Assalamualaikum ustadh can you address the claims made by the following commenter? :
As-salāmu ʿalaykum, brother. To better understand the criticisms regarding certain teachings, I believe it would be beneficial for you to study Islam under a qualified professor.
I am from France and have been learning from Maliki and Shafi'i scholars. They discuss these matters with us, and although I am not fully qualified to engage in deep theological discussions, I will share what they find problematic from my understanding.
The main concern with Wahhabism revolves around its methodology and some aspects of its ʿAqīda (creed). Beyond the figure of its founder, the real issue lies in the theological implications of his ideas for the Ummah.
1. Methodology
By advocating a return to the Qur'an and Sunnah without the mediation of traditional scholarship, Wahhabism effectively broke with centuries of Sunni Islamic teachings and the four established Sunni schools of jurisprudence (madhāhib). While some of its legal rulings (fiqh) are derived from the Hanafi school, its approach diverges significantly from traditional Sunni methodologies.
2. Issues in ʿAqīda (Theology)
Wahhabis tend to adopt a highly literalist interpretation of scripture. For example, they believe that Allah has a "hand," a "shin," or that He is "seated" on His Throne in a literal sense. However, from the Maliki and Shafi'i perspective, such beliefs lead to anthropomorphism (tashbīh), which is problematic because it attributes physical attributes of creation to Allah.
Yet, the Qur'an clearly states:
"There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the All-Hearing, the All-Seeing."
(Surah Ash-Shura 42:11)
This verse emphasizes that Allah is beyond human comprehension and incomparable to His creation. Thus, classical Sunni scholars interpret such descriptions metaphorically or consign their true meaning to Allah (tafwīḍ).
When the Qur'an states:
"The Most Merciful rose over the Throne."
(Surah Taha 20:5)
The Maliki and Shafi'i understanding is that this signifies Allah’s supreme authority and control over His creation rather than implying physical elevation or spatial restriction. Otherwise, attributing a "sitting position" to Allah would confine Him to a place and quantity—concepts that apply only to created beings. However, Allah existed before space and time, and He is beyond all limitations.
Furthermore, even if Wahhabis claim that Allah’s "hand" or "shin" is unlike any created thing, the mere act of affirming such attributes in a way that implies form, direction, or location imposes limitations on Allah.
3. The Importance of Traditional Scholarship
The four Sunni schools of thought follow an unbroken chain of transmission (isnād) that traces back to the Prophet ﷺ. However, Wahhabism, due to its methodology, sometimes disregards or undermines these traditional scholarly interpretations in favor of a direct reading of the Qur'an and Sunnah.
This approach can lead to a rejection of centuries of consensus (ijmāʿ) and scholarship, which classical Sunni Islam considers essential in preserving the correct understanding of the religion.
I hope this clarifies the discussion.
If you have any more question, I would be happy to elaborate a bit for you.
May Allah guide us all to the truth. (end quote)
And.....
This is exactly what is criticized about the literalist approach of Wahhabis—not understanding the metaphors and figures of speech in the Qur'an, which leads to attributing physical characteristics to Allah.
For example, when we say "someone’s fate is in the hands of justice," it doesn’t mean justice has actual hands. It’s a metaphor. But in your reading of the Qur’an, this literalism makes you miss the deeper meaning, interpreting these verses as if they physically describe Allah.
The problem is that once you attribute physical features to Allah, you open the door to imagination (whereas Allah cannot be imagined) and limit Him to space, form, and quantity.
Even if Wahhabis claim His "hand" or "shin" is unlike creation, by insisting on a literal meaning, they still limit Him. That’s why classical Sunni scholars either interpret these descriptions metaphorically or leave their true meaning to Allah (tafwīḍ).
See what I mean ?
Wahhabis remain a minority today. Their methodology and beliefs break away from traditional Sunni Islam, particularly because they reject the four Sunni schools of law (madhabs) and the established theological schools (Ash'arism and Maturidism), which have been followed by the majority of Sunni scholars for centuries.
One of the main criticisms against them is their tendency to declare other Muslims misguided or even disbelievers if they don’t follow their specific understanding. However, the four Sunni schools also follow the Companions, and even major Hadith scholars like Bukhari and Muslim adhered to beliefs aligned with Ash'arism and Maturidism.
