Kashf al-Niqab amma fi Kalimat Abi Ghudda min al-Abatil wal-IftiraatNasir al-Din al-Albani

in him as well for his summons to the creed of the Salaf and his sound grasp of the Sharia, for in Abu Ghuddah’s estimation Ibn Taymiyyah is unfit to serve as a model for people in either of those two areas. Abu Ghuddah does not dare voice this openly; hence he goes on arguing, obstinately denying, and evading.

This marks the end of our reply to what he wrote under paragraph (16).

Second: As for paragraph (17), his answer only incriminates him, for it contains an allusion to his hypocrisy in the very land where he makes his living. He did not repudiate that charge—not even with a verbal disclaimer. Instead, he chose to mock the way we introduced him to the readers—giving his name, school of law, and intellectual orientation, and noting that he is a Hanafi partisan of al-Kawtharī. All he added, thereby misleading his readers about the facts, was the remark: “They mentioned my name, my lineage, the name of my town, my madhhab, and my son’s name, but they forgot to list the rest of the family.” By doing this he misleads readers who have never seen the Introduction and therefore do not know why we cited his lineage, school, and orientation—simply to identify the author of that unjust report.

A Salafi and a Kawtharī at the same time?!

Third: In his reply to paragraph (18) he claims he is not a Kawtharī one hundred percent! As proof he notes that al-Kawtharī used to “shun” (so he says—rather than “declare disbelievers”) Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim in accordance with his personal opinion and ijtihād (so he said—may Allah requite him as he deserves). He then states, “Had I been bound to everything he says, I too would have shunned them and followed him in that stance toward them!”

But what of al-Kawtharī’s assaults on the leading hadith authorities—among them Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim—his charging them with anthropomorphism, calling them ḥashwiyyah (crude literalists), accusing them of rigidity in jurisprudence and understanding, deriding them as mere porters of tomes, and vilifying reliable transmitters, among whom are a host of hadith masters and jurist-imams

به أيضًا في دعوته لعقيدة السلف وحسن فهمه للشريعة، لأن ابن تيمية لا يصلح فيهما عنده قدوة للناس، وهذا ما لا يجرأ أبو غدة أن يصرح به، ولذلك يظل يجادل ويكابر ويراوغ. هذا آخر الرد على ما جاء في جوابه عن الفقرة (١٦). ثانيًا: وأجاب عن الفقرة (١٧) بما يدينه بما تضمنته من الإشارة إلى نفاقه في أرض معاشه، فلم ينف ذلك عن نفسه ولو بلسانه، لأنه أخذ يتهكم بتعريفنا للقراء به اسمًا ومذهبًا ومشربًا وكونه حنفيًّا متعصبًا للكوثري فإنه لم يزد على قوله تضليلًا لقرائه عن الحقيقة: «فذكروا اسمي ونسبي واسم بلدي ومذهبي واسم ولدي، وفاتهم ذكر بقية أفراد الأسرة». فهو بذلك يضلل القراء الذين لم يسبق لهم أن اطلعوا على «المقدمة» والقصد الذي حملنا على ذكره بما هو متصف به من نسب ومذهب ومشرب على سبيل التعريف بكاتب ذلك التقرير الجائر. أسلفي وكوثري؟ ! ثالثًا: وأجاب عن الفقرة (١٨) بأنه ليس كوثريًّا مائة في المائة! ويستدل على ذلك بأن الكوثري كان يجافي (كذا قال ولا يقول: يكفر) ابن تيمية وابن القيم بحسب رأيه واجتهاده (كذا قال عامله الله بما يستحق) ثم قال: «فلو كنت ملتزمًا بكل ما يقول لجفوتهما وتابعته في مشربه هذا نحوهما»! أما طعن الكوثري في أئمة الحديث وفيهم ابن تيمية وابن القيم واتهامه إياهم بالتجسيم وتلقيبهم بالحشوية السخفاء وبالجمود في الفقه والفهم وأنهم حملة أسفار وطعنه في الرواة الثقات وفيهم جماعة من الحفاظ والأئمة الفقهاء

Company

  • About
  • Pricing
  • Why Translate?

Support

  • Contact us
  • Report a bug
  • Support us
  • Donate
  • AI combat arena

Follow us

© 2026 Kutub. All rights reserved.
Terms and conditionsPrivacy policyCookies