Daniel Haqiqatjou

Distinguishing Ahlus-Sunnah from Other Approaches

These points alone highlight a key distinction between how Ahlus-Sunnah deals with individual scholars affected by ‘Ilm al-Kalaam compared to how the Haddaadiyyah and Khawaarij sects approach such matters. This also illustrates the significant differences between Ahlus-Sunnah and the Madkhaliyyah sect. Scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah carefully differentiate between individuals influenced by innovations who keep such matters to themselves and those who actively propagate them. Furthermore, they distinguish between those affected by innovations but whose foundations remain firmly grounded in Ahlus-Sunnah and those whose foundations have deviated entirely.

In some cases, it may not even be wise to discuss the positive traits of an innovator when warning against them. However, the Haddaadiyyah sect has misled laypeople into believing that silence from great scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah on certain zallaat (errors) of early scholars was due to ignorance of these mistakes—whether minor or major. This is a gross misrepresentation, as these scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah acted with wisdom and justice, knowing when to address such issues and when to remain silent.

The crux of the issue lies in the inability of both the Madkhaliyyah and Haddaadiyyah sects to act with justice and proper knowledge.

In the context of the false principle of Rabee’ al-Madkhali, where he considers it impermissible to balance the good and bad deeds of an innovator unrestrictedly, he fails to differentiate between the context of evaluation and biography and the context of warning and other specific contexts:

The reality of al-Madkhali's statement is nothing but a blend of Ahlus-Sunnah's stance on the sinner and the views of the Khawaarij and Mu'tazilah on the innovator. It is a newly introduced stance, a mixture between the methodology of Ahlus-Sunnah and the punitive approach of the Wa'eediyyah. This is clarified by ibn Taymiyyah's statement in "Majmoo' al-Fatawa," vol. 28, p. 209: "It should be known that a believer must be shown loyalty, even if he oppresses you and wrongs you, and a disbeliever must be shown enmity, even if he gives you and does good to you. For Allah, the Exalted, sent the Messengers and revealed the Books so that the entire religion would be for Allah, so that love would be for His allies and enmity for His enemies, honor for His allies, and humiliation for His enemies, reward for His allies, and punishment for His enemies. If a man combines good and evil, obedience and disobedience, Sunnah and innovation, he deserves loyalty and reward to the extent of his goodness, and enmity and punishment to the extent of his evil. Thus, one person can have both causes for honor and humiliation, like a poor thief whose hand is cut off for theft, and he is given from the treasury what suffices him for his needs. This is the principle agreed upon by Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah, as opposed to the Khawaarij, Mu'tazilah, and those who agree with them."

Furthermore:

Al-Madkhali, with his extremism in declaring people as innovators and his refusal to mention the good deeds of those he criticizes, whether rightly or wrongly, coupled with his absolute hatred for them, leads him to oppose them in a manner very similar to how one would oppose disbelievers. This is something that imam 'Abbaad ibn 'Abbaad al-Khawaas (may Allah have mercy on him) warned against when he said: "Do not carry hatred towards the innovator, for the corruption of their innovation does not extend beyond them. However, your excessive hatred can lead to greater corruption in yourself." This was narrated by ad-Daarimi in his Sunan in the introduction.

Perhaps this explains their coldness, which is more frigid than the poles, towards the issues and calamities faced by Muslims.

(Source: Summary of al-Madkhali's Principles)

The recurring pattern among those who criticize Ahlus-Sunnah scholars is that their approaches mirror the very sects they claim to oppose. It seems they fail to understand what truly sets apart the foundations of Ahlus-Sunnah and its scholars from the foundations of the misguided sects and their leading innovators. This lack of understanding leads to conflations and inaccurate assessments. For instance, Ahlul-Kalaam often cast unfounded allegations against Ahlus-Sunnah scholars, attempting to draw false correlations between them and contemporary people. Despite the absence of any real connection, they claim certain scholars are misguided based on anecdotal evidence and, at best, false projections. Ironically, the very people they criticize may themselves belong to the Madkhaliyyah sect, or, in some cases, have merely been influenced by Madkhaliyyah rhetoric without actually adhering to that sect.

Similarly, the Haddaadiyyah sect often accuse individual scholars of belonging to Ahlul-Kalaam, even when that is not the case. These scholars may have been influenced by Ahlul-Kalaam in certain areas, but Ahlus-Sunnah distinguishes between being influenced and actually adopting the foundations of Ahlul-Kalaam. When Ahlus-Sunnah scholars defend the honor of such individuals, acknowledging their contributions while pointing out their grave errors, the Haddaadiyyah unjustly label them as innovators.

Ahlus-Sunnah recognizes the importance of addressing errors, but also emphasizes respecting those influenced by such deviations without conflating respect with acceptance. Scholars discuss these matters with students of knowledge in a manner that balances critique with respect. This prevents laypeople from misunderstanding such discussions as a justification to dishonor individuals who, despite their mistakes, still deserve a level of respect. Ahlus-Sunnah’s balanced approach ensures that criticism is placed in its proper time and context.

We have witnessed the Haddaadiyyah sect go to extremes by either declaring great imams as innovators or, worse, labeling them as disbelievers—figures such as Abu Haneefah, an-Nawawi, ibn Hajar, and others. Imam ibnul-Qayyim expressed this matter eloquently when he said: "Whoever has knowledge of the Shari'ah and the realities of life knows with certainty that a distinguished individual who has a praiseworthy position in Islam and has left behind beneficial contributions—who is highly regarded among Islam and its people—may commit an error or slip for which they are excused and even rewarded due to their ijtihaad. However, it is impermissible to follow them in such an error, nor is it permissible to diminish their status and position in the hearts of Muslims." (I’laam al-Muwaqq’ieen)

Read further:

موقف السلفيين من العلماء المخالفين

Similarly, while Ahlus-Sunnah scholars regard Ahlul-Kalaam as separate sects distinct from Ahlus-Sunnah, they also differentiate between the head figures of misguidance and the followers of other sects. Just as sins vary in severity, so too do innovations and sects. For instance, Ahlul-Kalaam are not equated with the Rawaafidh (i.e., the Shee’ah). Even within the Shee’ah sect, there are varying levels and sub-sects. So how much more so does this principle apply to Ahlul-Kalaam?

The Neglect of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah’s Foundations

Continuing on the current issues, it is unfortunate that in this day and age, while the term "Sunni" is frequently mentioned as a means to distinguish oneself from the Shee’ah sect, the term Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah and its foundations are rarely emphasized. This neglect is especially evident among individuals who are often looked up to for their da’wah contributions online. Furthermore, the understanding of these foundations has been further muddied by the misuse and overgeneralization of terms like "Salafi."

That being said, there is a stark contrast in how Daniel uses name-calling against the Madaakhilah—rightly so—but it is not at all comparable to how students of knowledge use that term. Similarly, the same can be said about how mashaayikh use terms like “Salafi” or “Athari” in contrast to a layperson affiliating themselves with these labels. There is also a significant difference in how the Mutakallimeen describe Ahlus-Sunnah as “Salafis” or “Atharis.” The intent and context behind these descriptions differ vastly and lack the depth of understanding inherent to those more grounded in knowledge.

When mashaayikh or students of knowledge use such terms, it is often as a form of praise, recognizing someone’s genuine commitment to adhering to the Aathaar—particularly when describing the earliest ‘ulama’ or their like. However, we never see them using these descriptors to praise themselves or in a way that implies a connotation separate from Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah. The intent and context behind these usages vary greatly depending on who is making the statement and the purpose behind it.

