Recently, a video was circulated wherein Asrar Rashid (Ṣūfī Barelwi), Moḥammad Ḥijāb (Ikhwānī Mutafalsif, online performance artist), and Haitham Ḥaddād (Ikhwānī), are having a conversation about Ṣūfī ṭarīqahs. In it Ḥijāb makes mention of one of his ancestors, Aḥmad Ḥijāb, who he describes as a "great sufi" and as we discover, is the self-declared “spiritual son” of Aḥmad al-Badawī, the wathan (deity) in Ṭanṭā (Egypt) that is invoked and worshipped alongside Allāh. There are some important observations to be made in light of this, given Moḥammad Ḥijāb's belittlement of Shaykh al-Islām Muḥammad bin ʿAbd al-Wahhāb’s writings on the subjects of Tawḥīd and Shirk.
In a video from around a year ago, Moḥammad Ḥijāb, while expressing his anger towards these books, claimed that these books are not needed for anyone’s guidance. Hence this article.
SAYYID AḤMAD AL-BADAWI (d. 675H) is a dubious figure with a sketchy biography because not much regarding him is found from any of his contemporaries, and he only has mention some centuries after he passed. Nevertheless, works have been written and biographical accounts have been compiled and constructed which afford us some insight into this character who is said to be buried in Ṭantā in Egypt, where millions flock to his shrine. As for Aḥmad Ḥijāb, then he is an Egyptian Qubūrī (grave-worshipper) who wrote a book on al-Badawi and his life in the grave (barzakh).
In this article we provide some details of al-Badawi, his creed and orientation and the purpose of his activities,[1] and then Hijāb’s book on al-Badawi, and this will pave the way for us to understand why the trinitarian nexus of Sufism, Shīʿism and Siyāsah (of the Khāwārij and Rawāfiḍ) is a manifestation of the ancient enmity against the people of Tawḥīd, and specifically, those who follow the methodology of the Prophets in calling to Allāh, in rectification of the servant and the land.
Shaykh Rabīʿ bin Hādī (حفظه الله) refers to “the most intense and severe of murky (dark) plots” in the form of “the Trinity (al-Thāluth)” comprising “the Rāfiḍah, the Ṣūfiyyah and Siyāsah.” The Rāfiḍah and Ṣūfiyyah are apparent and as for Siyāsah (Politics) it refers to the two wings of al-Ikhwān, the Bannāʾiyyah and the Quṭbiyyah, which bring together takfīr and khurūj and unifying various sects and orientations for this purpose under the guise of reforming and rectifying the ummah.[2]
Regarding Aḥmad al-Badawī: An Agent for the Bāṭini Shīʿites
The Shaykh of al-Azhar, Muṣṭafā ʿAbd al-Razzāq, based on source materials he obtained from Morocco (al-Maghreb) explains,[3] that al-Badawī was an ʿAlawī Shīʿite whose goal was to restore the rule of the Bāṭinī Shīʿite[4] ʿUbaydi dynasty that had ruled over North Africa. ʿAlī al-Badawī, the father of Aḥmad, was an Ismāʾīlī Shīʿite who had left Morocco for Makkah in order to meet with other Shīʿites to lay out plans for restoration of their political state. These Baṭini Shīʿites used Ṣūfism as a veil for their goals and activities.
