Refuting the Salafī Creed, on the Bid’ah of Dividing the Tauhīd
By Shaykh Faheem
of the Islāmic Lifestyle Solutions
Contents of this Essay
Brief History of Wahhābism aka Salafīsm
Refutations against Ibn Abdul Wahhāb Najdī from his Family
Salaf VS Salafī
Bid’ah according to the Salafī Wahhābī Ideology
The Bid’ah of Dividing Tauhīd into 3 Categories
The Salafī Tauhīd Trinity
Point of Insight
Similarities between the Salafi Tauhīd and the Christian Trinity
The Tauhīd of Islām
This essay was necessitated after a series of exchanges over the social platform (WhatsApp) with several brothers hailing from different parts of the world claiming to be ‘Salafī’. The essay will expose the deceptively deviant developments and a brief history of this ‘reformist’ movement as well as the detriments awaiting those who ignorantly adopt its extremist dogmas. I shall exhibit that the call to ‘Salafism’ is nothing but a decoy to bait gullible Muslims employing a false da’wah. This will be exhibited via their unreasonable modus operandi on the subject of Bid’ah followed by the even more deceptive ‘divisions of Tauhīd’ (Absolute Oneness) of God Almighty in all regards.
Essentially, the essay will conclude that the ‘Salafī’ movement does not represent the creed of the traditional scholars of the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamā’ah, and that they are following the very same footprint left by the infamous preacher from Najd, Mohammed ibn Abdul Wahhāb, and that their objective is not to reform the ills of the world in which immorality has been incessantly incorporated as part of life. Instead, their primary target is the innocent “Muslim” who has traditionally adhered to the four schools of Islāmic jurisprudence viz. Hanafī, Shāfa’ī, Mālikī, and Hanbalī (who belong to the ‘Salaf’).
Brief History of Wahhābism aka Salafism
To prove that our stance on the Salafī /Wahhābī movement is not a biased one, I shall cite historical information from unbiased accepted non-Muslim sources which will be easily accessible for authenticity. The following is from Britannica’s online source material,
“Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb, (born 1703, ʿUyaynah, Arabia [now in Saudi Arabia]—died 1792, Al-Dirʿiyyah), theologian and founder of the Wahhābī movement, which attempted a return to the principles of Islam as practiced by its early forebears (salaf).”
It establishes his teachings as ‘the Wahhābī movement’ and clearly states that its dogmas espouse an attempt to return to the practice of the ‘Salaf’. From a historical standpoint, it is clear that the concept of Wahhābism / Salafism commenced only in the 1700s and is thus a ‘new’ sect within the Ummah. The fact that it has a specific name and identity is evidence enough of to even an elementary student of knowledge. Surely Salafīs could not be calling towards ‘Islām’ because Muslims existed during those times. Unless their “Da’wah” is to exhibit that ‘all other Muslims’ are not really Muslims and that ‘only’ their ‘version’ of Islām is true Islām? I will let the readers assess the truth of such an irrational claim by the end of this essay.
 Salaf- Not to be confused with ‘Salafi’. The Salaf refers to the Salfus Sālihīn (the Pious Predecessors) of the first 3 generations of Islām.
Regarding his philosophy, the elucidation progresses to state,
“…he wrote the Kitāb al-tawḥīd (“Book of the Oneness [of God]”), which is the main text for Wahhābī doctrines. The centrality of the tawḥīd principle to his way of thinking led adherents to characterize themselves as muwaḥḥidūn, meaning “unitarians” or “those who assert tawḥīd. ʿAbd al-Wahhāb’s teachings have been characterized as puritanical and traditional, representing the early era of the Islamic religion. He rejected sources of doctrine (uṣūl al-fiqh) apart from the Qurʾān and the Sunnah (traditions of Muhammad). He made a clear stand against traditions and practices not rooted in these two sources, characterizing them as innovations (bidʿah) in Islamic faith.”
Meaning that the key doctrine of ibn Abdul Wahhāb was recorded in his book, Kitābut Tauhīd and his focus was directed at the propagation of the Unitarian doctrine of Islām as opposed to the Trinitarian doctrines of Christianity. Well, that’s the assumption anyway. It also states that he rejected the usūl-al-fiqh traditions which represented the early era of the principles of Islāmic jurisprudence, and herein lies the first of many contradictions arising from this fulmination of his fallacious philosophy.
If the Salafī ‘Da’wah’ is indeed a call to follow the early Islāmic tradition, then, will the acceptance or rejection of the principles set forth by the scholars of those early generations be the objective? Of course, one would sprint towards its acceptance, but instead, and strangely so, Ibn Abdu Wahhāb Najdī rejected the principles of the very people whose traditions he was hellbent on reforming? This is probably because those principles ‘limited’ his movements and would not allow him to move forth with his malicious motives. Hence, Salafīs of today slanderously attack the majority of Sunnī Muslims for their adherence to the four schools of Islāmic jurisprudence, and strangely enough, those schools are based on the ‘Salaf’, yet their adherents are called ‘blind followers’. We shall observe by the end of this essay who the true blind followers really are!
The New World Encyclopedia makes mentions of those possible motives of the man behind the modern-day Salafī movement,
“Al-Wahhab was convinced that Muslims had departed from pure Islam and needed to return to its original beliefs and practices. His interpretation of Islam is also referred to as salafist”
Two things are apparent;
Firstly, that Ibn Abdul Wahhāb Najdī excommunicated Muslims (by declaring them as disbelievers) and was therefore convinced to reform the world of Islām. This takfīr (excommunication of Muslims) is most likely the factor that allowed him to take up his sword against the Muslims during his pursuit to ‘reform’ Islām. The very same takfīrī mentality is seen today with almost all Salafī members and the likes of ISIS etc. are ardent followers of the Wahhābi / Salafī creed, thus their target is, and always will be “Muslims” and Muslim regions. Never the Kuffār (disbelievers)!
Secondly, it also acknowledges that his dogmas are referred to as the ‘Salafist’ tradition, but the Salafīs become annoyed and angered when you remind them of their history and take offense at being called ‘Wahhābīs’ for some reason, yet they promote his works profoundly and revere him as their ‘Imām’ and ‘Shaykhul Islām’. It is perplexing that on one hand, the Salafīs praise this man and make him out to be like some sort of messiah who saved the Muslim world from….the Muslims, but are somehow ‘offended’ when his name is attributed to them and regard it as derogatory?
