I feel I have read the post and Fatawa posted by Abu Mujahid. It is hard to believe that.But it is all there, re;ated by some on and found in the Muslim (hadith). Surprising. I could not believe any of that. They had not been given any guidance. They had not rejected the truth. They had not opposed the truth. They had died long before.

 I mustsay that in the matters of Hadith there are two important tasks/ tests.

1. The Darayat.

2. The Rawayat.

I am sure that the darayat ( The integrity) takes perecedence over the rawayat (chain of narrators). Thanks any way.

Deobandis are not in "total"agreement concerning Muhammad ibn wahab najdi, and because a few who have connections to the Deobandi Ulema are misguided does not imply that deobandis supprt him, or any further implication that mainstream sunnis accept him. The piece you postes, is what it is, and to try and draw deeper inferences would be inaccurate.

Anyone who is a follower and proponent of najdi, and who's ideas are also rejected by the Ahl Asunnah, and who has a stake in being a apologetic for a figure head who is the founder of their way of thought and their government, (who was also on the government payroll) cannot be expected to write an accurate piece. And there are no more salafis, that time period is gone, they are all dead, and there is no way to go back. I would say that he tried to push "neo-salafism", which is as banckrupt as "wahabism", and in many ways they are just a like.

On what bases would you say that ibn Baaz would be impartial and that his work should be accepted without critical review? And why should all other accounts that list the crimes of Annajdi and his bandits be discounted when they are in direct opposition to the love fest piece you put up?

Annajdi's own brother was against him. 

So how do you decide what happened? rami just presented historical accounts of what happened, you posted an aplogetic from a mainstream wahabi cleric that was on the Saudi payroll.

Assalamualaikum WRWB,

1. Why anything written in support of Mohammed Ibn Abdul Wahhab is salafi propganda and rhetorics; and why anything against him is reality, is not it just mindsed? Again whoever write in his support is prejudiced and whoever write against him in free from any prejudiced. These are the two principles I have derived from posts of Rami and Andalus. On what criteria you people repeatedly call Bin baaz as biased and on what basis you believe that YOU are not biased against Mohammed Bin Abdul Wahhab? Just don't try to prove by you eloquence. Let reader choose to beleive what they prefer to.Final Judge will be Allah SW.
2. Why Ibn Abdul Wahhab is called repeatedly unqualified? what was the criteria for a person to be called qualified before 300 to 250 years?
3. As per history, you can't just claim that whatever is written against him is truth and anything in his support is fabrication. I personally prefer not to judge him based on history because we don't have common account of history acceptable to both supporters and opponents of him. Indian traditional religious faction have been his great opponents based on known history about him. But things have changed now. In last two decades I never have not come across any reputed deobandi scholars writing against Mohammed Bin Abul Wahhab. Though they are opposed to "sect called salafis" yet you will never find anything written against Ibn Abdul Wahhab. This is just because they have realised that what was presented to them as history was fake. Both Manzoor Nu'mani and Abul Hasan Ali Nadwi have specifically mention this in his writing. Abul Hasan Ali nadwi (a sufi hanafi) have specifically written a book to defend him.
Now about me..
Some of you have just assumed that I am Wahhabi or salafi. I don't care what you call me or think about me. I am just one among many who think positively about Ibn Abdul Wahhab, like the two personalities mentioned above. I neither think that he was right in all respect neither I think that he was just an evil. I have read many post of Brother Rami and respect him for his knowledge and agree that he is comparatively unbiased, but unfortunately when it comes to Ibn Abdul Wahhab he is on one extreme. I understand that our difference is based on history, I don't trust on the historical account that he choose to believe and he don't trust on hisotiry I choose to believe. The reason I do not believe on what was writtin against Ibn Abdul Wahhab is not that I am a blind follower of salafi folks, its actually influnce of writing of Manzoor Numani and Abul Hasal Ali Nadvi, I also agree with the brother Rami that calling yourself as "Ahl-e-hadith" is claiming your own ignorance.

I appreciate if we can have healthy and beneficial discussion about salafi approach rather than discussing personalities and their history.

Bismillah irrahman irrahim

Assalamu alaykum

I never knew of people who liked being called wahabis so i raised that point and i don't think it is an insult that if some1 wants being called something you have to call them that, even though to you it might be worse than what you were originally calling them. 

I dont really get why brothers disagree so fiercely about religious matters. You can state your side of truth and others can do the same and have discussion with adab that islam teaches us. If you can convince others then mashaAllah good, if not khair, say salam and depart.

Wassalam