Because of this, many traditional Sunni scholars see Wahhabism as having created a new, isolated version of Islam that disregards the scholarly tradition passed down for generations. Ibn Abd al-Wahhab’s strict literalism was widely criticized by scholars of his time, who warned that his approach led to anthropomorphism (giving Allah physical attributes), rejected classical interpretations, and encouraged excessive takfīr (declaring others disbelievers).
This literalist approach is a major break from traditional Sunni Islam, which has always emphasized both the text (Qur'an & Sunnah) and the scholarly tradition to ensure a balanced understanding of faith. (end quote)
Sorry akhi, I don't have time to respond to these sorts of lengthy things, especially when the substance of the points have already been addressed. You can try to be very specific about the precise issue bothering you, and we can work through them gradually point by point; not all at once. Salam.
Namely claims of divergence from methodology, breaking from the madhahib and on Aqeedah such as imposing limitations to Allah ﷻ. Also is he correct about Imam Muslim?
Your questions presume I read what you sent akhi :)
Regarding breaking from Madhahib, what I presume what is meant is rigidly sticking to the mu'tamad opinions of the madhab. That's not compulsory, nor backed by consensus.
As for imposing limitations to aqeedah, I presume this a philosophical critique of our stance on sifat that have already been addressed?
Wa Alaykum assalam. You’re familiar with the material on my website and should already know that the bulk of that stuff on the link has already either been directly or indirectly addressed already.
He denied that mushriks claiming to be Muslim had any kind of excuse for their ignorance of Tawhid (al-‘Udhr bi-l-Jahl). (Although this fact is commonly concealed by apologists using incomplete and misleading quotations from Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab’s writings).
Akhi, there's literally a section on that in this very article in whose comments section you're posting in.
We all know that there are scholars, both classically and contemporarily, who are not as generous with the excuses for udhr as other scholars. That's their ijtihad. That should never override the more severe error of major Shirk itself.
There's seems to be a confusion. With regards to the second section does it mean that the Shaykh didn't consider those seeking intercession from the dead as kuffar even though it is an act of shirk?
According to the quote as provided by Daniel below, the shaykh declared that they were polytheists :
فلا تغفلوا عن طلب التوحيد وتعلمه، واستعمال كتاب الله وإجالة الفكر فيه; وقد سمعتم من كتاب الله ما فيه عبرة، مثل قولهم: نحن موحدون، نعلم أن الله هو النافع الضار، وأن الأنبياء وغيرهم لا يملكون نفعا ولا ضرا، لكن نريد الشفاعة، وسمعتم ما بين الله في كتابه، في جواب هذا، وما ذكر أهل التفسير وأهل العلم، وسمعتم قول المشركين: الشرك عبادة الأصنام، وأما الصالحون فلا، وسمعتم قولهم: لا نريد إلا من الله، لكن نريد بجاههم; وسمعتم ما ذكر الله في جواب هذا كله.
وقد منّ الله عليكم بإقرار علماء المشركين بهذا كله، سمعتم إقرارهم أن هذا الذي يفعل في الحرمين، والبصرة، والعراق، واليمن، أن هذا شرك بالله، فأقروا لكم أن هذا الدين الذي ينصرون أهله، ويزعمون أنهم
السواد الأعظم، أقروا لكم أن دينهم هو الشرك.
وأقروا لكم أيضا أن التوحيد الذي يسعون في إطفائه، وفي قتل أهله وحبسهم، أنه دين الله ورسوله؛ وهذا الإقرار منهم على أنفسهم، من أعظم آيات الله، ومن أعظم نعم الله عليكم، ولا يبقى شبهة مع هذا إلا للقلب الميت، الذي طبع الله عليه، وذلك لا حيلة فيه.
Al-Durar al-Saniyya (vol.10, p.7)
Did he mean that they were guilty of shirk al-amal rather than shirk al-iman, with the former not being grounds for takfir?
As I said in my video rebuttal to YQ, scholars have differed over whether MIAW thought that asking dua from the person near the grave is major shirk or not. The author whose article I translated here takes the view that he did not. The quote you provided doesn't unequivocally rebut the author's view. I'm personally neutral or slightly incline to the view that MIAW did think it's major Shirk.