Muḥammad Fahmī ʿAbd al-Laṭīf explains that the appeal of Ṣūfism was used by the Bāṭinī Shīʿites, the ʿAlawites, in order to draw people into their movement to facilitate their agenda of undermining the ʿAbbāsid Caliphate. The doctrines of the Shīʿites quickly became the basis for Ṣūfi doctrines. Thus, there appeared the notions of sudden illumination (kashf), the divinity (ulūhiyyah) of their scholars, divine indwelling (ḥulūl), claiming there is a central pole (quṭb) governing the creation and who is sought for aid and refuge, and so on. As a result, Ṣūfism became a tool for the ʿAlawites to advance their agendas.[5]
Visit to Iraq and the Move to Ṭanṭā
Al-Badawī claimed to have a dream while in Makkah in which the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) appeared to him and told him to settle in Ṭanṭā in order to nurture generations. The author of “Al-Sayyid al-Badawī” Saʿīd ʿĀshūr states that this appears to be an attempt on behalf of the biographers of al-Badawī to magnify his status and to prepare the minds of the readers to accept the miracles that were going to be ascribed to him, and to portray the notion that all of the activities of al-Badawī were executions of the divine will and fulfilments of commands he received directly from Allāh.[6]
It is said that he visited the grave of the Shīʿite Ṣūfī Manṣūr al-Ḥallāj (ex. 319H) who was executed for his disbelief, for speaking with the doctrine of the unity of existence (waḥdat al-wujūd). Likewise, it is mentioned that he went to Kāḍhimiyyah, to visit the shrines of Shīʿite figureheads.
There are many, many exaggerated stories written by biographical propagandists for al-Badawī, including those in which al-Badawī raises the dead. Remarking on these types of tales, ʿĀshūr observes that the authors of these imaginary stories wanted to pave the way for the role that al-Badawī was to play in Ṭanṭā, so they made this glorification and presented him as a powerful, mighty reformer, one who has armies at his instant disposal, one who gives life and takes life and other forms of ideological terrorism used to brainwash the gullible commoners. [7]
He returned to Makkah after his journey to Iraq after which, in the view of some researchers, he was sent by the ʿAlawites to Egypt to spread their daʿwah, as part of their plan to restore the Shīʿite state. Previously, one of their plots involving a person called ʿAmmarah al-Yamani (d. 569H) and his followers had been uncovered, and he was executed. They had engaged in conspiracy against Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn al-Ayyūbī, but failed. So they, the ʿAlawites, sent al-Badawī as an agent, representing Shīʿīte Ṣūfism in 637H. Prior to that, they had alread sent another individual by the name of ʿIzz al-Dīn al-Ṣayyād (d. 670H), a Shīʿite Mutaṣawwif, in order prepare for the arrival of al-Badawī by choosing a suitable location for his centre of activity. When he arrived in Ṭanṭā, it is said he shrouded himself in secrecy, not talking to people and keeping himself isolated in his quarters.
His Duplicitious Activities in Ṭanṭā
While in Ṭanṭā, under the Ayyubid rule, al-Badawī began his activities by displaying two contradictory modes of conduct.
The first was isolating himself in the roof of his quarters, screaming down at people, doing strange things, and giving the impression to them that he is insane, and therefore unaccountable for his actions.
The second was preparing callers and agents for furthering the agenda for which he had arrived in Ṭanṭā. Those who came to him were his inner circle, they had a common understanding (knowing what al-Badawī was doing) and he would provide them instructions.
This groups of his students numbered forty, and they were called the Suṭūḥiyyah (the Roofists). They had pledged allegiance to him and had scattered around Egypt, spreading his teachings, recounting his alleged miracles to the people.
In reality, he was not isolating himself in his quarters, out of abstinence, piety or claim of insanity, but was devoting himself to devising detailed plans to spread his call. It was a political call dressed in the garb of religion, and his inner circle knew full well the goals that were being pursued.
He sent his students to specific places and asked them to remain there until death, calling the people to his call, of belief in al-Badawī as a saint and reformer, and spreading the poison of Bāṭinī Sḥīʿite Ṣūfism.
However, after a while the ruler of Egypt at the time, al-Ḍhāhir Baybars al-Bunduqdārī, a Mamlūk sulṭān, became suspicious of him, as his mention had spread, and so he began to monitor him. Perceiving that there may be spies around him, al-Badawī began to teach people Arabic grammar, and jurisprudence, and spent some years not openly meeting with his network of Roofists, so as to remove any suspicions surrounding him. Ultimately, due to the dynamics of political change and upheaval, al-Badawī did not succeed in advancing the Bāṭinī Shīʿite agenda.