Scholars have elaborated on this issue, saying:

[…]

We have previously discussed this matter in a prior response (No. 174627) and clarified that if there is a need to affiliate oneself with a broader label within Islam, such as "Ahlus-Sunnah," this is acceptable. However, in your case, verbal affiliation with "Salafiyyah" is unnecessary and may even harm the cause of da’wah and the delivery of the message. In such instances, it is better to refrain from using the term and instead suffice with the general name that unites the believers.

Second:

Verbal affiliation with "Salafiyyah" is not one of the obligations of the Deen, nor is it a pillar of faith. A person who refrains from such affiliation incurs no sin, nor do they forgo any virtue or noble Sunnah. Therefore, there is no blame or restriction upon them. Scholars have even stated that it is preferable to refrain from certain recommended actions if they are likely to alienate those being called to Islam. For example, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) refrained from rebuilding the Kaʿbah upon the original foundations laid by Ibrahim (peace be upon him) out of fear of causing a fitnah for the newly converted Muslims. Hence, it is even more appropriate for a student of knowledge to avoid affiliating with divisive labels in contexts or locations where such labels may cause misunderstanding or division.

Third:

Furthermore, verbal affiliation with "Salafiyyah" has been significantly distorted and misrepresented, tainted by erroneous practices and false meanings. The term has become associated with extreme groups—some excessively inclined toward takfeer and others falling into opposite extremes of undue leniency. These distortions make it almost impossible to change the prevailing negative stereotype associated with "Salafiyyah" in the present era. Such change would require a cessation of the massive media campaigns aimed at tarnishing the term, as well as a halt to the ignorant actions of some self-proclaimed adherents of "Salafiyyah." It would also require a clear distinction between true Salafiyyah, which we uphold, and the various ideologies lumped under the broader contemporary label of "Salafiyyah."

For someone in your circumstances, it is better to avoid anything that divides the unity, scatters the congregation, causes alienation, or provokes suspicion. Instead, focus on the objectives and deeper meanings, avoiding unnecessary names, terms, or appearances that are not required by sharʿ.

Shaykh ibn ʿUthaymeen (may Allah have mercy on him) said:

“Salafiyyah means following the methodology of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and his Companions, as they were the ones who preceded us (salaf) and came before us. To follow them is true Salafiyyah. However, adopting Salafiyyah as a distinct label that one isolates themselves with, and condemning those who differ—even if they are correct—or turning Salafiyyah into a partisan methodology similar to other Islamic factions, is undoubtedly contrary to Salafiyyah.

Some who claim to follow Salafiyyah in our time have gone to extremes, condemning anyone who disagrees with them, even when the truth is not on their side. Others have turned it into a partisan methodology, akin to other factions within Islam. This is not acceptable and cannot be endorsed.

Salafiyyah, when understood as a specific party with distinct characteristics, whose members denounce all others as misguided, has nothing to do with true Salafiyyah. True Salafiyyah is to follow the methodology of the salaf in belief, speech, actions, unity, disagreement, harmony, mercy, and compassion, as the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said:

‘The believers, in their mutual love, mercy, and compassion, are like a single body: if one part suffers, the rest of the body responds with sleeplessness and fever.’

This is the true Salafiyyah.”

(End of excerpt from Liqaa’ al-Baab al-Maftooh, 57/15, as per the automated numbering of Shamela).

(Source: الأولى ترك التسمي بـ " السلفية " إذا أدى الاسم إلى التشويه والنفور )

For Daniel to claim that he adheres to an “Athari” creed—similar to others who emphasize this term over the description of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah—implicitly aligns with Ahlul-Kalaam’s categorization of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah into three groups: Atharis, Ashaa’irah, and Maaturidiyyah. Perhaps he even directly supports this notion, especially since he seemingly considers Ahlul-Kalaam to be part of Ahlus-Sunnah.

He or others might then try to justify this by quoting imam as-Saffaareeni in the categorization of Ahlus-Sunnah, however Ahlus-Sunnah ‘ulama’ strongly criticized such a categorization, especially that he is alone in this regard, where none before him ever made such an assertion. Similar to what other ‘ulama’ of Ahlus-Sunnah have stated, shaykh ‘Abdul-Kareem al-Khudayr said about imam as-Saffaareeni:

There is no doubt that the author was influenced by what he read in the books of Kalaam and the statements of the Mutakallimeen. This is evident when he explained the introduction and the differences between the doctrine of the Salaf and the successors (khalaf), stating that the doctrine of the salaf includes three groups—meaning that, according to him, Ahlus-Sunnah consist of three factions. He affirmed this view, and those who summarized his statements endorsed it. However, such claims are refutable.

How can someone deny what Allah has affirmed for Himself and still be considered among Ahlus-Sunnah? How can someone deny what the Sunnah has affirmed, and yet we call them "from Ahlus-Sunnah"? It is both astonishing and ironic that everyone claims affiliation with the Sunnah, because it is a description of honor and distinction. Everyone claims it—except for the Raafidhah. They are the only ones who do not claim the Sunnah, and they would never say it. In fact, it would be considered an insult and a severe criticism for someone among them to be described as "Sunni."

(Source: شرح العقيدة السفارينية)

The Influence of Raafidhah, Sufis and Mutakallimeen

Notice the influence of Greek philosophy and Orientalist thought in Daniel’s approach, as evidenced in one of his articles where he states:

“The modern Salafi movement is heterogeneous. It is shaped arguably by mainly three key figures: Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Imam Ibn Taymiyya, and Muhammad Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab (1703–1792).”

The term “heterogeneous” originates from the Greek word heterogenēs, meaning “of different kinds.” It was adopted into English in the early 17th century, with its usage reflecting a variety of contexts, including philosophical discourse. (Oxford English Dictionary; Merriam-Webster Dictionary) At face value, and considering his earlier reliance on questionable sources in his critique of the Madaakhilah, I am inclined to believe that his characterization of the so-called “modern Salafi movement” as “heterogeneous” is once again influenced by Orientalist perspectives. It comes as no surprise that students of philosophy and those influenced by Orientalist scholarship struggle to define who the "Salafis" truly are. One such individual remarked, "... the fact that it is a heterogeneous movement inclusive of multiple orientations makes it more difficult to define Salafism and determine who the Salafis are." (Source)

This, in turn, reflects the significant impact of Ahlul-Kalaam on his thinking, particularly as he exhibits a pronounced opposition to shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhab. However, it is curious to note that he does not cite any scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah to substantiate his claims, leaving his assertions unsupported and speculative.

This is very reminiscent of the misguidance of the proponents of ‘Ilm al-Kalaam and what it leads to; it is nothing but “it is said” and “they said.”

Read further:

'Ilm al-Kalaam and the Salaf's Stance

Some scholars have said: "People did not fall into ignorance and disagreement except for their abandonment of the Arabic language and their inclination toward Aristotle (Greek philosophy)... The Qur'an was not revealed, nor did the Sunnah come, except in the terminology of the Arabs, according to their methods of discussion, communication, argumentation, and reasoning—not according to the terminology of the Greeks. Every people has its own language and terminology."

At first glance, it appears that Daniel Haqiqatjou exhibits traits commonly associated with modernists, so-called "reformists," nominal Muslim philosophers, students of Orientalists, closeted Twelver-Shi’ites, or even, at times, indirect supporters of Western modern ideological movements. Despite his claims of being "Sunni" or "Athari," in reality, his positions seem more aligned with the Ahlul-Kalaam. Or is it simply a case of ignorance and confusion on his part?