The New World Encyclopedia progresses to explain the prevalence and dominance of the Wahhābīs / Salafīs,
Wahhabi Islam dominates Saudi Arabia, whose petroleum dollars fund Islamic organizations and institutions around the world on the condition that they conform to Wahhabi ideas.
The financial power from petroleum allows Saudi Arabia to propagate its Wahhābī philosophy and in many instances, the condition for their support is to conform to the Wahhābī ideology. In this manner, they have gained a foothold in various parts of the world via their economic power, and in so doing, they have enforced their ideology upon the Ummah, and the cancer of extremism is spreading at such a rate, that no amount of chemotherapy will be able to rid it from our system, save by the Will of Allāh, the One in All Regards!
Salafīs say that they are ‘astounded’ by the harsh treatment received for their views, seeing as though these are the views of the ‘Salaf’, but history proves that Ibn Abdul Wahhāb’s radical ideas were not well-received from the onset. The first to reject him was his own family of scholars.
Refutations against Ibn Abdul Wahhāb Najdī from his Family
Astonishingly, for his radical theories, his own brother rejected his teachings in addition to his father,
Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab’s own brother, Suleiman Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab wrote a refutation of him. It was entitled al-Sawa’iq al-Uluhiyya (The Divine Lightning Bolts). In this work Suleiman Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab compares his brother’s ideas to those of the Khawarij (also Kharijites, an early sect of Islam which believed in declaring certain Muslims as disbelievers then shedding their blood). This is in addition to the fact that Muhammad Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab’s own father had repudiated him for his ideas.
Suffice to say that the famous idiom “You don’t truly know someone until you have lived with them” applies perfectly here as Ibn Abdu Wahhāb Najdī’s erudite brother and father were his close family yet both vociferously admonished him overtly over his radical beliefs. The comparison made by his brother between his philosophy and that of the Khawārij is one that is still made today. This is because the Khawārij spilled the blood of many Muslims, and so too, today the likes of ISIS, and given the opportunity, and many Salafīs too would justify the killing of Muslims –albeit covertly- as they believe that only their ‘version’ of Islām is pure.
Britannica elucidates that it did not stop there, and Ibn Abdul Wahhāb’s distasteful dictums were unpopular with the Muslims scholars and leadership in his hometown,
“When the preaching of these doctrines led to controversy, ʿAbd al-Wahhāb was expelled from ʿUyaynah in 1744. He then settled in Al-Dirʿiyyah, capital of Muhammad ibn Saud, a ruler of the Najd (now in Saudi Arabia) and the progenitor of the Saud dynasty.”
He was thus banished from his homeland which led to his settling in Al-Diriyyah where he would meet an advantageous ally in Muhammad ibn Saud.
Salafīs of today refuse to accept the appellation derived from their leader and retort that ‘Wahhābism’ has no connection to ‘Salafism’ (as if the whole world are Bedouins who are blind to their history and methodology). The New World Encyclopedia sheds light on this matter and so much more,
When Ibn Abd-Al-Wahhab struck a deal with Muhammed Ibn Saud, a chief of desert raiders in Najd, Ibn Saud and his house would be the chief of political administration and Ibn Abd Al-Wahhab and his house would be the chief of Islamic interpretation. Today the royal family of Saudi Arabia belongs to the House of Saud and Grand Muftis from the House of Ibn Abd Al-Wahhab (Aa;-Sheikh). Ibn Abd Al-Wahhab declared the rulers of Hijaz (holy Land of Arabia with holy cities like Makkah and Madinah) to be non-Muslims and therefore worthy of attack and occupation.
Firstly, the information reveals that ‘Najd’ is indeed in Saudi Arabia, something which all the Salafīs reject in fear of exposure of the implications from a hadīth tradition about Najd, and the emergence of Fitah (mischief) described as the horns of the devil emerging from therefrom. For more information see the excerpted article from my book; (“The Beginning of the End – An Eschatological Endeavour to Unravel the Mysteries of the Modern Age” https://thebeginningoftheenddotnet.wordpress.com/2016/09/22/fitnah-arising-from-najd/ )
Secondly, the information divulges not one, but two monarchical systems within the Saudi rule. One dedicated to political power, and the other dedicated to Islāmic affairs, stating that the former would be in the control of the house of Saud, and the latter would be determined by the house of ibn Abdul Wahhāb.
Thirdly, as stipulated earlier, to ‘justify’ the killing of Muslims, Ibn Abdul Wahhāb was required to declare them as disbelievers. Hence, an alliance with the Najdī raiders of the house of Saud created an opportunity to progress his propaganda and so he excommunicated the Muslim ruler of Hijāz. The rest they say is ‘history’ and those lands were conquered by Ibn Abdul Wahhāb, the house of Saud, and of course with the support of the British who supplied them with a steady stipend of sterling pounds. (See The Beginning of the End for more details).
 Westerly region of Saudi Arabia in which Jeddah, Mecca and Medina are located.
From unbiased sources, it is quite clear to the reader that Ibn Abdul Wahhāb Najdī was no saint. Contrarily, he was a man who adopted a completely conflicting route to that of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be apon him), who was sent as a Caller towards Allāh (33:46), a Mercy unto the Universe (21:107) and a great favour upon the believers (3:165). Instead, Ibn Abdul Wahhāb Najdī’s ideology excluded more people from Islām than it included people toward it unless they ‘submitted’ to his views. Meaning that the acceptance of the religion of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be apon him) was not enough for him to accept someone as a believer unless they accepted his perception of religiosity.
Salaf VS Salafī
To the layman, the call of the ‘Salafī’ towards the ‘Salaf’ is alluring indeed. The call to a ‘purer’ form of Islām is a brilliant strategy on one hand, but it also infers on the other hand that the extant versions of Islām are contaminated and are therefore impure. Of course, this is the very ‘methodology’ which led Ibn Abdul Wahhāb Najdī on his quest to ‘purify’ Islām ‘by any means necessary’. However, this sales pitch, when understood, is like many of the infomercials out there in the sense that when you purchase something from the infomercial –which makes a lot of promises- majority of the time, what you actually get is something else altogether. This is exactly the problem with Salafism. How so? one may ask, because “All I hear is them preaching about the Qur’ān, Sunnah, and the Salaf! Nothing wrong there!” and of course it would not seem so to someone who has no formal foundational study of Islām. However, to those who ‘know’, the fallacy of their philosophy is quite easily discernible. Hence the Qur’ān draws attention,
قُلْ هَلْ يَسْتَوِى الَّذِينَ يَعْلَمُونَ وَالَّذِينَ لَا يَعْلَمُونَ ۗ إِنَّمَا يَتَذَكَّرُ أُولُوا الْأَلْبٰبِ
“…Proclaim, “Are the knowledgeable and the ignorant equal?” It is only the men of intellect who heed advice.”
