتباعهم، هل قامت عليهم الحجة؟ فهذا من العجب، كيف تشكون في هذا وقد أوضحته لكم مرارا؟! فإن الذي لم تقم عليه الحجة، هو الذي حديث عهد بالإسلام، والذي نشأ ببادية بعيدة، أو يكون ذلك في مسألة خفية، مثل الصرف والعطف، فلا يكفر حتى يعرف.
وأما أصول الدين التي أوضحها الله وأحكمها في كتابه، فإن حجة الله هو القرآن، فمن بلغه القرآن فقد بلغته الحجة؛ ولكن أصل الإشكال، أنكم لم تفرقوا بين قيام الحجة، وبين فهم الحجة، فإن أكثر الكفار والمنافقين من المسلمين، لم يفهموا حجة الله مع قيامها عليهم، كما قال تعالى: {أَمْ تَحْسَبُ أَنَّ أَكْثَرَهُمْ يَسْمَعُونَ أَوْ يَعْقِلُونَ إِنْ هُمْ إِلَّا كَالْأَنْعَامِ بَلْ هُمْ أَضَلُّ سَبِيلاً}.
وقيام الحجة نوع، وبلوغها نوع، وقد قامت عليهم، وفهمهم إياها نوع آخر
Bismillâh’ir Rahmân’ir Rahîm.
To the Ikhwân (Brothers):
Salâmun Alaykum wa Rahmatullâhi wa Barakâtuhu.
To proceed:
What you mentioned of the Shaykh’s (Ibnu Taymiyyah Rahimahullâh’s) statement,
“Everyone who rejects such and such, while the Hujjah has been established upon him.”
You are doubtful regarding those Tawâghît (pl., Tâghût) and their followers, has the Hujjah (proof) been established upon them? This is strange indeed! How can you doubt about this when I have repeatedly clarified it for you?! For indeed, the one whom the Hujjah has not been established upon is the one who is new to Islâm, and the one who was raised in a distant wilderness; or this is the case when the matter is Khafî (obscure), like Sarf and Atf. So he does not disbelieve until it is made known to him.
As for the Usûl’ud Dîn (the foundations of the religion) that Allâh has clarified and solidified its Ahkâm (pl., Hukm; rulings) in His Kitâb (Book i.e., Qur’ân), then indeed the Hujjah of Allâh is the Qur’ân. So whomever the Qur’ân has reached, then the Hujjah has reached him. But the source of dispute is that you have not differentiated between Iqâmat’ul Hujjah (the establishing of the Hujjah) and Fahm’ul Hujjah (comprehending the Hujjah). For indeed, most of the Kuffâr (pl., Kâfir; disbelievers) and Munâfiqûn (pl., Munâfiq; hypocrites) from amongst the Muslimûn (pl., Muslim) did not comprehend the Hujjah of Allâh though it has been established upon them, as Allâhu Taâlâ said,
أَمْ تَحْسَبُ أَنَّ أَكْثَرَهُمْ يَسْمَعُونَ أَوْ يَعْقِلُونَ إِنْ هُمْ إِلَّا كَالْأَنْعَامِ بَلْ هُمْ أَضَلُّ سَبِيلاً
“Or do you think that most of them listen or understand? They are but like cattle. Rather, they are even farther astray from the (right) way.” (al-Furqân 25/44)
The establishment of the Hujjah is something, and it reaching (the people) is something (else), while it has been established upon them. And their comprehending it is something else.
This is one of the distortions which is done by cropping the beginning and end of the Shaykh’s statement. Since even though the Shaykh addresses them as brothers and gives them the Salâm, he said in the continuation of his statements after elucidating the matter,إذا علمتم ذلك، فإن هذا الذي أنتم فيه كفر: الناس يعبدون الطواغيت، ويعادون دين الإسلام، فيزعمون أنه ليس ردة ،لعلهم ما فهموا الحجة، كل هذا بين .
“When you comprehend this, (know that) verily the state in which you are in is Kufr. People are worshipping the Tawâghît (pl. of Tâghût), showing enmity towards the religion of Islâm, and then they deem that this is not Riddah (apostasy) as they might have not understood the Hujjah! All of this is clear.”
As seen, the Shaykh describes them with Kufr for the sole sake that they halt from declaring Takfîr upon the Mushrikûn with the justification that they have not comprehended the Hujjah. As for the reason behind the fact that he did not treat the people who he wrote the letter to as Kâfir, there may have numerous reasons. Firstly, does the recipient of this letter advocate this Kufr view, or did some members of their tribe utter these, or did these people previously advocate this view but later on repent from this? Et cetera, there could be many other reasons. To wrap up the issue, the controversy found in this letter is about one specific issue and it is not a knowledgeable approach to conclude on a general issue pertaining to Aqîdah via a specific issue as such. This is because there may be many different aspects in a specific issue. Whoever wants to learn the view of a scholar pertaining to a subject should not look at a Fatwâ that he issued regarding a specific issue, but should appeal for the statements in which he clearly illuminates his view pertaining to the issue. When this is the Usûl in an ordinary Fiqh-related issue, this principle is more deserving of being abided by in delicate topics such as Takfîr.
The views of the scholars of the Najdî Da’wah is apparent in places wherein they elaborate on the Usûl pertaining to those who refrain from declaring Takfîr upon the Mushrikûn. It is also renowned that they account Takfîr to be from the unavoidable principles for one to enter the fold of the religion of Islâm.
Ignoring the statements found in fundamental books and pamphlets while seeking aid from the letters and personal correspondence of a scholar can only be the mortar of those who are unable to explain the issues from the aspect of knowledge. We want to conclude this pamphlet with a statement from the treatise on Mu’ayyan Takfîr by Shaykh Ishâq Rahmatullâhi Alayh,وَذٰلِكَ وَاللهُ أَعْلَمُ بِسَبَبِ تَرْكِ كُتُبِ الْأُصُولِ وَعَدَمِ الاِعْتِنَاءِ بِهَا وَعَدَمِ الْخَوْفِ مِنَ الزَّيْغِ.
رَغِبُوا عَنْ رَسَائِلِ الشَّيْخِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَبْدِ الْوَهَّابِ - قَدَّسَ اللهُ رُوحَهُ - وَرَسَائِلِ بَنِيهِ فَإِنَّهَا كَفِيلَةٌ بِتَبْيِينِ جَمِيعِ هٰذِهِ الشُّبَهِ جِدًّا كَمَا سَيَمُرُّ
“Allâh knows best, their downfall is due to abandoning the books of Usûl, lack of interest regarding them and lack of Khawf (fear) from falling into Zaygh (divergence). They turned away from the pamphlets of Shaykh Muhammad bin Abd’il Wahhâb -may Allâh purify his soul- and the pamphlets of his sons. As it will come later, indeed those pamphlets are sufficient to clarify these doubts.”[10]
Wallâhu A’lam! Âkhiru Da’wânâ An’il Hamdulillâhi Rabb’il Âlamîn.
Topic: CLARIFICATION ON OBSCURE STATEMENTS OF THE SCHOLARS REGARDING SILSILAH TAKFIR (Read 1401 times)
07.12.2017, 03:25:40 PM
