Refuting NHM Keller on Madhabism—updated January 8, 2008

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Keller wites:

The word madhhab…refers to a mujtahid’s choice in regard to a number of interpretive possibilities in deriving the rule of Allah from the primary texts of the Qur’an and hadith on a particular question.
We reply:

First of all, we will start our reply by quoting a saying most people don’t know:

Muaaz bin Jabal raziallahu anhu is reported to have said :

“Even if an Aalim is on the right path, don’t do his taqleed”

امّا العالم ان اهتدى فلا تقلّدوه دينكم

Jami’ bayanul ilm vol2,pp 111 and Imam DaraQutni said it is Sahih. Abdullah b. Mas’ood  radhiAllah ‘anhu also explicitly stopped from taqleed, as narrated in a sahih narration by baihaqi in al sunan al kubra vol2 , page10. Another narration from him was narrated by Tibrani in his ” Al Kabeer ” and its narrators are the narrators of Al-Sahih, according to Al-Haithami in Majma’ Zawaid, page 180, vol 1. Here also he stops every body from taqleed. Let me assure you there is no single explicit saying of any sahabi which praises “taqlid”. Taqlid means blidly following a scholar without knowing what his verdict is based upon from the sources of Quraan and Sunnah. Asking a random scholar for a verdict and following him in that if he assures that his verdict is based upon the Quraan and Hadith, or if he mentions his evidences is not part of Taqleed.

The correct methodology in following the mazahib is to follow the evidence, not the particular Imam in everything he said. Of course people vary in their ability to do so, but following the evidence is the original principle and no one is burdended more than his capacity. As Ibn Taymiyyah said “Taqleed is haraam like meat of a dead animal. It only becomes halaal in case of necessity” (Sharah Nazm Al-Waraqaat by Al-’Uthaymeen). That was my argument that making it obligatory on the layman in all circumstances is wrong. Whenever a layman is able to see the evidence it is obligatory for him to follow it. When he is not able to, he can follow the most pious scholar he can get (which is ijtihaad from him), and follow his knowledge based opinion, which is not taqleed at all if that scholar mentions his evidence (Sharah Nazm Al-Waraqaat by Al-’Uthaymeen).

Secondly, the madhab is based not only on the “primary texts of the Qur’an and hadith”, but also on the “qiyaas” (anology, apparent or otherwise, between two cases). This is generally used when the particular cholar was unable to find direct evidence from Quraan and Sunnah and used an analogy which may and may not be correct. For example one madhab says that the buyer or the seller don’t have to leave the place where the agreed on the sale to confirm the deal (as was the practice of Sahabah, see Tirmizi). They base it on the qiyaas, that physical separation is not possible always, for example if they were in a boat. Hence they leave the correct evidence, when it is possible to follow it in favor of a remote possibility.

We give another example. The Hanafis, for example when doing Sujdah as-sahv say salam on the right side only and then repeat sujood and tashahhud and say salaam on both sides.And there is no evidence for first saying salaam only on the right side and then on both sides.

Keller:

In a larger sense, a madhhab represents the entire school of thought of a particular mujtahid Imam, such as Abu Hanifa , Malik, Shafi’i , or Ahmad –together with many first-rank scholars that came after each of these in their respective schools, who checked their evidences and refined and upgraded their work.
We reply:

It is well known that scholars who were students of these imams rejected many of their views because they found many hadiths which their teacher did not find. e.g.

1. Imam Abu Yousuf and Imam Muhammad (students of Imam Abu Hanifa ) opposed their own teacher in at least a third of his opinions (A’laam Al-Muwaqqa’in)
2. Similar is the opposition of Imam Muzani to Imam Sahfie .

