Rabi’ al-Madkhali, in his conceitedness and naivety sent one of his lousy refutations against Sayyid Qutb to one of the leading scholars of Saudi Arabia, the Shaykh, the Allama, Bakr Abu Zayd – may Allah shower him with mercy – expecting him to back his unjust criticisms.
al-‘Allama Bakr Abu Zayd, much to Rabi’s disappointment, shred his book to pieces by writing this scathing attack on al-Madkhali, which eventually became public and a thorn in the neck of every living Madkhali.
The Madkhali deviants claim that Shaykh Bakr Abu Zayd retracted the letter and further cursed anyone who distributed it. However, there is no truth to this claim, especially if it cannot be traced back to Shaykh Bakr Abu Zayd and is claimed by none other than the people of bid’a. The fact of the matter is that the letter was published decades ago and Shaykh Bakr Abu Zayd had ample opportunity to write a retractation – but he did not – until the day he passed away, may Allah have mercy upon him.
The Golden Letter From al-‘Allamah Bakr Abu Zaid to Rabi’ al-Madkhali
The respected brother, Shaikh Rabee bin Hadee Al-Madkhali,
Assalamu Alaikum wa ramhatullahi wa barakatuh…
I draw your attention to your request from me to read the book attached: “Adwa’ Islamiyyah ‘Ala ‘Aqeedat Sayyid Qutb Wa Fikrih.” (Islamic lights on the Aqeedah & Ideas of Sayyid Qutub)… If there are any concerns over it? And whether these concerns mean that this project should be discarded and never be dealt with again? Or Is it considered from that which can be edited and qualified to be printed and distributed to serve as a reward for you on the day of Judgment, and as a guidance to those whom Allah wills from his servants. Thus I say the following:
1- I looked at the first page, the contents page to find the following titles regarding Sayyid Qutb: The foundations of kufr, atheism and heresy; belief in pantheism; belief in the createdness of the Quran; belief that it is permissible for other than Allah to legislate; the exaggeration in glorifying the attributes of Allah; that he does not accept Mutawatir Ahadeeth; he doubts in matters of Aqeedah which one must be certain about it; he makes wholesale Takfeer on societies, etc, from such topics that makes the believer’s hair stand on end.
I felt sorry for the Muslim scholars around the world who failed to notice these enormities. And how can one reconcile between this and the fact that his books are widespread on the horizon like the sun, and the generality of the scholars benefit from them, including yourself in some of your writings. I therefore, began to compare the topic headings with the contents, and discovered that they are contrary to the title headings. All in all, I found them to be provocative, geared towards making an average read attack Sayyid Qutb – may Allah have mercy on him. I hate for you, myself and every Muslim to sin and indulge in blameworthy things. It is a great deception on a person for him to grant all his good deeds to the one he hates and is an enemy to.
2- I looked and found that this book lacks: the basis of the scholarly research, the Manhaj of criticism, the trust of quoting (from others sources), the trust of knowledge, (and) not transgressing on others.
Regarding the etiquette of dialogue, the goodness of the approach, and the strength of introducing the material, then the above have nothing to do with this book by any mean… the proofs are:
First, I saw that you depended in quoting old editions of the books of Sayyed Qutb, like the books: Fee Thilaal Al-Qur’an, Al’Adalah Al Ejtima’eyyah, while knowing, as in the margin of page 29 and other (places), that there are some revised editions that came afterwards. It is obligatory according to the basics of criticism and the trust of knowledge to criticize – if it was about the contents of the last edition of any book because the changes in it (i.e. the last edition) abrogates the previous ones. This thing, inshallah, is not hidden from your basic information, but it is probably a mistake of a student who prepared this information for you who was not aware of that. It is well known that there are many similar situations for the people of knowledge, for example the book, Al Rooh, of Ibn Qayyim, when many scholars looked into it they said: it is probably issued during his early life. This also happened in many cases. The book (of Sayyed Qutb) Al’Adalah Al Ejtima’yah was the first (book) that he (Sayyed Qutb) authored about Islamic issues.
