Abdullah b. Ghudayan
Rabi’ al-Madkhali the Murji heretic – may Allah give him what he deserves – reviewed, approved, and introduced a book called Dala’il al-Burhan. The author added al-Madkhali’s own comments as well in places. The purpose of this book is to misguide the Sunni Muslims from the Madhab of Ahl al-Sunnah to the vile madhab of the Murjia.
In this book of heresies, the Murji author writes:
..وهذا الذي ينبغي أنْ يُقال: بأنّ هذه المسألة – أعني: مسألة تكفير تارك أعمال الجوارح بالكليَّة – هي مسألة خلافيّة, لا يسوغ لأحدٍ أنْ يرميَ المكفِّرين من أهل السنّة بأنّهم خوارج أو أنّهم وافقوا الخوارج وهم يفارقون الخوارج في أباطيلهم وأضاليلهم ولا يسوغ أيضًا لأحدٍ أنْ يرميَ عدم المكفِّرين من أهل السنّة بأنّهم مرجئة أو وافقوا المرجئة وهم يفارقونهم في ضلالاتهم وأباطيلهم وأصول مذاهبهم
This is what must be stated: This issue – i.e. Takfeer of the one who abandons actions altogether – is contentious issue, where it is not allowed for one to accuse those who make Takfeer from Ahl al-Sunnah of being from the Khawarij, or that they agreed with the Khawarij, while they disagree with the Khawarij in their falsehood and misguidance. Likewise, it is not allowed for one to accuse those who do not make Takfeer from Ahl al-Sunnah that they are Murjia, or that they agreed with the Murjia, while they also disagree with them in their falsehood and misguidance.
He also said:
أنّه قد جاء عن بعض الأئمّة ما يدلّ على أنّ هذه المسألة اجتهاديّة يدور الخلاف فيها بين علماء أهل السنّة
It is narrated from some of the Imams that which indicates that this issue is merely that of Ijtihad where the difference remains amongst the scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah
Shaykh Abdullah b. Ghudayan was asked the following question about this book checked and approved by Rabi’ al-Madkhali:
Recently, a new book has appeared on the internet called “Dala’il al-Burhan” where the author states that the issue of the one who abandons actions altogether is a contentious issue amongst Ahl al-Sunnah, where there should neither be any censure or imputing of heresies. What is your opinion?
Ibn Ghudayan said in response:
هذا فـــي الواقع هو قول المرجئة ، فهذا قول المرجئة الذين يجعلون الأعمال مُـكمـّـلة وليست شرطا في صحة الإيمان ؛ يعني يقولون : لو ءآمنا الإنسان بقلبه وماصلـي ، ولا صام ، ولا اعتمر ، ولا حج ، وفعل المحرمات فهذا مؤمن تماما ً ، وهذا ماهو صحيح .
This in reality is the very belief of the Murjia. This is the belief of the Murjia who consider actions to be merely a factor of perfection as opposed to it being the very condition for the validity of faith. I.e. they say: If a person were to believe in his heart, but never prayed, or fasted, or made Umra or Hajj, and indulged in forbidding things then he is completely a believer. And this is not correct.
(Sharh al-Muwafaqat 18/04/1427)
1) This comes as another nail in the coffin of Rabi al-Madkhali
2) Ibn Ghudayan clearly declares Rabi’s checked and approved work to be espousing the beliefs of the Murjia
3) Murjia are a heretics, one of the 72 sects promised the fire of Hell
Khalid al-‘Anbari is another one of the leaders of the contemporary Murji sect. He was declared a Murji, and his books were further banned by the leading scholars of our time, including Shaykh ‘Abd al-Aziz Aal al-Shaykh, Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan, Shaykh Bakr Abu Zayd and Shaykh Abdullah al-Ghudayan.
However, the innovators in the West continue to cling on to these misguiding innovators, despite of clear cut warnings from the senior scholars of Saudi Arabia. The Murji centres in the UK who continue to invite Ali Hasan al-Halabi and Khalid al-Anbari include Brixton Mosque, Masjid al-Ghuraba in Luton and SalafiManhaj website.
Muslims are warned against Khalid al-Anbari and all centres that support him and his heresy. Below is the fatwa from The Permanent Body for Research and Legal Opinion against the heretic, Khalid al-‘Anbari, and by extension, all their supporters.
Listen to the conversation by clicking below:
السائل : السلام عليكم ورحمة الله .
الشيخ : السلام ورحمة الله .