If this is indeed a refinement of the works of the Imams, what stops us from opposing the Imams and following the evidence? Now compare this to the following excerpt from taqreer Al-Tirimzi by Shaiekh Mahmudul hasan deobandi. He did a long commentary all the way from ppp 48 to 49 on a single hadeth of sunan tirimzi. Imam Abu Haneefah and Imam Shafei disagreed about the issue of khyar ul mujlis based on this issue. After listing the evidences of the two sides he says:

“So the conclusion is that that the issue of khayar is from important issues and the majority opposed Abu Hanifa on this issue and many new and old scholars wrote treatises to reject his mazhab in this issue and Maulana Shah Wali ullah Dahlavi qudsirrahu preferred Sahfei’s mazhab in his ‘rasaail’ due to the evidences from Quraan and Sunnah and likewise our sheikh mudda zillahu (mahmoodul hasan deobandi) said that haq and insaaf (truth and justice) is that preference should be given to Shafei in this issue, and we are muqallids the taqleed of our Imam Abu Hanifa rahimahullah is wajib (mandatory) on us, and Allah knows best .”

(Taqreer e Tirimzi by sheikh mahmoodul hasan, pp 49, pub. Maktaba rahmania, Lahore .)

Did he not read: “It is not fit for a believer, man or woman, when Allaah and His Messenger have decreed a matter that they should have any option in their decision. Whosoever disobeys Allaah and His Messenger has indeed strayed in a plain manner.”
Al-Ahzaab 33:36.

NHM writes:

The mujtahid Imams were thus explainers, who operationalized the Qur’an and sunna …

We respond:

This is blasphemy! Quran and Sunnah was operational a century before the first of these 4 honorable Imams started seeking knowledge ( Imam Abu Hanifa was born in 80H and he did not start seeking knowledge before he was in his twenties). Allah says: “This Day have I perfected your Religion for you, completed My favour upon you and have chosen for you Islaam as your Religion.” Sooratul-Maa’idah 5:3

Keller writes:
…. so Muslims are of two types, those who can do this by themselves, and they are the mujtahid Imams; and those who must do so by means of another, that is, by following a mujtahid Imam, in accordance with Allah’s word in Surat al-Nahl,

” Ask those who recall, if you know not ” (Qur’an 16:43)

We respond:

On page 74, volume 2 of A’laam ul Moq’ieen , Imam Ibn Qayyim says:

“
CHAPTER: The Munaazara (discussion) that took place between the Muqallid and the person with proofs from Quraan and Sunnah (Sahib ul Hujjah):

The Muqallid said “we the nation of Muqallids is acting upon the Ayah “Ask the Ahl ul Dhikr if you know not!” (Nahl 43). Thus Allah has commanded those who have mo knowledge to ask those who are more knowledgeable than him, and this is the shar’i proof that we have for our saying (taqleed).

Then on page 89 of the same volume the Sahib ul Hujjah replies;

The 34th evidence is that what you have mentioned is itself an evidence and proof against you, because Allah has commanded to ask the Ahl-ul-Dhikr and Dhikr is only Quraan and Hadith, which is what Allah ordered the women of His Prophet sallallahualaihiwasallam to remember with his saying: “And remember (wadhkurna : i.e. do dhikr), that which is recited in your houses of the Verses of Allâh and AlHikmah (i.e Sunnah) (Al-Ahzab 33:34)”. So this is the Dhikr that Allah has asked us to follow and ordered the one who does not have knowledge to ask its ( i.e. Dhikr’s) people (Ahl). And this is the wajib which is compulsory upon all men to ask the Ulema about the Dhikr that he revealed to His Prophet sallallahualaihiwasallam so that they inform him of the Dhikr, and when they inform him of it he does not do any effort to disobey it.

