The Blind Heretic

`Abdul-`Aziz ibn `Abdullah ibn Baz is the late nescient mufti of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, government scholar par excellence, and major innovator whose influence on spreading deviant beliefs is incalculable. The present crippling of Islam and the Muslim community took place under his leadership and as a direct result of his policies as listed by Sayyid Yusuf ar-Rifa`i in his Nasiha li Ikhwanina `Ulema’ Najd:

• Calling the Muslims “Pagans”
• Calling the Muslims “Apostates”
• Calling the Muslims “Deviants”
• Calling the Muslims “Innovators”
• Monopolizing teaching in the Hejaz
• Falsifying our scholarly heritage
• Libeling `ulema’ who disagreed with Wahhabi Doctrine
• Imposing the style of the Najdi dialect in the Calling of the Adhân
• Shutting the Mosque in Medina at night
• Posting hoodlums at the Noble Grave
• Obstructing and scolding women in Medina
• Blocking women from visiting Jannatul Baqi`
• Policing interrogation centers
• Razing the Mosque of Hazrat Abu Bakr
• Razing Abu Ayyub al-Ansari’s house
• Destroying historical Mecca and Medina but preserving Khaybar
• Replacing Khadija’s house with latrines
• Outlawing nasiha to rulers
• Interdiction of Dala’ilul-Khayrat and other books
• Forbidding Mawlid Gatherings

As former overall president of the Directorships of Scholarly Research, Iftâ’, Da`wa, and Irshâd, ibn Baz is on record for issuing a fatwa declaring as anti-Islamic the Palestinian people’s uprising against the Zionist State of Israel, whereas he never condemned the practices, in his own country, of gambling, horse-racing, and usury.

In the late sixties he declared any and all forms of cooperation with the kuffâr prohibited and cast a judgment of apostasy on `Abdul-Nasr for employing a civilian force of a few hundred Russian engineers to build the Aswan dam. In the early nineties he then made it halâl for forces of the kuffâr to come under their flag and sovereignty in hundreds of thousands to occupy Muslim lands and destroy Iraq because of, as he had termed it, “necessity.” Apparently, there was also no problem for them to stay after the “necessity” was over.

In his infamous al-Adilla an-Naqliyya w'al-Hissiyya `ala Jarayan ash-Shamsi wa Sukuni al-Ard, he asserted that the Earth was flat and disk-like and that the sun revolved around it.

Like all the anthropomorphists of his school, ibn Baz added modifiers to the Divine Attributes, asserting, things such as, Allah Most High and Exalted “istawâ `alâ al-`arsh haqqan” – variously translated as “He established Himself over the Throne in person” or “actually” or “literally” – "haqqan" being an innovated addition which violates the practice of the true Salaf consisting in asserting the Divine Attributes bilâ kayf – without “how” – any modifier being by definition a modality. What is worse is that such an innovated addition is an avenue to anthropomorphism.

In his footnote to article 38 of Imam at-Tahawi’s `Aqida which states,

“He is beyond having limits placed on Him, or being restricted, or having parts or limbs. He is not contained by the six directions as all created entities are,”

ibn Baz asserts,

“Allah is beyond limits that we know but has limits He knows.”

This is, like "haqqan," a true innovation of misguidance and innovated phrase as stated by adh-Dhahabi and others, utterly unsupported by the Qur’an, the Sunna, and the 'Ijma of the scholars, violating the practice of the true Salaf who refrained from indulging in speculations of modality whenever they mentioned the Divine Attributes.

ibn Baz’s Najdi friends commit the same ugly innovation: `Abdullah al-Hashidi in his edition of the commentary of Imam al-Bayhaqi’s al-Asma’ wa as-Sifat – written in rebuttal of al-Kawthari’s landmark edition – states,

“As for us we affirm a form for Allah unlike forms,”

While al-Albani in his commentary approvingly quotes Muhammad ibn Mani`’s remonstration of Imam at-Tahawi for this particular article and his pretense that the imam, perhaps, did not write it in the first place,

“The imam and author was in no need at all for these invented, wrongly suggestive words, and if someone were to say that they are interpolated and not his own words, I would not think it improbable, so as to keep a good opinion of him.”

ibn Baz also suggests corporal limbs for Allah Most High and Exalted in his statement in Taliqat Hamma `ala ma Katabahu ash-Shaykh Muhammad `Ali as-Sabuni fi Sifat Allah that,

“To declare Allah transcendent beyond possessing body, pupils, auditory meatus, tongue, and larynx is not the position of Ahlus-Sunna but rather that of the scholars of condemned kalâm.”

