rebellion against Islam and the Muslims—no heretic or atheist could surpass him in that!”

When al-Subkī described Shaykh Abū Ismāʿīl al-Harawī by saying, “the man whom the anthropomorphists call Shaykh al-Islam,” Abū Ghuddah appended the note: “He is the author of Manāzil al-Sāʾirīn, which Shaykh Ibn al-Qayyim explained in his Madārij al-Sālikīn.” With this crafty, malicious hint he intends to suggest that Ibn al-Qayyim is himself an anthropomorphist, for Ibn al-Qayyim repeatedly refers to al-Harawī as “Shaykh al-Islam” in Madārij, e.g., 1/127. Al-Dhahabī does likewise in Tadhkirah (3/354). Hence, in the eyes of al-Subkī—and of Abū Ghuddah—everyone who approves that title is automatically an anthropomorphist!

After all this, can anyone on earth still believe Abū Ghuddah after he has blackened several pages of his Kalimāt (pp. 23–35) with lavish praise of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah—calling him a leading imam of the religion—and of his pupil Ibn al-Qayyim—calling him one of the eminent imams of the Muslims—while at the same time leveling the accusations detailed above? Add to that his failure to state plainly that he rejects his own teacher al-Kawtharī’s verdict of unbelief against the two shaykhs, despite our repeated demand; on the contrary, even in his Kalimāt he continues to mention al-Kawtharī with reverence and prayers for mercy, and even deems al-Kawtharī’s takfīr of the two shaykhs an ijtihād for which he will be rewarded (p. 38).

Dear reader, set this beside Abū Ghuddah’s assault on Imām al-Bukhārī and the other hadith masters who criticized Abū Ḥanīfah’s weak recall—whom he does not defend with anything like the zeal he shows for his teacher al-Kawtharī; rather, he asserts outright that what they said was mere partisanship—may Allah have mercy on them all.

From this it becomes clear that Abū Ghuddah has departed from Ahl al-Sunnah to the people of innovation and misguidance. Allah’s help is sought.