Mu-hammed bin Abdul Wahab Najdi at-Tamimi

Attributed Shirk towards Adam (AS) in order to prove his perverted tawhid.He said:

حاتم أبي ابن رواه .عبادته في يكن ولم طاعته، في شركاء: قال قتادة عن صحيح بسند وله

Ibn Abi Hatim reports with a “SAHIH CHAIN” from Qatadah that he said:

They (Adam and eve) did “Shirk” in obedience (to Allah), but not in worship

[Ibn Abdul Wahab al-Najdi in Kitab ut Tawheed, Page No. 57-58]

Look how cleverly the Najdi calls the baseless report having “SAHIH” chain!

In English translation of Kitab at-Tawhid it says in Footnote:

The above quoted Hadith is said to be “WEAK”.

Hafiz Ibn Kathir (rah) and Al-Albani ranked it weak “DA’IF” (Publisher) [Page No. 157]

Now Ibn Abdul Wahab Najdi had himself become Mushrik for

attributing Shirk towards Adam(a.s)

as Ibn Kathir and Albani has proven it by declaring the report as “DA’IF”!

Admirers of Najdi are ignoring the clear shirk which Ibn Abdul Wahab Najdi himself did, so I

would like to reveal another Jahalat of this pseudo reviver from his so called acclaimed book:“Kitab at-Tawhid”

He made a whole chapter title as:

ونحوه القضاة بقاضي التسمي: باب

Translation: To be named as “Qadhi ul Qudhaat”

(Judge of Judges)

And then he used the hadith of “: الله إال مالك ال األمالك، ملك تسمى رجل ” i.e. Prophet (Peace be upon

him) forbade the name “Malik al-Amlak (King of the Kings) because there is no King but Allah ”

[Kitab at-Tawhid, Page No. 54]

This is again height of ignorance shown by this pseudo self-assumed reviver of deen. By Including

Qadhi ul Qudhaat into category of Shirk he has declared overwhelming Muhaditheen as

“Mushrikeen”

For the time being I will show 1 proof.

Imam al-Hakim (rah) right in mentioning the chain of narrators said:

صالح بن محمد الحسن أبو القضاة قاضي أخبرني

Translation: Narrated by “QADHI UL QUDHAAT (Judge of Judges)” Abul Hasan Muhammd bin

Salih… [Mustadrak al Hakim (3/580)]

So this Najdi Ibn Abdul Wahab was not only ignorant in sciences of Quran and Hadith but

even simple Arabic.

He attributies lie to Prophet by forging hadith

As they are afraid to reply so I will add third blunder made by Ibn Abdul Wahab Najdi in same

book Kitab at-Tawhid …this is now total operation of that pseudo Mawhid.

Analysis # 3: On Page no.52 of Kitab at-Tawhid towards the end, Ibn Abdul Wahab Najdi quotes:

Ahmed reports that Tariq bin Shihab narrated that Allah’s Messenger (Peace be upon him) said:

….(till the end of hadith, please note that even in matn of hadith he added: How was that

possible “O MESSENGER OF ALLAH”)

Then he gave reference as “(Ahmed)” on next page…Ibn Abdul Wahab Najdi attributed lies to

Prophet as this hadith is not narrated by Prophet (Peace be upon him), secondly he hypocritically

changed the matn (content) of hadith itself to somehow put Prophet inside, third and he also

gave wrong reference as this hadith does not exist in Musnad Ahmed as well, so Najdi cooked up

2 lies!

(a) Attributing hadith to Prophet (Peace be upon him) and also forging the matn of hadith to

somehow strengthen personal viewpoint.

(b) Referencing it to Ahmed although it is not present in Musnad Ahmed.

Now according to Sahih hadith a person who attributes a lie to Prophet (Peace be upon him) will

occupy his seat in hell fire.

—————————————

Sahih Bukhari,Volume 8, Book 77, Number 611:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

The Prophet said, “Adam and Moses argued with each other. Moses said to Adam. ‘O Adam! You

are our father who disappointed us and turned us out of Paradise.’ Then Adam said to him, ‘O

Moses! Allah favored you with His talk (talked to you directly) and He wrote (the Torah) for you

with His Own Hand. Do you blame me for action which Allah had written in my fate forty years

before my creation?’ So Adam confuted Moses, Adam confuted Moses,” the Prophet added,

repeating the Statement three times.