By his phrase “the scholars of condemned kalâm” he disparages great Muslim luminaries such as Imam ibn Khafif, ibn `Abdus-Salam, ibn al-Juwayni, ibn Hibban, ibn `Arabi, Muhammad al-Ghazali, Fakhruddin ar-Razi, al-Qadi `Iyad, al-Maziri, an-Nawawi, al-Pazdawi, Bayhaqi, Qurtubi, al-Khatib, ibn al-Jawzi, ibn Daqiq al-`Id, ibn Hajar al-`Asqalani, Shah Waliullah, the absolute entirety of the Ash`ari and Maturidi schools of aqeedah and, lately, as-Sabuni, all of whom assert transcendence in similar terms. As ibn Hajar stated in Fath al-Bari,

“The elite of the mutakallimûn said: `He knows not Allah, who attributes to Him any sort of resemblance to His creation, or attributes a hand to Him, or a son.”

Contrary to this the doctrine of the Literalists consists in attributing an actual hand to the Creator. But ibn Baz in his notes on Fath al-Bari charges al-Qadi `Iyad and ibn Hajar with abandoning the way of the Ahlus-Sunna for stating that the Hand of Allah does not pertain to a bodily appendage. This is similar to the pretext of the anthropomorphist who said:

“We expelled ibn Hibban from Sijistan for his lack of faith: he used to say that Allah is not limited!”

ibn Baz’s acolyte Muhammad Zinu mumbles a similar claim of corporeality in his book Tanbihat Hamma `ala Kitab Safwat at-Tafasir. As-Sabuni blasted both of them in his 1988 rebuttal, Kashf al-Iftira’at fi Risalat Tanbihat Hawla Safwat at-Tafasir.

ibn Baz explicitly attributes a geographical direction to Allah Most High and Exalted, and affirms that such was the belief of “the Companions and those who followed them in excellence – they assert a direction for Allah, and that is the direction of height, believing that the Exalted is above the Throne.”

In his tract translated into English as Authentic Islamic Aqeedah and What Opposes It, page 16, ibn Baz calls those who visit the graves of saints “unbelievers” who commit kufr ar-rubûbiyya. This fatwa compounds three innovations:

1. the dreadful sin of indiscriminately declaring millions of Muslims kâfir without the proofs and due process required by the purified Shari`a
2. the blind, wholesale dismissal of the numerous orders of the Prophet in the authentic Sunna to visit the graves for they are reminders of the Hereafter
3. the branding of Muslims with an innovated classification of disbelief he calls kufr ar-rubûbiyya

The weakness of ibn Baz’s doctrinal positions can be inferred from the very title of one of his tracts purportedly designed to champion true doctrine: Iqamat al-Barahin `ala Hukmi man Istaghatha bi Ghayr Allah. For the licitness of istighâtha or calling for help of a creature qualified is patently established in the Qur’an and Sunna, as shown by the Verse,

And his countryman sought his help against his enemy...
[Quran 28:15]

And al-Bukhari’s narration of the Prophet from ibn `Umar – Allah be pleased with him – already quoted:

“Truly the sun shall draw so near on the Day of Resurrection that sweat shall reach to the mid-ear, whereupon they shall ask help from Adam – upon him peace; then from Moses – upon him peace; and then from Muhammad – upon him be peace, who will then intercede.”

Furthermore, ibn Baz directly contradicts Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab’s words in Majmu`at at-Tawhid, page 232:

“We do not deny nor reject the invocation of help from the creature insofar as the created can help, as Allah Most High said in the story of Moses – upon him peace: And his countryman sought his help against his enemy.”

An inveterate deprecator of the Prophet and principal enemy of the Sufis, in one of his fatwas he asserts,

“Among other things, the Messenger of Allah, after his death, never appears in a vision to a wakeful person. He of the ignorant Sufis who claims that he sees, while vigilant, the vision of the Prophet, or that that vision attends the Mawlids or the like, is guilty of the foulest error, and exceedingly deluded… the dead never rise out of their graves in this world save on the Day of Judgement.”