And this was the condition of the Imams among the Ulema, they did not have any particularly appointed Imam which they followed in all that he said. And Abdullah bin Abbas radhiallahuanhu used to ask the Sahaba about what he sallallahualaihiwasallam said or did or his ways, he did not ask them about anything else (Ibn abbas radhiallahuanhu was young at the time of the Prophet’s sallallahualaihiwasallam death, hence our sheikh Moulana Muhammad Saleem said that he himself narrated very few hadiths himself and the rest he narrates from other sahabah radhiallahuanhum.) And likewise the Sahabah used to ask the Mothers of the believers, especially Aisha radhiallahuanha about his sallallahualaihiwasallam actions in his house, and likewise the tabi’een used to ask the Sahaba radhiallahuanhum about their Prophet sallallahualaihiwasallam only (faqat). And likewise the Imams of Fiqh, like Shafei said to Ahmed (rahimahumullah) “O Abu Abdullah! You are more knowledgeable of the Hadith than me. So when a hadith becomes Sahih (in your opinion) then inform me, so that I make it my mazhab, whether the narrators are of Syria or Kufa or Basra “. And there is none of the Ulema who used to ask only about the opinion (rai) of a man as it is or his mazhab and stuck to that and for his/its (depending upon how u look at the pronoun) sake left all that is against it.”

Keller writes:

While the call for a return to the Qur’an and sunna is an attractive slogan, in reality it is a great leap backward, a call to abandon centuries of detailed, case-by-case Islamic scholarship…
We reply:
This is blasphemous again. Al-Kamaal ibn Al-Hummaam was one of the foremost Hanafee scholars. He was author of various large works of Hanafee Fiqh mentions in at-Tahreer, a book about the basics of the fiqh of the Hanafees that, “Sticking to a particular madhhab is not obligatory in the correct view, since it has not been imposed as a duty, as nothing is obligatory except that which Allaah and His Messenger have obligated; neither Allaah nor His Messenger have made it obligatory for anyone to follow the madhhab of any man of the scholars, so that he follows him in his Deen in everything and leaves what comes from other than him. The best generations passed by without saying that it is binding to follow a
particular madhhab, whereas most of the blind-followers say, ‘I am a Hanafee’, ‘I am a Shaafi’ee’, whereas he knows nothing about the way of his Imaam, he does not become his follower just by saying that, in the same way as if he said, ‘I am a scholar ‘ or ‘I am a writer’, he does not become that just by saying it, while he is far away from the way of his Imaam. So how is it correct for him to claim allegiance (to a madhhab) due only to his abstract claims and meaningless saying?!”

Keller concludes:

The rhetoric of following the shari’a without following a particular madhhab is like a person going down to a car dealer to buy a car, but insisting it not be any known make–neither a Volkswagen nor Rolls-Royce nor Chevrolet–but rather “a car, pure and simple”.
We reply:

NHM ends his article by mentioning a sick example of comparing go-cart and Mercedes to “pure and simple” Quraan and Sunnah and Madhabs. We ask him, does Islam come in these brands, then why did the Prophet sallallahualaihiwasallam not tell us about them. The Mother of the Believers, ‘Aaishah – radiallaahu ‘anhaa – said : “Whoever says to you that Muhammad (Peace be upon him) kept secret anything sent down to him, has lied.” Reported by al-Bukhaaree, Muslim, al-Tirmizi and others.

Refuting the Polytheistic belief of omnipresence of the Prophet sallallahu ‘alaihiwasallam January 7, 2008

By Abu Alqamah

1) Taken and adapted from Silsilah Da’eefah vol 2 p 404, n 975 of Shaykh Albanee.

Hafiz Abu Bakr Al Bazzar narrated in his Musnad from Yussuf ibn Mussa, from Abdel Majeed ibn Abdil Azeez ibn Abi Ruwad from Sufyan from Abdallah ibn Saib from Zathan from Abdullah and he is Ibn Mas’ood from Prophet saw :

“ Allah has (appointed) angels wandering on earth, they bring me the salam of my Ummah”, and the Prophet saw said : “ My life is good for you, you narrate me and I narrate to you, and my death is good for you, your actions will be presented to me, what I will see from good deeds I will praise Allah, what I will see from bad deeds, I will ask forgiveness to Allah for you”

