The Anti-Ash’ari Exposed

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ

The following is taken from  Dr. Jibril Fu’ad Haddad Exposes Abu Amar Yasir Qadhi’s Anti-Ash’ari Diatribe.  The following is a pointed refutation of the absolute drivel from the Wahhabi, Yasir Qadhi. 

Yasir Qadhi, while commenting on the “relationship between the schools of legal thought and the schools of theology” scatters his explanations with lies, theological inaccuracies, and other Wahhabi fables.  Dr. Jibril Haddad exposed Yasir Qadhi’s inaccuracies with iron-clad proofs.  It is a must-read for all who wish to know how misinformed Yasir Qadhi is, and a warning to all who see him as their ‘guide’.  We reproduce here, Yasir Qadhi’s article followed by specific refutation by Shaykh Haddad.  This is Yasir Qadhi’s article below. 

“The relationship between the schools of legal thought and the schools of theology is a very lengthy topic, and one that is worthy of more attention.  I honestly think it would be a great dissertation topic.  Briefly though, one needs to realise that the four great a’immah all lived in different time periods.  Hence, their fiqh was dependant on their contextual setting and amount and type of knowledge accessible to them.  Also, their statements pertaining to ‘aqidah were likewise influenced. 

Now, enough quotes exist from the four a’immah that prove that they all held the same creed in Asma’ wa asw-Swifat; in fact, in all issues of theology, except for a finer detail of iman where one of them held a different opinion.  However, the quantity of these quotes varies greatly.  The earlier a’immah, Imam Abu Hanifah (r.a.), Imam Malik (r.a.) and Imam ash-Shafi’i (r.a.) were not surrounded by Mu’tazilah nor was there any major threat from them.  However, Imam Ahmad (r.a.) witnessed the peak of their power, and was put in the limelight.  Hence, the sheer quantity of quotes narrated from him cannot be compared to the other three. 

This, of course, influenced the followers of these four a’immah accordingly.  Many of the Mu`tazilah were actually Hanafi in their fiqh, one of the reasons being that there were not too many quotes from Imam Abu Hanifah (r.a.) that could be used against them.  Also, it is narrated that some of the earliest people who were influenced by Jahm were some of the students of Abu Hanifah (r.a.), none of them famous – Imam Ahmad (r.a.) mentioned this in his ar-Radd ‘Ala al-Jahmiyyah.  However, all of the famous students of these a’immah, and their students after them, were upon the pure Sunni creed, and spoke against kalam and its influence.  The mutawatir narrations from these a’immah and their students against kalam is not denied by anyone – as we quoted in class, even Imam al-Ghazali (r.a.) in his Ihya’ is forced to acknowledge this, that there is ijma’ amongst the early generations regarding the prohibited nature of kalam.  Hence, the earliest Shafi’iyyah and Malikiyyah were all upon the pure Sunni creed, also called at that time, the Ahl al-Hadits.  A simple perusal of the thabaqat works of the madzahib will clearly show this, such as Thabaqat ash-Shafi’iyyah al-Kubra’ of Imam as-Subki (r.a.); the first volumes are full of people known for their pure Sunni theology.  Of them, is the main student of Imam ash-Shafi’i (r.a.), Imam al-Muzani (r.a.), who had a printed work on theology upon Sunni doctrines.  Another is Imam Ahmad ibn ‘Umar ibn Surayj (r.a.), who was called ‘the second Shafi’i’ because of his importance in the madzhab.  He has numerous statements refuting kalam doctrines, so much so that a later Shafi’iyyah who was upon the theology of kalam, Imam al-Isafari’ini (r.a.), of the sixth century; it was said, “We will take his opinions in fiqh, but not in theology.”  Also, the famous Khathib al-Baghdadi (r.a.) has numerous quotes which show his theology, as well as much criticism of kalam.  Many of the standard source works of theology were written by Shafi’iyyah, including those of Imam ad-Darimi (r.a.), Imam ibn Khuzaymah (r.a.) and Shaykh al-Lalakay (r.a.).  Thus, almost all early adherents to the madzhab were upon pure Sunni doctrines, although a few were not.  This is even more pronounced in the Maliki madzhab.  One of the most famous works of Maliki fiqh is the one by Imam ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani (r.a.), the introduction to this Maliki fiqh manual contains his creed, which is the same as the creed that I taught you all in class. 