The above is a claim to know in their entirety:

1. the Unseen
2. the wherewithal of the Prophet in Barzakh
3. the states of the servants of Allah Most High

In addition to an impious reference to the Prophet  as “the dead.” Surely, it is ibn Baz who is dead while the Prophet – Allah bless him and greet him, as stated by Sheikh Muhammad ibn `Alawi in Manhaj as-Salaf, “is alive with a complete isthmus-life which is greater and better and more perfect than worldly life – indeed, higher, dearer, sweeter, more perfect, and more beneficial than worldly life.”

It is also related from one of the great Sufi sheikhs, Sheikh Abul-Hasan ash-Shadhili – may Allah have mercy upon him – who, unlike ibn Baz, was only physically blind, whom the hadith master ibn al-Mulaqqin mentioned in his Tabaqat al-Awliya' and concerning whom ibn Daqiq al-`Id said, “I never saw anyone more knowledgeable of Allah;” that he said:

“If I ceased to see the Prophet  for one moment, I would no longer consider myself a Muslim.”

His teacher Abul-`Abbas al-Mursi said the same. Ghawth `Abdul-`Aziz ad-Dabbagh said something similar, as reported from him by his student Ahmad ibn al-Mubarak in al-Ibriz. Assuredly, Sheikh Abdul-Aziz shall have to answer for his calumny of these Sufi elders among many others on the Day of Judgment, in addition to having issued legal judgments and spoken of the Prophet – Allah bless him and greet him – without knowledge.

As for attending Mawlid, “a vision” does not attend or do anything, but the spirits of the believers who passed away, together with the angels and the believing jinn, are certainly related to attend the gatherings of the pious all over the Earth. ibn al-Kharrat in al-`Aqiba, ibn al-Qayyim in ar-Ruh, al-Qurtubi in at-Tadhkira, ibn Abi ad-Dunya in al-Qubur, as-Suyuti in Sharh as-Sudur, ibn Rajab in Ahwal al-Qubur, and others relate from many of the Salaf as-Saleh – including Imam Malik in al-Muwatta’ – that the spirits of the believers in Barzakh are free to come and go anywhere they please. This is all the more possible for our Prophet – Allah bless him and greet him – as we celebrate Mawlid specifically to remember him and invoke blessings upon him.

ibn Baz passed a fatwa that,

“It is not permissible to celebrate the birthday of the Prophet, in fact, it must be stopped, as it is an innovation in the religion.”

His sole proof for this declaring an act illicit and an innovation in Islam is that it did not take place in the early centuries of Islam, whereas ash-Shafi`i and the Imams and scholars of the principles of jurisprudence defined innovation in the religion as “that which was not practiced before and contravenes the Qur’an and Sunna.”

It is noteworthy that the heads of the Salafi movement and those of their offshoots who propagate their views are always careful, through either ignorance or duplicity, to omit this second, indispensable precondition in their definition of bida`: Deobandis, Tablighis, Tahriris, Muhajiris, Jama`is, Ikhwanis, and other Wahhabis.

Furthermore, the majority of the scholars of Ahlus-Sunna – and Allah knows best – concur either out loud or tacitly on the licit character of the celebration of the Mawlid provided the usual etiquette of Islam in public gatherings is kept. Lastly, the Hanbali school in its entirety has never declared forbidden the celebration of the Mawlid and even the Salafi favorite, Sheikh ibn Taymiyya stated that one who celebrates it with sincere intentions will be rewarded.

ibn Baz revived the innovation and invalid fatwa of ibn Taymiyya to the effect that it is forbidden to travel with the intention of visiting the Prophet in his notes on ibn Hajar’s Fath al-Bari, book of Fadl as-Salat fi Makka w'al-Madina, where ibn Hajar comments on ibn Taymiyya’s prohibition of travel for Ziyara,

“ibn Taymiyya said: `This kind of trip – traveling to visit the grave of the Prophet is a disobedience, and salât must not be shortened during it.’ This is one of the ugliest matters reported from ibn Taymiyya.”

ibn Baz reacts to this in a footnote:

“It is not ugly, and ibn Taymiyya was right.”

ibn Hajar’s teacher, Zaynuddin al-`Iraqi, rightly called it in his Tarh at-Tathrib 6:43, “a strange and ugly saying.”

ibn Baz also reduplicates verbatim and without the least critical analysis or original understanding of the evidence the pretense of ibn Taymiyya whereby it states,

“The ahadith that concern the desirability of visiting the grave of the Prophet are all weak and forged.”