Second, the topic in the index of this book: Sayyid Qutb allows other than Allah to legislate, made my hair stand on end. I rushed to this topic before anything else. What I found out is just a single quote from lots of lines in his book, Al’Adalah AlEjtima’yah. His sayings do not confirm this provocative topic. Let us suppose that there is a general or vague sentence, why do we turn it into a takfeeri (blasphemy) matter against him to destroy what Sayyed Qutb based his life upon and what he dedicated his pen for: the da’wah towards the monotheism of Allah “in ruling and legislating,” rejecting the man made laws, and confronting those who committed that (legislating and ruling by other than Allah’s rule). Allah loves justices and fairness in every thing; and I do not see inshaallah except that you are about to go back to justice and fairness.
Third: One of the provocative topics is your topic: Sayyed Qutb believes in Wahdat Al-Wujood. Verily, Sayyed Qutb, may Allah have mercy on him, said something not clear (that might make the reader think that he believes in Wahdat Al-Wujood) using the style (of literature) in commenting on Surat Al-Hadeed, and Surat Al-Ekhlaas, and based upon it the accusation that he believes in Wahdat Al-Wujood was made. You did something good when you quoted his saying in commenting on Surat Al-Baqarah, and his (Sayyed Qutb) clear rejection to the idea of Wahdat Al-Wujood. From these quotes (Sayyed Qutb wrote): “and from here we find that there is nothing in the true Islamic ideology called the idea of Wahdat Al-Wujood.” To add, in his (Qutb) book: “Muqawwimat At-Tasawwur Al-Islami” there is a clear response to those who belief in Wahdat Al-Wujood. Therefore, we say may Allah forgive Sayyid Qutb for these vague statements that he expanded upon using his literal style; and what is vague does not overcome the clear cut statements from his saying.
Thus, I wish that you rush into deleting this hidden takfeer of Sayyed Qutb, and I feel sorry for you.
Fourth, I say clearly to you with all respect, that under these topics: the contrary of what Sayyed Qutb commented on the meaning of La Ilaha Illah Allah, to the scholars and the people of language; and that he (Qutb) is not clear about (tawheed) Ar-Ruboobiyah and Al-Uloohiyyah. I say to you, my beloved, that you have destroyed, without making sure, all of what Sayyed (Qutb), may Allah have mercy on him, confirmed from the aspects of Tawheed and what it necessates and confirms, which occupied the major aspect of the long life of Sayyed Qutb. All what you (Rabee Al-Madkhali) said is nullified by one word: that the monotheism of Allah in legislation and ruling is from the necessities of the word of Tawheed. Sayyed, May Allah have mercy on him, emphasized on this a lot when he saw the corrupted courage to dismantle the legislations of Allah from courts and other places, and replacing it with man-made laws. Without a doubt, this is a great courage (the courage of changing the rules of Allah) that the Ummah never experienced before 1342 Hijri.
Fifth: from the topics of the index: “Sayyed Qutb confirms the belief that the Quran is created, and that the speech of Allah is just the will”… When I went back to the pages that talk about that, I did not find a single letter where Sayyed Qutub, may Allah have mercy on him, declared this saying: “The Quran is created.” How do you easily accuse with these takfeeri matters? The only sentence that I noticed is his (Qutb) saying: “They cannot author from it—the Muqat’ah letters—a book similar to this book because this book is created by Allah and not by the humans”… There is no doubt that this sentence is wrong, but does this sentence make us rule that Sayyed Qutb confirms the kuffri saying that the Quran is created? O Allah I cannot tolerate the burden of this! This reminded me of a similar saying of Shaikh Muhammad ‘Abdulkhaliq ‘Atheemah, may Allah have mercy on him, in his book’s introduction: Studies on the style of the Noble Quran, that is printed by the Islamic University of Imam Muhammed bin Sa’ud. Do we accuse all people by the saying that the Quran is created. O Allah No.
What we mentioned so far is sufficient in talking about the subjective perspectives, and this is the important matter.
Talking about other perspectives:
1- The original copy of this book lies in 161 pages written by hand. These writings are different. I do not know of a single page written by you as usual, unless your handwriting differed from usual, or I missed up something, or you gave the job about Sayyed Qutb to some of the students, and each student wrote what he found under your supervision, or by your dictation. Therefore, I cannot confirm that this book belongs to you except by what you wrote on it that it is authored by you, and that is enough in considering it to belong to you.
2- Even though there are differences in the handwritings, there is a common trend; This book has the common trend of the disturbing manner, the continuous anger, the same jump on the sentence to generate huge mistakes, rushing into conclusions where there is a possibility to prove otherwise, and depending on the vague sentences and leaving the clear ones, which is a solid rule that do not accept any argument about it….This is considered as betraying (violating) the Manhaj of criticism (named): Al’Haydah Al’Elmiyah.