I would like to believe it is the latter, but he appears to be greatly influenced by the Ahlul-Kalaam and similarly affected by the poison of philosophy. This is particularly evident given that he pursued a secondary field in philosophy at Harvard University and earned a Masters degree in Philosophy at Tufts University. This is despite the fact that philosophy has been deemed forbidden, and no ‘aalim of Ahlus-Sunnah has ever permitted it, in such an unrestricted manner, throughout history—from its inception into the Islamic world until today. Historically, misguided sects often relied on philosophy as their primary instrument, which Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah firmly opposed. The principal misguidance stemmed from using philosophy to understand matters of belief, especially regarding Allah. It may well be an indication that he is, in fact, from the Ahlul-Kalaam, but time will tell. May Allah guide him.

Read further:

Navigating the Perils of Philosophy

It is not surprising that Abu Haamid al-Ghazzaali himself was described by his student in these terms: “Our shaykh, Abu Haamid, swallowed the philosophy and wanted to vomit it out, but he was unable to.” This statement is quoted by imam adh-Dhahabi in his Siyar A’laam an-Nubalaa’.

It is ironic that Daniel espouses al-Ghazzaali, despite the fact that al-Ghazzaali wrote a book titled The Incoherence of the Philosophers, in which he declared takfeer on figures such as ibn Sina—and rightfully so. Interestingly, Orientalists, who are kuffaar, often consider ibn Sina to be a “Muslim philosopher.” Given Daniel’s educational background, which unfortunately seems to have greatly influenced his main methodological tools, he often references translations of Arabic works made by these same Orientalists—kuffaar who regard individuals like ibn Sina as “Muslims.” Yet Daniel does not treat philosophy as one of the root causes of deviance and zandaqah with the same seriousness that he opposes modern ideological movements.

This is not surprising, as Daniel himself appears to have “swallowed” ideological philosophy during his university studies and seems unable to “vomit it out.” Instead, he adopts a similar ideological methodology in his approach to kuffaar, zanaadiqah, innovators, and even Muslims. I specifically mentioned that al-Ghazzaali declared takfeer on ibn Sina because Daniel, while rightly critiquing what he calls “liberal Muslims,” might find that such individuals would have been regarded by al-Ghazzaali as zanaadiqah, not merely “liberal Muslims.” This is also the view of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah.

The use of additional adjectives, such as “liberal” before “Muslim,” reflects a mindset that aligns with how kuffaar, zanaadiqah, and innovators think. Rather than adopting such terms, one must consider that this perspective aligns more with the Murji’ah, who are known to undermine takfeer, as opposed to groups like the Khawaarij and Raafidhah, who exaggerate it. All of these extremes contrast with the balanced position of the ‘ulama’ whose foundations align with Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah.

Liberalism has its root in major disbelief, similar to the rest of ideological philosophies. It is indeed strange that there is no such emphasis on this fact. That’s why we see whom Daniel considers to be “liberal Muslims” and “progressive Muslims” merely as deviants but still within the fold of Islam. To remind you, we are dealing with those who affiliate themselves with Islam while manifesting heretical beliefs, in that they justify haram as halal, vice versa, even worse, those who deem liwaat as permissible, among other heresies.

I understand, to some extent, the ideological contrast between what Western movements promote through democracy and the evident ideological disbelief of communism. This contrast raises the question of why terms like “liberal Muslims” or “progressive Muslims” are considered less problematic than “communist Muslims.” If the latter is blatantly contradictory, it is puzzling—especially to someone familiar with philosophy—that the former terms are given credence, despite their association with ideologies rooted in disbelief. What may seem like a minor error in terminology has led to significant errors in beliefs and actions, which is why criticism of Irjaa' became so severe. (Source)

This is why it’s quite strange that he doesn’t use proper scholarly terms to describe the misguided and heretics. For example, it is odd that he resorts to childish categorizations, which, in retrospect, seem to reflect the very behavior of the people he criticizes. Specifically, he refers to the misguided as the “da’wah mafia” or “compassionate imams.” While I may, in some sense, understand his apparent intent in opposing them, he does not engage with them based on the foundational knowledge of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah. Instead, he resorts to mocking and bullying them, ironically reflecting the same attitude he accuses them of, such as calling them a “da’wah mafia.” In short, he exhibits the very characteristics he claims to oppose by stooping to bullying tactics.

Unfortunately, he is not only ignorant of the foundations of Ahlus-Sunnah, which distinguish it from misguided sects, but he is also profoundly ignorant of the sciences of Shari'ah. This ignorance is evident when he asserts that titles such as “imam” or “scholar” can be given to individuals who have not achieved such heights of knowledge. While the points I have raised are misleading, assigning grandiose titles to those who have not earned them is equally problematic.

This issue is comparable to when the Khawaarij in ash-Shaam claimed to have established an “Islamic State.” The uncritical repetition of such terms—by both Muslims and kuffaar—is highly misleading, as it falsely implies legitimacy to their claims. For this reason, the mashaayikh of Ahlus-Sunnah have referred to them as “Tandheem ad-Dawlah,” with the specific emphasis on the term “tandheem,” meaning “organization,” to signify the illegitimacy of their claim to being an “Islamic State.” This Khawaarij sect is otherwise recognized today as “ISIS” or “Daa’ish.”

For context, I am not referring here to the current events in Syria but rather to the earlier emergence of Khawaarij figures such as Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and his spokesperson, Abu Muhammad al-Adnani.

Read further:

Another issue with his approach is his use of unfounded and odd descriptions that appear to declare tabdeeʿ (declaring someone an innovator) without explicitly doing so. This is evident when he refers to the Madaakhilah as “Madkhalis,” which is not equivalent to someone from Ahlus-Sunnah referring to a person as being from Madkhaliyyah. The term “Madkhali” has clear implications, denoting those who adhere to the foundations of Rabee’ al-Madkhali, whose foundations fundamentally differ from those of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah. In other words, this is just another way of calling someone an innovator, as is the case with Rabee' al-Madkhali and those who follow his false foundations.

What is particularly noteworthy is that Daniel has never been seen refuting the Madaakhilah for their false foundations, which clearly set them apart from Ahlus-Sunnah. His failure to address these deviations further highlights the shortcomings in his approach, which are rather indicative of his lack of foundational knowledge necessary to engage with such issues properly.

Read further:

This philosophical approach to methodology extends to his Irjaa’ deviance, where he considers those who commit major shirk within sects like the Raafidhah as still being within the fold of Islam. On one side, he exhibits lenience towards the Raafidhah, which at times appears as though he is defending their beliefs. Similarly, he refers to the zanaadiqah among the extreme Sufis as “Sunnis.” It is important to note that Sufis often share the beliefs of Ahlul-Kalaam, such as the Ashaa’irah and Maaturidiyyah. This is why he makes such an atrocious lie against the foundations of Ahlus-Sunnah when he claims terms like "Sunni-Sufis" in his argument against those who state that the Raafidhah are committing major shirk when attributing Ruboobiyyah to the “imams”. He alleges that, by the same token, Ahlus-Sunnah should also declare takfeer on numerous "Sunni" groups!?

Ibn Taymiyyah mentioned that the Raafidhah are worse than the Khawaarij. (Source) Ibn Taymiyyah also mentioned that the Murji'ah are worse than the Khawaarij, similar to the views of many from the Salaf, such as Qataadah and others, as stated in Kitaab as-Sunnah by al-Khallaal:

"The effects of the Murji'ah fitnah are more frightening for this Ummah than the fitnah of the Azaariqah (i.e., the Khawaarij)."