By the Grace of Allah, this pseudo-bold and fashionable claim among Salafis has been laid to its final resting-place by Sheikh Mahmud Mamduh’s superb work titled Raf` al-Minara fi Takhrij Ahadith at-Tawassul w'az-Ziyara.

Another astonishing deviation of ibn Baz in his remarks on Fath al-Bari is his characterizing the visit of the Companion Bilal ibn al-Harth – Allah be well-pleased with him – to the grave of the Prophet – Allah bless him and greet him – and his tawassul for rain there as “aberrant” and “an avenue to polytheism.”

One of his innovations in usûl is his public declaration – in the Saudi periodical al-Majalla – that he does not adhere to the Hanbali madhhab “but only to the Qur’an and Sunna,” whereas ibn Taymiyya himself asserted in his Mukhtasar al-Fatawa al-Misriyya that the truth is not found in the whole Shari`a outside the four schools. Nor have any two Sunni 'ulema' on the face of the earth agreed on the qualification of ibn Baz as a mujtahid capable of extracting his own rulings from the Law. On the contrary, his understanding of fiqh is superficial even when compared to his subordinate ibn `Uthaymin, his bent for taqlîd is evident, his blunders, numerous, and his innovations, countless.

Among the other innovations of ibn Baz in doctrine, he tried to rectify whatever did not please him in Fath al-Bari by the imam and hadith master ibn Hajar al-`Asqalani with interspersed remarks that do not qualify as commentary but as an attempt to substitute ibn Hajar’s Ash`ari Sunni doctrine with anthropomorphism as the Islamic creed.

Under his leadership, ibn Taymiyya’s Majmu`a al-Fatawa al-Kubra received a new altered edition from which they removed the tenth volume on tasawwuf. Similar examples of unreliable editorship and blatant tampering of the scholarly heritage abound at the hands of Wahhabis are:

1. In the book of al-Adhkar by Imam Muhyiuddin an-Nawawi as published by Darul-Huda of Riyadh in 1989 and edited by `Abdul-Qadir al-Arna’ut of Damascus, page 295, the chapter-title, “Section on Visiting the Grave of the Messenger” was substituted with the title, “Section on Visiting the Mosque of the Messenger of Allah” together with the suppression of several lines from the beginning of the section and its end, and the suppression of al-`Utbi’s famous story of intercession which Imam an-Nawawi had mentioned in full.

When al-Arna’ut ad-Dimashq was asked about it, he replied that it was the Riyadh agents who were the ones to change and tamper with the text. A facsimile of his own hand-written statement to that effect was printed in full in Sheikh Mahmud Mamduh’s Raf` al-Minara, page 72-75.

2. Suppression of as-Sawi’s words on modern-time Kharijites in his super-commentary on Tafsir al-Jalalayn titled Hashiya `ala Tafsir al-Jalalayn, “namely, a sect in the Hejaz named Wahhabis” from all new editions post-eighties.

3. Zuhayr ash-Shawish’s suppression of the word “substitute-saints” from the book al-Maktab al-Islami, third edition of ibn Taymiyya’s `Aqida Wasitiyya in the following passage:

“The true adherents of Islam in its pristine purity are Ahlus-Sunna wa al-Jama`ah. In their ranks are found the truthful saints, the martyrs, and the righteous. Among them are the great men of guidance and illumination, of recorded integrity and celebrated virtue. And among them are the substitute-saints – the Imams – concerning whose guidance and knowledge the Muslims are in full accord. These are the Victorious Group…”

This is found in the Cairo Salafiyyah edition, page 36, and the Majmu`a ar-Rasa’il al-Kubra 3:159.

4. Suppression of the chapter that concerns the Awliyâ’, the Abdâl, and the Sâlehîn from ibn `Abedin’s Epistles.

Removal of Abu Hayyan’s denunciation of ibn Taymiyya as an anthropomorphist from his two tafasir, al-Bahr al-Muhit and an-Nahr al-Madd min al-Bahr in the passage concerning the Ayatul-Kursi.