One of my close friends was attending a lecture by perhaps the most famous representative of kalam theology in America.  This person mentioned that the doctrines of ‘modern Wahhabis’ were first formulated by Shaykh ibn Taymiyyah (r.a.).  In the course of his lecture, he also recommended Imam ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani’s (r.a.) work as a primary source of Maliki law.  So after the lecture, my friend managed to get through his body-guards and asked him, ‘You recommended the work of ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani – surely you must be familiar with his al-Muqaddimah which is exactly the same theology that ibn Taymiyyah preached, and also modern adherents to pure Sunni creed.’ 

He replied, ‘Well, ibn Abi Zayd wrote this work when he was very young, and he recanted from this theology later on in his life.’ 

To which my friend said, ‘I don’t even want to ask you where this supposed recantation is or which other book of theology he wrote which shows he changed his views, the very fact that ibn Abi Zayd had such a theology in 350 AH clearly shows that this theology which you have ascribed to ibn Taymiyyah existed centuries before him!’  To which this person could not give any response.  I add that there is nothing of the sort. 

Likewise the famous Maliki scholar, Imam ibn ‘Abd al-Barr (r.a.) has clear refutations of the theology of kalam and affirmed all the Attributes and rejected ta’wil.  In fact, the Murabithun who ruled over the entire region of al-Maghrib in the 4^th century of the hijrah were clearly upon the pure Sunni theology, so much so that the ‘infamous’ burning of the Ihya’ of Imam al-Ghazali (r.a.) occurred because of them and in their time.  It was only later, at the advent of the Muwahhidun and ibn Tumart, where kalam ideology was forced upon the region brutally – read the books of history to see the plunder and killing that occurred against Sunnis who were accused of being ‘anthropomorphists’, and realise that this is centuries before Shaykh ibn Taymiyyah (r.a.) still.  This was a turning point for the adherents of the Maliki school in terms of theology. 

Similarly, kalam beliefs spread amongst other schools as well, and various governments patronised a specific madzhab and theology, which usually led to the spread of that school of thought and ‘aqidah.  As a side point, those who are always critical of the influence of ‘petro-dollars’ on the spread of a certain creed seem to ignore than this was the case throughout the centuries of Islam - well, perhaps not ‘petro-dollars’ per se but monetary incentives, the building of madaris, and the popularisation of certain positions and scholars, all were primary factors in the spread of other creeds and even fiqh.  There were some specific dynasties and universities that sponsored Ash’arite theology in particular, and these factors were a primary reason for the ‘infiltration’ of this theology into the Shafi’iyyah school. 

Of course, with regards to Hanbaliyyah, because of the sheer quantity of quotes from Imam Ahmad (r.a.), it was well-nigh impossible for any person to ascribe himself to Imam Ahmad (r.a.) and still be upon the beliefs of kalam.  There were a few exceptions, the most notable of them being Imam ibn al-Jawzy (r.a.) and his mentor Shaykh ibn ‘Aqil (r.a.).  But by and large, throughout the centuries, the Hanbaliyyah have traditionally been affirming all Attributes and refuting the people of kalam.  Many are the ‘skirmishes’ that have occurred between them and others.  As the other schools were gradually influenced by kalam, this led to the somewhat incorrect misnomer of ascribing pure Sunni theology to the Hanbali madzhab, ‘Hanbalite theology’.  Shaykh ibn Taymiyyah (r.a.), after he wrote his Wasithiyyah, was told by the court that tried him that if he were to claim that this creed represented the Hanbali school, and not all of Sunni Islam, he would be let off and no ‘charges’ would be filed.  At this, he raised his voice, and shouted out in his deep voice to the entire audience, ‘This is not just the creed of Imam Ahmad, or of anyone greater or lesser than him, rather this is the theology of the Qur’an and sunnah, and what the pious predecessors have unanimously agreed upon …’ 

In any case, to summarise: all of the four a’immah; in fact all of the pious predecessors, were upon the pure theology of Sunni Islam.  Various historical factors, particularly in the 5^th century of the hijrah and onwards, contributed to the gradual acceptance of kalam creed amongst some of the schools of fiqh, and this in turn helped to spread these beliefs amongst the masses, until in our times many assume that kalam theology is, in fact, pure Sunni theology.  This gradual infiltration can easily be historically documented, and of the easiest ways to do so is to list the creeds of the earliest scholars of all legal schools, and then see how these creeds evolved over time.  Another indication is to look at the books written over the centuries.  However, out of all the legal schools, generally the Hanbaliyyah school proved impenetrable, primarily because Imam Ahmad (r.a.) was the last of the four, and had the most explicit quotes about theology in general and Asma’ wa asw-Swifat in particular, hence it was almost impossible to ascribe to him in legal theory while following kalam theology.” 