And Al Bazzarr said : “ We do not know anyone who narrated the last part from Abdallah ( ibn Mas’ood) except from this way ( this sanad)”

The first part : “ Allah has (appointed) angels wandering on earth, they bring me the salam of my Ummah” has been transmitted by Nassai ( 1/189) from many asaneed from Sufyan Thawree from Abdallah ibn Saib, and from Al A’mash in Mu’jam Kabeer of Tabaranee ( 3/81/2) , Akhbar Asbahan of Abu Nu’aym ( 2/205) and Ibn Asakir ( 9/189/2)

Shaykh Albanee said : “ The agreement of a Jama’at of thiqah on this narration from Sufyan without mention of end of hadeeth “ My life…”, and A’mash following him in that shows for me the Shuzooz of this addition ( meaning the addition is shaadh), because Abdel Majeed ibn Abdel Azeez is alone in reporting it, and how not when he his mutakalam fihi ( talked about) because of his memory, despite his being from narrators of Muslim, a Jama’at has declared him thiqqah, and other have declared him weak, and some mention reason ( of weakening).

Khalili said : “ He is Thiqqah, but he makes mistakes in Ahadeeth”

Nassai said : “ He is not Qawee, his hadeeth are written”

Ibn Abdil Barr said : “He narrated from Malik Ahadeeth in which he made mistakes”

Ibn Hibban said in “ Al Majroohin” ( 2/152) : “ Munkarul Hadeeth Jidan, he mixes akhbar, he narrates manakeer from famous ( people), and he deserves to be abandoned”

I say : this is why Hafiz said in Taqreeb : “ Sadooq he makes mistakes”

So when you know this, then the saying of Hafiz Haythamee in Majma’ ( 6/24) : “ Narrated by Bazzar and men are men of Saheeh”, then it gives mistake that nobody has been criticized among them.

Maybe Suyutee has been misled by this when he said : “ Its Sanad is Saheeh”

And this is why, I say, that Hafiz al ‘Iraqee, shaykh of Haythamee, was more precise in telling the reality of this isnad in his Takhreej Al Ihya ( 4/128) where he said : “ Men are men of Saheeh, except that Abdel Majeed ibn Abi Ruwad although Muslim narrated from him, and Ibn ma’een and Nassai declared him thiqqah, other declared him weak”

As for his saying or from his son in “ Tarh At Tathreeb fi Sharh Taqreeb” ( 3/297) “ Its isnad is Jayd”, then it is not Jayd for me, and he was saying this if there was no opposition of Abdel Majeed to Thiqah ( jama’ah) as it has preceded. So this is a defect in the hadeeth…

Yes, the isnad has been declared saheeh in mursal way from Bakr ibn Abdullah Al Muzanee, and it has three ways

First from Ghalib Al Qattan from him ( Muzanee), it has been quoted by Ismail Al Qadhee in “ Fadl Salah Ala Nabi” p 25 with my tahqeeq, and ibn Sa’d in Tabaqat (2/2/2), and all his men are thiqah, men of two saheeh.

Second from Katheer ibn Fadl from him ( Muzanee), also quoted by Ismail p 26, and men are men of Muslim except Katheer, and the name of his father is Yasar, and he is known as Hafiz has shown in Lisan in refutation of the saying of Ibn Al Qattan that his condition is not known.

Third : from Jisr ibn Farqad from him, it has been quoted by Al Harith ibn Abi Ussamah in his Musnad ( 230 in Bughyatul Bahith in Zawaid Musnad Al Harith) and Jisr is weak.”