Salam Alaikum, might be a bit off-topic, but I just stumbled upon a 700-page book by a relatively unknown Najdi scholar from the time of Ibn Abdul Wahhab, Shaykh Abdul Aziz bin Hamad Al Muammar. In the book, the Shaykh intellectually deconstructs an anti-Islam book of Christian missionary.
This shows the intellectual engagement of Salafi/najdi scholars particularly in defending Islam which is never talked about
I suggest to pray to Allah, especially at the night, and ask him sincerely to guide you to the truth. If you’re confused then return to the scholars and inshallah there will be no blame on you as you did what was within your capacity, so just follow Ibn Taymiyyah who was a Mujtahid and Imam of Islam:
Ibn Taymiyyah says:
"Among them are those who ask from the dead what should only be asked from Allah. They say,
'Forgive me, provide for me, grant me victory, and similar to that-just as one supplicates to Allah in prayer. These actions are undoubtedly in opposition to the religion of all the messengers, for they are from Shirk, which Allah and His Messenger have forbidden. It is the Shirk for which the Messenger ﷺ fought against the polytheists.
As for those who engage in this, they may be excused due to ignorance if the proof has not been established against them, just as one is excused if no messenger has been sent to them, as Allah says:
"And We would not punish until We had sent a messenger." [Al-Isra: 15]
Otherwise, they deserve the punishment of this world and the Hereafter, just as the likes of them from the polytheists."
(Al-Qã idah al- Azimah fi al-Farq bayna ibadãt Ahl al-Islăm wa-al-Imãn wa-Ibãdãt Ahl al-Shirk wa-al-Nifãq, p. 69)
Assalamualaikum ustadh can you address the claims made by the following commenter? :
As-salāmu ʿalaykum, brother. To better understand the criticisms regarding certain teachings, I believe it would be beneficial for you to study Islam under a qualified professor.
I am from France and have been learning from Maliki and Shafi'i scholars. They discuss these matters with us, and although I am not fully qualified to engage in deep theological discussions, I will share what they find problematic from my understanding.
The main concern with Wahhabism revolves around its methodology and some aspects of its ʿAqīda (creed). Beyond the figure of its founder, the real issue lies in the theological implications of his ideas for the Ummah.
1. Methodology
By advocating a return to the Qur'an and Sunnah without the mediation of traditional scholarship, Wahhabism effectively broke with centuries of Sunni Islamic teachings and the four established Sunni schools of jurisprudence (madhāhib). While some of its legal rulings (fiqh) are derived from the Hanafi school, its approach diverges significantly from traditional Sunni methodologies.
2. Issues in ʿAqīda (Theology)
Wahhabis tend to adopt a highly literalist interpretation of scripture. For example, they believe that Allah has a "hand," a "shin," or that He is "seated" on His Throne in a literal sense. However, from the Maliki and Shafi'i perspective, such beliefs lead to anthropomorphism (tashbīh), which is problematic because it attributes physical attributes of creation to Allah.
Yet, the Qur'an clearly states:
"There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the All-Hearing, the All-Seeing."
(Surah Ash-Shura 42:11)
This verse emphasizes that Allah is beyond human comprehension and incomparable to His creation. Thus, classical Sunni scholars interpret such descriptions metaphorically or consign their true meaning to Allah (tafwīḍ).
When the Qur'an states:
"The Most Merciful rose over the Throne."
(Surah Taha 20:5)
The Maliki and Shafi'i understanding is that this signifies Allah’s supreme authority and control over His creation rather than implying physical elevation or spatial restriction. Otherwise, attributing a "sitting position" to Allah would confine Him to a place and quantity—concepts that apply only to created beings. However, Allah existed before space and time, and He is beyond all limitations.
Furthermore, even if Wahhabis claim that Allah’s "hand" or "shin" is unlike any created thing, the mere act of affirming such attributes in a way that implies form, direction, or location imposes limitations on Allah.
3. The Importance of Traditional Scholarship
The four Sunni schools of thought follow an unbroken chain of transmission (isnād) that traces back to the Prophet ﷺ. However, Wahhabism, due to its methodology, sometimes disregards or undermines these traditional scholarly interpretations in favor of a direct reading of the Qur'an and Sunnah.
This approach can lead to a rejection of centuries of consensus (ijmāʿ) and scholarship, which classical Sunni Islam considers essential in preserving the correct understanding of the religion.