It should be noted that the followers and defenders of al-Badawī do not accept these claims, that he was an agent of the Bāṭinī Shīʿites working for their political goals, and they try to exonerate him and instead paint a picture for him of pure Ṣūfism. However, clear evidences have been presented that Shīʿite designs were behind the figure and activities of al-Badawī.[8] Other notable figures on the stage, behind whom was Bāṭinī Shīʿism include Ibrāhīm al-Dusūqī (in Dusūq), Abū al-Ḥasan al-Shādhīlī (in Alexandria), Ibn ʿArabī (who roamed around the Muslim lands). They all appeared at roughly the same time.
The Extent of the Kufr and Shirk of these Ṭawāghīt (False Deities)
We find in what is related about al-Badawī what are clear manifestations of shirk in Rubūbiyyah and Ulūhiyyah. They ascribe to him attributes and actions that belong to Allāh alone, such as knowing what is hidden, giving life and taking life and more.
An example of such kufr and shirk is what is related of people making tawassul to him through Allāh and His Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم). Meaning, they made Allāh an intermediary to al-Badawī (not the other way around), and this is with respect to bringing their deceased back to life. This means that Allāh approaches al-Badawī on behalf of the people for him to revive their deceased.[9] Exalted is Allāh from their lies and fabrications!
It is to the graves of these tawāghīt that Muslims, in their millions, flock to annually, seeking aid and assistance from them in their worldly needs, and this is the very cause of the defeat and humiliation of the ummah. It is the presence of these misguided innovators and heretics, and their teachings that are the cause of the downfall of the ummah and its subjugation by the enemies.
Innovation and Deviation the Cause of Defeat, Subjugation and Humiliation by Enemies
See: Ibn Taymiyyah on the True Causes of Rectification and Corruption. Invoking Allāh (عز وجل) alone, and obedience to His Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) is the cause of rectification of the earth, and invoking others besides Allāh (عز وجل) and obeying other than the Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) is the cause of every corruption. See also: Ibn Taymiyyah: Major Innovations in Creed Are the Cause of Calamities and Subjugation. It was innovations in creed that led to the invasion of the Mongols from the East and the Crusaders from the West, as punishment from Allāh, for opposing and abandoning what His Messenger brought of guidance.
As for tyrannical, oppressive, unjust rulers who do not care for their subjects, they are merely by-products and manifestation of the actions of the servants. It is from the wisdom of Allāh in His creation, in what He created and tied together of causes and effects, to place rulers over the people in accordance with their own deeds and realities. This is a creational and legislative reality which is only grasped by people of intelligence who govern their sentiments and emotions with the light of revelation. Contrarily, this is incomprehensible to those possessed of feeble intellects, resembling those of asses, such as what is found with the Khārijites, whose creed and methodology is centred around takfīr of the rulers and revolt against them, and making them the scapegoat for all of the woes and calamities of the ummah, as if there is no other reason and cause besides them, and then rallying people around this call. Very quickly, they become tools and trojan-horses for the enemies to turn what may be bad situations in Muslim lands (due to the oppression of the ruler), even worse, giving sway to the enemies and their agendas thereby.
See: Ibn Al-Qayyim: the Rulers Are a Manifestation of the Actions of the Servants and also: Ibn Taymiyyah: Major Innovations in Creed Are the Cause of Calamities and Subjugation, and here is part of his speech:
Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah (رحمه الله) said:[10]
For when innovations which oppose the ḍīn of the Messengers appear, Allāh seeks revenge from whoever opposes the Messengers and aids them (the Messengers)... When hypocrisy, innovations and sinfulness (fujūr) appeared which were in opposition to the dīn of the Messengers, the enemies were empowered over them.
Thus, Christian Rome came out to Shām and the Jazīrah (peninsula), time after time, and they gradually took the coastal regions of Shām, bit by bit until they took Bayt al-Maqdis at the end of the fourth century (hijrah). And after a period they besieged Damascus, and (in this period) the people of Shām were in the worst of situations in between the Christians (Crusaders) and the Hypocrites, Heretics [Bāṭiniyyah ʿUbaydiyyah of North Africa]...