—————————–

Mu-hammed ibn Abdul-wahhab Najdi

Attributed Shirk to Adam and Hawwaa

he said:

Kitaab At-Tawheed, Chapter: 48Quote:

[(Allah , says: ” It is He Who created you from a single being and made from it its mate, in order

that he might dwell with her. When he united with her [in intercourse], she bore [i.e. becomes

pregnant with] a light burden and she continued to carry it. When she grew heavy, they both

prayed to Allah, their Lord: “If You give us a righteous child, good in every respect, we vow we

shall be of the grateful ones.” But when He gave them a righteous child, they ascribed to others a

share in that which He had given them: But Allah is Exalted High above the partners they ascribe

to Him” (Qur’an 7:189-190 )

Allah , Most Glorified, Most High, informs us in these verses that He created mankind from a

single human being, Adam (as ) and that He created from him a wife, Hawwa`, in order that they

might live together in peace and harmony and that He created in them the desire for sexual

intercourse and made it permissible to them, in order that they might enjoy complete stability

and repose and that their progeny might continue to multiply. And when she became pregnant,

they both called upon Allah , asking Him to give them a healthy, strong, righteous child and

swearing that if He did so, they would be eternally be grateful to Him. But when Allah

answered their supplications and gave them that which they had requested, they

named him `Abdul Harith, thus ascribing others as partners with Allah ; and Allah is far

above that which they attributed to Him. )]

األصلي الكتاب في وجاء :

� آتاهما فلما: ( تعالى الله قول اآلية) 114 ) (آتاهما فيما شركاء له جعال صالحا .

�د اسم كل تحريم على اتفقوا: حزم ابن قال المطلب عبد حاشا ذلك، أشبه وما الكعبة، وعبد عمر، كعبد الله؛ لغير معب .

أخرجتكما الذي صاحبكما إني: فقال إبليس فأتاهما حمـلت، آدم تغشـاها لما: قال اآلية في عنه الله رضي عباس ابن وعن

الحارث، عبد س£مياه ـ يخوفهما ـ وألفعلن وألفعلن فيشقه، بطنك من فيخرج أيل، قرني له ألجعلن أو لتطيعاني الجنة من

�، فخرج يطيعاه، أن فأبيا �، فخرج يطيعاه، أن فأبيا قوله، مثل فقال فأتاهما، حملت، ثم ميتا لهما فذكر فأتاهما، حملت، ثم ميتا

حاتم أبي ابن رواه) 115 ) (آتاهما فيما شركاء له جعال: ( تعالى قوله فذلك الحارث عبد فسمياه الولد، حب فأدركهما .

آتيتنا لئن: ( قوله في مجاهد عن صحيح بسند وله. عبادته في يكن ولم طاعته، في شركاء: قال قتادة عن صحيح بسند وله� �، يكون أال أشفقا: قال) 116 ) (صالحا وغيرهما وسعيد الحسن عن معناه وذكر إنسانا .

This story is untrue, for example:

– Ibn Katheer said in his tafseer (Arabic version 2/287) :

( These effects received from the people of the Book -Jews and Christians-)

الكتاب أهل عن متلقاة اآلثار هذه

– Ibn Hazm said (Al-fisal) :

( the story that is attributed to Adam which said that he when Allah answered his supplications

and gave him that which he had requested and he named his son “Abdul Harith”, this story is a

fabricated Myth.

and this story don’t have any correct origin , but it descended from heaven about Mushriks )

اآلية نزلت وإنما قط، سندها يصح ولم… مكذوبة موضوعة خرافة الحارث عبد ابنه سمى أنه من آدم إلى نسبوه الذي وهذا

ظاهرها على المشركين في

– Al Qurtubi said ( 190آية -األعراف سورة ) :

(this story Do not count it who has a heart قلب له كان من عليها يعو£ل ال )

—————————————-

Shaykh Sulayman(ra)

The brother of Mu-hammed ibn abdul wahab Najdi, was also opposed to his mission. He refuted

him emphatically with verses of the Holy Qur’an and Ahadith, since the refuted one (i.e. Mu-

hammed Ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhab Najdi) would not accept other than these two sources.

Nor would he consider the sayings of earlier or later scholars, whoever they may be,

other than Ibn Taymiyyah and his student Ibn al-Qayyim (al-Jawziyyah).

This is because Mu-hammed Ibn ‘Abdil-Wahhab Najdi considered their sayings to be explicit

verses which do not accept interpretation and he used them in debate with he people, despite

the fact that the sayings of these two figures contradicted what he understood.