السائل : حياك الله يا شيخ عبدالله الغديان
الشيخ : حياك الله .
السائل: كيف الحال
الشيخ : طيب .
السائل : يا شيخ هل هذا صحيح هناك من يقول أنه يوجد علماء الجرح و التعديل في هذا الزمان فهل هذا كلام صحيح “؟
الشيخ الغديان : و الله يا أخي علم الجرح و التعديل موجود في الكتب .
السائل : في وقتنا هذا هل يوجد ؟
الشيخ : لا ، علم الجرح و التعديل عن علماء الحديث الذين نقلوا لنا الأحاديث بالأسانيد موجود في كتب الجرح و التعديل فما نحتاج إلى أحد الحين .
السائل : يا شيخ هناك من يقول أن الدكتور ربيع بن هادي المدخلي حامل لواء الجرح و التعديل ؟
الشيخ :لا أعرفه ، أنا لو يصادفني في الطريق ما عرفته يمكن ، ما علي من أحد .
السائل: بارك الله فيك .
Man: as-Salaamu ‘alaykum wa-rahmatullah
Shaykh: ‘Alaykum as-salaam wa-rahmatullah
Man: May Allah give you long life, O Shaykh ‘Abdullah al-Ghudayan!
Shaykh: May Allah give you long life, too.
Man: How are you?
Man: O Shaykh, is it true what some say that there are scholars of Jarh and Ta’dil alive today? Is this correct?
Shaykh: By Allah, dear brother, the science of Jarh and Ta’dil is present in the books.
Man: But is there anyone present in our time?
Shaykh: No. The science of Jarh and Ta’dil as narrated from the scholars of Hadeeth who transmitted Ahadeeth to us along with the chains is present in the works of Jarh and Ta’dil, so we do not need anyone today.
Man: Shaykh, there are those who say that Dr. Rabi’ b. Hadi al-Madkhali is the flag-bearer of the science of Jarh and Ta’dil today.
Shaykh: I don’t know him. If he bumped into me on the street I probably won’t even know him. I don’t care for anyone (making such claims).
Man: May Allah bless you
Click below to listen to the whole conversation:
لا لا ، هذا … عبدالحميد هذا اتركوه لأن هذا هو الذي يقود مذهب المرجئة في المملكة
“No! No! This man… ‘Abd al-Hamid… Leave him, because he is the man who is leading the Madhab of the Murji’a in the Kingdom (of Saudi Arabia)”
In the name of Allah – the Most Merciful – the Dispenser of Mercy
Fatwa Number: 21517 and Dated: 14/6/1421 AH
Praise be to Allah alone, and the Salaah and the Salaam be upon the one after whom there is no prophet… And as for what follows:
For verily, The Permanent body for research and legal opinion was informed about what was mentioned to the eminent General Mufti from some of the sincere ones about the requests for a legal formal opinion specifically for the secretariat general of the Council of Senior Scholars with number: 2928 and dated: 13/5/1421 AH. And number: 2929 and dated: 13/5/1421 AH, regarding the two books: “at-Tahdheer Min Fitnatit-Takfeer” [Warning from the tribulations of Takfeer] and “Saihatun-Nadheer” [An Outcry of the Warner] by their compiler – ‘Alee Hasan al-Halabi, and that they [the two books] are calling to the Madhhab of Irjaa [by claiming] that al-‘Amal [action] is not the condition for the correctness of Imaan, and he attributes this to Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah, and basis these two books upon distorted reports from Sheikh al-Islaam Ibn Taymiyah, al-Haafidh Ibn Katheer and others than them two – May Allah have mercy upon all, as well as the desire of those sincere ones for an explanation to what exists in these two books so that the readers may acknowledge the truth from falsehood… and so on…
And after the study carried out by The Body of the two aforementioned books and the examination of them, it has become clear to The Body that the book “at-Tahdheer Min Fitnatit-Takfeer” compiled by ‘Alee Hasan al-Halabi, in what he appended to the statements of the Scholars in his forward as well as his footnotes, comprises of the following:
1 – Its author based it [the book] upon the false, innovated Madhhab of the Murji`ah, those who encircle al-Kufr, with the Kufr of Juhood [rejection], Takdheeb [denial] and al-Istihlaal al-Qalbee [making permissible that which is forbidden – in the heart, only] as it [appeared] on p.6 f.2 and p.22 and this is contrary to what Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jama’ah are upon, that al-Kufr occurs by al-I’itiqaad [belief], by al-Qawl [statements], by al-Fi’l [actions] and by ash-Shak [doubts].
