Did Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhāb Falsely Attribute a Kufri Belief to Others?
[A Thread 🧵 ]

These arguments set below are from the Islamic Discourse substack by Bassam Zawwadi who translated from Shaykh Faisal al-Jasim’s book, Ḥaqiqat aṣ-Ṣirā‘ fī Tārīkh Da‘wat ash-Shaykh Muḥammad bin ‘Abdul Wahhāb, pp. 107-110.

Some have alleged that Shaykh Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhāb (MIAW) conjured a baseless lie out of thin air by accusing Muslims of denying the Resurrection.

They base it on this remark of MIAW:

ومعلوم أن أهل أرضنا وأرض الحجاز الذي ينكر البعث منهم أكثر ممن يقر به

“And it is known that the people of our land and the land of Hijaz who deny the Resurrection are greater in number than those who affirm it.”
Ad-Durar as-Sanīyyah fī Ajwibat an-Najdīyyah, vol. 10, p. 43

Many people struggle with this statement because it is difficult to conceive how a person who claims to be Muslim could deny the Resurrection.

When we look at MIAW’s other statements, we realize that he spoke specifically about the Bedouins.

He said in his letter to Muḥammad b. ‘Īd:

من المعلوم عند الخاص والعام ما عليه البوادي أو أكثرهم، فإن كابر معاند لم يقدر على إن عنزة وآل ظفير وأمثالهم كلهم مشاهيرهم والأتباع إنهم مقرون بالبعث ولا يشكون فيه

What the Bedouins, or most of them, believe is known by all and sundry. Even one who arrogantly denies this will be unable to establish that ‘Anzah and Āl Ẓufayr and others like them, whether elites or commoners, believe in the Resurrection without having any doubts [about it].

Ibn Abdul Wahhāb, Mu’allafāt Ash-Shaykh Al-Imam Muḥammad b. Abdul Wahhāb, p. 25

He also said in his letter to the scholars of Makkah:

وإني أفتيت بكفر البوادي الذي ينكرون البعث والجنة والنار، وينكرون ميراث النساء… فلما أفتيت بكفرهم مع أنهم أكثر الناس في أرضنا استنكر العوام ذلك،

وخاصتهم الأعداء ممن يدعي العلم، وقالوا: من قال لا إله إلا الله لا يكفر ولو أنكروا البعث وأنكروا الشرائع كلها)

I gave the fatwá that the Bedouins who deny the Resurrection, Paradise, and Hell are kuffār. They also deny the inheritance portion of the female...


When I opined that they are kuffār, despite them being the majority in our lands, not only did the laity condemn it, but so did the learned who did so because of their enmity toward us.

They contended that whosoever says Lā ilāha illā Allah does not become an apostate even if he denies the Resurrection and denies the Sharī’ah in its entirety.
Ibn Abdul Wahhāb, Mu’allafāt Ash-Shaykh Al-Imam Muḥammad b. Abdul Wahhāb, p. 41

MIAW restricted this to the Bedouins he was familiar with, particularly in Najd and Ḥijāz. He never intended the entirety of Bedouins, which is why he said in a letter to Sulaymān b. Suḥaym:

يا ويلك، كيف تأمر بعد هذا باتباع أكثر الناس؟ ومعلوم أن أهل أرضنا وأرض الحجاز الذي ينكر البعث منهم أكثر ممن يُقرّ به


Woe unto you! How would you argue after this that the majority ought to be followed? This is when it is known that most of those in our land and the land Ḥijāz deny the Resurrection?!
Ibn Abdul Wahhāb, Mu’allafāt Ash-Shaykh Al-Imam Muḥammad b. Abdul Wahhāb, p. 235

It is also important to note that he did not even intend the entirety of the Bedouins in these areas. Rather, he intended to point out the preponderant unbelief found amidst the majority of them.

His contemporary opponents did not deny his claim that most of the Bedouins in his land and Ḥijāz held these kufri beliefs. There is no traceable evidence that any of them gave a different account to what MIAW described. What they had problems with was his takfīr of them.

They argued that the denial of Resurrection and rejection of divine ordinances does not necessitate takfīr because these individuals still utter “lā ilāha illā Allah.”

As far as they were concerned, it is impossible to declare anyone a kāfir who utters this statement; even if said individual denies the fundamentals of the Dīn.

MIAW said:

من المعلوم عند الخاص والعام ما عليه البوادي أو أكثرهم… قال علماؤكم: معلوم أن هذا حال البوادي لا ننكره، ولكن يقولون: لا إله إلا الله، وهي تحميهم من الكفر ولو فعلوا كل ذلك

Everyone knows what the Bedouins or most of them are upon … but your scholars say: we know and do not deny it, but they still say: lā ilāha illā Allah, and this suffices to shelter them from Kufr. This is even if they do all of what has been attributed to them.

Ibn Abdul Wahhāb, Mu’allafāt Ash-Shaykh Al-Imam Muḥammad b. Abdul Wahhāb, pp. 25-26

Moreover, MIAW was not alone in ascribing this to those claiming to be Muslims; rather, other scholars, preceding, succeeding, or contemporary to MIAW made similar ascriptions.

Of those who preceded him is Muḥammad As-Sanūsī (d. 895 A.H), who said:


وكثير من أهل البادية ينكر البعث

A lot of the Bedouins deny the Resurrection.
As-Sanūsī, Sharḥ Aqīdat at-Tawḥīd Al-Kubrá, p. 62

Of MIAW’s contemporaries, Muḥammad Al-Khalīlī Ash-Shāfi‘ī (d. 1147 A.H), in his compilation of fatwás mentioned that the Bedouin Arabs of As-Sa‘ādinah, Banī ‘Aṭiyyah and others from the Bedouins of Shām, Egypt, and the Ḥijāz -

affirm the Prophethood of Muḥammad (peace be upon him) but reject faith in the Resurrection
Al-Khalīlī, Fatāwá Muḥammad Al-Khalīlī, vol. 2, p. 281. He said:

And of those who came after him, Ibrāhim Al-Bayjūrī Al-Azharī (d. 1276 A.H), he said:

ومثل ذلك كثير في الناس، فمنهم من يعتقد أن الصحابة أنبياء وهذا كفر، ومنهم من يُنكر البعث ويقول: من مات ثم جاء وأخبر بذلك؟ إلى غير ذلك من الكفر الصريح.