3- Regarding the style of literature, if we were to compare it with the style of Sayyed Qutb, then this style is of descending style. The style of Sayyed (Qutb) is high. If we considered it as your (Rabee’s) style, then it is very elementary, and does not suit a student of knowledge who has great degrees. So there should be a balance between the literal taste, the ability of using the language and clearly presenting the matter, and the beauty of presenting; or otherwise the pen should be broken ( i.e. otherwise do not bother writing it).
4- The common trend was the trend of anger and frightening which overtook the scientific Manhaj of criticism, thus your response lacked the etiquettes of dialogue.
5- This book from its beginning tells the end has an offensive trend and narrowness in mind and lack of patience in the sentences… why?
6- This book creates a new hizbiyah that establishes the trend of making tahreem here, and nullifying it there; and to call this a bid’ah and that person a Mubtadi’, to call this deviancy and that person a devient… whithout enough proofs. This also generates ghuroor (i.e. deception) of being religious, being proud to the extent that when one of them does that he (thinks that he) gets rid of a huge burden from his back; and that he is saving the Ummah from falling from an edge; that he is considered of a high example of Wara’ (fearing Allah) and gheerah (jealousy) on the rulings of Shari’ah. This (Judging) without making sure, is a way of destruction, even if it is considered as a high constructed building, its destiny is destruction and disappearance with the winds.
These are six aspects that this book enjoys, which made it not enjoyable. This is what I see regarding what you requested. I apologize for being late to respond to you, but I used not to read the books of this man (Sayyed Qutb), even though it is popular amongst the people. However, the dangerous remarks that you talked about made me do lots of readings into his books, and I found in his books many good things, a great faith, clear truth, exposing the plans of the enemies of Islam, and some mistakes in the contents and saying some things that I wish he never said. He nullifies lots of these things in other places, and to be perfect is hard. This man was a great writer and a great criticizer, and then he moved towards serving Islam through the great Quran, the noble Sunnah, and the beautiful Seerah. This shaped his attitude regarding the issues of his time. He insisted on his attitude (to continue what he is doing) for the sake of Allah. He also clarified the issues about his past. It was requested from him to write some words of apology, and he said his faithful and famous word, that “I will not use the finger which I raise for shahad’ah (i.e calling to Tawheed) to write something against Tawheed…” or a word close to this.
Therefore, the obligation of everyone is to make du’a for him that Allah forgive his sins, to benefit from his knowledge, to clarify his mistakes, and that his mistakes do not make us not benefit from his knowledge, or to abandon his books. Consider, may Allah protect you, his situation like the situation of those of the salaf like Isma’eel Al-Harawi and Al-Jilaani, and how Shaikh-ul-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah defended them, even though they fell into many awful mistakes, because the basis of their approach was to defend Islam and the Sunnah. Look to the (book), “Manazil Alsa’ereen”, and you will find strange things that cannot be accepted; however, you find Ibn Al-Qayyim, may Allah have mercy on him, making excuses for him and not accusing him, as he clarified it in the book “Madarij As-Saalikeen”. I also expanded on this matter in the book “Classifying the people between doubts and certainty,” and I put some rules regarding it.
In conclusion, I advise the brother in Allah, not to print this book “Adwa’ Islamiyyah..”. It is not permissible for this book to be distributed or printed because of what it has of the exaggeration, and the training of the youth of the Ummah to slander the Ulama’ (scholars), and to put down and disregard their virtues. Forgive me, may Allah bless you, if I was harsh in my sentences, but it is because of what I saw from your exaggeration, because I want the good for you, and because your eagerness to know what I have about him. This is what my pen wrote, and may Allah correct the way of all of us..
Wa assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullahi Wa barakatu….
 Wahdat al-Wajood is the belief in pantheism; that everything, including the Creator is One, i.e. that Allah is everywhere and in everything. Ahlus-Sunnah affirm that Allah is above His Throne, above the seven heavens. For more information, see the article “Where is Allah?”
The respected brother, Shaikh Rabee bin Hadee Al-Madkhali,
– The first question – and both questions are taken from his book “Fi Thilal al-Quran”, the author of the book mentioned in “Fi Thilal al-Quran” in the beginning of the surah “TaHa” that “The Quran is a natural phenomenon like the phenomenon of the Skies and the Earth”. What is your opinion about these words, considering the fact that he used the word “like” (kaf al-tashbih), O Shaykh?