This is Dr. Jibril Haddad’s refutation below: 

Yasir Qadhi wrote, “Imam Ahmad (r.a.) mentioned this in his ar-Radd ‘Ala al-Jahmiyyah.”  This “ar-Radd” is a spurious book which Imam Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Hanbal (r.a.) never authored.  This is stated explicitly by Imam Shams ad-Din Abu ‘Abdullah Muhammad ibn Ahmad adz-Dzahabi (r.a.), in Siyar A‘alam an-Nubala’, who squarely disagreed with his teacher, Shaykh Taqi’ ad-Din Ahmad ibn ‘Abd al-Halim ibn Taymiyyah (r.a.) on this point among several others. 

Yasir Qadhi wrote, “However, all of the famous students of these a’immah, and their students after them, were upon the pure Sunni creed, and spoke against kalam and its influence.  The mutawatir narrations from these a’immah and their students against kalam is not denied by anyone – as we quoted in class, even Imam al-Ghazali (r.a.) in his Ihya’ is forced to acknowledge this, that there is ijma’ amongst the early generations regarding the prohibited nature of kalam.”  This is tamwih and perversion of the words of the a’immah and Hujjat al-Islam, whose wording and intent is that the non-Sunni kalam is condemned, not the kalam of the defenders of truth.  We cited many fatawa of the early Ash’aris as well as others such as Imam Abu Ishaq Ibrahim ibn Musa ash-Shathibi (r.a.) to that effect in our chapter on Imam Ahmad (r.a.) in “The Four A’immah.” 

Yasir Qadhi wrote, “Hence, the earliest Shafi’iyyah and Malikiyyah were all upon the pure Sunni creed, also called at that time, the Ahl al-Hadits.  A simple perusal of the thabaqat works of the madzahib will clearly show this, such as Thabaqat ash-Shafi’iyyah al-Kubra of Imam as-Subki (r.a.); the first volumes are full of people known for their pure Sunni theology.”  Shaykh al-Islam, Imam Taj ad-Din Abu Naswr ʻAbd al-Wahhab ibn ʻAli as-Subki’s (r.a.) Thabaqat ash-Shafi’iyyah al-Kubra is, from beginning to end, a principal reference-book of Sunni kalam.  If he were to hear this gobbledygook, he would rank it among Akadzib al-Hashwiyyah.  Anyone familiar with his works will understand who and what is meant. 

Yasir Qadhi wrote, “Of them, is the main student of Imam ash-Shafi’i (r.a.), Imam al-Muzani (r.a.), who had a printed work on theology upon Sunni doctrines.”  No such work on theology was authored by Imam Abu Ibrahim Isma’il ibn Yahya al-Muzani (r.a.), who was notoriously weak in theology and was ordered by his teacher, Imam Abu ‘Abdullah Muhammad ibn Idris ash-Shafi’i (r.a.) not to approach it.  Imam al-Muzani (r.a.) only wrote books in fiqh, such as those listed by Imam adz-Dhahabi (r.a.) in his Siyar A‘alam an-Nubala’: al-Mukhtaswar, Jami’ al-Kabir, Jami’ asw-Swaghir, al-Mantsur, al-Masa’il al-Mu’tabara, at-Targhib fi al-‘Ilm and al-Watsa’iq.  As for the book printed in 1995, in Madina by Maktabat al-Ghuraba’ al-Atsariyyah under the title Sharh as-Sunnah and attributed to Imam al-Muzani (r.a.), Imam adz-Dzahabi (r.a.) showed no knowledge of it in his Siyar A‘alam an-Nubala’ and al-‘Uluw li al-‘Ali al-Ghaffar, and even Muhammad Naswir ad-Din al-Albani, in Mukhtaswar al-‘Uluw, was forced to admit that its chain of transmission up to Imam al-Muzani (r.a.) contains unknowns. 

Yasir Qadhi wrote, “Another is Imam Ahmad ibn ‘Umar ibn Surayj (r.a.), who was called ‘the second Shafi’i’ because of his importance in the madzhab.  He has numerous statements refuting kalam doctrines…”  It is a testament to the superficiality of Wahhabis that they adduce such statements as anti-kalam rhetoric.  How do they explain that the principal fiqh student of Imam Abu al-‘Abbas Ahmad ibn ‘Umar ibn Surayj al-Baghdadi (r.a.), Imam Abu ‘Abdullah Muhammad ibn al-Khafif ash-Shirazi (r.a.), who was also a direct student of Imam Abu al-Hasan ‘Ali ibn Isma’il al-Ash’ari (r.a.), went on to become a principal mutakallim? 