And there are many such people; among them are those who think the companions are Prophets, and this is kufr. And among them are those who deny the Resurrection and say: “Who died and then came back [to life] to tell us about it?” And other such matters that are explicitly kufr

Al-Bayjūrī, Ḥāshiyat al-Bayjūrī ‘alá Jawharat at-Tawḥīd, p. 78

Thus, we see that MIAW openly and confidently ascribed this belief to certain Bedouins in certain locations. There was no motive for him to lie and situate himself to get exposed so easily by uttering such a radical and easily falsifiable lie openly.

Secondly, his opponents did not dispute his ascriptions but only disagreed with his takfīr.

Thirdly, other scholars have described the phenomenon of there being people who claim to be Muslims yet deny the Resurrection; this undermines the allegation that MIAW’s ascriptions are highly unplausible.

Allah knows best.

You can read the unrolled version of this thread here: https://typefully.com/AhmedTayy/LeMBd0H

Shaykh Muhammad ibn Abdulwahhab and allegations of false takfir

Trying to project a repentance upon the scholars of Ahl Al-Sunnah due to your own scholars undergoing it will not do you much good.

Here is a short thread 🧵 on this straw they're clutching onto regarding Shaykh Al-Islam (rh)

1. There is no textual/tangible proof of these statements or the letters that Shaykh Al-Islam supposedly wrote in the court sittings.

They weren't documented and transmitted but people in that gathering just narrated what happened and passed it on unlike the kalami scholars who wrote in their own books before they died with undeniable proof that they repented and retracted from their mistakes in 'Aqeedah.

2. Shaykh Al-Islam was subjugated by the government and he was threatened with life imprisonment and even death as some of their scholars did takfeer on him.

Under this situation and pressure, the only thing we receive are mere narrations from people (not on his side necessarily) and even those accounts differ according to the historians who wrote on this. There is nothing concrete from what Shaykh Al-Islam said in those gatherings.

3. Imam Ibn Hajar (rh) relied on other sources of history for his book ad-Durar al-Kaaminah and not all of them are known to be the most reliable & authentic on the life of shaykhul Islam ibn taymiyyah.

What we find in Al-Durar Al-Kaaminah is the following: “a report was written that Ibn Taymiyyah admitted to be an Ash‘ari”. No proof that it came from Ibn Taymiyyah humself.

Shaykh Al-Islam writes his own biography and documents some of the major events in his life yet he didn't mention anything about a retraction.

Secondly, Imam al-Birzaali & ibn 'Abdul Hadi are known to have the most reliable and accepted biographies of the Shaykh and they didn't mention a retraction.

Al-Dhahabi also says that the people in the time of ibn taymiyyah (rh) used to write things about him or distort certain narrations deliberately to serve their agendas.

4. After all the books, open debates, letters to scholars, meetings with rulers, etc why would he suddenly make such a huge retraction in a private court session?

He was sought countless times while he was in prison to retract his views and was even threatened on them but not only did he stay steadfast but also wrote books in the dungeons to refute them.

But all of sudden he changed last minute and we don't even have proper access to what was said in these 'letters' apart from narrations of those who happened to be present

Ibn Taymiyyah lived after this incident and had the chance to write about it in his own diary (which we have access to) like he did with everything else but he didn't.

In fact after this supposed retraction he carried on writing and wrote several books on aqeedah and refuting the asha'ira after the supposed repentance

5. At the time of Shaykh Al-Islam, the kalami scholars differed on his takfeer, some did while others didn't but some were also confused as they believed he did tajseem and they see tajseem of kufr yet they hesitated to do takfir of Ibn Taymiyyah.

After these 'retractions' surfaced, those scholars on the fence were able to escape from the burden of takfeering Ibn Taymiyyah by saying that he retracted afterwards and it was just a happy ending.

6. Shaykh Al-Islam also had many notable students who transmitted with amaanah everything they could from him.

The likes of Ibn Al-Qayyim, Ibn Katheer, Al-Dhahabi, ibn Abdul Hadi, Ibn Muflih, etc all wrote from ibn taymiyyah yet not one of them said that their teacher retracted his 'Aqeedah and became ash'ari.

As such, Ibn Al-Qayyim, who was with him right until he died, remained upon his views, and we do not find anything in the works of Ibn Al-Qayyim suggesting he became an asha'ri.

How is it at all rational that Ibn Al-Qayyim, who was fierce against the asha'ira never softened in his views or attacked the so called asha'ri ibn Taymiyyah?

7. Apart from his students, we see from the works of Taqi' Al-Din Subki, who wrote a poem after Shaykh Al-Islam had passed away, stating that had he been alive, he would have refuted his opinions and statements.

Now why would Subki refute Ibn Taymiyyah had he become an ash'ari?

The only conclusion we can draw, is that the so called 'repentance of Ibn Taymiyyah' is based on baseless rumours that are a coping mechanism for the Asha'ira and holds no basis in reality

So much for 'The people of rational thought'

This thread was adapted from another thread that is no longer available from Ustadh Abu Shaja'ah (May Allah ﷻ keep him steadfast)

You can read the unrolled version of this thread here: https://typefully.com/AhmedTayy/hmuYARf