 Sūrah Az-Zumar, 39:9
The Salafī fallacy is noticeable only after one understands the concept of the “Salaf”, which refers to the erudite companions of the Prophet Muhammad (including his Ahlul Bayt –Noble Household), the Tābi’īn and the Tab’Tābi’īn. This idea is not conjured from a magician’s hat. Rather, it traces its origins to the Prophet Muhammad k who indicated that these generations would be the best of generations of his Ummah (community),
قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم خَيْرُ أُمَّتِي قَرْنِي ثُمَّ الَّذِينَ يَلُونَهُمْ ثُمَّ الَّذِينَ يَلُونَهُمْ
“Allāhs Messenger said, ‘The best of my followers are those living in my generation (i.e. my contemporaries). and then those who will follow them, and then those who will follow them…”
 Al-Bukhārī, Book on the Merits of the Companions, Hadīth 3650.
Thus the Salaf refer to this particular group of erudite people whose rank has been elevated due to their proximity to the Prophet (peace be apon him). Now that the reader understands who the Salaf are, a simple question that can be asked is, ‘Was Ibn Abdul Wahhāb of the Salaf?’ and the answer is a resounding “NO!” because he was born approximately 1115 AH. Yes, over one thousand years later. So why not be a ‘true Salafī’ and abandon the teachings of Ibn Abdul Wahhāb Najdī, and adopt the teachings of those who were born within the three generations of the Salaf? Maybe like ‘Imām Abū Hanīfah, who was born around 80 AH? Or Imām Muhammad bin Idrīs Ash-Shāfa’ī who was born around 150AH? Imām Mālik bin Anas who was born around 93 AH? (may God Almighty shower His Mercy upon them).
Contemplatively, the Salafī methodology is set on derailing any attempt to follow the Mazh-hubs of the aforesaid in totality, when in fact, all of the above schools, including that of Imām Ahmad bin Hanbal are predicated upon the Qur’ān and Sunnah. Yet the Muqallids (adherents) of these 4 schools are told by the ‘Salafī’ that to follow them (the Salaf) is wrong! Hence, their stance is in contradistinction to their Da’wah from the onset. It is a great lie!
And it only gets worse. You see, the easiest way to spot a Salafī is when they quote information. One will hear the likes of the following scholars, all of who are regarded by them as “Shaykhul Islām” but if the same titles are afforded to anyone else outside of their school of thought, they will dispute it or reject it. The scholars are,
1) Ibn Taymiyyah (Born approximately 661 AH). Therefore NOT OF THE SALAF.
2) Ibn Abdul Wahhāb Najdī – (Born approximately 1115 AH). Therefore NOT OF THE SALAF
3) Ibn Qayyim (Born approximately 691 AH). Student of Ibn Taymiyyah. Therefore NOT OF THE SALAF
4) Bin Bāz- (Born approximately 1328 AH). Therefore NOT OF THE SALAF
5) Nasiruddin Albāni – (Born approximately 1332 AH). Therefore NOT OF THE SALAF
6) Ibn Uthaymīn – (Born approximately 1332 AH). Therefore NOT OF THE SALAF
Is it not peculiar that a group who ‘believe’ themselves to be God’s gift to Islām, and who preach ‘strict’ adherence to the SALAF, -hence their Da’wah is called ‘Salafism’-, yet their primary scholars who have formulated and directed their entire modus operandi are not from the Salaf? Is that not strange? That is like a person who sees a picture of a beautiful ‘piece’ of land for sale, and who is tempted by the price, so he rushes to purchase it without seeing it because the deal is a ‘no brainer’, and after the purchase, he receives a box in which there is a framed picture of that land saying ‘Congratulations! You are the proud owner of this wonderful ‘piece’, and then when he rushes to the advert, he finds that it did not say ‘piece of land’, but just ‘piece’ as in a picture, and he has been conned!
Retrospectively, the question must therefore be asked, “Are they really adherents to the Salaf, or are they followers of their scholars of the Khalaf (latter)?” If they insist that they are ‘genuinely’ following the Salaf, then kindly ask them if it would be possible to teach the current version of their Da’wah without the input and teachings of the abovementioned 6 Salafī scholars? If the answer is “no”-and, of course, it has to be- then they cannot be called Salafī and should stick to the original name of ‘Wahhābī’ or be known as pseudo-salafīs or “Khalafīs”.
Now, most Salafīs think they are too clever and will say “Akhī! Of course, we can remove them! Who are they? They are men?!” but still they will preach the radical ways of Ibn Abdul Wahhāb and reference Ibn Taymiyyah when possible. The truth is, Salafīs can never write a doctrinal thesis on fundamentals of Islām without the teachings of Ibn Abdul Wahhāb and Ibn Taymiyyah, and the fact that the former’s book (Kitābut Tauhīd) is taught by every single Salafī institution, is evidence of this fact.
Thus, the Salafīs may don the clothes of the Salaf, but in reality, they have stitched for themselves a garment of the khalaf on the inside. It is a deception because it ‘Appears’ to be an adherence to the Salaf, but in ‘Reality’ it is adherence to a select few from the Khalaf.”
Bid’ah according to the Salafī Wahhābī Ideology
The people most susceptible to accepting the Salafī scheme, are those who become very argumentative over religious matters when in fact they have no formal Islāmic education apart from lectures and online videos. Such people are ripe for the picking and in many cases are the ones to join the likes of ISIS etc. but it all starts with a simple sentence, “That’s Bid’ah bro…!”. majority of the time, those who propound such statements cannot enunciate the difference between the linguistic definition and the legal definition, nor elucidate the technicalities of the subject from the Qur’ānic corpus as well as the hadīth to incorporate those definitions. Alas! As per the foresight of the Messenger, the age of ignorance has returned!
The subject of Bid’ah, its definition, etc. has been dealt with in a previous article, however, for the benefit of the reader, summarily, the linguistic definition of Bid’ah as per the Qur’ān is that which is innovated without prior example, and the Shar’ee (legal) definition of Bid’ah is that which contravenes the shariah, in other words, it has no basis.
The Salafī version of Bid’ah however is more of an authoritarian style of approach to the subject.