A Word on Sayyid Qutb (RA)
by Shaykh Hamood bin ‘Uqlaa ash-Shu’aybi (RA) (more…)
Rabi’ al-Madkhali was once a hardcore Qutubi-Ikhwani. The first edition of his work Manhaj al-Anbiya fi al-Da’wa ila Allah (Methodology of the Prophets in calling to Allah) was forwarded by none other than Shaykh ‘Abd al-Rahman ‘Abd al-Khaliq, his former friend and ally.
In the first edition of the book (Dar al-Salafiyya, 1st edition, Kuwait), Rabi’ al-Madkhali says,
رحم الله سيد قطب، لقد نفذ من دراسته إلى عين الحق والصواب، ويجب على الحركات الإسلامية أن تستفيد من هذا التقرير الواعي الذي انتهى إليه سيد قطب عند آخر لحظة من حياته بعد دراسة طويلة واعية، لقد وصل في تقريره هذا إلى عين منهج الأنبياء عليهم الصلاة والسلام
May Allah be merciful with Sayyid Qutb! He reached the exact truth in his study. It is incumbent upon the Islamic movements to benefit from this knowledge-based conclusion which Sayyid Qutb reached towards the end of his life, after a long and deep study. In this conclusion he highlighted the very Manhaj of the prophets – may Allah’s Salah and Salam be upon them! (p. 139)
السائل: أحسن الله إليكم يقول سماحة الشيخ مالفرق بين أحدية الوجود في تفسير الظلال وفكرة وحدة الوجود الضالة ؟
المفتي : كيف ؟ كيف ؟ مالفرق بين ؟
السائل : مالفرق بين أحدية الوجود في تفسير الظلال وفكرة وحدة الوجود الضالة ؟
المفتي : يا إخواني تفسير سيد قطب في ظلال القرآن هو كتاب ليس تفسير لكنه قال تحت ظلال القرآن يعني كأنه يقول للمسلمين هذا القرآن نظام الأمة تعيش في ظلاله و استقوا من آدابه و انهلوا من معينه الصافي وأقبلوا بقلوبكم على القرآن لتجدوا فيه علاج لمشاكلكم و حل قضاياكم وتفريج همومكم إلى آخره .
والكتاب له أسلوب عال في السياق أسلوب عال ، هذا الأسلوب الذي كتب به السيد كتابه قد يظن بعض الناس بادئ بدء من بعض العبارات أن فيها شركا أو أن فيها قدحا في الأنبياء أو أن وأن .. ، ولو أعاد النظر في العبارة لوجدها أسلوبا أدبيا راقيا عاليا لكن لا يفهم هذا الأسلوب إلا من تمرس في قراءة كتابه ، والكتاب [كلمة غير واضحة] لايخلو من ملاحظات كغيره لا يخلو من ملاحظات و لا يخلو من أخطاء لكن في الجملة أن الكاتب كتبه منطلق غيرة وحمية للإسلام ، والرجل هو صاحب تربية وعلوم ثقافية عامة وماحصل منه من هذا التفسير يعتبر شيئا كثير [الجملةالسابقة غير واضحة] فيؤخذ منه بعض المقاطع النافعة والمواقف الجيدة والأشياء التي أخطأ فيها يعلى [غير واضحة] عذره قلة العلم وأنه ليس من أهل التفسير لكنه صاحب ثقافة عامة وعباراته أحيانا يفهم منها البعض خطأ لأن أسلوبه فوق أسلوب من يقرأه ، فلو أعاد النظر مرارا لم يجد هذه الاحتمالات الموجود وإنما هو أسلوب من الأساليب العالية التي يتقاصر عنه فهم بعض الناس فربما أساء الظن ، والمسلم لا ينبغي [كلمة غير واضحة] على وجود المعايب ، فليأخذ الحق ممن جاء به ، ويعلم أن البشر جميعا محل التقصير والخطأ ، [كلمة غير واضحة] والعصمة لكتاب الله و لقول محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم ، ماسوى الكتاب والسنة فالخطأ محتمل فيه لاسيما من إنسان عاش في مجتمعات لها مالها وسافر للغرب سنين وإلى آخره ، لكن كفانا منه ماوجد في هذا السفر من بعض المقاطع والكلمات النافعة التي لو قرأها الإنسان مرارا لرأى فيها خيرا كثير .