Al-Khateeb al-Baghdaadi said: "There was never a group among the Khawaarij more numerous in number or more formidable in strength than them [i.e., Azaariqah]." For this reason, people were in a state of fear and turmoil because of them, as they would continuously launch raids everywhere, leaving no room for calm or peace. (Source) Despite this, it is noteworthy that Ibraaheem an-Nakha’i remarked, "The Khawaarij are more excusable to me than the Murji'ah." (As-Sunnah by 'Abdullah ibn imam Ahmad, 1/313) The Murji'ah are lenient in validating the doctrines of misguided groups and consider a sinner to be complete in faith, which appeals to weak souls. (Source) According to the Murji'ah's doctrine, it would not harm a person to neglect the obligatory duties as long as their faith is preserved and their religion is intact, and they are still considered to be at the level of Jibreel and Mikaa'eel. (Source)

Moreover, this also reflects a lack of understanding of the foundations of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah, as he cites figures like al-Qaraafi, who belonged to the Ashʿari sect. So, when Daniel accuses shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhab of rejecting the concept of excuse of ignorance in cases of shirk in worship, despite the context clearly indicating otherwise, why has he not raised any objections against al-Qaraafi? As mentioned in the previous article, al-Qaraafi, in his commentary on Tanqeeh al-Fusool, stated: "Therefore, Allah did not excuse him for ignorance in the foundations of the Deen by consensus." This statement has even been cited by some contemporary Ahlus-Sunnah scholars as a consensus, seemingly unaware of its Kalaamiyyah roots. Similarly, al-Qaraafi wrote in his book al-Furooq: "The accountability for Tawheed and the absence of an excuse for ignorance regarding it falls under the category of unbearable accountability."!!

Daniel further alleged:

“As I have said before, the Salafi movement overall has many great qualities and should be appreciated for preserving Islamic values in the face of modernism and other deviant, innovative practices that contradict Islam. However, the Salafi movement has been hijacked for political purposes and this has created deviant groups, like the Madkhalis. The more Salafis stick to positions of Imam Ahmad and Ibn Taymiyya, the more orthodox they are. However, the more they veer towards the modern innovations of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, the more deviant they become.”

It's not even worth paying attention to his perceptions of the "Salafi movement" or whether he considers them part of Ahlus-Sunnah. His argument that the "Salafi movement" has been "hijacked for political purposes" is nothing more than word salad. No one from the past, recent, or contemporary scholars has ever preceded him in such shallow and superficial arguments.

His arguments also lean heavily on Orientalist perspectives rather than the works of recognized scholars from Ahlus-Sunnah. This reliance is perplexing—how does referencing kuffaar lend credence to his arguments? Are we now judging Muslims based on what kuffaar say? Such an approach is strange, to say the least. Pseudo-Salafis and Madaakhilah, in reality, do not even focus on "politics," or more accurately, as-Siyaasah ash-Shar'iyyah. So, it’s rather curious how he can refer to them as if they have any genuine "political purposes."

Additionally, it is concerning that Daniel appears to rely on Greek terminologies, such as “orthodox,” to describe Muslims, compounded by his reliance on Orientalist studies when critiquing others like the Madaakhilah. He does not clarify whether the scholars he references align with the foundations of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah, yet he accuses shaykh ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhab of deviance and innovation.

He continues:

“That being the case, most Salafis actually focus on Ibn Hanbal and Ibn Taymiyya, but know little about the teachings of Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab. Indeed, constant efforts are made to conceal these teachings because they are so deviant and so shocking.”

Who are these “most Salafis” he refers to, and what exactly does their alleged “focus” on these great scholars entail? What does Daniel understand about this supposed discrepancy of their familiarity with the teachings of shaykh ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhab? Once again, we are presented with assertions but no evidence.

Where are the supposed “constant efforts” to conceal these teachings, and how is it that Daniel claims to have uncovered them so effortlessly? In reality, the works of shaykh ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhab and his students are widely available and easily accessible. I have never encountered anyone suggesting that these works have been deliberately hidden, nor have I heard of any scholar from Ahlus-Sunnah asserting that they are filled with “deviance” or “shocking materials.”

Who, if anyone, preceded Daniel in making such claims? His assertions appear entirely unfounded and lack scholarly backing.

He continuous:

“In reality, contemporary social media influencers like Jake Brancatella, Shamsi Bensafi, Abu Mussab Wajdi Akkari, Saajid Lipham, and Rabbi Faris Hammadi are either heavily influenced by Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab or allied with others who are heavily influenced by Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab.”

Daniel’s statement reflects a lack of understanding of the foundations of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah, and even less so of the Madaakhilah. He conflates or misrepresents those he accuses of being misguided. Even if some of his conclusions carry partial truths, it is evident that the Madaakhilah do not share the same foundational principles as shaykh ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhab. Once again, where is the evidence or contrasting examples to demonstrate this supposed "heavy influence"?

In reality, Saajid Lipham cannot be entirely labeled a Madkhali but does appear to have been influenced by them, as evidenced by his sharing of platforms—such as his online institute—with individuals from the Madkhaliyyah sect. However, being influenced does not equate to full adherence to their foundational principles. As for Jake Brancatella, I have yet to see any clear evidence that he operates on the principles of Madkhaliyyah, though he has collaborated in some videos with individuals, such as Knowledge North, who may exhibit Madaakhilah influence. The rest of the individuals Daniel names appear to align more closely with the foundations of Rabee’ al-Madkhali than with those of shaykh ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhab.

Additionally, it is ironic that Daniel refers to these individuals as “social media influencers” while he himself functions as one, attempting to influence others with rhetoric heavily shaped by Orientalist sources.

He continues:

“When these individuals talk about teaching Tawhid and Aqida, what they really mean is teaching the deviant takfiri views of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, which are contained in texts like Kitab al-Tawhid and Kashf al-Shubuhat.”

While I have my reservations about these individuals, he is not accurately describing them. This is, in fact, one of the strangest declarations of tabdee’ against them, and once again, we are left with baseless aspersions against shaykh ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhab. What exactly is so contradictory to Islam in the contents of these texts? Why is he unable to reference scholars who support his arguments?

To claim “takfiri views” is a statement devoid of any real meaning, yet it is presented as if there is no takfeer in Islam. Let me address this by referencing an article that responds to such strange arguments:

Important Guidelines to Consider Regarding the Term "Such-and-Such is Takfeeri"

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Praise be to Allah alone, and peace and blessings be upon the one after whom there is no prophet, and upon his family, companions, and those who follow them in righteousness. May peace and abundant blessings be upon them. To proceed:

Given the widespread use of the term "such-and-such is takfeeri" among many people, and their discussions on it, sometimes with truth and other times with falsehood, I have decided to present to the esteemed reader some important guidelines that should be taken into account regarding this term. These guidelines aim to distinguish the truth from falsehood and clarify this ambiguous term, which many people have misused today. They are as follows:

First: The term "such-and-such is takfeeri" is not mentioned in the Qur'an, nor in the Sunnah of the Prophet, nor was it ever used by any of the early scholars of the Salaf, to the best of my knowledge. And Allah knows best.

Second: Every Muslim is required to declare takfeer upon those whom Allah and His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) have declared to be disbelievers, otherwise, their own faith would not be complete. Allah says:

فَمَنْ يَكْفُرْ بِالطَّاغُوتِ وَيُؤْمِنْ بِاللَّهِ فَقَدِ اسْتَمْسَكَ بِالْعُرْوَةِ الْوُثْقَى

"Whoever disbelieves in Tâghût and believes in Allâh, then he has grasped the most trustworthy handhold"

And the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "Whoever says 'There is no [worthy of worship] god but Allah' and denies what is worshipped besides Allah, his wealth and blood are sacred." And there are many other evidences to this effect.