Firstly, their primary approach is based on a sheer linguistic analysis of numerous narrations located in the major books of hadīth which state that,
“Every newly invented matter is an innovation, and every innovation is misguidance, and every misguidance is in the hellfire”
Thus, being the literalists reformers that they are, the Salafīs emphasize that the word ‘every’ (كل) implies ‘every’ without any exception. Their stance is clear for anyone who has ever engaged with any Salafī. They stick to this rhetoric come rain or shine…well, we shall put it to the test inshā Allāh!
Secondly, a perusal of any talks, lectures, essays, annotations, etc. of the Salafīs will reveal a commonly uttered maxim which states, “Anything which the Prophet (peace be apon him) and his companions did not do, that is a Bid’ah”.
Whilst it does sound very ‘puritanical’ in its delivery, it is a thorn dressed as a rose because there is no explicit textual evidence from the Prophet Muhammad (peace be apon him) nor his companions saying that any action which they did not do is to be equated to a religious innovation. Hence, unless the Salafīs can produce -according to their stringent methodology-, a verse of the Qur’ān, or a hadīth to support such a maxim, then (according to their own tradition) that very statement itself implies Bid’ah on the speaker.
The Salafī system enforces repetitively that their allegiance is to;
And they insist that the above trident is the yardstick to determine truth from falsehood, and any deviation from their example is ‘misguidance’ and not the way of Ahlus Sunnah, and they are unapologetic about this rigorous system they have applied. They even deny what erudite scholars the likes of Imām Ash-Shāfa’ī, Imām Al-Bayhaqī, Al-Hāfizh Ibn Hajr Al-Asqalānī, Imām Badruddīn Al-Ainī, Imām An-Nawāwī and many others (rahimahomollah) have stated with regards to the categorizations of bid’ah into several groups of which Good Bid’ah (Al-Hasanah) and Bad Bid’ah (As-Sayyi’ah) are two of noteworthy mention. Yet, anything mentioned by these same scholars which meets the criteria of the Salafī call, they accept those views from them. Why pick and choose?
Their responses to the elucidations of the aforementioned scholars regarding the categorization of Bid’ah is a general regress to that innovated maxim of theirs, and they respond by saying “Where did Allāh and His Rasool divide the Bid’ah into these groups? Kindly give us a reference for it if there is? And if there is no verse of the Qur’ān, or hadīth of the Messenger to refute it, then it is a Bid’ah!” This is a ‘normal’ reaction that anyone who doubts my analysis can witness on YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and the millions of broadcasts on Whatsapp. It is available online for the world to see. That is aside from the writings of their scholars noted in their books which are available on their websites to peruse.
Now that the Salafī / Wahhābī stance on Bid’ah is clear, and let us just one more time emphasize that their standpoint allows no room for exception whatsoever. According to them, ‘every’ is all-inclusive, and that means, any and every religious matter which Muslims commit today that has no evidence (dalīl) from the Qur’ān and Sunnah for its application is therefore rejected.
Furthermore, they do not accept ‘interpretations’, which only makes their jobs easier and yours a lot more difficult. Essentially, you cannot prove any implied teachings to a Salafī unless it is explicit evidence (dalīl qat’ī –دليل قطعي ). Now, when I say there are no exceptions to the topic of Bid’ah for the Salafī, I mean it according to how the rest of the world understands the words ‘no exceptions’. For Salafīs, they mean “No exceptions, unless for our purposes”. So if for instance, Muslims wish to host a gathering in honor of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be apon him) , they will immediately ask whether this was done by the Prophet Muhammad (peace be apon him)himself or not? And if not, then….you get the picture, it is a Bid’ah according to this ‘supposedly’ stringent view.
 This is clear from their stance on the insistence to assert a direction for Allāh Y. When presented with the ‘other’ views, they refuse them on the basis that the opposing views are interpretations and they do only accept the ‘word’ of Allāh .
Here is one their ‘revered’ Salafī scholars, ibn Uthaymeen answering a question about Bid’ah. Notice the double standards and where the true affiliation lies,
“The shaikh was asked: What is the difference between what is called “The week of sheikh Muhammad bin Abdel Wahhab” -Rahimahullah, and the celebration of the Prophetic Mawlid, as the second is condemned, while the first isn’t?
So he answered: “The difference between them -according to our knowledge- is from two sides: The first is: the week of shaikh Muhammad bin Abdel Wahhab -Rahimahullah Ta’ala- was not done as a means to get closer to Allah -Azza wa Jal-, it is only meant for removing doubts that are in the hearts of some people towards this man, and to show what Allah has blessed the Muslims through this man.
The second is: the week of shaikh Muhammad bin Abdel Wahhab -Rahimahullah- does not reoccur and return (every year) as is the case with ‘Eids; it is something that has been clarified to the people, things were written in it, and the truth regarding this man, that was not known before, was shown to many people, then it ended.
 Majmu’ Fatawa wa Rasael Shaikh Muhammad Saleh al-Uthaimeen, volume 16 – Prayer of the two Eids
Ya Salām!!!! Essentially, these people will find any ‘reasoning’ (analogical – قياس) to justify a gathering to ‘remember’ and remove ‘doubts’ about Ibn Abdul Wahhāb Najdī (meaning they know his history is full of doubtful matters), and is not condemned as Bid’ah on the basis that it is not done to gain closeness of Allāh ! So here, in this instance, they have created an ‘exclusion’ from the ‘all-inclusive word of every’ (كل) and it is okay? Deceptive double standards in the least! Are they aligned to the Messenger or to Ibn Abdul Wahhāb Najdī? Did you ever hear of Saudi Arabia hosting ‘The Week or Month of Muhammad ”? Why could they not apply the same reasoning and invite ‘doubters’ and atheists etc. from all over the world on an exhibition to remove their doubts about the Prophet Muhammad ? It also did not have to occur every year! Why do they not promote this? Because the Salafī is aligned to Ibn Abdul Wahhāb Najdī! He is their messiah! Now that we have proven their stance and double standards, let us progress to exhibit the greatest Bid’ah committed by the Salafī’s / Wahhābis today!
The Bid’ah of Dividing Tauhīd into 3 Categories
Now for all those who belong to the traditional explication of the term Ahlus Sunnah, the idea of dividing Tauhīd (Absolute Monotheism in all regards) into 3 is very unnecessary because Islām is predicated upon a strict Unitarian philosophy as opposed to a Trinitarian one. This is because each and very traditional Sunnī Muslim knows that the acceptance and submission of the ‘shahādah’ or ‘kalimah’ is to assert belief in God Almighty in ‘all regards’ as elucidated in the Qur’ān and the Sunnah. The subject of the unity or Tauhīd in Allāh as a belief has never been an issue in the Ummah simply because the explanations in the Qur’ān and Sunnah suffice. After all, God Almighty sent His final Messenger to deliver the message that He is to be worshipped alone, without any associate, tangible or intangible.