And likewise when the people of the East were established upon Islām they were aided against the pagan disbelievers from the Turks, India, China and others. But when there appeared from them whatever appeared of innovations, deviation (ilḥād) and sinfulness, the disbelievers[11] were unleashed against them...
And the cause of those (enemies) entering the lands of the Muslims was the appearance of deviation (ilḥād), hypocrisy (nifāq) and innovations (bidaʿ)....
Summary so far
WHAT WE SEE in Aḥmad al-Badawī, according to what has preceded, is simply a continuation of the plots of ʿAbd Allāh bin Sabaʾ al-Yahūdī and his likes against the ummah, of infusing doctrines of kufr and shirk into the hearts and minds of Muslims, to take them away from the Tawḥīd of the Messengers, and instead to turn them towards mysticism, esoteric doctrines, saint and grave-worship and the likes. Further, to engage in political activism and agitation against the ruling authorities, under the guise of removing social and economic injustice, to cause splits, divisions and civil strife, with a view to taking political leadership and control, and through those means, to swiftly erase the symbols of Islām from the hearts and minds.
This movement of the ʿUbaydī Bāṭinī Shīʿites who ruled over North Africa for a period in the centuries before al-Badawī was founded by a man called Maymūn bin Qaddāḥ al-Dayṣānī from Shām (Syria) or Persia, and though he was of Jewish origin, he claimed, falsely, that he was from Ahl al-Bayt, through the lineage of Ismāʾīl bin Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq. He propounded an Ismāʾīlī doctrine centred around political leadership and khilāfah which became the basis for other Bāṭinī movements through the centuries such as the ʿUbaydiyyah, the Qarāmiṭah, the Ḥashshāshīn (Assassins), the Yazīdiyyah, Ikhwān al-Ṣafā, the Druze, Nuṣayriyyah, Bahāʾiyyah, Qādiyāniyyah, Aghā Khānis and the Bohras.
Ibn Kathīr (رحمه الله) said:[12]
The founder of the Fātimid [ʿUbaydī] state is a Magian Rāfiḍī from Salmiyyah in Shām. The Fātimid rulers were the most impure of rulers in [their biographical accounts] and the most vile of them in their morality. Innovations and evils appeared during their rule, people of corruption increased in their era, while the righteous people, worshippers and scholars, diminished. The founder of their state was a Jew.
From the above, we should now be able to appreciate the trinitarian nexus of Ṣḥīʿism, Ṣūfism and Siyāsah which stands and works against the Tawḥīd of the Messengers, using both ideological and political subversion as a means of weakening the lands of the Muslims.
From the greatest of things that stand in their way, and which are detested by them, from the mighty foundations of this religion, is the affair of Tawḥīd itself, Tawḥīd al-Ulūhiyyah, singling out Allāh in worship. And thereafter, unity behind the ruler, through obedience in that which is good and absence of revolting on account of the ruler's sin and oppression. These two mighty affairs stand in the way of the misguided heretics and innovators, in the way of their plots, and hence you see much of the rage and enmity that comes from hearts which contain this poison, as hidden and camouflaged as this poison might be, is directed towards the People of the Sunnah in relation to these issues.
This now leads us to Aḥmad Ḥijāb.
Enter Aḥmad Hijāb, “Spiritual Son” of al-Badawi
Aḥmad Moḥammad Hijāb (d. 1398H/1978CE) is described as the “spiritual son” of Ahmad al-Bādawī, and these Ṣūfīs have what they call “spiritual genealogies” and “Ṣūfī isnāds (chains of narration).” Thus, Ḥijāb’s direct spiritual lineage is “son of al-Badawī” and as for his Ṣūfī chain of narration, it is alleged that there are six people between him and the Messenger of Allāh (صلى الله عليه وسلم) from the realm of the Awliyāʾ.[13]
He is: The acquainted with Allāh the Exalted, the Shaykh, Aḥmad Moḥammad Ḥijāb, the servant of Allāh, the attendant of the Qurʾān and the spiritual son of Sayyid al-Badawī. And he is—with his Ṣūfī chain—Aḥmad Moḥammad Ḥijāb, son of Sayyid Muḥammad Sharīf, son of Sayyid Moḥammad al-Idrīsī, son of Sayyid Aḥmad al-Idrīsī, son of Sayyid ʿAbd al-Wahhāb al-Tāz, son of Sayyid ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-Dabbāgh, author of the book “al-Ibrīz”, son of al-Khaḍir (عليه السلام), son of Allāh’s Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم). Thus, there is not between him and the presence of the Messenger except six of his shaykhs, just as there is not between him and between his presence, in his spiritual Aḥmadī lineage, except Sayyid Aḥmad al-Badawī.