Thus, anyone who declares takfeer on those whom Allah and His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) have declared to be disbelievers should not be labeled a "takfeeri" in a derogatory manner. Rather, such a person should be praised, as they are affirming their faith in Allah and His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him).

Third: The term used in the Shar’i sources and endorsed by the scholars is the term "Khawaarij". The Khawaarij are a deviant sect that opposed the methodology of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). They declare Muslims to be disbelievers for committing major sins, and they advocate rebellion against the rulers. They declare the sinful Muslims as disbelievers and permit the spilling of their blood and the taking of their wealth.

These Khawaarij are greatly ignorant when it comes to understanding the evidences of the Shari'ah. Although they may appear to show zeal in worship and similar practices, this is of no benefit to them, as the real measure is adherence to the understanding of the Salaf regarding the Shar’i proofs. They do not adhere to this and are far removed from the prophetic methodology.

Imam al-Aajuri (may Allah have mercy on him) said in his book "ash-Shari'ah" (1/190-191): "The scholars, both in the past and present, have unanimously agreed that the Khawaarij are a people of evil, disobedient to Allah and His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), even if they pray, fast, and exert themselves in worship. This will not benefit them. They advocate for the command of good and the prohibition of evil, but this does not benefit them because they interpret the Qur'an according to their own desires. They deceive the Muslims. Allah has warned us against them, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) has warned us, and the rightly guided Khulafaa’ after him have warned us. The Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) and those who follow them in goodness have also warned us. The Khawaarij are the vile, impure, filthy traitors, and whoever follows their methodology among the Khawaarij, whether in the past or present, perpetuates this deviant way. They rebel against the leaders and rulers and deem it permissible to kill Muslims."

Fourth: The term "such-and-such is takfeeri" is now being used by some scholars who follow the methodology of the pious predecessors to refer to the Khawaarij, who believe in rebelling against the rulers. While there is no issue with terminology in this context, it is more correct and preferable to adhere to calling these individuals "Khawaarij" because that is the established term used in the Shar’i texts and by the imams of the Salaf to describe the characteristics of such people. It is also not problematic if some refer to them as "takfeeris from the Khawaarij" as this is merely to clarify the meaning intended when using this term to describe them.

Fifth: The term "such-and-such is takfeeri" has now been used by the Murji'ah to describe many of the Ahlus-Sunnah who adhere to the creed and methodology of the Salaf. This is because they affirm the disbelief of the worshipers of graves and do not excuse them due to ignorance. They also declare the disbelief of those who completely abandon the actions of the limbs. There is no doubt that the stance of the Salaf is the truth, and anything contrary to it is false by unanimous agreement. The Murji'ah have used this term "takfeeri" to label many of those who adhere to the creed of the Salaf in order to mislead people away from the truth and its people, while promoting their own falsehood, which contradicts the proofs of the Shari'ah and consensus. Their actions are blameworthy, and the use of this term by the Murji'ah is clearly erroneous and corrupt. The blame falls upon them, and the imams of the Salaf are completely innocent of the false accusations made by the Murji'ah against them.

Sixth: There is no issue with terminology if the speaker intends a correct meaning and applies it to the Khawaarij. For example, if someone describes a person from the Khawaarij as "such-and-such is a Khawaarij" or "such-and-such is a takfeeri", meaning they follow the methodology of the Khawaarij, there is no problem with such terminology, though it is preferable to stick to the term "Khawaarij".

However, if the speaker intends to apply this term inappropriately to someone who does not deserve it—such as someone who follows the creed and methodology of the Salaf—in order to turn people away from the truth and its people, as the Murji'ah do with their corrupt actions to mislead the masses, then this becomes deceitful and a distortion of the term. Such an application of the term should not be accepted.

And Allah knows best.

May peace and blessings be upon our Prophet Muhammad, his family, and his companions.

وآخر دعوانا أن الحمد لله ربِّ العالمين

(Source: ضوابط مهمة حول مصطلح فلان تكفيري)

He continues by falsely projecting the notion that shaykh ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhab claimed to be the only one who truly understands Tawheed. However, what he presents are partial excerpts of a letter, while seemingly attempting to obscure its full context. The actual context of the letter, as indicated by its title and chapter, tells a different story:

Volume Ten: (The Final Section of the Book on the Ruling of the Apostate)

• Continuation of the Book on the Ruling of the Apostate

[A Warning Against the Shayaateen Among Mankind Who Divert People from the Path of Allah]

From him as well, may Allah sanctify his soul:

In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.

From Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab, to whoever this letter reaches among the Muslims: Peace be upon you, and the mercy and blessings of Allah. To proceed: Allah the Exalted has said:

وَالَّذِينَ يُحَاجُّونَ فِي اللَّهِ مِنْ بَعْدِ مَا اسْتُجِيبَ لَهُ حُجَّتُهُمْ دَاحِضَةٌ عِنْدَ رَبِّهِمْ وَعَلَيْهِمْ غَضَبٌ وَلَهُمْ عَذَابٌ شَدِيدٌ

"And those who dispute concerning Allah after He has been responded to – their argument is invalid with their Lord, and upon them is [His] wrath, and for them is a severe punishment." (Surah ash-Shura, 42:16)

This is because Allah sent Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) to clarify the truth from falsehood for the people. The Prophet (peace be upon him) conveyed to the people everything they needed regarding their Deen, in a complete and comprehensive manner. He did not pass away until he had left the people upon the clear path, its night as clear as its day.

If you understand this, then know that these shayaateen, from the defiant humans, dispute concerning Allah after He has been responded to. When they see someone teaching the people what Muhammad (peace be upon him) commanded them—such as bearing witness that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah—and forbidding them from matters like attributing divine qualities to righteous creations and others, they rise to argue, confuse, and mislead the people.

They say things like: "How can you declare takfeer on the Muslims? How can you speak ill of the dead? The family of so-and-so, the people of so-and-so are virtuous and noble."

Their intent with these arguments is to obscure the meaning of "There is no deity [worthy of worship] but Allah" and to prevent clarity on the fact that attributing divine powers of benefit and harm to the righteous, or supplicating to them, constitutes disbelief that takes one out of the fold of Islam. Consequently, people would then question them, saying:

"You were ignorant before; why did you not command us with this from the beginning?"

I then wonder if Daniel considers attributing the same Lofty Attributes of Allah to the creation as merely makrooh or just haram but not shirk—or perhaps he considers it as minor shirk? Does he believe that calling Iblees ar-Rahman ar-Raheem is not major shirk, in the same way as attributing such qualities to a statue, rock, jinn, or human? Where does he derive this understanding from? Is it, once again, based on Orientalist sources?

I don't understand his grave inconsistency and discrepancy in the way he presents these citations. We are already familiar with the aspersions made by the kuffaar when they attempt to portray Islam as "barbaric" by citing something from the Qur'an, while we know the context—both before and after the cited Ayat—tells a completely different story. At this point, Daniel is being dishonest and falsely portraying the shaykh.

In fact, what he cited has been addressed before:

The response to this can be given from two perspectives:

First: They did not understand the true meaning of the declaration of Tawheed. They understood it as the Tawheed of Lordship and the affirmation of the Creator, and they made it obligatory for people to reflect on the evidence of creation and possibility. These are Kalaamiyyah issues that they made the foundation of Tawheed, while neglecting the Tawheed of worship, for which Allah sent the messengers.

