No Unity Upon Error

This is a pretty rough draft of something that needs to be discussed regarding various groups here in the West.  This was written as a response on another blog to the absurdity of those who claim to be Sunnis (i.e., those who follow a madhhab and either the Ash`ari or Maturidi schools of explaining Doctrine) with the Wahhabis (i.e., those who pray to a giant (imaginary) corporeal entity with a smiling face, tibia, fingers, feet, and eyes that allegedly mounts the `Arsh). 


I know that i can’t be the only one in the Islamic blogosphere who sees that there is a problem here. One of the primary principles of this Deen is to enjoin the good and forbid the wrong. We have two, or one may say, three trends taking place here. These positions, in spite of what some “pledge” may claim, are irreconcilable.


Let’s start from the top and be blunt about it. The Maghrib Institute is a Wahhabi institute. Now before the pseudo-salafis start lying and saying there is no such thing as a “Wahhabi,” this was the name given to the movement by the Sunnis when this movement arose from the accursed region of Najd. By “Wahhabi,” i mean those who follow Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab and believe in the anthropomorphic teachings of that movement. It is the Wahhabis, who pray to a giant corporeal smiling faced entity, with a tibia, a pair of relatively small feet, eyes and fingers, who moves up and down, sits in person, and mounts the Ceiling of Paradise (the `Arsh). The Sunnis have deemed this outrageous belief kufr.


On the other hand, there are those who claim to be “traditionalist” Muslims who follow a madhhab and one of the two schools of Sunni theology (Ash`ari or Maturidi). These people have gained almost rock star status among some Muslims. Nonetheless, these same “rock stars” have made claims, such as:

—-”the Hurul-`Ayn” (Virgins of Paradise) are figurative,

—that murder interupts the predestined deathtime of a person (this is outright kufr, for nothing alters that which Allah has predestined)

—that we are “the children of Allah,” (on at least two, although i heard from someone else on at least three occassions)

—that (one of these quasi-scholars) does not know what happens to the kaafir when he dies (and refers to kaafirs as “martyrs”)

—there is no martial jihaad mentioned in the Qur’an

—in an interview with Bill Moyer one of these (so-called) “scholars” for dollars just outright denies and rejects a verse in the Qur’an (whose meaning is commonly known by any student of knowledge)

—claims that we cannot call a person a “kaafir” because we do not know what state a person will die upon (this is a lie–we judge a person based upon their current condition)

—cannot even give a clear unambiguous definition of who a kaafir is and what is their destination in the Hereafter—-In essence, there is a trend among these quasi-traditionalists to obliterate the entire notion of kufr (disbelief) and riddah (apostasy) from the minds of Muslims (so that they (these swindlers) won’t be challenged in their misguidance/kufr)

—another one of these “scholars” oversaw a Ph. D. dissertation that attempts to prove that “the original Asiatic blackman is Allah,” (by some twisted line of logic that since the early Muslims (allegedly) had anthropomorphic notions about Allah, and that the original inhabitants of Arabia were allegedly black, ergo, Allah is a “blackman.”) This same “scholar” said in one of his books that it is not important for African-American Muslims to study the matters of `Aqidah.

—then we have one of the former Maghrib teachers asking Allah to have mercy on a well-known (dead) deviant, who denied the miracles of the Prophets, denied the existence of the jinn, claimed that the accountable Christians are not condemned to Hell, that the Christian male can marry the Muslim female, etc. Even some of his (now former?) students couldn’t wrap their minds around that–for they said that they learned FROM HIM that the one who does the above commits kufr (i.e., denies what is necessarily known in the Deen), and one cannot ask Allah to forgive the one who dies in a state of disbelief (for it belies what Allah revealed).