Ḥijāb wrote a book called: ( آراء في حياة السيد البدوي الدنيوية وحياته البرزخية) which is about Aḥmad al-Badawī and his life in this world and in the barzakh (in the grave). It was intended as a defence of al-Badawī against criticisms levelled against him, to explain how he nurtures people from within his grave while in the life of the barzakh, responding to them, giving them consultation and facilitating their needs. Likewise, in this book he argues for tawassul through the Prophets and the Saints whether living or dead and justifies celebration of their birthdays, which is an innovation of the Bāṭinī ʿUbaydī Shīʿah.
To give an example, Ḥijāb quotes from al-Shaʿrānī:[14]
And from those about whom it has reached us that he nurtures his offspring (i.e. followers) while in the barzakh (life of the grave) is Sayyidī Aḥmad al-Badawī. However, that is specific to his truthful followers such as Muḥammad al-Shanāwī. I visited Sayyidī Aḥmad with him and the Shaykh (al-Shanāwī) made consultation with him regarding his journey to Miṣr (Egypt), and Sayyid Aḥmadī said to him: “Travel and place reliance upon Allāh.” I heard this speech openly and clearly with my ears.
After which Ḥijāb says:
And the statement of al-Shaʿrānī that Sayyidī Aḥmad nurtures his offspring while in the barzakh, and his saying that he heard his speech directly with his own ears in which he directed his student to travel to Cairo is but only one of thousands of testimonies [regarding what occurs] to one individual, from one strata (of society), in one era, among those whose nurturing Sayyidī Aḥmad has taken unto himself. And if all those generations, spread through the past seven centuries were allowed to express what they had heard and testify with what they knew of him and took from him, then encyclopedic volumes would have struggled to cite them all…
The book is lengthy and many citations could be made to highlight what amounts to a clear call to and glorification of saint and grave worship, and a defence of it, but we will give one or two just as examples. Ḥijāb has a chapter called “Tawassul Through al-Badawī and Seeking Intercession From Him” (p. 125) in which he says, in the context of refuting the one who criticise seeking aid from other than Allāh:
He claims that cooperating (taʿāwun) with al-Sayyid al-Badawī is associating partners with Allāh, such that if we request aid from him (al-Badawī) then we have associated partners with Allāḥ! How is that when Allāh Himself says to people, and teaches them the true religion and the sound Tawḥīd, He says to them in His Book: “And cooperate with each other upon piety and righteousness.” (5:2-). He says “cooperate” and yet he (the detractor) says: “Do no cooperate lest you commit shirk.”
This shows the extent of his error and misguidance in that he claims that invoking the dead for aid and relief is from cooperating upon piety and righteousness with which Allāh has commanded the living!
Towards the end of the book (p. 162) Aḥmad Ḥijāb includes a section where he brings the usual evidences of the Ṣūfīs for making tawassul through the Prophets and Righteous, whether dead or alive. He claims that the means of nearness (tawassul) Allāh has commanded in the Qurʾān, (5:35-), include invocation of the dead for seeking aid, fulfilment of needs and the likes and that these affairs increases a person in the purity of his Tawḥīḍ!
