The Gulenist Movement and Fethullah Gulen

 بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

الصلاة والسلام عليك يا سيدي يا رسول الله

In the Name of Allah, the Rahman, the Merciful

Blessing and Peace upon you, Apostle of Allah

In 2016 there was an attempted military coup in Turkey to remove President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. He and his government blamed it on the Gulenists, followers of Fethullah Gulen (1941-2024) and subsequently banned the movement, declaring it a terrorist organization. While it seems the decision to outlaw the Gulenists was essentially political, from our traditionalist and conservative Sunni perspective it was the right decision regardless of the true motive.

Generally speaking, we Sunni Muslims love President Erdogan and pray for his success and prosperity. Though imperfect and by no means above criticism, he is nevertheless a good Islamic leader at a time when the Muslim world is plagued with mostly secular minded and tyrannical rulers and governments.

The nation of Turkey has an important role in both the Islamic consciousness and eschatology, as the land of Constantinople (Istanbul) spoken about in the Hadith of our Holy Prophet, sall Allahu alayhi wasallam. He prophesied that seventy thousand people from the children of Isaac shall conquer Constantinople but not by force of arms, rather by praising and glorifying Allah.

Children of Isaac is a reference to the Edomites, descendants of the Patriarch Isaac’s elder son Esau rather than his younger son the Patriarch Jacob (Israel). The Jews call the Christians, especially of the Near East, Edom. These Edomite Christians of Asia Minor or Anatolia and of the Levant eventually mostly converted to Islam.

Thus it appears to me that the prophecy refers to a spiritual revival among the Muslims of Constantinople and its vicinity through which they shall “conquer” the city. President Erdogan is playing a crucial role in this process of re-Islamization of Turkey, but Allah and His Apostle know best. 

Although a Muslim nation for centuries, secularism was forcefully imposed on the Turks by that devil known as Ataturk. It was only under President Erdogan that Turkey began to reverse course from its anti-Islamic, Kemalist framework toward a rediscovery of its Islamic faith and heritage.

At present, the satanic Zionists are especially irked with Erdogan’s Turkey and are moving toward a state of open hostility and military aggression against it. Often times we can discern who the good guys are when the bad guys propagandize against them.

The Gulenist movement, which calls itself the Hizmet (meaning khidmah or service) movement, is based in Saylorsburg, Pennsylvania. It is natural for Muslims to be suspicious of so-called Islamic groups with a global profile or an origin and activity revolving around a particular Muslim country that choose to base themselves in the West. Here I am not referring to local Muslim organizations that serve the local Muslim minority populations settled in the West, but rather transnational so-called Islamic movements that for some reason have chosen a place in the West to establish their headquarters. For instance, it is not surprising that the Qadiani heresy, which calls itself “Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam” is based near London, England, since it was founded by a confessed “plant” of the British government. Likewise, the Bahai cult has its official headquarters in Haifa and is surely in league with the Zionists and international Jewry in the conspiracy to subvert not only the Muslims but humanity in general.

But unlike the Qadianis and Bahais, we do not make takfir of the Gulenists, who are to be considered Muslims with wayward ideas and dangerous objectives contrary to the teachings of Islam and the interests of the Ummah. That this particular movement is based in the United States of all places is part of the reason it is incriminated as an instrument of American imperialist designs on the Muslim world—imperialist designs that are both political and cultural.

One should also be wary of so-called Islamic movements led by individuals who are clean-shaven and eschew the traditional Islamic appearance in favor of Western style and fashion.

Fethullah Gulen

The Gulenist movement operates a network of chartered schools through which it indoctrinates students into its particular ideology and approach to Islam. At present, there are perhaps several million students studying in these schools, which the movement itself has a few hundred thousand dedicated members. Muslims should beware of this movement and avoid sending their children to study in Gulenist schools.

Let us analyze some of Gulen’s teachings and see how they blatantly oppose the traditional and orthodox Sunni Islamic doctrine:

On the issue of hijab, Gulen taught that it is not a fundamental ordinance in Islam. Observe his trivialization of hijab from this quote of his, “This issue is not as important as the essentials of faith and the pillars of Islam. It's a matter of secondary importance. Faith in God was revealed to our Prophet in Mecca. Then came the daily prescribed prayers. Such commands as giving alms, fasting, and pilgrimage came in Madina. In the sixteenth or seventeenth year of Muhammad’s prophethood, Muslim women's heads were still uncovered. It was not included in the pillars of Islam or the essentials of faith. Those issues to which Islam gives priority should, out of our own devotion, be given priority while becoming a Muslim and communicating Islam to others.”