السائل : أحسن الله إليكم هذا يعقب على كلامكم قبل قليل عن تفسير سيد قطب وهل معناه الدعوة إلى قراءته من قبل المبتدئين في طلب العلم ؟
المفتي : والله أنا أقول طالب العلم إن قرأ به يستفيد ، الطالب بيميز [غير واضح] ، طالب العلم إذا قرأ في بعض المواضع حقيقة بعض المواضع فيها كتابا جيدا ، [غير واضح] الأخطاء ماأقول مايسلم من الخطأ ، لكن ينبغي الإنصاف والاعتدال وأن لا نحمل ألفاظه فوق مايحتمله ، مانحمل الألفاظ فوق ماتحتمله ، ولانسيئ الظن .
والرجل له جهاد تعلمون أنه استشهد أو قتل شهيدا رحمه الله ، وله كتب كان فيها أخطاء فتراجع عنها ، لأن القرآن ربما كتابة تفسير القرآن عدلت منهجه السابق ، والقرآن لاشك أن من اعتنى به وأكثر من قراءته ينقله من حال إلى حال
Questioner: May Allah bless you. Your eminence, a question says: ‘What is the difference between unity of creation as expressed in Tafseer al-Dhilal (of Sayyid Qutb) and the misguided doctrine of pantheism?’
Abd al-Aziz Aal al-Shaykh: My brothers, the Tafseer of Sayyid Qutb, ‘In the Shade of the Quran’ is not actually a Tafseer work. He titled it ‘In the Shade of the Quran’, as if to say to the Muslims: This Quran is a system for the Ummah live under, for her to learn from its ethics and drink from its pure spring. As if he were saying: Turn to the Quran with all your heart so you may find the solutions to your problems, answers to your dilemmas, so you may put your anxieties to rest, and so on.
The book demonstrates a very high standard of literary style. However, this literary style and the usage of some phrases may give some people incorrect first impression and suggestions of Shirk or a lack of respect towards the Prophets, etc. However, if one were to read over it again, he would find it an excellent literary style of a very high standard, although, someone who hasn’t read much of his writings wouldn’t understand it. As for the book itself, then… [speech unclear] it is not free of some errors and mistakes like all other works, however, overall he wrote it out of zealousness and defence for Islam. The man himself was a respected educationist and generally very well-read in various sciences, and what he was responsible in this Tafseer is considered… [speech unclear] So one should learn from some of the beneficial passages of the book, and as for issues where he erred… [speech unclear] His excuse was lack of knowledge, and that he wasn’t actually a Tafseer scholar, however, he was still a very well-read individual. Some of the phrases he uses sometimes give the wrong impression because his style is beyond what the reader can comprehend. However, if he were to revisit those passages repeatedly he wouldn’t have the wrong impression, and he would only discover a very high standard of literary style which some people are incapable of understanding, which may lead them to think badly of him. But a Muslim must never… [speech unclear] … when there are errors, one should accept the truth no matter who brings it to him, and he should know that all human beings are bound to err and make mistakes… [speech unclear] … protection is only granted to Allah’s Book and the words of Muhammad – SAW. All besides the Book and the Sunnah is prone to error, especially a person who lived a society with various ills and travelled to the West for years and so on. But we feel it sufficient to have found some of the beneficial passages and words from his journey, which if one were to read over and over, he would see much good in it.
Questioner: Does this mean that you call the students of Sharia who are merely beginners to read his Tafseer?
Abd al-Aziz Aal al-Shaykh: By Allah, I would say that if a student reads it he would surely benefit. The student [speech unclear] If a student reads some passages, because really, some passages in the book are very good. [speech unclear] The errors, I am not saying there are no errors. However, we must be just and balanced and do not misconstrue his words, or think of him in bad light. The man made Jihad, and as you know he was martyred or killed a Shaheed – may Allah have mercy on him. He had written some books with some errors and he retracted them, perhaps because writing the Tafseer of the Quran corrected his earlier methodology. And no doubt, whoever focuses on the Quran and reads it often, it will continue to change him from state to state.
1) The grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia frees Sayyid Qutb of the Madkhali accusations of wahdat al-wujud, etc.