Yasir Qadhi wrote, “… so much so that a later Shafi’iyyah who was upon the theology of kalam, Imam al-Isafari’ini (r.a.), of the sixth century; it was said, ‘We will take his opinions in fiqh, but not in theology.’”  Another two untruths.  The scholar who said this was the Shafi’i faqih, Imam Abu al-Hasan ‘Ali ibn Fadhl al-Isafarayni (r.a.) who is considered a mujaddid of the fourth century, together with Imam Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn ath-Thayyib al-Baqillani (r.a.) and Imam Abu Sahl Muhammad ibn Sulayman as-Sa’luki (r.a.).  Secondly, he never mentioned theology in the above statement; rather, he proclaimed himself Imam ibn Surayj’s (r.a.) imitator but only “in the externals of fiqh, not the delicate matters,” as recorded in Kitab az-Zuhd wa ar-Raqa’iq.  He is referring to the madzhab of Imam ibn Surayj (r.a.) in zuhd, in which the latter authored numerous books, and he was the peerless admonisher of his time. 

Yasir Qadhi wrote, “Also, the famous Khathib al-Baghdadi (r.a.) has numerous quotes which show his theology, as well as much criticism of kalam.”  All agree that Hafizh Khathib al-Baghdadi Abu Bakr Ahmad ibn ‘Ali ash-Shafi’i (r.a.) was an Ash’ari, including Imam adz-Dzahabi (r.a.).  Our teacher, Dr. Nur ad-Din ‘Itr (r.a.) wrote in his edition of ar-Rihlah, “He upheld the school of the Salaf as it really was, not as some erratic people in our time understand it to be.  The latter are, in fact, arrogant wranglers who cannot tell the difference between the Salaf’s committal of the actual knowledge of these matters to Allah (s.w.t.), their holding His Transcendence above whatever anthropomorphism the terms may suggest, and, on the other hand, the anthropomorphism of the ignorant Karramiyyah!” 

Yasir Qadhi wrote, “Many of the standard source works of theology were written by Shafi’iyyah, including those of Imam ad-Darimi (r.a.), Imam ibn Khuzaymah (r.a.) and Shaykh al-Lalakay (r.a.).”  The Shafi’i a’immah themselves, including Imam Abu Bakr Ahmad ibn Husayn al-Bayhaqi (r.a.), Imam Abu Hamid Muhammad ibn Muhammad al-Ghazali (r.a.), and Imam Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn Zakariya ar-Razi (r.a.), warned against them, so how can they be “standard”?  The one standard book whose authority even the anthropomorphists are forced to accept is Imam al-Bayhaqi’s (r.a.) al-Asma’ wa asw-Swifat.  As for the above, they were not in the hands of people and even the scholars generally avoided them, but for the adherents of Shaykh ibn Taymiyyah’s (r.a.) rejected ‘aqidah until petro-dollars brought them out of marginality and into the mass book market. 