…

As for the hadeeth of Anas, it has two ways :

From Abi Said Al Hassan ibn Ali ibn Zakaryah ibn Salih Al ‘Adawee Al Basree, from Kharash from Anas marfu’an and in mukhtasar way similar to this and in it there is :

“ Your actions will be presented to me in night of Monday and Thursday”

It has been quoted by Ibn ‘Adi ( 2/124) and Abu Mansoor Al Jarbazqanee in “ Thanee min Uroos Al Ajzai” ( 2/139) and Abdel Qadir ibn Muhammad Al Qurshee al Hanafee in “ Juzz lahu” ( 2/2) and Hafiz Al Iraqee (4/128) attributed it to Al Harith ibn Abi Ussamah in his Musnad with a weak isnad, and this is this isnad, and shown by Manawee in Fayd Al Qadeer, after mentioning its weakness

“ Because there is in it Kharash ibn Abdallah Saqitun ‘Admun, and he does not come except with Abi Sa’id Al ‘Adawee Al Kazab ( liar), and ibn Hibban said it is not permissible to write his ahadeeth except to know him…”

I say : the isnad is fabricated, so there is no need to be happy from it.

Second from Yahya ibn Khidam from Muhammad ibn Abdil Malik ibn Zyad Abu Salamah Al Ansaree from Malik ibn Deenar from Anas similar to this and there is in it :

“ Your actions will be presented to me every Thursday”

This has been quoted by Abu Tahir Al Mukhlis in “ Thanee minal ‘Aashir min hadithihi” ( 2/212) from Yahya ( ibn Muhammad ibn Sa’id) from Yahya ibn Khidam.

I say : It is also fabricated because of this Al Ansaree (Muhammad ibn Abdil Malik ibn Zyad Abu Salamah Al Ansaree)

‘Uqaylee said : Munakrul hadeeth.

Ibn Hibban said : Munkarul Hadeeth Jiddan, he reports from thiqqah what is not from
their hadeeth, Ihitijaj is not permissible with him”

Ibn Tahir said : Liar…

Al Hakim Abu ‘Abdillah said : “ He narrates fabricated ahadeeth”
…

In conclusion, this hadeeth is weak from all its ways, the best among them being from hadeeth Bakr ibn Abdillah Al Muzanee and it is mursal, which is from weak types for muhadith, then hadeeth of ibn Mas’ood, and it is a mistake, and the worst is hadeeth from Anas with both ways”

end of shaykh Albani’s words

So one can see that this hadeeth is never to the standards of Bukharee and Muslim, and Muslim brought some criticised men but only in mutab’iat not for Ihtijaj.

And the narration of Al Hawd that is from Bukharee and Muslim, which denies Prophet saw knoledge of whatr some people did after him is a nass Qat’i, as theses ahadeeth are accpeted by the Ummah.

And the hadeeth ever thursday oppose bralwi creed, and even actions of Ummah as bralwi say even actions of kufar, animals, Prophet saw is hadhir and nadhir.

So their making taweel of agreed upon hadeeth of Hawd with mockery, and taking these criticised ahadeeth, then it shows the febility of bralwi invented creed

May Allah protect us from shirk

2)

Hafiz Ibn Hajar quoted the explanations of scholars about Prophet saw calling people his companions to the Hawd, and then angels informing him that they turned on their heels and changed and invented new matters.

Ibn Hajar said in fathul Bari kitab Riqaq bab Kayfa Al Hashr:

“ Firabri said that it is mentioned from Abi Abdillah Al Bukhari from Qabeesah that these ( people) are those who became apostate at time of Abu Bakr and Abu Bakr fought them, meaning until they were killed and died on kufr. Ismaili brought full isnad of that trough another way from Qabeesah. Khattabee said that none of the Sahabah did became apostate, only some hard Bedouins bringing no help to religion did became apostate, and this does not bring any blame on famous Sahabah, and the name “ ushayhabi” in reduced form ( tasgheer) shows that they were few.

And others said : the kufr is on its apparent meaning, and the meaning of “ my Ummah” is ummah of da’wah ( meaning all mankind including kafir) and not Ummatul Ijabah ( answering Ummah who believed in the Prophet saw), and this is justified by his saying in the hadith of Abu Hurayrah : Then I would say to them go away and Suhqan” and this is also strengthened by the fact that their situation remained hidden for him, and if they were from Ummah of Ijabah, then he would know their situation as their actions are presented to him, and this is rejected in the hadith of Anas : “ until I recognized them ( ‘araftuhum) and the same in hadith of Abu Hurayrah.