I hope this clarifies the discussion.
If you have any more question, I would be happy to elaborate a bit for you.
May Allah guide us all to the truth. (end quote)
And.....
This is exactly what is criticized about the literalist approach of Wahhabis—not understanding the metaphors and figures of speech in the Qur'an, which leads to attributing physical characteristics to Allah.
For example, when we say "someone’s fate is in the hands of justice," it doesn’t mean justice has actual hands. It’s a metaphor. But in your reading of the Qur’an, this literalism makes you miss the deeper meaning, interpreting these verses as if they physically describe Allah.
The problem is that once you attribute physical features to Allah, you open the door to imagination (whereas Allah cannot be imagined) and limit Him to space, form, and quantity.
Even if Wahhabis claim His "hand" or "shin" is unlike creation, by insisting on a literal meaning, they still limit Him. That’s why classical Sunni scholars either interpret these descriptions metaphorically or leave their true meaning to Allah (tafwīḍ).
See what I mean ?
Wahhabis remain a minority today. Their methodology and beliefs break away from traditional Sunni Islam, particularly because they reject the four Sunni schools of law (madhabs) and the established theological schools (Ash'arism and Maturidism), which have been followed by the majority of Sunni scholars for centuries.
One of the main criticisms against them is their tendency to declare other Muslims misguided or even disbelievers if they don’t follow their specific understanding. However, the four Sunni schools also follow the Companions, and even major Hadith scholars like Bukhari and Muslim adhered to beliefs aligned with Ash'arism and Maturidism.
Because of this, many traditional Sunni scholars see Wahhabism as having created a new, isolated version of Islam that disregards the scholarly tradition passed down for generations. Ibn Abd al-Wahhab’s strict literalism was widely criticized by scholars of his time, who warned that his approach led to anthropomorphism (giving Allah physical attributes), rejected classical interpretations, and encouraged excessive takfīr (declaring others disbelievers).
This literalist approach is a major break from traditional Sunni Islam, which has always emphasized both the text (Qur'an & Sunnah) and the scholarly tradition to ensure a balanced understanding of faith. (end quote)
Sorry akhi, I don't have time to respond to these sorts of lengthy things, especially when the substance of the points have already been addressed. You can try to be very specific about the precise issue bothering you, and we can work through them gradually point by point; not all at once. Salam.
Namely claims of divergence from methodology, breaking from the madhahib and on Aqeedah such as imposing limitations to Allah ﷻ. Also is he correct about Imam Muslim?
Your questions presume I read what you sent akhi :)
Regarding breaking from Madhahib, what I presume what is meant is rigidly sticking to the mu'tamad opinions of the madhab. That's not compulsory, nor backed by consensus.
As for imposing limitations to aqeedah, I presume this a philosophical critique of our stance on sifat that have already been addressed?
I ctrl+f'd Muslim out of curiosity. Lol, if he said that about Bukhari, which is clearly false (see: https://islamicdiscourse.substack.com/p/imam-al-bukharis-aqeedah-on-allahs), then I doubt he's right about Muslim. Ask him to prove it.
Great article, it would be very beneficial if you could make this into a video so more can benefit.
Assalamualaikum can you address the following from Daniel Haqiqatjou? :
https://muslimskeptic.com/2025/01/11/the-deviant-ideology-of-muhammad-ibn-abd-al-wahhab/
He wrote in one of his posts that he will upload 3 video essays on The Muslim Skeptic channel
Wa Alaykum assalam. You’re familiar with the material on my website and should already know that the bulk of that stuff on the link has already either been directly or indirectly addressed already.
What about the claim of al-‘Udhr bi-l-Jahl?
Daniel wrote :
He denied that mushriks claiming to be Muslim had any kind of excuse for their ignorance of Tawhid (al-‘Udhr bi-l-Jahl). (Although this fact is commonly concealed by apologists using incomplete and misleading quotations from Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab’s writings).
Akhi, there's literally a section on that in this very article in whose comments section you're posting in.
We all know that there are scholars, both classically and contemporarily, who are not as generous with the excuses for udhr as other scholars. That's their ijtihad. That should never override the more severe error of major Shirk itself.
There's seems to be a confusion. With regards to the second section does it mean that the Shaykh didn't consider those seeking intercession from the dead as kuffar even though it is an act of shirk?