Likewise, concerning the beard and turban, Gulen said, “I see the robe, turban, beard, and loose trousers as details. Muslims shouldn’t drown in detail. Today many Muslims may be doing this. Choosing not to wear a turban, robe, or loose trousers shouldn't be construed as weakening the Muslim Turkish identity. From imams in mosques to members of Parliament, from governors to district officials, no one should be categorized as a sinner because of such things.”

Like any other supposed “Martin Luther of Islam”, Fethullah Gulen was critical of matters such as theocracy (which in the Islamic context means the implementation of the divine Shariah as the supreme law of the state) and deviated from the truth in his perspective on polygamy.

We Sunni Muslims must always be wary of the many “Martin Luthers” that have begun to emerge from the midst of the Ummah, who often serve a foreign agenda. In addition to Fethullah Gulen, beware of individuals like Tariq Ramadan, Javed Ghamidi and his successor in grooming Hassan Ilyas, Malala Yousufzai, Irshad Manji and many others. These figures tend to be darlings of the West, usually echoing the false narrative that the mainstream conception of Islam is somehow flawed and in need of reform or modernization. All these “Martin Luthers” may vary in degree of deviation and danger posed to Islam. In my opinion, the Gulenists are not as radical as some of the others, yet they certainly represent a problematic departure from the teachings and narrative of mainstream Sunni Islam.

Maududi's Rejection of Hadith About Solomon

 بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

الصلاة والسلام عليك يا سيدي يا رسول الله

In the Name of Allah, the Rahman, the Merciful

Blessing and Peace upon you, Apostle of Allah

According to the Bible, the Prophet and King, Solomon, had seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines (1 Kings 11:3).

The Holy Prophet Muhammad, sall Allahu alayhi wasallam, affirmed that Solomon had a large number of wives, and relayed that once Solomon resolved to sleep with a number of his wives, according to different versions of the Hadith, numbering sixty, or seventy, or ninety or ninety-nine or a hundred, for the purpose of producing boys who would grow up to be warriors in the cause of Allah. But since he did not say “if Allah wills”, none of them conceived except one who produced a child with a birth defect.

The gist of the Hadith is undoubtedly authentic as it has been reported in both Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. As for the discrepancy in the number of wives Solomon went to, ranging from sixty to a hundred, it appears to me that he had hundreds of wives, as mentioned in the Bible, but resolved to sleep with a select number of them that particular night. Whether the precise number was sixty, or seventy, or ninety, or ninety-nine or a hundred is not that important, except that we should know that it was an unusually large number of wives to sleep with in a single night, and that none of them conceived except for one is the lesson to be learnt about the virtue of saying in sha Allah “if Allah wills”.

Regrettably, some individuals in modern times have ridiculed and denied this Hadith. Among them was Abul-Ala Maududi, founder of the so-called Jamaat Islami, a political party in the Subcontinent that aims to establish an Islamic state. He said:

لیکن حدیث کا مضمون صریح عقل کے خلاف ہے 

کیا یہ توقع کی جاسکتی ہے کہ حضور  نے یہ بات واقعے کے طور پر بیان کی ہوگی

“The third section says that the Prophet Solomon one day swore that he would go in to his 70 wives that night, and from each a warrior would be born, who would fight in the cause of Allah, but while he said this he did not say: In sha Allah ‘if Allah so wills’. Consequently, only one wife conceived and from her also a defective child was born, whom the midwife brought and placed on his throne. This Hadith has been reported by Hadrat Abu Hurairah from the Holy Prophet and it has been related by Bukhari and Muslim and other traditionists in several ways. In Bukhari itself this tradition has been related at different places in different ways. At one place the number of the wives has been stated as 60 and at others 70 or 90 or 99 or 100. As far as the chains of the transmitters are concerned, most of the traditions have strong chains, and their authenticity cannot be disputed from the point of view of the principles of reporting. But the subject-matter of the Hadith is patently against reason, and proclaims aloud that such a thing could not have been said by the Holy Prophet, as reported. But, on the contrary, he might have probably mentioned it as an example of the foolish and nonsensical tale-telling of the Jews, and the hearer might have misunderstood that the Holy Prophet himself had stated it as an event. To force the people to accept such traditions only on the strength of their chains of transmitters would be making religion a matter of mockery and jest. Everyone can calculate for himself that even in the longest night of winter the interval between the Isha and the Fajr Prayers cannot be of more than ten to eleven hours. If the minimum number of the wives be 60, it would mean that the Prophet Solomon (peace be upon him) went on having intercourse with them continuously for 10 to 11 hours that night at the rate of six wives per hour, without having a moment’s rest. Is it practically possible? And can it be expected that the Holy Prophet might have related it as an event?” (Tafhim ul-Quran, v.4, p.337)

Maududi’s objection to the Hadith is clearly from a materialist paradigm which does not take into account that a Prophet sleeping with an extraordinary large number of his wives in one night may seem impossible for an ordinary person, but with the power of God, Who has power over all thing, why shouldn’t we Muslims accept such a miracle?