Thus, the creed of the Ahlus Sunnah, has, and always will maintain that the Qur’ān has more than adequately accentuated the aspect of Tauhīd and that the Prophet Muhammad has exhaustively exhibited its definition to his erudite companions. If the primary subject of Tauhīd was not delivered to his companions, then how would we reconcile the following verses,
اَ لۡيَوۡمَ اَكۡمَلۡتُ لَـكُمۡ دِيۡنَكُمۡ وَاَ تۡمَمۡتُ عَلَيۡكُمۡ نِعۡمَتِىۡ وَرَضِيۡتُ لَـكُمُ الۡاِسۡلَامَ دِيۡنًا
“…this day have I perfected your religion for you and completed My favour upon you, and have chosen Islam as your religion…”
 Sūrah Al-Mā’idah, 5:3
Had the Prophet Muhammad k not conveyed the most important point of his message, how would the religion be completed and perfected? Any insistence to add upon the divinely completed concept of Tauhīd is to question the very perfection of the religion itself.
Another verse of the same chapter also states,
ٰٓأَيُّهَا الرَّسُولُ بَلِّغْ مَآ أُنزِلَ إِلَيْكَ مِن رَّبِّكَ ۖ وَإِن لَّمْ تَفْعَلْ فَمَا بَلَّغْتَ رِسَالَتَهُۥ ۚ وَاللَّهُ يَعْصِمُكَ مِنَ النَّاسِ ۗ إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يَهْدِى الْقَوْمَ الْكٰفِرِينَ
O Messenger, Convey all that which has been revealed to you from your Lord, and if you do not, then you have not conveyed His message. And Allah will protect you from the people. Indeed, Allah does not guide the disbelieving people.
 Sūrah Al-Mā’idah, 5:67
Therefore, it is the aqīdah (creed) of the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamā’ah that every matter of ‘belief’ has been clarified by the Prophet Muhammad and therefore no addition in credal matters are required for a Muslim, and it is in these matters that the Prophet Muhammad warned about innovating new religious practices. Hence the scholars have elucidated that a Bid’ah is something which is in contradistinction to the Shar’īah.
The Salafī Tauhīd Trinity
Salafīs claim that the current Tauhīd which Muslims know and believe in is ‘insufficient’ to gain one ‘completion’ of Imān (faith). In fact, a recent discussion with some persistent Salafīs on a Whatsapp forum with me over the last few days revealed the extent of their belief, and the lengths they are willing to endure to safeguard their problematic principles. Salafīs say that unless one does not except their division of Tauhīd into;
Tauhīd Ar-Rabūbiyyah (Unity of Lordship)
Tauhīd Al-Ulūhiyyah (Unity of Worship)
Tauhīd Al-Asmā was Sifāt (Unity of His Names and Attributes)
then one is not a ‘complete’ Muslim. Imagine that! This is because they ‘believe’ that the ‘only’ way to understand Tauhēd is via their innovated Trinitarian concept. Essentially, they are saying that the message and teachings of the Prophet Muhammad on the subject of Tauhīd is ‘insufficient’ and that ‘only’ their perspective on the subject is correct. Ironically, this was the exact methodology of their founder, Ibn Abdul Wahhāb Najdī, and in all likelihood, the reason which caused him to view other Muslims are disbelievers, leading his decision to declare them as disbelievers and take up the sword against them in the process.
So, our open question to the Salafī / Wahhābī regime (based on their own rigorous rulings) all over the world is;
“Where in the Qur’ān and Sunnah is the explicit text (dalīl qat’ī –دليل قطعي ) stating that unless one does not accept these 3 divisions of Tauhīd, that one’s Imān (faith) is incomplete?”
Based on the Salafī ideology, ‘anything’ which was not done by the Prophet Muhammad k and his companions is rendered as a Bid’ah with no exceptions. The subject of Tauhīd is one of creed and not of subsidiary matters of worship, hence only God Almighty and His Messenger can explicate such beliefs with clarity in the form of textual evidence.
This is where we notice the double-standards of the Salafī / Wahhābī, because they are aware that there is no evidence from the Qur’ān and Sunnah for this division, as the first person to categorize the subject into 2 categories was Ibn Taymiyyah, and we have already established that he was not of the Salaf! Of course, my word may be considered ‘biased’ on this matter, so let us juxtapose what one of the more infamously known anti-taqlīd Salafīs, “Dr. Bilaal Phillips” has to say regarding the division of Tauhīd,
“These three aspects form the basis for the categories into which the science of Tawheed has been traditionally divided. The three overlap and are inseparable to such a degree that whoever omits any one aspect has failed to complete the requirements of Tawheed. The omission of any of the above mentioned aspects of Tawheed is referred to as “Shirk” (lit. sharing); the association of partners with Allaah, which, in Islamic terms, is in fact idolatry. The three categories of Tawheed are commonly referred to by the following titles: 1. Tawheed ar-Ruboobeeyah (lit. “Maintaining the Unity of Lordship”)
2.Tawheed al-Asmaa was-Sifaat (lit. “Maintaining the Unity of Allaah’s Names and Attributes”)
3. Tawheed al-‘Ebaadah (lit. “Maintaining the Unity of Allaah’s Worship”)3 The division of Tawheed into its components was not done by the Prophet (saws) nor by his companions, as there was no necessity to analyze such a basic principle of faith in this fashion. However, the foundations of the components are all implied in the verses of the Qur’aan and in the explanatory statements of the Prophet (saws) and his companions…”
 The Fundamentals of Tawheed (Islamic Monotheism) Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips, Chapter on the Categories of Tawheed; See link;
Six points of discussion emerge as a corollary of the above;
Tawheed has been traditionally divided. The Salafī scholar, Bilāl Phillips says that Tauhīd has been traditionally divided, yet he fails to divulge by who? One would expect that for something as significant as a foundation of faith, coming from a sect which applies strict adherence to the ‘Salaf’, that he would clarify ‘who’ was behind this ‘traditional’ division. Of course, he cannot because it would expose his true inclinations and trace back to Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Abdul Wahhāb Najdī. So the question to him, and all Salafīs, where is this traditional division?