The shaykh's position on this is pre-existing, as shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah says about the Mutakallimeen: “They did not understand the true Tawheed that Allah sent His Messenger with, for the mushrikeen of Arabia acknowledged that Allah alone is the Creator of all things, yet they were still mushrikeen.”

He also says: “The kuffaar acknowledged the Tawheed of Lordship, which is the extent of what these Mutakallimeen affirm, provided they are free from innovations... – until he says – and the deity is the One who is worthy of worship. So, if someone believes that Allah is the Lord and Creator of all things, and yet he worships others beside Him, then he is a mushrik regarding his Lord and has taken others as gods besides Him.”

So, if the Mutakallimeen, who were not known for the shirk of grave-worship, were described by ibn Taymiyyah as not knowing the true Tawheed that Allah sent His Messenger with, simply because they affirmed Tawheed of Lordship without Tawheed of worship, then how about those who affirm the same and go further by defending grave-worship? This indicates that the words of shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhab are correct and without doubt.

Consider also what imam ash-Shaafi‘ee said about the Faqeeh Mu'tazili Ibraheem ibn Ismaa’eel ibn 'Ulayyah: “I disagree with ibn ‘Ulayyah in everything, even in the saying ‘There is no god [worthy of worship] but Allah’; for I say: ‘There is no god [worthy of worship] but Allah, who spoke to Musa,’ whereas he says: ‘There is no god [worthy of worship] but Allah, who created a speech that Musa heard.’”

Here, ash-Shaafi‘ee says that he disagrees with ibn ‘Ulayyah in the phrase of Tawheed, even though the issue of Names and Attributes is one on which the consensus of Ahlus-Sunnah is not to declare takfeer. If such formulations can be accepted in the discussion of Names and Attributes—though it may be excused for someone who says them—then how can this be for the foundation of the Deen itself?

Second: One of the principles of correct judgment is to gather all the statements of the speaker on a particular topic and to interpret the general statements in light of the more specific ones. A careful examination of the shaykh’s words and actions shows that he clarified his intentions clearly.

In his letter to ‘Abdullah ibn Suhaym, he said: “If you know that the truth is with me, and that the true Islam today is one of the strangest things, I mean the pure Islam that is not mixed with shirk and innovations, as for Islam which is the opposite of disbelief, there is no doubt that the Ummah of Muhammad (peace be upon him) is the last of the nations, and upon it the Hour will be established.”

This text and others serve to explain the previous statement. What it means is that the shaykh divides Islam into: pure Islam free from shirk and innovations, and general Islam.

This confirms that the shaykh’s statements about Islam in his books and letters were about the pure Deen of Islam. His regret over the spread of shirk in the Ummah refers to the state of affairs and the loss of the true essence of Islam, not the Deen itself. The Islam that opposes disbelief is, thank Allah, the Islam of the Ummah, as is clearly stated in his words.

(Source: نقضُ الشُّبهات العشر عن الشيخ محمد بن عبد الوهاب)

Daniel continues to misrepresent the context of shaykh ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhab’s letter. The title, “The Entire Muslim World Has Fallen into Shirk,” and the full context of the letter are entirely misaligned. It’s difficult not to question whether Daniel has even read the letter in its entirety. Even the quote he provided fails to support the way he attempted to portray it in his statements, revealing his own unfounded projections rather than accurately reflecting the shaykh’s words.

Read further:

التساهل في التكفير وموقف الشيخ محمد بن عبد الوهاب

The next point, stating "The Shirk of Apparent Muslims at the Time of Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab Is Worse than the Shirk of the Pre-Islamic Quraysh," along with what he cited from Kashf ash-Shubuhaat, I fail to see how that could be considered an argument against his position.

In any case, shaykh ibn Baaz explained:

In this statement by shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhab, may Allah have mercy on him, there is a clear explanation for those whom Allah intends to guide, regarding the true nature of shirk practiced by both the early generations and the later ones. The shirk of the early generations was evident during times of ease, as they worshiped the prophets, the righteous, trees, stones, and angels. However, when hardships came, they sincerely turned to Allah alone. This was their state, as Allah described them, saying:

فَإِذَا رَكِبُوا فِي الْفُلْكِ دَعَوُا اللَّهَ مُخْلِصِينَ لَهُ الدِّينَ فَلَمَّا نَجَّاهُمْ إِلَى الْبَرِّ إِذَا هُمْ يُشْرِكُونَ

"And when they embark on a ship, they call upon Allah, sincere to Him in religion. But when He delivers them to the land, they associate others with Him." (Surah al-’Ankaboot, 29:65)

And He also said:

وَإِذَا غَشِيَهُمْ مَوْجٌ كَالظُّلَلِ دَعَوُا اللَّهَ مُخْلِصِينَ لَهُ الدِّينَ فَلَمَّا نَجَّاهُمْ إِلَى الْبَرِّ فَمِنْهُمْ مُقْتَصِدٌ وَمَا يَجْحَدُ بِآيَاتِنَا إِلَّا كُلُّ خَتَّارٍ كَفُورٍ

"And when the waves cover them like canopies, they call upon Allah, sincere to Him in religion. But when He delivers them to the land, some of them remain moderate, and none reject Our signs except every sinful, ungrateful person." (Surah Luqman, 31:32)

And He said:

وَإِذَا مَسَّكُمُ الضُّرُّ فِي الْبَحْرِ ضَلَّ مَنْ تَدْعُونَ إِلَّا إِيَّاهُ فَلَمَّا نَجَّاكُمْ إِلَى الْبَرِّ أَعْرَضْتُمْ وَكَانَ الْإِنْسَانُ كَفُورًا

"And when harm touches you in the sea, those that you call upon besides Him disappear, but when He delivers you to the land, you turn away, and man is ever ungrateful." (Surah al-Israa’, 17:67)

This is their condition during times of hardship: they turn to Allah alone in worship when the waves are tumultuous, and calamities befall them. When ease and safety return, they revert to their shirk.

As for the later generations, their shirk persists both in times of ease and in times of hardship, and in fact, their shirk intensifies during times of distress. They call upon figures like "Ya ‘Abdal-Qaadir," "Ya shaykh Ahmad al-Badawi" during crises, when the waves are unsettled. This is in stark contrast to the early idolaters, who, in times of calamity, would solely turn to Allah.

(Source: شرح كتاب كشف الشبهات)

I’m quite intrigued by the follow-up point, where he states, "There Is No al-‘Udhr bi-l-Jahl," as his citation does not support his assertion. In fact, the very title contradicts his claim: [Doubt Regarding the Takfir of a Specific Person for Whom the Proof Has Been Established]. In other words, if the proof has not been established against a specific person, then takfeer is not declared upon him! This principle is quite evident throughout his works. These aspersions have been thoroughly addressed by many esteemed mashaayikh:

For his conclusion, I’m honestly taken aback by how he seems to maintain an air of objectivity when addressing the aspersions of the kuffaar against Islam. Yet, when it comes to his arguments against other Muslims, there is suddenly no objectivity, no “academic rigor.” Perhaps this shows he either doesn’t fully understand what he is reading or is simply exhibiting compounded ignorance. His alleged evidence for his arguments does not even support each other.

The Issue on Giving Superiority to Imams Over Prophets

Nonetheless, it is important to present what the scholars have stated regarding the issue of the “superiority of ‘imams’ over the Prophets”:

Ruling on Giving Superiority to the Imams of Ahlul-Bayt Over the Prophets

Praise be to Allah.

First: The Ruling on Giving Superiority to the Imams of Ahlul-Bayt Over Some Prophets

The claim of giving superiority to the imams of Ahlul-Bayt over the Prophets and Messengers is one of the beliefs of the Raafidhah sect. This claim is invalid, as it contradicts the explicit texts of the Qur’an and Sunnah, and the Muslim Ummah has unanimously agreed on its falsehood.