Later in this chapter, he tries to distinguish this from the idol worship of the Pagans, claiming that what the Ṣūfīs do of invoking the dead is other than the worship of idols. He claims that the Pagans believed their idols shared with Allāh in aspects of rubūbiyyah (lordship), such as control over affairs of the world, causing benefit and harm and so on. And on this basis they worshipped them by bowing and prostrating to them.
However, this is a misrepresentation of the truth, for the Pagan Arabs did not ascribe rubūbiyyah to their idols, they affirmed Tawḥīd al-Rubūbiyyah for Allāh and despite this, invoked other than Allāh for intercession and nearness to Allāh.
In short, all the various evidences Ḥijāb brings, around seven or so, are the typical misinterpretations of verses from the Qurʾān or texts such as the ḥadīth of the blind man who made tawassul through the duʿa of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم).
Why They Hate Shaykh Muḥammad bin ʿAbd al-Wahhāb (رحمه الله)
All of these doubts have been clarified by the People of Tawḥīd and Sunnah and it is for this reason that you find the Ṣūfīs, Shīʿites and the Ashʿarīs who are mixed in with Sūfism detest the books of Shaykh Muḥammad bin ʿAbd al-Wahhāb (رحمه الله), because they refute the doubts used by the grave-worshippers and clarify the reality of the Tawḥīd of the Messengers.
At the same time, these people also detest any speech about the methodology of the Prophets and Messengers in establishing and calling to Allāh’s Tawḥīd, which is opposed to the methodology of the Khārijites and Rāfiḍah, which is based around the rulers, their injustice, usurpation (of wealth and authority) and so on. Thus, their love and hate, loyalty and disloyalty around this issue of the rulers is greater than their love and hate, loyalty and disloyalty around the foundation of Tawḥīd itself. This is alongside their gross ignorance of the fact that the rulers are simply a physical manifestation of the deeds of the people, and over whom they have been placed by Allāh’s decree. Thus, in all their rabble-rousing, they effectively find fault with Allāh’s decree and deny His wisdoms therein.
We should now clearly and lucidly understand this nexus of Sūfīsm and Shīʿism which gives rise to a particular type of Siyāsah against Tawḥīd and the places where it is established.
Closing Observations
01 It is said that Aḥmad Ḥijāb spoke against Georg Hegel and Karl Marx in a work of his, and his followers have praised him for that. However, of what benefit is there in refuting Materialism and Atheism, when you cannot distinguish between the Tawḥīd of the Messengers and the tawḥīd of the Pagan Arabs? Given that the Ṣūfīs are also Ahl al-Kalām in their creed, they wrongly consider Tawḥīd to be restricted to Rubūbiyyah, and thus shirk can only occur if one explicitly believes that those who are invoked have control over life and death, benefit and harm. The Pagan Arabs did not believe this about those whom they invoked and worshipped besides Allāh (10:31-) and the dispute with them was not concerning Rubūbiyyah.
02 Mohammad Hijāb, the great grandson of Aḥmad Ḥijāb, the "spiritual son" of al-Badawi, is known to belittle the works of Shaykh al-Islām Muḥammad bin ʿAbd al-Wahhāb (رحمه الله) that clarify the reality of Tawḥīd.[15] We now have a context into which we can place these actions of Moḥammed Ḥijāb and his opposition and enmity towards those who clarify the reality of the Tawḥīd of the Messengers, refute the grave-worshippers, and reject kalām and falsafah as instruments of acquiring knowledge about Allāh and His attributes, following in that the way of the Salaf.
03 This is the nature of the people of innovation and misguidance. They embroil themselves with debates with avowed atheists whose hearts have been sealed upon kufr—and in which there is next to no benefit. They often rely upon trojan-horse arguments of kalām and falsafah, and are unable to get these atheists to move beyond the affirmation of an eternal existence (wājib al-wujūd), which to them is the universe and matter. From the end results of these debates is that they allow seeds of doubt to be planted in the minds of their audiences.
04 Further, since they, like all others, have desires (hawā, shahwah) and are not immune from them, and nor from impure intentions, they turn these debates into spectacles, to draw audiences, and for some of them it becomes a means to gain a portion of the world. Subsequently, their love and hate revolves around the issue of whoever participates in their desire, or rejects it and the falsehood through which it is mobilised.