Whoever omits any one aspect has failed to complete the requirements of Tawheed – No Muslim disagrees with the Qur’ān on any verse, let alone the verses pertaining to Tauhīd, but here, the Salafīs are implying that anyone who omits any of these categories as enunciated, then the requirement for Tauhīd is incomplete. Meaning that they are not completely “Muslim”. Thus, every new born-again Salafī feels that he or she needs to go to Muslims and give them ‘Da’wah’ to affirm belief in these three categories, and failure to do so results in a deficiency in Tauhīd. Ominous indeed!
Omission of any of the above mentioned aspects of Tawheed is referred to as “Shirk” –This is confirmed by our analysis from point 2 and explains why Salafīs adopt the Takfīrī mentality and excommunicate Muslims from the fold of Islām with relative ease. This is because they know that Muslims do not conform to their approach of Tauhīd and its divisions, and this is incorrect because whatever verses of the Qur’ān are used to prove each stance, they are accepted by all Muslims.
The division of Tawheed into its components was not done by the Prophet (saws) nor by his companions –And the double standards, or dare we say, the hypocrisy is evident for any person with a modicum of intellect to deduce. This is because the Salafīs insist that anything which the Prophet Muhammad and his companions did not do, is therefore a Bid’ah. Hence, according to their own philosophy, and admittance, the division of Tauhīd was not done by the Prophet and his companions, and this is where another of the many double standards emerge in the form of their justification of this division, knowing well that no evidence exists for it, yet they will hound anyone else who even sits in a gathering to remember the Prophet and label them with slogans of Bid’ah, shirk and kufr if they try and justify their practices (not beliefs) without textual evidence, yet they are making wholsesale changes to the fundamentals of faith!
There was no necessity to analyze such a basic principle of faith in this fashion – The allusion here is that the Prophet(peace be apon him) did not categorize the Tauhīd into these 3 groups as the Salafīs do because there was no need to do so as their understanding was of Tauhīd was precise, -and nobody disputes the understanding of the Prophet and his companions. However, the red herring here is the fallacy to assume that now, nobody understands the collective verses of Tauhīd in the Qur’ān unless by these divisions. That is derogatory, appalling and a downright arrogant demeanor, which is of course, the de facto attitude of every Salafī I have interacted with.
The foundations of the components are all implied in the verses of the Qur’aan – Yet again, we expose another methodological fallacy of the Salafī Wahhābī movement. When they ‘attack’ Muslims stating that their ‘practices’ are ‘Bid’ah’, they refuse to accept any evidence which does not explicitly explain the practice verbatim from the Qur’ān and Sunnah. Thus, any attempt to present ‘Assumptive Evidence’ (دليل ظني) or that which is derived as ‘implied’ within the text, is therefore rejected by the Salafīs because they are (when it suits their agenda) ‘literalists’. However, every Salafī, when presented with the question of textual evidence for the division of Tauhīd, suddenly they accept ‘implied’ textual references based on ‘analogical reasoning’. The Ahlu Sunnah wal Jamā’ah rejects such means of evidence to prove matters of creed (Imān) because implications based on mere assumptions are predominantly dependant upon the perception of the person. If that is the case, then the Qadiyānīs would have a ‘justified’ means to be considered on their point because it is ‘assumptive’ regarding the coming of another prophet of God and this is, much like the Salafī Da’wah, argumentum ad absurdum. This is the most dangerous deception of their wayward philosophy as it opens so many mischievous and deviant beliefs to enter into the Islāmic philosophy.
As seen from the aforesaid points, it is clear that the Salafīs will go to great extremes in order to promote this extremely innovated theological view.
Another example of this may be seen by the following statements by the revered Salafī scholar, Muhammad ibn Sālih Al-Uthaymeen who said regarding Tauhīd,
“For example, we say that mankind will not fulfill the concept of Tawheed unless and until they testify that nothing deserves any form of worship except Allaah. By this, we negate any right of worship to anyone or anything other than Allaah, and we affirm it to Allaah alone. This is because negation alone equates to an absolute and complete negation, just as affirmation alone does not restrict others from sharing in the characteristic. So if you were to say, “So and so is standing,” then you have affirmed that he is indeed standing but you have not singled him out alone, restricting this action only to him because it is possible, based on this saying alone, that someone else could also be standing with him. Similarly, if you were to say, “No one is standing,” then you have absolutely and completely negated the action of standing for anyone. However, if you said, “No one is standing except Zayd,” then you have singled out Zayd alone with the action of standing, negating it from anyone other than him. This is the true actualization of Tawheed in reality – meaning that Tawheed is not fulfilled unless it contains both negation and affirmation….”
 Tawheed: Its Meaning & Categories تعريف التوحيد :Title Original Author: Muhammad Ibn Saalih Al-‘Uthaymeen Source: Fataawaa Arkaan Al-Islaam (Question No. 1), https://abdurrahmanorg.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/tawheed-its-meaning-and-categories-shaykh-ibn-uthaymeen.pdf
After this explanation of ‘Tauhīd’, Ibn Uthaymeen then immediately shifts attention to the categorization into 3 as clearly depicted in the next paragraph,
As for the categories of Tawheed as it pertains to Allaah, they all fall under the general definition of Tawheed as “Singling out Allaah alone with anything and everything that specifically pertains to only Him.” The categories of Tawheed, as mentioned by the people of knowledge, are three:
Tawheed Ar-Ruboobiyyah (Tawheed of Allaah’s Lordship)
Tawheed Al-Uloohiyyah (Tawheed of Allaah’s sole right to all worship)
Tawheed Al-Asmaa was-Sifaat (Tawheed of Allaah’s names and attributes) The scholars know this categorization by studying and examining the verses of the Quraan and Hadeeths. They found that all forms of Tawheed fall under one of these three categories.”
Astounding indeed! This, another ‘great’ scholar of the Salafī Wahhābī regime in the first paragraph stated that “Tawheed is not fulfilled unless it contains both negation and affirmation”. Then without clarifying to the questioners that the current Kalimah fulfills both negation and affirmation, he moves to channel focus to the innovated (according to Salafī standards) division of Tauhīd, implying that the three divisions are the only sufficient means to understand. This will be clarified in the forthcoming section.
Resuming the critique on the second statement of Ibn Uthaymeen, it must be recognized as a total mishmash because he states that the categories fall under the general definition of Tauhīd, and then he goes on to say that the people of knowledge have categorized them into three!!! Which people of knowledge? Who are these people? This is the true ‘blind following’ because we do not know who these people are? Of course, those without an agenda can approach the subject and conclude that these ‘hidden’ people of knowledge are Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Abdul Wahhāb Najdī.