It is clear that if these two groups were sincere to their methodology, they would necessarily not only speak out against each other, but they would have to make takfeer on one another. The Sunnis have always deemed those who claim Allah occupies space, or has body parts, or changes as a non-Muslim. The Prophet only taught one belief in the Eternal Creator. You simply can’t reconcile the Sunni belief that Allah is clear of time, place, and direction with the claim (the lie) that Allah has organs, limbs, appendages, a smiling face, and sits down inside of a location. As for the so-called Salafis, they deem the mainstream Muslims kaafir for making tawassul (asking Allah by the virtue of the righteous Muslims) and tabarruk (seeking blessings thru the traces of the righteous). These two points are the rationale the Wahhabis employed to go on a wholesale massacre of the Muslims in Medinah, Taa’if, and starve the Muslims in Mecca in the early 1800’s.


Regarding Abdullah Hakim Quick, he was what some used to call the “Afrocentric Wahhabi”–although it seems he’s toned it down over the years. For one, you can’t do a historical study of Islam in Africa come to the conclusion that the Muslims of Africa were following the anthropomorphic doctrines of the Wahhabis (to the contrary, they are Ash`aris), and that Islam spread thru Africa largely by way of the Sufi tariqahs. Also, in a video Abdullah Hakim Quick did, he has a scene where there are WOMEN visiting the graves to seek blessings of some of those who are said to be among the awliyaa’. He doesn’t make any objection to that–although, the Wahhabis consider such an act kufr. In-sha’ Allah, i hope he’s changed–but it makes no sense that if he did for him to join Al-Maghrib.


In summary, unity is based upon sincerity–that is, sincerity to Allah and unity is based upon seeking to defend the Deen from corruption. These various factions have been willing to put aside CORE DIFFERENCES IN CREED(S) in order to attract large numbers of people (and to make A LOT of loot). If we wish to get united, we need to get down to what the core issues/differences are (primarily those related to `Aqidah), establish what is correct and warn against and expose those who are wrong. Until these alleged leaders are willing to that (and fix their mistakes), then we shouldn’t forget what Cheryl Benard laid out in her Rand Report article on how to undermine Islam.

With Allah is the success.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

10 Responses to “No Unity Upon Error”

  1. swarthmoor Says:


    It has nothing to do with cowardice–it’s about being able to stay on point. This is not a thread about the Ahbash group. It’s about the fact that those who follow traditional Islamic scholarship cannot unite with Wahhabis under the banner of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jama`ah. The Sunnis and Wahhabis have two different beliefs. One is correct–the other is kufr.

    A mujassimah is a kaafir–whether he claims to be a Sunni or a Shi`ah. Whoever claims that the mujassimah are not kaafir would himself be a kaafir. Now, ask yourself, who is presently causing more harm to Ahlus-Sunnah: the Wahhabi anthropomorphists or the Nusayri anthropomorphists? Personally, i have never encountered a Nusayri calling people to their doctrine. I’ve never met a person from a Sunni family who converted to Nusayrism…. Shoot, i have never met a Nusayri. Period. On the other hand, there are THOUSANDS of books on the market promoting the Wahhabi doctrine. I’ve met far too many Wahhabis on the web and in person. And you have entire groups of people calling themselves Sunnis who are getting infected by the Wahhabi plague (such as, many of the Somalis–and African-Americans).

    I would assume that the Habashis are simply playing one group of deviants off against the other. That’s all about politics and survival in the Middle East. The Syrian government probably sees the Ahbash as a buffer between the Qutbis and Wahhabis, who will incite overthrowing the government; whereas, the Habashis use the Syrian regime to help spread traditional `Aqidah and bash the Qutbis and Wahhabis. One of the main talking points of the Ahbash is that the one who claims Allah occupies space is a kaafir–and certainly, we know that At-Tahawi said:

    “Whoever ascribes to Allah a human characteristic is a disbeliever.”

    From my understanding of the Nusayri creed, that would defintely include them among the kuffaar. I think that anyone one from the Ahbash would agree with that, and i’ve never heard that the Ahbash promote the doctrines of the Nusayris or say that they are acceptable. I know this doesn’t matter much to you, for you don’t care to discuss the real issues, but would rather introduce red herrings in an effort to confuse and distract folks from the matter at hand.

