such as Mālik, al-Shāfiʿī, and Aḥmad, and even by declaring ʿAbd Allāh ibn Aḥmad a liar, and the rest of what was mentioned in that paragraph. In all of this Abū Ghuddah has never said that he parts company with his teacher al-Kawtharī, even though we repeatedly urged him to repudiate the man, wholly and in detail. Despite our efforts, the only point from which he distanced himself was al-Kawtharī’s shunning of Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim. Consequently, every rational person must concede that Abū Ghuddah remains a Kawtharī in all the other matters—and they are many. A single one of them would suffice to pronounce Abū Ghuddah misguided and outside the Saved Sect—if not to say that he has plunged into the realm of unbelief that entails eternal residence in the Fire—what a wretched abode!

All the more so when he boasts in his Kalimāt, saying (p. 38): “ … and I discard whatever I deem far from being acceptable, even if it came from someone greater than Shaykh al-Kawtharī.”

Now, if Abū Ghuddah is truthful in this claim yet still refuses to disown those numerous corrupt notions that lead their proponent astray, does that not mean he actually believes in them? He has not turned away from them, especially after we asked him to do so. We bear him no personal grudge; our only desire is that he, like others, be guided. For that reason we left the door open for him to retract, but he did not—so Barāqish has brought ruin upon herself.

Fourth: He did not address paragraph (19) directly; instead he dodged it, lest his deceit be exposed to the readers—forgetting the words of Allah: “Allah will certainly bring to light whatever you have been concealing.” Under the heading “My Statements concerning Ibn al-Qayyim” (p. 36) he writes:

“By the praise and favor of Allah, I profess before Allah Almighty, in matters of creed, the creed of the Salaf: I affirm, as they did, the Names and Attributes, and I ascribe to Allah, Glorified be He, whatever He has ascribed to Himself …”