Furthermore, he concludes by saying,
The scholars know this categorization by studying and examining the verses of the Quraan and Hadeeths. They found that all forms of Tawheed fall under one of these three categories
So let us understand this correctly. The categorization of Tauhīd into 3 was not done by the Prophet , nor by his companions, yet even though according to the Salafī methodology that would equate it to being a Bid’ah for anything else, yet they somehow refuse to acknowledge this point and preach it as if it is a definitive division or a legal injunction located in the Qur’ān?
Additionally, if all 3 categorizations can be linked to the Qur’ān and hadith (by implied or analogical reasoning), then we need to ask,
Why did the Prophet not elucidate this division into 3 for the ease of the Ummah?
Why did the companions not find it necessary to explain?
Why didn’t Allāh clarify this most important categorization in the Qur’ān?
Why is there no prophecy from sources of eschatology calling us to accept this teaching in the future?
Now Salafīs –the likes of Bilāl Phillips and most others- say, “There was no need to do so because the companions were on the correct version of Tauhīd”. And whilst we agree that they were indeed the best of generations, the historical record reveals that they were the ones who came from polytheistic backgrounds whilst Muslims of today are born into Muslim homes, so the concept of Tauhīd (absolute monotheism in all regards) is embedded within us from the time we are able to listen and learn.
Point of Insight – The Qur’ān was revealed over a period of 23 years and during this time, from the first revelation, people began to accept Islām and were over one hundred thousand in number by the demise of the Messenger . If the Salafīs say that “unless one does not accept all the categories of Tauhīd, then Imān is incomplete?” then the question which must be asked is, “When the Qur’ān was first revealed, all the other verses regarding Tauhīd were not yet revealed, so does it mean that those companions who were martyred by the Quraysh in the early Meccan periods, or during the battles in the Medīnan era, etc. all passed away with an incomplete understanding of Tauhīd? Essentially, these are the implications of such a preposterous propagation!
Furthermore, Salafīs constantly utilize the incident whereby the second Caliph, Sayyidunā Umar bin Al-Khattāb E cut down the tree at Hudaybiyyah as ‘evidence’ to prove that the relics and places of historic significance should be destroyed because the Caliph ‘feared’ that the people would commit shirk? Well, imagine that!
Salafīs make up an imaginative story when asked why the first generations did not categorize the Tauhīd into these three groups. They say “The division of Tawheed into its components was not done by the Prophet (saws) nor by his companions, as there was no necessity to analyze such a basic principle of faith in this fashion.”
If that was the case, and the companions understood it to such a degree in the way it is portrayed by the Salafī scholar Dr.Bilāl Phillips, then why would the Caliph fear ‘shirk’ from them? Something is amiss with their entire premise and it is not in concordance to the historical record.
Of course, we know and believe that all of the companions were upon Tauhīd, not because they understood the Salafī way, but because they understood the Prophetic way. They were taught by the best of teachers, and he did not divide the Tauhīd for them so who are the Salafīs to change what the Messenger did not do? This Bid’ah of insisting upon this division without which Imān (faith or belief) is incomplete is a blatant violation against the Qur’ān and the Sunnah.
Similarities between the Salafi Tauhīd and the Christian Trinity
Let me clarify that I am in no way juxtaposing Salafīs to Christians, but instead comparing the approach of the Church in preaching the doctrine of the Trinity and the approach of the Salafīs in preaching the division of Tauhīd into 3 from a methodological perspective. In simpleton terms, Muslims agree that Jesus u is not God, nor the son of God, because God does not need anyone for anything. We further affirm that Jesus u is indeed a Messenger of God and that a perusal of the Bible shows no explicit evidence of the Trinitarian belief. When asked regarding this lack of evidence for such a cardinal belief, Christians usually respond by saying that it (the doctrine of the Trinity) is ‘implied’ in the text of the Bible, and then they progress to immediately present a volley of verses coupled with the assumptive deductions derived therefrom to corroborate that point.
Likewise, when one asks a Salafī as to which verses in the Qur’ān or which narrations in the Sunnah explicitly declare these divisions of Tauhīd, they tend to present those verses of the Qur’ān which ‘imply’ the respective meaning through analogical deduction, and which do not even use the same terminology which they preach. In other words, they have no textual evidence for this ‘belief’, and so they resort to relying on other verses that require some kind of assumptive deduction.
Is this not the exact tactic employed by those Christians who blindly follow the doctrine of the Trinity when Jesus u did not declare himself to be God or the son of God? Methodologically speaking, the Salafīs have adopted the same stance as the Christians in this matter, and they know well that it can work when as long as your audience is ‘emotionally’ attached to the message.
What’s worse, is that even though they contradict their own extremist principles, they will incessantly claim that everyone else is an innovator and that their ‘belief’ is ‘pure’. If this is not ‘blind following’ at its peak, then blind I don’t know what is!
 See Defense Against Disaster – A Response to the Systematic Vilification of Islām and its Ptophet k in the Modern Age for more details – https://www.amazon.com/Shaykh-Faheem/e/B081FX54M5%3Fref=dbs_a_mng_rwt_scns_share
The Tauhīd of Islām
By the Grace of Allāh Almighty, Sunnī Muslims accept and believe in all of the verses of the Qur’ān, and that belief is therefore inclusive of the verses pertaining to the subject of Tauhīd. Muslims have always believed that the Kalimah contains sufficient information elucidating the absolute oneness of Allāh. The Salafīs however, believe that the Kalimah is insufficient and have inadvertently questioned the status of every other Muslim in the world whilst also ensuring that their innovated version of Tauhīd -which they have institutionalized as being mandatory for the completion of Imān- reigns ‘supreme’. This supremacy makes them believe that they are the ‘better’ Muslims, and are, therefore ‘worthy’ to call others towards it. It is an age-old tactic employed by all factions of people who suffer from the superiority complex, and a complex I must add, that was initially exhibited by Satan, who responded to God by emphasizing that he was ‘better’ than Prophet Ādam u (7:12).
Salafī scholars the likes of Ibn Uthaymeen etc. allude that since negation and affirmation are both necessary for Tauhīd, and that the divisions into three make that explanation easier to understand, that somehow the Kalimah cannot qualify both ‘negation’ and ‘affirmation’, thus one ‘must’ accept their innovated divisions in order to understand. This kind of rhetoric will only be swallowed by those who do not possess a modicum of understanding. The following excerpt from a previous article easily refutes that claim,
“The style and structure of the Kalimah is indeed wondrous to behold as the words resonate with those who may be open to accepting Islām from an atheistic background as well as those who are accepting Islām from a previous religion which may have propagated a more polytheistic philosophy. Hence the Kalimah does not commence by merely stating, “I believe in Allāh”. Instead, it takes into cognizance that people usually enter the fray of theological transition with their own perceptions or their glasses half-full.
Thus it commences with a ‘negation of the negative’ stating that “There is none worthy of worship”, meaning that the would-be-Muslim must first empty their glass by removing from the heart all pre-existing notions of any other deities or ideologies which occupy or demand ‘absolute’ belief in.
Once there is a negation of the negative by the statement, “There is none worthy of worship…”, then the Kalimah proceeds with an injection of positive propagation by saying “Illallāh” (Except for Allāh only). Now the first part of the Kalimah reads, “There is none worthy of worship except for Allāh”.
The above fulfills both negation of the negative and affirmation of the positive and this is located in the Qur’ān. This is the Kalimah taught to us by the Messenger (peace be apon him). This is the Kalimah accepted by the Sahābas, the Tāba’īn and the Tab’Tābi’īn, and every generation of Islām that followed and will follow! To question its comprehensiveness in order to promote the views of people outside of the Salaf is a betrayal to the entire concept of adherence to the Salaf, and it is to question the very wisdom of Allāh ! No person from the Salaf ever questioned the completeness of the Kalimah because it was sent by Allah, and delivered via the masterful mouth of the Messenger (peace be apon him). Were there to be any sign of incompleteness within it, then it would not have been sent in the first place. The fact that it altered the internal state of idolatrous ignoramuses into radiant rays of hope and guidance, is evidence of its completeness in all regards! So woe unto those who aim to ‘weaken’ the word of Allāh , because they want to promote the ‘words’ of ‘Wahhābism’!
عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ سِيرِينَ، قَالَ إِنَّ هَذَا الْعِلْمَ دِينٌ فَانْظُرُوا عَمَّنْ تَأْخُذُونَ دِينَكُمْ
Imām Muhammad bin Sīrīn E said, ‘Indeed this knowledge is faith, so carefully consider from whom you take your faith’
 Introduction to Sahīh Muslim, Chapter 5, Hadīth 26 and Mishkāt Al-Masābīh, Book of Knowledge, Hadīth 273
As stated at the onset, I have provided sufficient data albeit from an unbiased source proving the murky Wahhābī origins of the current Salafī system. Furthermore, it has been exhibited with clarity and evidence that the Salafīs of today were once known by the appellation of Wahhābī, and that ibn Abdul Wahhāb’s contemporaries addressed his views as being of the ‘Wahābiyyah’. I have also indicated from unbiased sources of history the mention of the word ‘Najd’ as being linked to the current region of Saudi Arabia, (something which the Salafīs deny). I have further clarified that the Salafī’s authoritarian approach to the subject of Bid’ah coupled with their literalist approach to the Qur’ān has placed them in a precarious position when we ponder upon the points raised at the origins of the divisions of Tauhīd having no source in the Qur’ān and Sunnah as a condition for the completeness of faith. Furthermore, that their scholars have been conditioning the minds of their followers to be ‘Salafī’ when in fact they are diametrically opposed to the Salaf.
I am expectant of the Salafīs and their over-qualified Shaykhs to target me via the ‘ad hominem’ approach and I am well-aware of their devious method to cherrypick in their rebuttals and then choose to evade the subject by focusing on the ill-practices of the Ummah to justify their Bid’ah. The topic of this paper has been focused on the Salafī methodology, so deflecting the topic will only prove the strength of our claim. They must instead answer the following questions (in addition to all other questions raised in this paper) with referenced evidence, failing which, the contents of this article will prove to be correct, and any attack or harm upon me only stands to prove that they are indeed the ‘Khawārij’ re-emerged!
Rebuttals must include answers to the following in addition to several other questions posed within it, or else it will not be considered at all,
Where in the Qur’ān or Sunnah is the explicit text elucidating the divisions of Tauhīd into 3 categories?
Where in the Qur’ān, Sunnah or Salaf is the rule stipulating that unless one does not believe in these divisions, that Tauhīd is incomplete, therefore inferring that faith is incomplete?
If there is no explicit textual evidence to prove this concept, why is it propagated so heavily? (the fact that every Salafī book and website that discusses creed has introduced this idea is proof of this).
“When the Qur’ān was first revealed, all the other verses regarding Tauhīd were not yet revealed, so does it mean that those companions who were martyred by the Quraysh in the early Meccan periods, or during the battles in the Medīnan era, etc. all passed away with an incomplete understanding of Tauhīd?
Why do Salafīs insist on “assumptive” or “implied” pieces of evidence to justify the division of Tauhīd, when it is part of the foundations of faith, yet refuse to accept implied or assumptive pieces of evidence from those who differ with your stance on other basic subsidiary practices that are not foundations of faith?
If, according the Salafī Wahhābī ideology, everything that the Prophet and his companions did not do is automatically rendered as “Bid’ah”, then if there is no explicit textual evidence to prove the origin of the division of Tauhīd into 3, as well as its insistence for its acceptance, then why is this not dealt with in accordance to the same stringent set of rules that render everything else as a “Bid’ah” as well?
Why do the Salafīs have such a strong allegiance to Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhāb Najdī, yet refuse to be associated with him by the name ‘Wahhābī?
Why do Salafīs hold the only the Salafī scholars as Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Abdul Wahhāb Najdī, Albānī, Bin Bāz, Ibn Uthaymeen, etc to be ultimate authorities on Islāmic matters when they have been proven to be of the Khalaf and not of the Salaf?
If Salafī scholars say that they are not necessarily aligned to the above scholars of the Khalaf, then can they preach their entire basis of Islām “excluding” them? If they cannot, then they are not Salafī but pseudo-Salafīs who are aligned to the Khalaf but posing as believers in the way of the Salaf!
Those Muslims who refuse to accept ibn Abdul Wahhāb Najdī, and the insistence of the division of Tauhīd into 3 categories, are they Muslims or not? If they are, then it means that entering into Salafīsm is of no added benefit and if they are not Muslims then it means that the Salafīs have added to the fundamentals of faith, which is in itself, Bid’ah!
Those who know more, Object Less!
“Thow who know less, Object More!
Co-Founder and Head of Da’wah, Media, Education and Publications Departments
of the Islāmic Lifestyle Solutions