Interpolation of the phrase bidhâtihi into al-Gilani’s mention of Allah Most High establishing Himself over the Throne as well as the takfîr of Imam Abu Hanifa in his classic al-Ghunya.

Interpolations among the same lines as well as the takfîr of Imam Abu Hanifa in al-Ash`ari’s al-Ibana.
Alterations along anthropomorphist lines in an-Nawawi’s Sharh Sahih Muslim from as early as ibn as-Subki’s time.

Anthropomorphist additions to al-Alusi’s Ruh al-Ma`ani transmitted by his Salafi son Nu`man as shown by a comparison with its autograph manuscript.

Commissioning Muhammad Muhsin Khan and Muhammad Taqiuddin al-Hilali with English translations of the mother books of Islam such as the Noble Qur’an, al-Bukhari’s Sahih, az-Zabidi’s at-Tajrid as-Sarih, an-Naysaburi’s al-Lu’lu’ w'al-Marjan etc. when Khan was only trained as a chest doctor while the late Moroccan-born Hilali had no more than a poor mastery of the English language. Hence, their translations are clumsy, inelegant, filled with gaps and approximations, and further corrupted by deliberate manipulations of meaning along doctrinal lines as shown by the following example in their Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 76, Number 549:

“Narrated Ibn `Abbas: `The Prophet said,

“The people were displayed in front of me and I saw one prophet passing by with a large group of his followers, and another prophet passing by with only a small group of people, and another prophet passing by with only ten (persons), and another prophet passing by with only five (persons), and another prophet passed by alone. And then I looked and saw a large multitude of people, so I asked Gibril,
“Are these people my followers?’
He said, `No, but look towards the horizon.’
I looked and saw a very large multitude of people.
Gibril said. `Those are your followers, and those are seventy thousand (persons) in front of them who will neither have any reckoning of their accounts nor will receive any punishment.’
I asked, `Why?’
He said, `For they used not to treat themselves with branding (cauterization) nor with ruqya (get oneself treated by the recitation of some Verses of the Qur'an) and not to see evil omen in things, and they used to put their trust (only) in their Lord.’” 

On hearing that, `Ukasha bin Mihsan got up and said (to the Prophet), “Invoke Allah to make me one of them.” The Prophet said, “O Allah, make him one of them.” Then another man got up and said (to the Prophet), “Invoke Allah to make me one of them.” The Prophet said, `Ukasha has preceded you.””

As demonstrated in the text of the Encyclopedia of Islamic Doctrine (6:137-149) on ta’wîz, there is a Jahili ruqyâ, and there is a Sunna ruqyâ. The former is made with other than what is allowed in the religion, such as amulets, talismans, spells, incantations, charms, magic and the like: and that is what the Prophet meant in the above hadith. But the translator Khan miscategorized it, in his parenthetical gloss, as the Sunna ruqyâ consisting in using some verses of the Qur’an or permitted du’â for treatment. Thus he suggests, in his manipulation, exactly the reverse of what the Prophet – Allah bless him and greet him – said and practiced, and the reverse of what the Companions said and practiced both in the time of the Prophet – Allah bless him and greet him – and after his time. One famous probative example of the Sunna ruqyâ is the use of the Fatiha by one of the Companions to heal a scorpion-bite – and the Prophet approved of it – as narrated by al-Bukhari in his Sahih.

The 1999 translation of an-Nawawi’s Riyadh as-Salehin published by Darussalam publications out of Riyadh makes a similar interpolation distorting the meaning of the words of the Prophet – Allah bless him and greet him:

“They are those who do not make ruqyah (blowing over themselves after reciting the Qur'an or some prayers and supplications the Prophet used to say).”

Observe their equating something the Prophet used to do with an act that those who enter Paradise do not do. The same book, in page 88, calls al-Albani “the leading authority in the science of hadith”, in page 31 declares that “in case of breach of ablution, the wiping over the socks is sufficient, and there is no need for washing the feet”, and in page 515 declares that “ours should not be the belief that the dead do hear and reply (our greeting)”, and that expressing the intention (niyya) verbally before salât “is a Bid`ah (innovation in religion) because no proof of it is found in Sharî`ah.”