Allah Almighty says:

وَمَنْ يُطِعِ اللَّهَ وَالرَّسُولَ فَأُولَئِكَ مَعَ الَّذِينَ أَنْعَمَ اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِمْ مِنَ النَّبِيِّينَ وَالصِّدِّيقِينَ وَالشُّهَدَاءِ وَالصَّالِحِينَ وَحَسُنَ أُولَئِكَ رَفِيقًا

"And whoever obeys Allah and the Messenger – they will be in the company of those upon whom Allah has bestowed favor: of the Prophets, the truthful, the martyrs, and the righteous. And excellent are those as companions." (An-Nisaa' 4:69)

Shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "The righteous predecessors of this Ummah, its scholars, and all of Allah’s close allies agreed that the Prophets are superior to the awliyaa’ who are not Prophets. Allah has ranked His blessed servants into four levels, as mentioned in the Ayah:

وَمَنْ يُطِعِ اللَّهَ وَالرَّسُولَ فَأُولَئِكَ مَعَ الَّذِينَ أَنْعَمَ اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِمْ مِنَ النَّبِيِّينَ وَالصِّدِّيقِينَ وَالشُّهَدَاءِ وَالصَّالِحِينَ وَحَسُنَ أُولَئِكَ رَفِيقًا

‘And whoever obeys Allah and the Messenger – they will be in the company of those upon whom Allah has bestowed favor: of the Prophets, the truthful, the martyrs, and the righteous.’" (Majmoo’ al-Fatawa, 11/221)

The Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) believed that Abu Bakr was the best of this Ummah after our Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be of Allah upon him), even above the members of Ahlul-Bayt. This was the belief of the righteous predecessors and the scholars of the Ummah.

Ibn ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) said: "During the lifetime of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), we did not consider anyone equal to Abu Bakr, then 'Umar, then 'Uthman. After them, we would leave the rest of the Companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and not make any comparisons among them." (Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 3697)

Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) also said: "The belief of the righteous predecessors, including the Companions, their followers, the scholars of the Deen, and the majority of Muslims, is that the best of this Ummah after its Prophet is Abu Bakr, then Umar, and no one after the Prophets is better than these two." (Al-Jawaab as-Saheeh, 2/401)

Anyone who claims that 'Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) is superior to the Prophets contradicts the belief of 'Ali himself. He (may Allah be pleased with him) never claimed for himself or his family that anyone was superior to Abu Bakr or 'Umar. In fact, it is tawaatur from him, may Allah be pleased with him, that he said: "The best of this Ummah after its Prophet is Abu Bakr, then 'Umar." (Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 3671; see also Minhaaj as-Sunnah an-Nabawiyyah, 1/308)

Thus, for someone to claim that Ali or any member of his family is superior to the Prophets is a grave falsehood. Allah has preserved Ali and his noble family from even hearing such claims, let alone saying or believing them.

Second: The Status of the Prophets Surpasses All Others

In Islamic belief, the superiority of individuals becomes evident in the events of the Hereafter, such as the Day of Resurrection and Judgment. Texts clearly demonstrate that the Prophets hold the highest status among people during these occasions.

For instance, during the great intercession, people will turn to the Prophets as the closest to Allah, seeking their help, until they eventually reach our Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him).

Anas ibn Maalik reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "On the Day of Resurrection, people will surge into one another, and they will go to Adam and say, ‘Intercede for us with your Lord,’ but he will say, ‘I am not fit for this... go to Ibraaheem, for he is the close friend of Allah.’ They will then go to Ibraaheem, but he will say, ‘I am not fit for this... go to Moosa, for he is the one to whom Allah spoke directly.’ Then they will go to Moosa, but he will say, ‘I am not fit for this... go to 'Eesa, for he is the spirit of Allah and His Word.’ They will then go to ‘Eesa, but he will say, ‘I am not fit for this... go to Muhammad.’ They will come to me, and I will say, ‘I am fit for this,’ and I will seek permission to intercede with my Lord, and it will be granted to me..." (Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 7510; Muslim, 193)

If the imams of Ahlul-Bayt held a greater position than the Prophets, people would have sought their intercession instead.

Similarly, during the crossing of the Siraat (bridge over Hellfire), only the Prophets will speak due to the gravity of the situation.

Abu Hurayrah reported that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "The Siraat will be set up over Hellfire, and I will be the first of the Messengers to cross with my Ummah. On that Day, no one will speak except the Messengers, and their supplication will be: ‘O Allah, keep us safe, keep us safe.’" (Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 806; Muslim, 182)

Third: The Ruling on Giving Superiority to Ahlul-Bayt Over All Prophets and Messengers

The claim that certain awliyaa’ are superior to the Prophets was adopted by some heretics, such as ibn ‘Arabi and others, who attributed this status to themselves. Shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) explicitly stated that such a belief constitutes kufr.

He said in Majmoo’ al-Fatawa (2/220): "It is known by necessity in the Deen of Islam that the Prophets and Messengers are superior to the awliyaa’ who are neither Prophets nor Messengers."

Ibn Taymiyyah also mentioned the claims of Hakeem at-Tirmidhi regarding the concept of the "Seal of Awliyaa’" and refuted the idea that this person could be superior to the Prophets. He said: "As for the claim that the Seal of Awliyaa’ is superior to the Seal of Prophets in some respects, this is something neither Hakeem at-Tirmidhi nor any other known scholar said. The man was too noble and knowledgeable to fabricate such explicit kufr. However, some deviants built upon his error and turned it into disbelief." (Majmoo’ al-Fatawa, 2/231)

He further stated: "The kufr of someone who claims to be superior to the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is clear and apparent." (Majmoo’ al-Fatawa, 2/233)

From these statements, we learn:

1. The superiority of the Prophets and Messengers over all other individuals is a fundamental aspect of Islam.

2. Claiming that certain awliyaa' are superior to the Seal of the Prophets (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is explicit disbelief.

3. Anyone who claims superiority over the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) has committed clear kufr.

Thus, there should be no hesitation in declaring as disbelief the claim that ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) or any member of Ahlul-Bayt is superior to all the Prophets. However, if such a statement is made by an ignorant person who merely repeats what they have heard from others, they should be informed that this belief constitutes kufr before passing a judgment on them.

For further information, refer to the answers to questions no. 111362 and 215338.

And Allah knows best.

(Source: حكم تفضيل أئمة آل البيت على الأنبياء)

Such matters are neither subjects of dispute nor topics left unaddressed by Ahlus-Sunnah scholars; rather, they have been thoroughly examined and dealt with in depth:

Final Thoughts

It's quite ironic that he claims to have great respect for the Deobandis, considering that Dar al-’Uloom Deoband once hosted and warmly received shaykh Saalih Aal ash-Shaykh, a descendant of shaykh ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhab, who acknowledged their contributions. (Source) While not everyone among the Deobandis may share this sentiment—as evident from how shaykh Shams ad-Deen al-Afghani refuted the deviants among them—it does indicate that there are individuals within their ranks who support and appreciate the legacy of shaykh ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhab.

It’s worth noting that Dar al-’Uloom Deoband is a university similar to how al-Azhar functions, though the former is heavily influenced by the Maaturidiyyah, while the latter is predominantly influenced by the Ashaa’irah. However, attending these institutions does not necessarily mean that everyone associated with them adheres to Ahlul-Kalaam. For instance, we recognize the significant efforts of scholars like shaykh Shah Waliullah ad-Dahlawi.

