Stance on Ibn Abdul Wahhab?

Haqq1234 wrote:

View original post

I am glad my response helped. Just to shed some more light on the issue, and this concept may be beneficial for other similar issues too insha'Allah.

Basically, when it comes to forming opinions regarding personalities, the principle that applies most of the time is that one can do tahqeeq instead of taqleed.

In other words, if an Aalim does research on a specific personality and comes to a different conclusion than other Ulama, he can stick to his opinion. (exceptions to the rule do exist, which I will mention later)

The reason is that all the Ulama are united in principles/Usool of what is right and wrong. Whether or not something is correctly attributed to a specific personality, is a question of history where there is room for difference of opinion.

Lets look at the case of Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab as an example.

Among the negative things attributed to Ibn Abdul Wahab, one of them is "making mass and unjust takfeer on Muslims".

Now, any Aalim will agree that the act of "making mass and unjust takfeer on Muslims" is totally wrong, and that the one who does this is a deviant. This is a question of principles/Usool and all Ulama are united on this point.

However, then the question arises; is Ibn Abdul Wahab actually guilty of "making mass and unjust takfeer on Muslims"?

This is a question of history, and different Ulama have different views based on their research. Maulana Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi (R.A) held a positive view of Ibn Abdul Wahab. Later, Maulana Khalil Ahmad Saharanpuri (R.A) wrote "Al-Muhannad ala al-Mufannad" where he held a negative view of Ibn Abdul Wahab and this treatise was signed by all the major Deobandi Ulama of that time who showed their agreement with it including the opinion on Ibn Abdul Wahab.

Towards the later part of his life, it is said that Maulana Khalil Ahmad Saharanpuri (R.A) retracted from his previous negative opinion about Ibn Abdul Wahab.

Decades later, Maulana Manzoor Numani (R.A) wrote a book in which he defended Ibn Abdul Wahab, and said that the earlier Deobandi Ulama were misinformed about Ibn Abdul Wahab hence their negative opinion of him. By this time, prominent Deobandi Ulama including Shaykh Zakarriya Kandhalvi (R.A) and Maulana Qari Muhammad Tayyab Qasmi (R.A), agreed with the view of Maulana Manzoor Numani R.A. Most Pakistani (and probably Indian too) Deobandi Ulama to this day think positively of Ibn Abdul Wahab.

You will find that later Deobandi Ulama (Maulana Sarfaraz Khan Safdar R.A and others) held a good opinion of Ibn Abdul Wahab, but they still showed agreement with "Al-Muhannad ala al-Mufannad" and even signed it. It seems that to them, it wasn't a big deal that "Al-Muhannad ala al-Mufannad" held a conflicting view; as this relates to a historical personality and not any Usooli issue.

Even today, there are some Deobandi Ulama who hold a negative opinion regarding Ibn Abdul Wahab.

The point of writing all this is to explain why you will see opposing opinions about Ibn Abdul Wahab, and that it is nothing to be worried about. Some people are utilizing their energies to debate and discuss this issue and are very dogmatic about their own opinion; which in my humble opinion is a waste of time and should be avoided.

Important: At the beginning of this post, I had written how there is leeway to form different opinions regarding personalities based on preferring tahqeeq over taqleed.
There are exceptions to this rule. Take for example the case of Yazid. His crimes are so well documented that nearly all the Ulama of Ahlus Sunnah over the centuries have declared him to be at least a Fasiq. Some have considered him to be out of the fold of Islam.
Any positive opinion of Yazid will therefore be considered a deviant opinion. In fact, the case of, and correct opinion about Yazid has made its way into the Aqeedah books of Ahlus Sunnah.

Stance on Ibn Abdul Wahhab?

Font Size

Font Weight