2) Instead of attacking Sayyid Qutb, he blames poor understanding and intellect of people like Rabi’ al-Madkhali
3) He further praises Sayyid Qutb saying he had a very high literary style.
4) He considers Sayyid Qutb to be a Shaheed – a martyr for Islam
5) He advises the beginners amongst the students to read the Tafseer of Qutb
Question for the Madkhalis:
Would they now openly attack Shaykh Abd al-Aziz Aal al-Shaykh for defending Sayyid Qutb as they attacked Shaykh Ibn Jibrin – rahimahullah? Or would their criticism be restricted to their private circles with the same disclaimer: ‘don’t mention it in public’?
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Office of the Presidency of Islamic Research and Legal Verdicts
Some youth call Shaykh Sayyid Qutb a heretic and prohibit the reading of his books, and they say a similar statement regarding Hasan al-Banna, as they also say regarding some of the scholars that they are Khawarij. Their argument is that [they do this] in order to ‘expose the errors [of these men] to the people,’. even though [these youth] are until now [only] students [of knowledge]. I hope for a response so that doubt may be removed from us and others, [and] so that this [phenomenon] will not spread.
All praise belongs to Allah alone. To proceed: It is impermissible to [unjustly] call the Muslims heretics or wicked as is evidenced by the statement of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) “Whoever says to his brother ‘O enemy of Allah,’ and he is not such but that it returns back to him.” While in [another] hadith ‘Whoever calls a Muslim an infidel it returns back to one of them.’ While in another hadith: “A man passed by another while he was doing a sin and he said to him, ‘By Allah, Allah will not forgive you.’ So [Allah] said: ‘Who is he who can pass judgment on my behalf that I will not forgive so and so, I have forgiven him and have nullified your deeds.'”
With this I say, Sayyid Qutb and Hasan al-Banna are among the scholars of the Muslims and among the people of da’wa. Allah has brought benefit by them and through them He has guided many people. They both have efforts [for Islam] which should not be denied. For this reason Shaikh Abdul-Aziz ibn Baz interceded on behalf of Sayyid Qutb when the order for his execution was given. [Ibn Baz] was gentle in his intercession, but President Gamal [Abdel Nasser] did not accept [Ibn Baz’s] intercession, may Allah send upon him [i.e. Abdel Nasser] what he deserves. When both men [i.e Hasan al-Banna & Sayyid Qutb] were killed, each was referred to as a martyr, as each was killed unjustly. This is borne witness to by those close [to them] as well as by the general public. As it was widely spread in the papers and books without anyone ever objecting. Moreover, the scholars have received their books [with acceptance]. No one has attacked them for more than the [last] twenty years. If some [heresy proceeded] from them, then [these mistakes] are similar to an-Nawawi, as-Suyuti, Ibn al-Jawzi, Ibn ‘Atiyah, al-Khatabi, al-Qastalani and the likes of many of them. I have read what Shaikh Rabi al-Madkhali has written in his refutation of Sayyid Qutb and I found that he has placed statements where they do not exist. For this reason Shaikh Bakr Abu Zaid, may Allah perserve him, refuted him. Likewise, [al-Madkhali’s] unjust attacks of Shaikh ‘Abdur-Rahman [‘Abdul-Khaaliq] and his [twisting ‘Abdur-Rahman ‘Abdul-Khaaliq’s words] in order to find errors which would make [‘Abdur-Rahman ‘Abdul-Khaaliq appear] misguided, even though [Shaikh Rabi] befriended him for a lengthy period of time and he never found any such errors [in the past].
And the eye of pleasure sees every fault insignificant,
But the eye of hatred always finds fault.
Abdullah b. Abd al-Rahman b. Jibrin
1) Hasan al-Banna and Sayyid Qutb are scholars of Islam
2) Both aforementioned figures are remembered as martyrs
3) They have never been attacked since the last twenty years (of writing this fatwa)
4) Their mistakes are similar to those of the well-respected classical scholars, such as al-Nawawi and Ibn Hajr
5) Rabi’ al-Madkhali has been unjust towards them both and have quoted them out of context
6) Bakr Abu Zayd has adequately refuted Rabi’ al-Madkhali regarding Sayyid Qutb
7) Rabi’ al-Madkhali has attacked Abd al-Rahman ‘Abd al-Khaliq in a similar fashion, despite of having known him for a long time.