2 – His distortion while conveying from Ibn Katheer – May Allah have Mercy upon him – from “al-Bidaayah an-Nihaayah” [The beginning and the end] 13/118, when he mentioned in the footnote on p.15, conveying from Ibn Katheer: “That Jankeez Khaan claimed regarding al-Yaasiq that it is from Allah, and this is the reason for their Kufr”, but when referring back to that passage [in the book we come to know that], what he attributed to Ibn Katheer – may Allah have Mercy upon him – was not found.
3 – Attributing an unfounded statement to Sheikhul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyah – may Allah have mercy upon him – on p.17-18 when the aforementioned compiler of the book, attributes to him, that the ruling on the Mubaddal [the one who replaces the Sharee’ah of Allah with other laws] according to Sheikh al-Islaam is not Kufr [Akbar], unless if [the replacement of the Sharee’ah] occurs with Ma’rifah [acknowledgement], I’tiqaad [belief] and Istihlaal [making permissible that which is forbidden], and this is merely a baseless statement attributed to Sheikhul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyah – May Allah have Mercy upon him – as he was the propagator of the Madhhab of the Salaf of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah, and their Madhhab is what has preceded, whereas this [i.e. Alee Hasan’s Madhhab], indeed it is the Madhhab of the Murji`ah.
4 – His alteration of the intent of the eminent al-‘Allaamah ash-Sheikh Muhammad bin Ibraahim – May Allah have Mercy on him – in his article – Tahkeem al-Qawaaneen al-Wadha’eeyah [Ruling by man-made laws], when the compiler of the aforementioned book claims that the Sheikh places a condition of Istihlaal al-Qalbee [making permissible that which is forbidden – in the heart], whereas the statement of the Sheikh is as clear as the sun in his aforementioned article to the mainstream of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah.
5 – His comments upon the statements of those whom he mentioned from the people of knowledge, by implying a meaning from their statements which do not carry that meaning, as it appeared on p.108 f.1, p.109 f.21 and p.110 f.2.
6 – As there exists in the book showing insignificance to ruling with other than the laws of Allah, and especially on p.5 f.1 with a claim that having concern for the realisation of Tawheed in this issue has similarities with the Shee’ah – ar-Raafidhah – and this is a grave error.
7 – And by examining the second piece of work – Saihatun-Nadheer, it is found that it [the book] is as if a continuation of the aforementioned book [Fitnatut-Takfeer] – and its condition is as has been mentioned. For this reason, verily, The Permanent Body views that these two books, it is not permissible to publish them, nor propagating them, nor circulating them, due to what they contain from falsehood and distortion. And we advise their author to fear Allah regarding himself, and regarding the Muslims and especially their youth, and that he strives to gain Shara’ee knowledge first-hand from the Scholars, those trustworthy in regards to knowledge and correctness of their belief. And that knowledge is a trust, and it is not permissible to propagate it, unless it is in accordance to the Book and the Sunnah. And to uproot the likes of these opinions and the despicable method of distorting the statements of the people of knowledge. And it is known that to return to the truth is a virtue and a nobility for a Muslim.
And Allah is the granter of success, and the Salaah and Salaam of Allah be upon our Prophet Muhammad, his followers and his companions.
The Permanent body for research and legal opinion
Head Abdul ‘Azeez bin ‘Abdullah bin Muhammad Aal ash-Sheikh
Member ‘Abdullah bin ‘Abdur-Rahmaan al-Gudeyaan
Member Bakr bin ‘Abdullah Abu Zaid
Member Saalih bin Fawzaan al-Fawzaan
1) ‘Ali Hasan based his works on the heretical Murji doctrine
2) ‘Ali Hasan distorts statements of scholars and attributes to them what they never said
3) ‘Ali Hasan belittles the Kufr of ruling with man-made laws
4) It is Haram to publish or promote ‘Ali Hasan’s view on Iman and Kufr, for it is essentially a Murji view
5) ‘Ali Hasan al-Halabi is admonished and advised to fear Allah and to learn Islam from the scholars first-hand, implying that he neither fears Allah nor has he studied from scholars first-hand.
6) Aforementioned views are shared by Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Aziz Aal al-Shaykh, Shaykh ‘Abdullah b. al-Ghudayan, Shaykh Bakr b. ‘Abdullah Abu Zayd and Shaykh Salih b. Fawzan al-Fawzan