( So Prophet saw did recognize them, and he did not know what they did after him, and the hadith actions being presented is weak as preceded in previous post)

And Ibn Teen said that it is possible that they were hypocrites or doers of kabair ( big sins). And it has been said that they are people from hard Bedouins who entered Islam out of fear.

Dawoodi said : there is nothing preventing people of kabair and innovations to be from these people.

And Nawawi said : “ And it is said they are hypocrites and apostate, and it is possible that they are also resurrected with light because of there being from Ummah generally, and he saw will call them because of their signs on them ( of light) and it will be said : they changed after you, meaning they did not die on the apparent on which you left them. ‘Iyad and others said : and after this, their signs will disappear and their light will end.

And it has been said that there is no necessity for them to have signs, rather he saw will call them from what he knew from them from Islam.

And it has been said that they are people of kabair and innovations who died on Islam, so we cannot be certain of their entry into fire, as it is permissible that they are first prevented from hawd as a punishment for them, then they are being forgiven, and there is nothing preventing them to have signs of light, so he recognized them with their signs whether they were from his time of after him.

And ‘Iyad, Baji and others gave preference to the saying of Qabeesah, the narrator of the khabar, that they became apostate after him, and the fact he recognized them does not necessitate them having signs, because it is a favor that shows the actions of a muslim, and the apostate, his actions are cancelled, so he recognized them individually and not their characteristics, ( he recognized them) on what they were before their apostasy,

And it is not far that hypocrites from his time might enter these people, and it will come in the hadith of Shafa’ah that this Ummah will remain with hypocrites inside it, and this shows that they will be gathered with believers and their individuals will be recognized, although they will not have these signs, and the one that is recognized will be called according to the situation he was left in the Duniya.

As for the entering of people of innovations in that, then it is far because he called them : “ My companions” and people of innovations innovated after him. And it has been answered by taking the meaning of companion to general meaning, and this is also far because we do not say “ Suhqan” to a muslim although he is an innovator. This has been answered that it is not forbidden to say that to someone he knew that he will be judged with punishment for his sins, then saved with Shafa’ah, then his saying “Suhqan” is acknowledging the decision of Allah with remain of hope, and the same way for people of kabair.

Baydhawi said that his saying “ murtadeen” ( apostate) is not a prove for their being apostate from Islam, but it is only possible, and it is also possible that that he meant they were sinners from believers turning away from istiqamah and they changed good actions by bad. End of his words.

Abu Ya’la narrated with a Hassan isnad from Abu Said : I heard the Prophet saw mentioning a hadith and he said : “ O people, I will be waiting you on Hawd, when you will come, a man will say : O Prophet of Allah, I am fulan ibn fulan” and another will say : “ I am fulan son of fulan” and I will say : as for the nasab I knew it ( by Wahi or knowing them in his lifetime), but maybe you changed after me and became apostate”

And Ahmad and Bazzar narrated a similar version from the hadith of Jabir…” end of Ibn Hajar’s words

So we see Ibn Hajar clearly saying that hypocrites might not be recognized and be from these people, and Nawawi mentioned from Iyad and others that they might have signs by which the Prophet saw will recognize them, then these signs will vanish. And all other explanations, are all clear that prophet saw did not know what they did after him.

Whether they are apostate, sinners of innovators, no scholars said that Prophet saw knew them, as he was hadhir nadhir and knowing all things to happen, they all agreed that Prophet saw did not what they did after him.

While bralwi do reject all scholar’s explanation and explain these ahadith in such matters that Prophet saw knew they were apostate, but he called them companions on purpose, hoping Allah will forgive them, total nonsense, because he would not say “ Suhqan” if he had pity of them, and Prophet saw was forbidden to ask for mercy for kafir…

Also Barelwi’s saying that Prophet saw knew what they did, but he was not concentrated, that is why he did not recognize them properly is another rubbish, said by no scholars before them.