According to the quote as provided by Daniel below, the shaykh declared that they were polytheists :
فلا تغفلوا عن طلب التوحيد وتعلمه، واستعمال كتاب الله وإجالة الفكر فيه; وقد سمعتم من كتاب الله ما فيه عبرة، مثل قولهم: نحن موحدون، نعلم أن الله هو النافع الضار، وأن الأنبياء وغيرهم لا يملكون نفعا ولا ضرا، لكن نريد الشفاعة، وسمعتم ما بين الله في كتابه، في جواب هذا، وما ذكر أهل التفسير وأهل العلم، وسمعتم قول المشركين: الشرك عبادة الأصنام، وأما الصالحون فلا، وسمعتم قولهم: لا نريد إلا من الله، لكن نريد بجاههم; وسمعتم ما ذكر الله في جواب هذا كله.
وقد منّ الله عليكم بإقرار علماء المشركين بهذا كله، سمعتم إقرارهم أن هذا الذي يفعل في الحرمين، والبصرة، والعراق، واليمن، أن هذا شرك بالله، فأقروا لكم أن هذا الدين الذي ينصرون أهله، ويزعمون أنهم
السواد الأعظم، أقروا لكم أن دينهم هو الشرك.
وأقروا لكم أيضا أن التوحيد الذي يسعون في إطفائه، وفي قتل أهله وحبسهم، أنه دين الله ورسوله؛ وهذا الإقرار منهم على أنفسهم، من أعظم آيات الله، ومن أعظم نعم الله عليكم، ولا يبقى شبهة مع هذا إلا للقلب الميت، الذي طبع الله عليه، وذلك لا حيلة فيه.
Al-Durar al-Saniyya (vol.10, p.7)
Did he mean that they were guilty of shirk al-amal rather than shirk al-iman, with the former not being grounds for takfir?
As I said in my video rebuttal to YQ, scholars have differed over whether MIAW thought that asking dua from the person near the grave is major shirk or not. The author whose article I translated here takes the view that he did not. The quote you provided doesn't unequivocally rebut the author's view. I'm personally neutral or slightly incline to the view that MIAW did think it's major Shirk.
Oh excuse me. I haven't finished reading.
Jazak Allahu Khayr. It would still be beneficial if you address his coming videos
Salam Alaikum, might be a bit off-topic, but I just stumbled upon a 700-page book by a relatively unknown Najdi scholar from the time of Ibn Abdul Wahhab, Shaykh Abdul Aziz bin Hamad Al Muammar. In the book, the Shaykh intellectually deconstructs an anti-Islam book of Christian missionary.
This shows the intellectual engagement of Salafi/najdi scholars particularly in defending Islam which is never talked about
What’s the name of the book akhi?
منحة القريب المجيب في الرد على عباد الصليب للشيخ عبد العزيز بن حمد بن ناصر بن عثمان آل معمر رحمهم الله
If you’re confused about the excuse of ignorance then watch this to see Ibn Taymiyyah’s position https://youtu.be/e0bSvV7fkrU?si=j6aEFxOsDuvOwVWX
I suggest to pray to Allah, especially at the night, and ask him sincerely to guide you to the truth. If you’re confused then return to the scholars and inshallah there will be no blame on you as you did what was within your capacity, so just follow Ibn Taymiyyah who was a Mujtahid and Imam of Islam:
Ibn Taymiyyah says:
"Among them are those who ask from the dead what should only be asked from Allah. They say,
'Forgive me, provide for me, grant me victory, and similar to that-just as one supplicates to Allah in prayer. These actions are undoubtedly in opposition to the religion of all the messengers, for they are from Shirk, which Allah and His Messenger have forbidden. It is the Shirk for which the Messenger ﷺ fought against the polytheists.
As for those who engage in this, they may be excused due to ignorance if the proof has not been established against them, just as one is excused if no messenger has been sent to them, as Allah says:
"And We would not punish until We had sent a messenger." [Al-Isra: 15]
Otherwise, they deserve the punishment of this world and the Hereafter, just as the likes of them from the polytheists."
(Al-Qã idah al- Azimah fi al-Farq bayna ibadãt Ahl al-Islăm wa-al-Imãn wa-Ibãdãt Ahl al-Shirk wa-al-Nifãq, p. 69)