  2. aks Says:

    which scholar said ‘children of Allah’? and who denied a verse of the Quran? names and proof of this would be nice.

  3. swarthmoor Says:


    Zaid Shakir (barring someone playing with the audio) used the phrase in two ISNA conference lectures–in 2006 and 2007. Both of these videos have subsequently been taken down from YouTube (i kinda think the reason being is that i posted the vids exposing his statement on several blogs–for the videos had been on line for more than a year). Regarding the denial of a verse, he’s guilty of that as well in an interview with Bill Moyers. You can start at 12:40:

    Granted the issue is sensitive–but at the same time a (genuine) Muslim scholar does not call a Muslim a “pathological maniac” for abiding by what Allah made permissible in the Qur’an. The point is that these personalities are willing to outright LIE and distort the Religion to make the Deen more in compliance with the values that happen to be trendy today in secular humanism. This indicates that they are NOT scholars and they cannot be relied upon for judgments–or to even stand up and defend the Deen of Allah.

    With Allah is the success.

  4. higherstations Says:


    could you name some of the scholars that you follow?

  5. um. Says:

    dont talk about my teacher like that.
    be careful bro.
    those who mistreat the friends of God, God wages war against them. There’s a reason why God has kept His friends secret. just out.
    And you saying stuff about him btw, is straight up slander/backbiting.
    and there are a whole lot of things that come before “forbidding evil”. you can’t just jump straight to it. learn those things bro.
    and not everything is an ‘aqeedah issue ok akh? if the Imam says we are God’s children, He doesn’t mean that Allah swt conceived us, Haasha Lillah.

    And listen, you can’t judge a person’s sincerity. I’m sorry but Allah didn’t give you super man goggles to peer into someone’s heart with. There are some really religious sincere Christians and Jews out there who have not been properly exposed to Islam. It may be that they are better than some Muslims because the Muslim has the guidance but might not follow it. And so if we can unite with a nonMuslim for a good cause, why can we not unite with our brother in faith? Perhaps Yasir Qadhi is sincere. God knows, not you. Perhaps many wahhabi views may be kufr. Mumkin. But perhaps if the wahhabi is believing in it because he sincerely thinks it is the truth and has not been guided otherwise, perhaps he is better than someone who is on the truth but is arrogant. At least they’ll have something to say on the day of judgement when they meet God, most High.
    Get a grip bro. Get. a. grip.
    May God guide you, myself and humanity collectively.

  6. M Says:

    Can I have your email please?

  7. sa Says:

    Assalamu Alaykum Brother,
    With all due respect, this is one of the most vile islamic sites i have been on, the sheer hate manifest therein was quite surprising, even more surprising are the pitiful level of argumentation. This is shameful as non-muslim school kids may be put off islam when seeing hick-medwest-evangelical level of ‘devil-mongering’ that is spewed here. May Allah forgive us and guide us and put peace in our hearts through understanding His Oneness.

    I will not answer all your points, just one or two to illustrate the point, neither do i want to argue as i fear that would never end:

    (1) “Children of God” like “Sons of God” as anybody clearly knows (even most educated Christians and Jews – through whom that language is in english discourse) is not a literal phrase, Allah is beyond that. So it is a complete straw-man argument. The phrases refer to the creation of God and the especially obedient followers of God especially (“Sons of India” does not mean that the soil of india can reproduce but it refers to men and women who serve India). People say that a man and a woman ‘create’ a baby, but they don’t mean that literally, as in reality Allah creates. In a similar way someone being the ‘son of God’ does not mean what it means for the human case, it is figurative, a elementary school kid knows this when taught about ‘connotation’ or ‘metaphor’. The problem is when one (i.e. in Christian scholarship) interprets it literally and tries to justify it with a trinity or something like that, not all Christians do this (unitarians etc), and no muslims do this either.