Along with Imam Abu Bakr ‘Abdullah ibn Muhammad ibn Abu Shaybah’s (r.a.) Kitab al-‘Ash, the Kitab as-Sunnah attributed to Shaykh ‘Abdullah ibn Ahmad (r.a.), and Qadhi Abu Ya’la Muhammad ibn al-Husayn ibn al-Farra’s (r.a.) Ibthal at-Ta’wilat, among the notable early troves of anthropomorphist forgeries are Imam ‘Utsman ibn Sa’id ad-Darimi’s (r.a.) books against Bishr ibn Ghiyats al-Marisi, Imam Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn Ishaq ibn Khuzaymah’s (r.a.) Tawhid, Imam al-Hasan ibn ‘Ali al-Barbahari’s (r.a.) Sharh as-Sunnah, and Imam Abu Isma’il ‘Abdullah ibn Muhammad al-Ansari al-Harawi’s (q.s.) doctrinal books.  Along with Imam Shams ad-Din Abu ‘Abdullah Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah’s (r.a.) Ijtima’ al-Juyush al-Islamiyyah and Shaykh ibn Taymiyyah’s (r.a.) Sharh Hadits an-Nuzul; among the notable later troves are Imam Muwaffaq ad-Din Abu Muhammad ‘Abdullah ibn Ahmad ibn Qudamah al-Maqdisi’s (r.a.) al-‘Uluw , Imam adz-Dzahabi’s (r.a.) al-‘Uluw li al-‘Ali al-Ghaffar and Kitab al-‘Arsh, and Shaykh ibn Taymiyyah’s (r.a.) Fatwa al-Hamawiyyah.  All of these books are promoted in heretical circles today although the Sunni a’immah warned against them and/or their authors, such as Imam Abu ‘Abdullah Muhammad ibn Isma’il al-Bukhari (r.a.), Imam ‘Asakir ad-Din Abu al-Husayn Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj (r.a.), Imam Abu ‘Amr ‘Utsman ibn ‘Abd ar-Rahman ibn asw-Ṣwalah (r.a.), and Imam ‘Izz ad-Din ‘Abd al-‘Aziz ibn ‘Abd as-Salam ash-Shafi’i (r.a.) concerning the innovators among the Hanbalis; Imam al-Bayhaqi (r.a.), I Imam Abu al-Faraj ‘Abd ar-Rahman ibn ‘Ali ibn al-Jawzy (r.a.), and Imam ar-Razi (r.a.) concerning Imam ibn Khuzaymah’s (r.a.) book; Imam Abu Muhammad at-Tamimi (r.a.), Qadhi Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullah ibn al-‘Arabi al-Maliki (r.a.), and Imam ibn al-Jawzy (r.a.) concerning Imam Abu Ya’la’s (r.a.) book; Shaykh Abu Ishaq Ibrahim ibn ‘Ali ash-Shirazi (r.a.), Imam Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn ‘Ali ash-Shashi (r.a.), and Imam Majd ad-Din al-Mubarak ibn Muhammad ibn al-Atsir (r.a.) concerning Imam al-Barbahari (r.a.); Imam al-Ghazali (r.a.), Imam ibn as-Subki (r.a.), Imam Shihab ad-Din Abu al-Fadhl Ahmad ibn ‘Ali ibn Hajr al-‘Asqalani (r.a.), and Imam Shams ad-Din Muhammad ibn ‘Abd ar-Rahman as-Sakhawi (r.a.) concerning Imam al-Harawi al-Answari’s (r.a.) books; Imam Taqi’ ad-Din Abu al-Hasan ‘Ali ibn ‘Abd al-Kafi’ as-Subki (r.a.), Qadhi Shihab ad-Din Ahmad ibn Muhyi ad-Din ibn Jahbal al-Kilabi (r.a.), Imam Taqi’ ad-Din Abu Bakr ibn Muhammad al-Hiswni (r.a.), Imam Kamal ad-Din ‘Abd al-Wahid ibn ‘Abd al-Karim az-Zamalkani (r.a.), Imam Atsir ad-Din Abu Hayyan Muhammad ibn Yusuf an-Nahwi al-Ghanathi (r.a.), Imam Shibab ad-Din Abu al-‘Abbas Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Hajr al-Haytsami (r.a.), and many others concerning Shaykh ibn Taymiyyah’s (r.a.) and Imam ibn al-Qayyim’s (r.a.) books; and Shaykh Muhammad Zahid ibn Hasan al-Kawtsari (r.a.) concerning Shaykh ‘Abdullah ibn Ahmad’s (r.a.) and Imam ad-Darimi’s (r.a.) books. 

Yasir Qadhi wrote, “One of my close friends was attending a lecture by perhaps the most famous representative of kalam theology in America.  This person mentioned that the doctrines of ‘modern Wahhabis’ were first formulated by Shaykh ibn Taymiyyah (r.a.).  In the course of his lecture, he also recommended Imam ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani’s (r.a.) work as a primary source of Maliki law.  So after the lecture, my friend managed to get through his body-guards and asked him, ‘You recommended the work of ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani – surely you must be familiar with his al-Muqaddimah which is exactly the same theology that ibn Taymiyyah preached, and also modern adherents to pure Sunni creed.’ 

He replied, ‘Well, ibn Abi Zayd wrote this work when he was very young, and he recanted from this theology later on in his life.’ 

To which my friend said, ‘I don’t even want to ask you where this supposed recantation is or which other book of theology he wrote which shows he changed his views, the very fact that ibn Abi Zayd had such a theology in 350 AH clearly shows that this theology which you have ascribed to ibn Taymiyyah existed centuries before him!’  To which this person could not give any response.  I add that there is nothing of the sort.” 

By ‘this theology” the above-speaking Wahhabi means Imam Abu Muhammad ‘Abdullah ibn Abu Zayd al-Qayrawani’s (r.a.) statement, “bi dzatihi” in the mention of istiwa’ in his Risalah.  Observe how they reduce all Islamic theology to this one issue and ignore the fact that Shaykh ibn Taymiyyah’s (r.a.) student himself declared time after time that the phrase “bi dzatihi” is a bid’ah, whether Imam ‘Utsman ibn Sa’id ad-Darimi (r.a.) or Imam ibn Abu Zayd (r.a.) or Shaykh Ahmad ibn Taymiyyah (r.a.) said it.  Men are known by the truth, not the truth by men. 

Yasir Qadhi wrote, “Likewise the famous Maliki scholar, Imam ibn ‘Abd al-Barr (r.a.) has clear refutations of the theology of kalam and affirmed all the Attributes and rejected ta’wil.” 

Here, the best antidote is Imam ibn al-Jawzy’s (r.a.) analysis in Sayyid al-Khatsir: “I am truly astonished at an Andalusian man called ibn ‘Abd al-Barr who wrote a book called at-Tamhid in which he said that the hadits of the descent to the nearest Heaven ‘provides evidence that Allah is on the Throne, for if He were not so, there would be no meaning to the statement: ‘He descends’.’  Now this is the statement of a man who is ignorant of the knowledge that pertains to Allah Most High.  He has extrapolated from his senses whatever he knows about the descent of material bodies and has made an analogy between it and the Divine.  It is a far cry between the like of these and the adherents of Prophetic reports!  Truly they have spoken in the worst terms ever used by those who practice figurative interpretation, then they have turned around and blamed the scholars of kalam!” 

And, “Know, O seeker of right guidance, that reason and the transmitted evidence have long since provided us with two solid principles.  Apply them to the totality of the Prophetic narrations.  As for the transmitted evidence, it consists in the Saying of Allah Most High: ‘There is nothing whatsoever like unto Him’.  Whoever firmly understands this will never describe Him in patently sensory terms.” 

سُوۡرَةُ الشّوریٰ

... لَيۡسَ كَمِثۡلِهِۦ شَىۡءٌ۬‌ۖ ... (١١) 

… there is nothing whatever like unto Him … (Surah ash-Shura’:11) 

Yasir Qadhi wrote, “In fact, the Murabithun who ruled over the entire region of al-Maghrib in the 4^th century of the hijrah were clearly upon the pure Sunni theology, so much so that the ‘infamous’ burning of the Ihya’ of Imam al-Ghazali (r.a.) occurred because of them and in their time.”  See how they love to mention the burning of the Ihya’, as if their entire knowledge of Maliki history consists in this one hiccup in time – and they studiously avoid mentioning the details as well. 

Yasir Qadhi wrote, “As a side point, those who are always critical of the influence of ‘petro-dollars’ on the spread of a certain creed seem to ignore than this was the case throughout the centuries of Islam - well, perhaps not ‘petro-dollars’ per se but monetary incentives, the building of madaris, and the popularisation of certain positions and scholars, all were primary factors in the spread of other creeds and even fiqh.  There were some specific dynasties and universities that sponsored Ash’arite theology in particular, and these factors were a primary reason for the ‘infiltration’ of this theology into the Shafi’iyyah school.”  al-Hamdulillah, we all agree that Wahhabi ‘aqidah has spread through petro-dollars. 

Yasir Qadhi wrote, “… somewhat incorrect misnomer of ascribing pure Sunni theology to the Hanbali madzhab, ‘Hanbalite theology’.  Shaykh ibn Taymiyyah (r.a.), after he wrote his Wasithiyyah, was told by the court that tried him that if he were to claim that this creed represented the Hanbali school, and not all of Sunni Islam…”  See my edition of ar-Radd of Imam ibn Jahbal (r.a.) on Shaykh ibn Taymiyyah (r.a.) for the position of the jumhur of the Ahl as-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah, as well as the Hanbalis regarding him and his ‘aqidah. 

May Allah (s.w.t.) preserve us from the deviances past and present posing as true doctrine.  However, we submit to the Divine Decree that we cannot force people to be Guided and we have observed that in some cases the dall and mudill actually deserve one another.  Imam an-Nawawi (r.a.) mentioned in his commentary on the hadits of Naswihah on the question of qadar, that it is a foregone conclusion we can, in reality, do nothing about: 

سُوۡرَةُ الذّاریَات

يُؤۡفَكُ عَنۡهُ مَنۡ أُفِكَ (٩) 

Through which are deluded (away from the Truth) such as would be deluded. (Surah adz-Dzariyat:9) 

So we present our proofs, then we leave them with their delusions.