So Barelwi had to reject all these scholars’ saying and reading these clear hadith against their meaning, justifying their fabricated religion.

3)

n Umdatul Qari, al Ayni, imam of Ahnaf of his time, quoting same scholars, ibn Teen, Dawoodi, Nawawi, Iyad and others, clearly quoting that Prophet saw will recognise them with their signs, and then their signs will disapear, also other saying that Prophet saw recognised them on what he left them

So Ayni also quoted these sayings all saying wether they were apostate or sinners, then Prophet saw was not aware of what they did after him.

Imam Qurtubi says in his “Tazkirah fi Ahwalil Mowta wal Akhirah” after quoting ahadith of Hawd and people being pushed away from it, and Prophet (saw) would first say theur are my Companions, and then Angels will inform him that he does not know what innovations they did after him and turned on their heels…

Chapter : Our scholar, may Allah’s mercy be on them all, have stated : whoever apostasies from the religion of Allah or innovates in it what displeases Allah and what Allah did not legislate, they will be pushed away and distanced from it, and the most pushed away are those who oppose the Jama’ah of Muslims and separate from their way, as the Khawarij with their difference in sects, the Rawafid with their difference in misguidance, and the Mu’tazilah with their categories of passion, all of them are people who have changed.

And this is also the case for the darkness of people involved in tyranny and oppression and discredit of the truth and killing those who support the truth and their humiliation.

The same for those who do Kabair openly and exceed the bounds in sins and the Jama’at of people of deviation and desire and innovation.

Then the distance can be in a state then they can get approach it after forgiveness if it is change in actions and it was not in beliefs.

And on this supposition, they will be recognized (by the Prophet) with the light of their Wudhu, and then they will be said : May you perish.

And if they are among hypocrites that were present at time of Prophet (saw) and they were showing faith and hiding Kufr, then he will consider them on Zahir (evident actions) and then their covers (real states) will be uncovered (to him) and he will say to them : May you perish.END OF QURTUBI’s WORDS

So Imam Qurtubi gave two interprations from scholars :

1) These people are innovators or Tyrants or severe sinners, and these people will be recognised by the Prophet (saw) because of the lighteness of their Wudhu and he will call them companions because of that, and then will be informed of their innovations

2) These people are hypocrites and Prophet (saw) will recognise them because of their apparent actions as they were hiding their Kufr, then their hidden Kufe will be told to him.

And there is no saying similar to Bralwiyah’s fallacy and distortion of truth that Prophet (saw) knew their states but lacked of concentration or that he said that hoping for their mercy and knowing who they were…

The truth is so clear but for people who prefer darkness over faith and Tawheed, only Allah can guide them

4)

As for Hafiz ibnul Qayim’s words, then they do not mean the Prophet (saw) or relatives see all of our actions as they happen, but they are presented like the Salah and Salam of the Muslims. And the mubah actions are not comcerned, so the Prophet (saw) do not see our actions, only those good and bad are presented, according to these sayings of ibn Ul Qayim.

Yet the Prophet (saw0 knowing the actions in detail od each individuals of his Ummah, this opposes the Mutawatir narrations of Hawd, so this concept is batil…

And no scholar is free from mistakes, but Ahlus Sunnah take from shar’i daleel not from any scholar despite his high rank.

As for the book Ar-Rooh, Shaykh Albani put some doubts on it in his introduction of “Ayatul Bayinat” and said that might be before his meeting with Ibn Taymiyah.

And Shaykh Bakr Abu Zayd refuted this as quoted in “Kutub Lazi hazzara minha Al Ulema” of Mashhoor Aal-Salman, and said that ibnul Qayim quotes in it words of ibn Taymiyah and also from his other works.

Allah knows best.