    When you look at past islamic scholarship there are wide ranging views on all of the above topics, thousands of tafasir and opinions. Unless one has studied the various ones (as those scholar you revile clearly have, and you have not) it is illogical to simply claim those opinions either do not exist or are ‘wrong’. If similar level of arguments, as presented here (whether it be in mathematics or politics or islamic studies) are barely going to get you past school-level exams (or if basic freshman college course) then how do you expect to engage with muslim scholarship which is the most advanced level of scholarship that has ever existed?

  8. swarthmoor Says:


    It is enough to know that the Christians are called kuffaar in the Qur’an for ascribing a “child” to Allah. Furthermore, this saying (of ascribing a child to Allah) is considered kufr by the Sunni scholars—even if the person meant it in a figurative manner. The Qu’ran makes it clear that ascribing to Allah a child is an ABOMINATION (19: 88-90). You will not find traditionally trained Sunni books that refer to Muslims as the “sons and daughters of Allah (a`udhu billah).

    What you have going on here, Sa, is that there are Rand Corporation Apologists who are INTENTIONALLY distorting the Deen. They are unwilling to make similar and clear definitions, such as, clarifying for people what is a kaafir or what constitutes kufr/apostasy. These people clearly have an agenda: namely to obscure as much as possible the very foundations of the Islamic doctrine.

    Lastly, it is not bad to order the good and forbid the evil. I haven’t said anything that is contrary to traditional Islamic scholarship. Praise Allah, i learned from learned students of knowledge. On the other hand, you have some people who have learned SOME traditional knowledge, then for whatever reasons, they have chosen to distort the positions of those scholars—and at the same time, these quasi-traditionalists are taking advantage of the widespread ignorance of the Muslims here in the West. My suggestion, Sa, is first to get beyond an attachment to personalities, but to examine what these people are saying and way it according to traditional knowledge. Additionally, i would suggest for you to read Cheryl Benard’s Rand report on how to dismantle Islam, and then see who is following that blueprint. Indubitably, you will see that it is the very people mentioned above.

  9. Omar Says:

    What I get out of this is you are making takfeer of the “Wahhabis”.

    Akhi, your criticism is very unfair. You know very well they don’t believe in “appendages” in any sense that is human. They say without howness, means it has nothing to do, not even similar to any hand or face you know.

    Some of them have even said that somebody talks about Allah’s hand and moves his hand in illustration – cut it off! Even when they say Allah descends in the last third of the night, they say Imam Ahmad would put his hands behind his back so he doesn’t simulate physical descent as we know it.

    The word “hand” means something specific, and if you take away the “howness” and similarity to anything, it becomes a bunch of meaningless letters – more of an ephemeral amorphous concept. How is that different from saying Allah does not have a physical hand as we know it (because there is nothing like Him), but the Quran used the word hand, and Allah?

    Why the need to overly philosophize and interpret? Please tone down your hatred and takfeer of the ‘Wahhabis’.

    JazakAAllahu Khayr

  10. bayezids Says:

    salaam aleikum ya akhi swarthmoor. i first saw your comment on the mujahideenryder website and i must say that i’ve been quite elated after reading them.

    you seem to emphasize a lot on the importance of knowing the correct aqeeda, or creed of islam. and i agree with you a hundred percent on this. in the early periods of islam, if anyone believed in a wahhabi-manner belief in ALLAH, they’d be considered majnoon.
    the same goes for a jahmi style belief.

    we have to understand that there is no point in calling ourselves muslims when we cant even glorify ALLAH the way we are supposed to. what else is islam based on ? if creed goes, everything goes. no wonder we are in such a precarious and laughable position today. i strongly feel that it is a punishment of ALLAH.

    until and unless we start knowing the basics such as ALLAH has no limits in any way, we will not reach any place.
    ALLAH can use hands if HE wills as that idea comfortably fits with HIS infinite power .it does not mean HE is ‘trapped’ with having appendages. and the correct view of ALLAH is that HE can never be imagined or understood.

    as much as i love listening to shaikh hamza yusuf, i myself have noticed how he or his institute never stresses on knowing aqeeda the way it should be known. apparently, there are others (such as yourself) who have made a similar observation. so this is a complaint i have against such scholars as being talked about in which you share with me.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: