Is the Wahhabiyyah closer to the Sunnah? A note on the naming of the Wahhabiyyah, and the Shaykh spoke about adhering to a madhhab.

The questioner : ... Professor, if you permit, our masterThe Shaykh : Regarding the Sufiyyah ... I have heard the expression that there is no Sufism in Islam, and of course there is a statement I read that Sufism is like the Judaism of the religion and like the monasticism in Christianity. I would like to ask about your ruling on the Wahhabiyyah, who forbid the Sufiyyah, the awliya (close friends of Allah), and the shrines and these things, and who take the Sunnah as we read about it in the authentic Sunnah. Is it the closest thing to the authentic Sunnah?

The Shaykh : But I want to understand from you a word before I answer you: do they deny the awliya (close friends of Allah)?

The questioner : No ... they do not deny them, they do not believe ...

Another questioner : ... from visiting ...

The Shaykh : By Allah, I want you to clarify it to me so that I or anyone else understands ...

Another questioner : They do not believe in visiting the awliya (close friends of Allah), meaning like in Egypt al-Sayyid al-Badawi and al-Sayyidah Zaynab and al-Sayyid al-Husayn, and I don't know what else, these visits and seeking blessing from them, they do not believe in them, or they even forbid them, but they follow the Sunnah as they understand it, which is prayer and fasting ... and Hajj, the main things in Islam. Of course, the Sufiyyah do not acknowledge them. Is it the closest thing to ...

The Shaykh : Without a doubt, I want to draw your attention and the attention of the brothers before I answer you: there are people who say about themselves: "We are Sufis," but there are no people who say about themselves: "We are Wahhabis." Therefore, we should not label people with a title they do not adopt. If you say to a Shi'i: "You are a Shi'i," he will say to you ... If you say to a communist: "You are a communist," he will not deny it. If you say to a Sufi: "You are a Sufi," he will say to you: "Yes, I am a Sufi." But there is no one on the face of the earth who says: "I am a Wahhabi." This is a historical fact that we must be aware of. After this note, I will answer your question: The people who are called - by those who do not know the truth about those people - Wahhabis, these people say about them what they do not believe. For example, you just mentioned that they deny visiting the awliya (close friends of Allah). They do not deny visiting the awliya (close friends of Allah), they do not deny visiting the believers in general, but they deny what happens from some ignorant people when visiting graves. And the truth is that this is an error - no offense - you may be a transmitter, and a transmitter of a disbeliever is not a disbeliever, and a transmitter of an error is not in error, but this error is recorded, meaning - we have read it in many letters - that these people whom people call Wahhabis deny visiting graves. Perhaps you all know that these people who do not say about themselves "We are Wahhabis," but rather people are the ones who say about them "Wahhabis," their history does not go back more than two hundred years because they are the followers of Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab. What Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab and his group say to this day is known as the Najdis or the Saudis. These people appeared after Ibn Taymiyyah by approximately four hundred or five hundred years. So Ibn Taymiyyah says what they say, and more precisely, they say what Ibn Taymiyyah says. Is Ibn Taymiyyah a Wahhabi, and he appeared three or four centuries before Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab? Of course not.

The questioner : He is basically the founder of the madhhab for them. They did not invent the Wahhabiyyah for them, but his teachings have continued to this day on the basis that it is the authentic Sunnah. They believe that it is the authentic Sunnah.

The Shaykh : Correct, but we know, but

The questioner : As for the name, it is not mentioned. The name is actually, as you mentioned, taken from Ibn Taymiyyah.

The Shaykh : ... I believe that the Wahhabiyyah differ from the rest of the Muslims in one thing - we have to follow people in the name, but we do not believe in this word; because the truth is that one of their poets says:
"If following Ahmad is being a Wahhabi, then I am the one who admits that I am a Wahhabi"
This is on the meter of what was narrated from Imam al-Shafi'i when he said:
"If loving the family of Muhammad is Rafidah, then I am ... that I am a Rafidi"

The questioner : Then I am the one who admits

The Shaykh : Is there any poet among you who can correct this meter for us?
"If loving the family of Muhammad is Rafidah, let the two communities bear witness that I am a Rafidi"
So he quoted from it and said:
"If following Ahmad is being a Wahhabi, then I am the one who admits that I am a Wahhabi"
The group of Najdis, these are the ones who are called Wahhabiyyah, they meet with the Muslims in the fundamentals of following a madhhab. Just as most Muslims today are either Hanafis, Malikis, Shafi'is, or Hanbalis, the Najdis are Hanbalis. So they are exactly like the rest of the Muslims in following a madhhab. They differ from the rest of the Muslims in a very important aspect, which is understanding tawhid (the oneness of Allah) correctly, understanding the word in a way that saves its speaker from eternal abode in the Fire on the Day of Allah. Because it has come in the noble Qur'an, as we all know: , unlike the Najdis, who have studied this creed very precisely. The small children among them know this creed better than the elders among us know it. So in the issue of tawhid (the oneness of Allah), they are truly a model for all people. But from the madhhab perspective, they are madhhab followers. We meet them in tawhid (the oneness of Allah) and differ from them in following a madhhab. We do not see that it is permissible for a Muslim to adhere to a madhhab of one of the imams of the Muslims and to draw near to Allah by holding to it, for two reasons: First: that this adherence - and I do not say taqlid (following a scholar without knowing his evidence), so please pay attention - I do not say: I do not see taqlid (following a scholar without knowing his evidence). Rather, I see taqlid (following a scholar without knowing his evidence) as a necessity for the great scholars at times. But I say - and I repeat what I say - we do not see adhering to a madhhab by taqlid (following a scholar without knowing his evidence), meaning: that a person grows up knowing nothing of his religion except his madhhab. And his madhhab, what is it? His father's madhhab. There is no difference whether he is Sunni, Shi'i, Zaydi, Qadiani, or so on. We do not see this adherence by taqlid (following a scholar without knowing his evidence); because Allah Mighty and Majestic criticized the mushrikin (those who associate partners with Allah) for their taqlid (following a scholar without knowing his evidence) of their fathers. But we make obligatory upon every Muslim what Allah Blessed and Exalted has made obligatory: if he is a scholar, that he takes from the Book and the Sunnah, and if he is not a scholar, that he benefits from all scholars, not from one scholar. I am a Hanafi. It is perhaps known to you that this atmosphere is not ... lived in, even by the specialized among the shaykhs. A layperson comes to ask one of the shaykhs about an issue, and they say: "What is your madhhab?" He says to him: "Hanafi." He gives him a fatwa according to the Hanafi madhhab. If he is a Shafi'i, he gives him a fatwa according to the Shafi'i madhhab. This is if he has studied the madhhabs. Otherwise, he gives him a fatwa according to his own madhhab without asking him "What is your madhhab?" because he does not know the madhhabs. Whereas the obligation of the scholar is to give him a fatwa with what Allah said and what the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said. So here there is a discussion and long discussions that: well, where did the imams take from? Yes, they took from the Book of Allah and from the hadith of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). But is every imam and everything this imam took from the Book and the Sunnah correct? Then the correct things would multiply and the legal rulings would contradict.
Perhaps the well-known example today is this: a man touches a woman’s hand, does his wudu become invalid or not? In this issue, there are two, or rather three, opinions: it becomes invalid; it does not become invalid; or it becomes invalid if it was with desire, and it does not become invalid if it was without desire. As for the third opinion regarding the emergence of blood, it is as follows: there are two opinions, but if the touch was with desire, it invalidates the wudu, otherwise it does not. The second opinion is that it does not invalidate the wudu in any case. As for the emergence of blood, there are three opinions: it invalidates the wudu in all cases, whether the amount is large or small, and this is the position of the Hanafis; the position of the Shafi'is is that it does not invalidate the wudu in all cases, whether the amount is small or large; and the position of the Hanbalis is that if the amount is large, it invalidates the wudu, and if it is small, it does not. These are the opinions of the Imams, without doubt, and they expressed them through independent legal reasoning (ijtihad), and they are rewarded in any case. But is it possible for these three contradictory opinions to be revelation from the sky? This is impossible; because Allah, Mighty and Majestic, described His Book, Blessed and Exalted is He, by saying: Therefore, the existence of much disagreement in a single issue is evidence that this disagreement is not from Allah, Mighty and Majestic. So where does this disagreement come from? It comes from the independent legal reasoning (ijtihad) of the Imams. Whoever among them was correct has two rewards, and whoever was wrong has one reward. Therefore, we do not see that a person should bind himself to following a school of jurisprudence (madhhab); because it is possible that another school is more correct in a certain issue than the school he has lived by. The group of Najdis, who are called Wahhabis, are not to be blamed at all in terms of their creed. But in terms of following a school of jurisprudence, they are like the rest of the Muslims. Of course, there are individuals, as there are in all schools, who are great scholars that study the Shari'ah in light of the Book and the Sunnah, and issue rulings based on what they know from the Book and the Sunnah. These are few here and there and in all lands. But as a nation, or as a people—to be more precise linguistically—the Najdi people are Hanbali, the Turkish people, for example, are Hanafi, the Moroccan people are Maliki, and the Syrian, Jordanian, and Egyptian people are Hanafi and Shafi'i, and so on. But these Najdis are often spoken about falsely because their creed is, in reality, based on the Book and the Sunnah, and they contradict the majority of Muslim scholars today in many issues, some of which were mentioned briefly earlier. They do not accept that Allah, Mighty and Majestic, burdens His servants with what they cannot bear, because this is the text of the Noble Qur'an. They do not say that it is permissible for Allah to punish the obedient and reward the disobedient, even though many scholars of theology (kalam) say this. I do not know if I have answered your question?