Other manipulations of meaning along anthropomorphist lines and dilly-dallying can be seen in Khan-Hilali’s discrepant, multiple translations of the meanings of the Qur’an into English. An example of this confusion is in the footnote to Ayatul Kursi for the word kursiyyuhu, translated as “His Throne.” In a later edition by the same M.M. Khan and his friend M. Taqiuddin al-Hilali, the word is left untranslated, giving “His Kursî,” with a footnote stating:

“Kursî: literally a footstool or chair, and sometimes wrongly translated as Throne. ibn Taimiyah said,
(a) To believe in the Kursî. (b) To believe in the `Arsh (Throne) [sic]. It is narrated from Muhammad bin `Abdullâh and from other religious scholars that the Kursî is in front of the `Arsh (Throne) and it is at the level of the Feet. [Fatawa ibn Taimiyah, Vol. 5, Pages 54, 55]”

None of the above explanations is authentically related from the Prophet – Allah bless him and greet him, least of all the astonishing mention of “the Feet” – and who is “Muhammad bin `Abdullâh” and these “other religious scholars”? Nor is the call for imitating what “ibn Taymiyya said to believe” other than a bankrupt innovation. Nor is the translation of Kursî as “Throne” wrong when called for in certain cases, as in the narration:

“On the Day of Resurrection your Prophet shall be brought and shall be made to sit in front of Allah the Almighty, on His Kursî.”

Some of the Salaf, among them Hasan al-Basri, even explicitly said that the Kursî is the `Arsh. Furthermore, it is authentically related from ibn `Abbas that he said,

“His Kursî is His Knowledge.”

This is the explanation preferred by the Imams of the Ahlus-Sunnah w'al-Jama'ah such as Imam Sufyan ath-Thawri, al-Bukhari, at-Tabari, al-Bayhaqi, and others.

Other examples of Khan-Hilali’s bamboozled translations:
“Then he rose over (Istawâ) towards the heaven” as compared to Pickthall’s "Then turned He to the heaven when it was smoke" (41:11) and Yusuf `Ali’s over-figurative “Moreover He comprehended in His Design the sky, and it had been (as) smoke” [Quran 41:11];
“...and then He rose over (Istawâ) the Throne (really in a manner that suits His Majesty)”as compared to Pickthall’s simple "then mounted He the Throne" and Yusuf `Ali’s typical “then He established Himself on the Throne (of authority)” [Quran 7:54];
“Do you feel secure that He, Who is over the heaven (Allâh)” as compared to Pickthall’s literal "Have ye taken security from Him Who is in the heaven (fî al-samâ’)?"and Yusuf `Ali’s “Do ye feel secure that He Who is in Heaven”
[Quran 67:16-17];

Khan-Hilali's translation of Verse 2:200 states:

“So when you have accomplished your Manaasik, remember Allâh as you remember your forefathers or with a far more remembrance.”

Did ibn Baz, “The Presidency of Islamic Researches, Ifta, Da`wa, and Irshâd,” and the “King Fahd Complex for the Printing of the Holy Qur’an” all think so cheaply of the Book of Allah and so dearly of their own agenda that the basic grammar and syntax of the translation of its meanings into the most heavily spoken language on Earth did not deserve to be double-checked and edited by a competent English proofreader at least before being printed on the best bible paper, sewn-bound, and distributed freely at huge cost?

ibn Baz did his best to aid and abet the main innovators of our time such as al-Albani, on whom he bestowed the King Faisal Prize “for services rendered to Islam” the year before their respective deaths; al-Albani’s student and deputy in Kuwait, `Abdur-Rahman `Abdul-Khaliq authored the despicable attack on the Friends of Allah which he titled Fada’ih as-Sufiyya and which al-Buti termed an exercise in calumny.

Other notables of the Wahhabi movement include Muqbil ibn Hadi al-Wadi`i who asked that the Noble Grave be brought out of the Mosque and the Green Dome destroyed, and roamed the land in Yemen with armed loon thugs, digging up graves with spades; Abu Bakr al-Jaza’iri; ibn Jamil Zeno; `Abdur-Rahman ad-Dimashqiyya, and their ilk…

As Sayyid Yusuf al-Rifa`i said to the `ulema’ of Najd:

“You left none but yourselves as those who are saved, forgetting the Prophet’s – Allah bless him and greet him – saying: `If anyone says, `The people have perished,’ then he has perished the most.”

— Sheikh Dr. Gibril Fouad Haddad, transmitted via the blogsite Asharis: Assemble