05 From here, you see the ajāʿib (strange realities) in that they will rage and hate on those who teach the Tawḥīd of the Messengers, yet have sympathy, love, loyalty and affection for those who are in clear violation of it and call to other than it.
06 And some of them, despite grasping the reality of the Tawḥīd of the Messengers and perhaps expounding it or explaining it here and there to non-Muslims, are plagued with Irjāʾ (the expulsion of the actions of the heart and limbs from īmān) which reveals their contradiction in that whereas this comprehension of Tawḥīd should lead them to have love and loyalty on its basis, towards those who call to it, teach it and defend it, but instead they wage war against them, while the Ṣūfīs and the Shīʿites are largely spared from their vicious tongues.
Their enmity is based entirely around Siyāsah, comprised of the fiery rage and anger of the Khāwārij and the Rawāfid, as it relates to the rulers, their rulership, their politics, issues of social and economic justice and the likes, all of which is the primary domain and activity of the Khawārij and the Rawāfiḍ.
07 This exposes these people, it exposes their attachment to the Tawḥīd of the Messengers, as being nothing more than something academic and expedient, something that is grasped and comprehended, but which remains neutral knowledge, evoking neither love nor hate, loyalty, nor disloyalty, just like the knowledge that 2 + 2 = 4 or the knowledge that Cairo is the capital of Egypt. For this reason, you see through their speech and their activities, the greatest of enmity towards Ahl al-Sunnah, the Salafis who strive in spreading the Tawḥīd of the Messengers, yet silence, if not love and loyalty for the Shīʿah, Ṣūfiyyah and Khārijiyyah.
The speech and behaviour of a person is a direct translation of what is in his heart of speech (belief) and action (feelings, emotions), and thus, in this way, people expose and pass judgement upon themselves through their speech and actions, making their inner realities known.
Footnotes
1. From the book byʿAbd Allāh al-Ṣābir, “Al-Sayyid al-Badawi, Dirāsah Naqdiyyah”2. Refer to his article, “Haqīqat Daʿwah al-Ikhwān al-Muslimīn.”
3. In an article titled “al-Mawlidān al-Aḥmadī wal-Dusūqī” published in 1927 in al-Majallah al-Siyāsiyyah al-Usbūʿiyyah.
4. The Bāṭinī Shīʿites are a movement whose roots go back to ʿAbdullāh bin Sabaʾ, a Yemeni Jew from Ṣanʿā who mobilised a revolt against ʿUthmān (رضي الله عنه) and he laid down the basic foundations of the Bāṭinī creed which includes the uluhiyyah (divinity) of ʿAlī (رضي الله عنه), and esoteric explanations of the Qurʾān and more. They managed to set up numerous states, in North Africa, Egypt, Baḥrain, and Iran through which they launched revolutions and revolts against the ʿAbbasids, in order to weaken Islām. After they were defeated in Egypt, they began to conceal themselves under Ṣufism and Taṣawwuf as a means of mobilising once more.
5. Al-Sayyid al-Badawī, (p. 22)
6. “Al-Sayyid al-Badawī” of Saʿīd ʿĀshūr (pp. 57-59).
7. ʿĀshūr (pp. 74, 75).
8. Refer to “Al-Sayyid al-Badawi, Dirāsah Naqdiyyah” p. 50 onwards.
9. Refer to “Al-Sayyid al-Badawi, Dirāsah Naqdiyyah” p. 74 onwards.
10. Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā (13/177-182 abridged).
11. Referring to the Mongols, Tartars from the east.
12. Al-Bidāyah wal-Nihāyah (12/367).
13. In his book on al-Badawī, p. 22.
14. Al-ʿIdhah wal-Iʿtibār (p. 28).
15. Such as al-Uṣūl al-Thalāthah, al-Qawāʿid al-Arbaʿ and Kashf al-Shubuhāt.