Shaykh Sulayman named his refutation against his brother:

Fasl-ul-Khitab fi ar-Radd ‘ala Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdil-Wahhab

(The Empathic Speech on the Refutation of Mu-hammad Ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhab)

However, Allah protected Shaykh Sulayman from the evil and deception of his brother, whose

great influence spread threat far and wide. This is because if one contradicted and refuted him,

and he was unable to kill him openly, he would send someone to assassinate him in their bed or

in the market-place at night, since he judged whoever contradicted him to be a blasphemer and

legalized their killing.

It has been said that an insane person lived in the town and among his habits was to strike

whoever he came across, even with a weapon.

Mu-hammad Ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhab Najdi gave an order that this insane man was to be given a

sword and admitted to the mosque where his brother Shaykh Sulayman sat alone.

When Shaykh Sulayman saw him, he was afraid. The insane man threw the sword from his

hand and said, “O Sulayman, do not be afraid; you are of those who are saved.”

Rain Clouds over the Graves of the Hanbalis, page 275

published by the so-called

“Imam Ahmad Bookshop”

This book was published originally by the Wahabis in Arabic.

There is a chapter in it about Shaykh ‘Abdul Wahhab and his deviant son Mu-hammad ibn

‘Abdul Wahhab.

The Wahabis did not realise that the text was critical of Mu-hammad ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab and have

subsequently altered it in a more recent edition.

——————————————

Shaykh Sulaymaan Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab

Q. Another question is that it is well known that Sulayman Ibn Abd al-Wahaab rejected his

brothers misguidence and wrote against the wahaabi regime. A salafi brother pointed out that he

repented from going against his brother before he died. I needed some clairty on that issue too.

Bakr Abu Zayd and `Abd al-Rahman `Uthaymin, the two Wahhabi editors of Ibn Humayd al-

Najdi’s Hanbali bio-dictionary _al-Suhub al-Wabila `ala Dara’ih al-Hanabila_ (Risala ed.

2:679),consider the report of that repentence spurious and say there is no proof that

Sulayman ever changed his mind.

What is agreed upon is that when his father died, Sulayman ibn `Abd al-Wahhab ibn Sulayman

al-Tamimi al-Najdi (d. 1210?) succeeded him as qadi of Huraymila’ in 1153. Twelve years later,

in 1165, Sulayman led the people of that town and `Uyayna, another nearby town, in a rebellion

against his brother Mu-hammed ibn `Abd al-Wahhab ibn Sulayman’s (d. 1207) Wahhabi forces

which lasted for three years.

The towns were overrun in 1168 and Sulayman fled to Sudayr where he was left alone. Twenty

years later he was brought against his will to Dir`iyya, the capital of his brother and `Abd al-

`Aziz ibn Mu-hammed ibn Sa`ud, where Mu-hammed kept him under a sumptuous but strict

house arrest until they both died.

Sources: Ibn Bishr, _`Unwan al-Majd bi-Tarikh Najd_ (years 1165 and 1168); _Tarikh Ibn La`bun_

(year 1190); Ibn Ghannam, Tarikh (1:142), all as cited in the marginalia of Ibn Humayd, al-Suhub

al-Wabila(2:678-679).

It is in the context of his losing battle against his brother that Sulayman wrote his

famous book against the Wahhhabi sect titled:

Fasl al-Khitab min Kitab Allah wa-Hadith al-Rasul (salla Allahu `alayhi wa-Sallam) wa-

Kalam Uli al-Albab fi Madhhab Ibn `Abd al-Wahhab

(“The Final Word from the Qur’an, the Hadith, and the Sayings of the Scholars Concerning the

School of Ibn `Abd al-Wahhab”),

Also known as:

al-Sawa`iq al-Ilahiyya fi Madhhab al-Wahhabiyya

(“The Divine Thunderbolts Concerning the Wahhabi School”)

This book is among the first and earliest refutations of the Wahhabi sect in print, consisting in

over forty-five concise chapters spanning 120 pages that aim to show the divergence of the

Wahhabi school, not only from the Consensus and usûl of Ahl al-Sunna wal-Jama`a and the fiqh of

the Hanbali Madhhab, but also from their putative Imams, Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn al-Qayyim on

most or all the issues reviewed.

The biographer of the Hanbali School, Ibn Humayd al-Najdi (1236-1295) said in al-Suhub al-

Wabila `ala Dara’ih al-Hanabila_ (2:675-679 §415):

The Fasl/Sawa`iq received the following editions:

1st edition: Bombay: Matba`a Nukhbat al-Akhbar, 1306/1889. 2nd edition: Cairo (date?). 3rd

edition: Istanbul: Ishik reprints at Wakf Ihlas, 1399/1979. 4th edition: (Annotated) Damascus,

1420/1999.