Read further:

Daniel should focus on not putting himself in a position as if he has a say in matters of Islam. Instead, he should learn the proper manners of seeking knowledge, understand the effort students of knowledge go through in studying the sciences of Shari’ah, and remain silent on what is beyond his level. He should also avoid debates with the kuffaar and focus on learning how to call others to Islam with wisdom and understanding. It’s important for him to learn the foundations of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah and leave complex issues to the scholars and students of knowledge.

On other social media platforms, it becomes evident that due to his lack of knowledge, he has resorted to behavior unbecoming of a Muslim—particularly for someone who claims to be a student of knowledge. In reality, he seems far from deserving such a title, appearing more like a layperson who stumbled upon a platform that amplifies noise rather than substance. He exploits the ignorance of uninformed Muslims through emotionally appealing rhetoric and hollow arguments. At this stage, he is undeserving of any serious attention.

He does not appear to adhere to the core principles of our Deen—principles that other misguided sects also neglect—such as the hadith: “A Muslim must support his fellow Muslim, whether he is an oppressor or the oppressed.” Their fitnah, while claiming to follow the Sunnah and cloaking themselves in a garment attributed to the Salaf (in Daniel’s case, claiming to be “Athari”), drives them to appoint themselves as accusers of others. They cast immoral charges against da’wah figures based on flimsy evidence, preoccupying themselves with misguided practices of unfounded declarations of tabdee’ and lowly name-calling, categorizing others as “Wahhabi,” “Mudajjanah,” and so on. In doing so, they confuse the laypeople about what truly sets apart the foundations of Ahlus-Sunnah from those of other sects—sects that are either named after their primary creedal deviation or after the head figures of misguidance, along with their false foundations.

This is a wide-reaching calamity and a misguiding fitnah that shrinks the scope of the Deen, scatters its followers, sows hatred among them, and diminishes the respect of its carriers in the eyes of the masses. It also involves obstinance, denial of the truth at times, and rejection of it at others. How much harm this blind fitnah has caused by hindering efforts to confront the tide of atheism, Sufi orders, and moral corruption. It has provided an opportunity for these forces to transgress against the moral values of the people and fuel paths of corruption and ruin.

Since Daniel has resorted to declaring shaykh ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhab an innovator, not only does he embody the very traits he claims to oppose, but he also aligns in certain aspects with other sects such as the Raafidhah, Madaakhilah, Haddaadiyyah, and Ahlul-Kalaam, including extreme Sufis, modernists, and even zanaadiqah. How relevant it is to quote shaykh Bakr Abu Zayd:

“And with this, you come to know that the accursed initiative of declaring the imams—such as an-Nawawi, ibn Daqeeq al-‘Eed, and ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalaani—as disbelievers, or belittling their status, or labeling them as misguided innovators, all of this is the work of Shaytan. It is a gateway to misguidance and leading others astray, as well as corruption and spreading corruption. If the witnesses of the Shari‘ah are discredited, then what they testify to is also discredited. However, the ignorant and reckless do not comprehend nor do they verify.”

Relevant:

Laypeople and misguided individuals often fail to distinguish between scholarly constructive criticism—delivered in its proper time, place, and manner, and often reserved for students of knowledge—and lowly, degrading, and disrespectful attacks on individuals. These groups also struggle to differentiate between a person and their actions, leading to erroneous attributions. Scholars themselves are not exempt from constructive criticism, nor are they infallible, and this principle is well-established in the foundations of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah.

When it comes to shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhab and his school, including his students and family, it is important to note that they did not always share the same opinions on every matter—just as differences existed between the imams of the madhhabs and their students. However, in recent times, both proponents and opponents of shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhab have mistakenly portrayed him and his school as a monolithic entity, as though they held a unified stance on all issues.

This misconception has led to significant errors, particularly among those who have neither studied nor read the works of the shaykh, his students, or related sources. They commit the grave mistake of conflating individuals, blaming the shaykh for positions or actions attributable to some of his students. Worse still, they exaggerate by attributing all errors and controversial matters to the shaykh himself, despite his innocence of such claims. Essentially, they conflate shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhab with his students and followers who came after his death.

A clear example of this confusion is how some opponents mistakenly attribute the book ad-Durar as-Saniyyah to shaykh ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhab, even though he was not its author. This book is a compilation of various letters and works concerning the shaykh, his students, and his family, assembled by another scholar. Despite this, it is frequently cited against the shaykh unjustly, with critics projecting false notions and disregarding the proper context of the material it contains.

Similarly, some critics fail to account for the historical context, such as the actions of the Sa’ood family during their alliance with British colonialists—details that were unknown to many scholars at the time. This further muddies the waters and exacerbates the conflation of blame unfairly directed at the shaykh. They often overlook the fact that the Sa'ood kingdom went through three distinct stages, yet opponents frequently misattribute events and decisions from later stages to shaykh ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhab, as though he were alive long after the first stage. This careless conflation ignores historical timelines and context, further distorting the legacy of the shaykh and unjustly attributing matters to him that occurred well after his time.

Lastly, defending the honor of the scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah does not mean that we follow them as mere personalities, nor does it imply that we rely solely on their works. Rather, it is about upholding the principles and foundations of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah, which have remained consistent from the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), the Sahaabah, and those who followed them in righteousness. As shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah aptly stated:

As for a group affiliating themselves with a particular shaykh, there is no doubt that people need someone from whom they can learn eemaan and the Qur’an, just as the Sahaabah learned these from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), and the Taabi‘oon learned from the Sahaabah. Through this, one can achieve the goal of following the early generations with excellence. Just as a person needs someone to teach them the Qur’an and similar sciences, they also need someone to teach them the inner and outer aspects of the Deen.

It is not obligatory to follow a specific individual, nor does a person need to affiliate themselves with a particular shaykh. Rather, anyone who provides religious benefit to another becomes their shaykh in that regard. Every deceased person whose words, actions, or legacy have reached someone and benefited them in their Deen is considered their shaykh in that respect. Thus, the Salaf of this Ummah are shuyookh for their successors, generation after generation.

No one has the right to affiliate themselves exclusively with a particular shaykh, forming alliances based on following them or enmity based on not doing so. Instead, a person must show loyalty to all those who are Ahlul-Eemaan and to those from whom they recognize taqwa, whether among shuyookh or others. One should not single out any individual for special allegiance unless it becomes evident that their eemaan and taqwa are superior, in which case they are to be given preference in accordance with what Allah and His Messenger have prioritized, giving precedence to those whom Allah and His Messenger have favored.

(Source: كتاب مجموع الفتاوى)

Shaykhul-Islam in his Majmoo' also states: “The wise believer agrees with all people in that in which they are in accordance with the Qur'an and Sunnah and obey Allah and His Messenger, but he does not agree with that in which they go against the Quran and Sunnah.”

I would like to extend an invitation to him, or anyone else, to read this insightful book by shaykh Jamal Zarabozo:

The Life, Teachings And Influence Of Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahab

و‬‫نسأل ٱللَّٰه‬‬ ‫عز‬ ‫وج‬‫ل ‬‫أن‬ ‫يرينا‬ ‫الحق‬ ‫حقا‬ ‫ويرزقنا‬ ‫اتباعه‪،‬‬ ‫وأن‬ ‫يرينا‬ ‫الباطل‬ ‫باطلا ‫ويرزقنا‬ ‫اجتنابه‪،‬‬ ‫وأن‬ ‫يتوفنا ‬‫على‬ ‫الإسلام‬ ‫والسنة‬.‬‬

بسم الله والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله