The Shaykh Al-Albani’s commentary on the words of Shaykh 'Ayd 'Abbasi; The First Issue

The Shaykh : There are two points, one of which is by way of alerting and reminding, and the other is by way of clarification, affirmation, and explanation.
The first of the two issues: In the course of Professor "Ayd 'Abbasi’s" speech, he mentioned the Shaykh "Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab" (may Allah have mercy on him) as being among those Salafi callers, and he is indeed so without a doubt. However, reality bears witness that he was a Salafi in creed. Since you have heard some detail in his speech regarding the Salafi call, and that it calls for following the Book and the Sunnah entirely, to the extent of one’s ability, as you heard, and that it warns against taking taqlid (following a scholar without knowing his evidence) as a school of thought and a religion; as long as this is the methodology of the Salafi call, we must know that the Shaykh "Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab" (may Allah have mercy on him) was a Salafi in creed. He holds the primary merit, after the Shaykh al-Islam "Ibn Taymiyyah" (may Allah have mercy on them all), in spreading the call of tawhid (the oneness of Allah) in the Islamic world in general, and in the Najdi and Hijazi lands in particular in later times; the merit returns to him after Ibn Taymiyyah. Therefore, perhaps his immersion and exertion in calling people to this pure tawhid, cleansed of the filth of shirk (associating partners with Allah) and idolatry in all its details, is what diverted him from engaging in completing the Salafi call, which lies in combating the stagnation of taqlid and the adherence to a specific madhhab (school of jurisprudence) that had become, before his time, in his time, and after his time, a religion; everyone who left taqlid was branded as deviant and astray, and the like of what the professor speaker alluded to in his previous speech.
And in this respect—that is, in that he called for tawhid without anything else related to Islam cleansed as you heard—he differs from the Shaykh al-Islam "Ibn Taymiyyah" (may Allah have mercy on him); for this noble Shaykh called for Islam in its entirety, from all its aspects, to be understood in the correct manner, in the detail you heard. For example, he warns against weak hadiths and warns against building legal rulings upon them, and so on, of the details mentioned by the professor, unlike the Shaykh "Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab"; for he did not have this concern, neither in hadith nor in Salafi fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence). He was Hanbali in terms of school of thought, and in terms of hadith he was like others. He has no works in fiqh that indicate to us that he was, like Ibn Taymiyyah, Salafi in methodology in deriving jurisprudence from the religion. Perhaps he has an excuse for this, as we alluded to earlier.
And likewise in hadiths, he is like others—regrettably—having no knowledge of the authentic and the weak. Among the proofs that indicate this to us is that he has a printed treatise circulating among his Najdi followers to this day, titled "The Etiquettes of Walking to the Mosque." At the beginning of this treatise, he cited the hadith known among Salafis generally, except for a few of them, as weak. He cited the hadith known as weak among the majority of Salafis; namely, the hadith of Abu Sa'id al-Khudri, which the Imam Ibn Majah extracted in his "Sunan" through the route of al-Fudayl ibn Marzuq from 'Atiyyah al-Sa'di, from 'Atiyyah al-'Aufi, and al-Sa'di as well, but the more famous is via al-'Aufi, from 'Atiyyah al-'Aufi from Abu Sa'id al-Khudri, who said: "The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), when he went out from his house to the mosque, would say: to the end of the hadith. So, first, he cited it without alerting to its weakness; even though it has two defects, if one of them stood alone it would suffice to declare the hadith weak; how much more so with the two defects combined together?!
And secondly: The apparent meaning of this hadith contradicts what he called for in creed and in the sincerity of tawhid and the call to Allah (Mighty and Majestic), which is tawassul (seeking nearness to Allah through a means) through created beings. He is, like Ibn Taymiyyah and every Salafi who is discerning in his Salafism and his call, one who combats tawassul to Allah through the servants of Allah (Mighty and Majestic). In this hadith, in its apparent meaning, there is tawassul to Allah by the right of the supplicants, and by the right of this servant who walks to the obedience of Allah and to His worship. I say this without forgetting that if the hadith were authentic, it could be interpreted (ta'wil) as I mentioned in some of my works. But the point at issue here is that he cited it as one of the etiquettes of the mosque: when the Muslim goes out from his house, he must supplicate with this supplication, and it is a weak hadith. This indicates that the second Shaykh al-Islam in tawhid, "Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab," is not like the first Shaykh al-Islam in that he was Salafi in the entire call, in all aspects of the call and its many fields. This is the first aspect I wanted to point out.
And this is, of course, by way of giving every right its due. We certainly do not, never, take pleasure in anyone being disparaged regarding the Shaykh "Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab," as the enemies of the call and the enemies of tawhid do; where they accuse him of everything with which Salafis are accused in all lands of the world. But this does not lead us to exaggerate in giving every person among the bearers of the Salafi call what he does not possess. We must distinguish between "Ibn Taymiyyah" and "Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab," and give every right its due. For this reason, I said what I said. Otherwise, the Shaykh al-Islam "Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab" has his station in the call with us, after the Shaykh al-Islam "Ibn Taymiyyah" (may Allah have mercy on him).