The claim that Sulayman repented apparently originates under the pen of the contemporary

literary historian of Arabia, `Ali Jawad Tahir in his eight-volume history published in Baghdad in

the Fifties, Tarikh al-`Arab qabl al-Islam (‘Pre-islamic History of the Arabs’) 7:227. What gave this

claim circulation is its endorsement by the Syrian historian Nur al-Din al-Zirikli (d. 1410/1990)

in his much more famous biographical dictionary al-A`lam (3:130).

Al-Zirikli says in his snippet on Sulayman ibn `Abd al-Wahhab:

‘Sulayman ibn `Abd al-Wahhab: the brother of the Shaykh and leader of the reformist revival

Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Wahhab. His brother opposed him in the Call (al-da`wah) and wrote

epistles voicing this [opposition], among them _al-Radd `ala man Kaffara al-Muslimin bi-Sababi

al-Nadhri li-Ghayr Allah_ (‘Refutation of Him Who Pronounced Apostasy against the Muslims for

Vows to Other than Allah’) in Baghdad’s Awqaf archives, manuscript 6805. Then he abandoned

his position and proclaimed he was sorry. He authored an epistle to that effect, in print.

[FOOTNOTE:] Al-Kashif by Talas (p. 126-127) [a catalogue of manuscripts] which misattributes to

him the book al-Tawdih `an Tawhid al-Khallaq. See also the periodical al-`Arab (7:227).’

The latter is a sourcing mistake and elsewhere al-Zirikli shows that he means `Ali Jawad’s

book Tarikh al-`Arab rather than the periodical, as the latter obviously requires a different type

of sourcing than volume and page number.

There are many problems with the above claim in addition to its being rejeted by the

Wahhabis themselves as already mentioned:

1. Why does the author of the claim not cite the title of the supposed pro-Wahhabi ‘repentence

epistle’ of Sulayman and who printed it and where?

2. Why is there no record of this supposed pro-Wahhabi position of Sulayman even among the

Wahhabis? If he had really authored such a book one would expect the many supporters of the

Wahhabi movement to have made sure it never got lost to the Muslim world but, on the contrary,

no one ever heard of it other than an Iraqi literary historian and the Syrian biographer who cites

him.

3. Why does the great bio-bibliographer `Umar Rida Kahhala not mention any such pro-Wahhabi

recanting in his entry on Sulayman ibn`Abd al-Wahhab in his much more detailed eight-volume

Mu`jam al-Mu’allifin (‘Dictionary of Authors’), other than Sulayman’s known anti-Wahhabi work?

4. The style of Sulayman’s anti-Wahhabi epistle typifies staunchness and a systematic refutation

style with complete mastery of the Usul and `Aqida literature that a Hanbali debater is expected

to possess. He also states that he waited eight years before deciding to speak out against the

deviations of his little brother’s followers. It is unlikely that he would then back up and change his

mind.

5. In 1995 the Jordanian Wahhabi, Mashhur Hasan Salman published in Ryadh a 2-volume work

he titled Kutubun Hadhdhara al-`Ulama’u Minha_ (‘Books the Ulema [supposedly] Warned

Against’), a ‘Salafi’ equivalent of the Vatican’s Index Librorum Prohibitorum, a guide listing books

that the Roman Catholic Church forbade its members to read (except by special permission)

because they were judged dangerous to faith or morals. He included Sulayman ibn `Abd al-

Wahhab’s _Fasl/Sawa`iq_ in his pompous censorship manual. To us, of course, the fact that

Salman includes Sulayman ibn `Abd al-Wahhab’s classic refutation in his index is in fact a

thumbs-up and a proof that it is a Sunni book. The point, however, is that Salman makes no

mention of a supposed repentence of Sulayman nor of his supposed pro-Wahhabi book. If there

had truly been such a repentence and book he would have not missed it nor would he have

omitted mentioning it.

The above are internal and external circumstancial evidence that Sulayman ibn `Abd al-Wahhab

never changed his anti-Wahhabi position nor authored a pro-Wahhabi epistle.

A selected chronology of other early condemnations of Wahhabism in print:

1. Shaykh Muhammad ibn Sulayman al-Shafi`i al-Kurdi al-Madani, said to be one of

Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Wahhab’s former teachers, wrote a fatwa condemning the Wahhabi

movement in general terms. It is reproduced at the end of Sayyid `Alawi ibn Ahmad al-

Haddad’s Misbah al-Anam (1908 edition; see below) and is also found at the beginning of

the Waqf Ihlas offset reprint of Sulayman IAW’s Sawa`iq.

2. Al-San`ani (d. 1182) the famous author of Subul al-Salam at first wrote Muhammad IAW a

panegyric which he sent him. Then he changed his mind and wrote an epistle denouncing him

titled _Irshad Dhawi al-Albab ila Haqiqat Aqwal Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Wahhab.

See on this Imam al-Kawthari’s Maqalat(article ‘IAW and Muhammad `Abduh’), al-Shawkani’s

al-Badr al-Tali`, s.v. ‘Muhammad ibn Isma`il al-Yamani,’ and Siddiq Hasan Khan al-Qinnawji’s

Abjad al-`Ulum, introduction, and his Taj al-Mukallal.

3. Al-Habib `Alawî ibn Ahmad al-Haddad, _Misbah al-Anam fi Raddi Shubah al-Najdi al-Bid`i

al-Lati Adalla biha al-`Awamm_ (‘The Luminary of Mankind Concerning the Refutation of the

Fallacies of the Innovator from Najd by which He Has Misguided the Common Public’ written

1216/1801 but long out of print!) of which I translated and published the introduction [see outline

in a separate post] together with the translation of al-Sayyid Yûsuf al-Rifa`i’s _Advice to Our

Brothers the Scholars of Najd_ (1420/1999);

4. Al-Sawi (d. 1241) in his Hashiya `ala al-Jalalayn for Surat 35:6 mentions the Wahhabis and

refers to them as Khawârij. NOTE that this phrase and the word ‘Wahhabiyya’ was excised from

all present-day editions of this Tafsir!

5. Ibn `Abidin (d. 1243) said the same in his famous Hashiya, Book of Iman, Bab al-Bughât.

6. The Mufti of Makka, Sayyid Ahmad Zayni Dahlan (d. 1304/1886) with several works:

al-Durar al-Saniyya fî al-Radd alâ al-Wahhabiyya (‘The Pure Pearls in Refuting the Wahhabis’)

(Cairo, 1319 and 1347), Fitnat al-Wahhabiyya (‘The Wahhabi Tribulation’), and Khulâsat al-Kalâm

fî Bayân Umarâ’ al-Balad al-Harâm(‘The Summation Concerning the Leaders of the Holy Land,’

whose evidence is quoted in full by al-Nabhânî in Shawâhid al-Haqq p. 151-177), the last two a

history of the Wahhabi movement in Najd and the Hijâz.

7. Imam Ahmad Rida Khan (1272-1340) states in his Fatawa al-Haramayn (Waqf Ikhlas

offset ed. p. 11-12):

‘As for the Wahhabis they are a misguided sect (firqa dalla) and volumes were compiled both in

Arabic and other languages – declaring them heretics. Among them is the book of our teacher in

Hadith, our Master `Allama Ahmad ibn Zaini Dahlan al-Makki ‘ Allah sanctify his secret titled al-

Durar al-Saniyya fi al-Radd `ala al-Wahhabiyya. The best word ever said about them is that of the

Mufti of al-Madinat al-Munawwara, Mawlana Abu al-Su`ud – Allah have mercy on all of them: {The

devil has engrossed them and so has caused them to forget remembrance of Allah. They are the

devil’s party. Lo! is it not the devil’s party who will be the losers’} (58:18-19).’

Al-Sawi al-Maliki adduced the same verse against them in his Hashiya on Tafsir al-Jalalayn.

—

What is known about him too, is that he invoked the ire of two of his prominent Shaikhs in

Madina:

Shaikh Muhammad ibn Sulaiman al-Kurdi and Shaikh Muhammad Hayat al-Sindi.

Moreover, his father, Abdul Wahhab and his brother, Sulaiman ibn Abdul Wahhab vigorously

expressed their opposition to his views. In fact his brother composed a work called “al-Sawaiq al-

Ilahiyya fi al-Radd ‘ala al-Wahhabiyya” (Divine Flashes in the Refutation of the Wahhabis).

Shaikh Muhammad ibn Sulaiman al-Kurdi had the following to say:

“O Ibn Abdul Wahhab, I advise you, for the sake of Allahu Ta’ala, to hold your tongue against the

Muslims…You have no right to label the majority of Muslims as blasphemers while you yourself

have deviated from the majority of Muslims. In fact it is more reasonable to regard the one who

deviates from the majority as a blasphemer than to regard the Muslims as a nation as

blasphemers…”

—

The Wahhabites Ahle Hadith the Deobandis and Tabligh Jama’at – which has the Kitab al-

Tawhid of Mu-hammed Abdul Wahhab Najdi as its founding inspiration – are

also anathema to one another.