Instead of outright rejecting the Hadith, could he not instead have at least attempted to explain it even in a way that doesn’t involve anything supernatural or miraculous, such as saying that he began the process of sleeping with a large number of his wives at night, and continued to do so even past the time of Fajr into the morning? I am not suggesting that such an interpretation is necessary in order to accept the Hadith, but that it is better to make an interpretation than to outright dismiss the Hadith and ridicule it.

For the Sunni Muslims are agreed that Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim are the most authentic collections of Hadith, and this Hadith in particular has been reported in both. The sincere Muslim does not argue or reject Hadith but rather submits to the words of his master, the Holy Prophet, sall Allahu alayhi wasallam.

The modern-day trend of skepticism and even outright rejection of Hadith is extremely harmful to faith. The difference between us Sunni Muslims and the Hadith-rejecting deviants is that we incline to accept any Hadith that has a sound chain back to the Prophet, peace be upon him, even if its content can’t fully be grasped by the intellect. That is a problem with the limitation of our intellect and not a problem with the Hadith.

Mahdist Uprisings in Algeria

 بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

الصلاة والسلام عليك يا سيدي يا رسول الله

In the Name of Allah, the Rahman, the Merciful

Blessing and Peace upon you, Apostle of Allah

The tribulation of false Mahdis has a long history in this Ummah. It is partially responsible for the extreme reaction in some quarters of denying the expectation of the Mahdi altogether.

But we Sunnis Muslims firmly believe in the prophecy about the coming of the Mahdi, a descendant of the Prophet, peace be upon him, who shall be the Imam of the Muslims and restore the glory of this Faith after a period of darkness and injustice.

Undoubtedly, we are in that dark, unjust era today, and so there is much fervor and eagerness among the Muslims that the Mahdi should appear soon to redeem us.

The expectation of the Mahdi in this Ummah is not unlike the expectation of the Davidic Messiah among the Jews. After the devastation of the Kingdom of Judah by Babylon in the 6th century BCE, and subsequent subjugation to foreign empires (Persian, Greek and Roman) the Jews, encouraged by the prophecies of their Prophets, strongly desired the coming of the Messiah who would be a descendant of King David and, like his noble ancestor, establish a glorious kingdom for them.

For the Muslims, anticipation of the Mahdi, a figure who would resurrect the glory of the time of the Prophet, peace be upon him, and his rightly-guided Caliphs, reached its zenith in a time spanning the end of the Umayyads and the beginning of the Abbasids. 

Subsequently, another wave of religious fervor in expectation of the Mahdi happened during the 19th century, at the height of European imperialist domination of the Muslim world, particularly in North Africa. During both periods, the Mahdist fervor among the Muslims was exploited by several pretenders often leading to disaster. This too mirrored the phenomenon of false Messiahs that arose among the Jews attempting deliverance from foreign domination, such as Simon bar Koseba called “Bar Kokhba” who led a failed uprising against the might of Rome.

In this blog I have discussed the reality of several false Mahdis, such as the notorious fanatic Ibn Tumart who revolted against the Almoravids in the 12th century CE in Morocco. Then there was Ahmad bin Abi Mahalli from 17th century Morocco who led a failed uprising against the Saadi dynasty motivated by the increasing power and encroachment of the Spaniards, and Muhammad Ahmad of Sudan, who in the 19th century battled the Anglo-Egyptian rule of Sudan and had ambitions of conquering the entire Muslim world. 

Likewise, there was Juhayman al-Utaybi, who proclaimed his brother-in-law Muhammad bin Abdullah al-Qahtani to be the Mahdi, and launched a failed uprising in 1979 against the Saudis by seizing control of Masjid al-Haram in Mecca. This particular Mahdist revolt was motivated not so much by foreign domination but by the failure of the Saudi monarchy in curbing the onset of modernity in Arabia. Unlike most other Mahdist uprisings and movements, this one was entirely rooted in Wahhabism and Salafism, and even had the sympathy of several senior Salafi clerics.

French colonization and rule of Algeria in the 19th century was extremely brutal and traumatizing. It is perhaps the worst instance of colonization and subjugation of a Muslim nation in history, up there with the historic ravaging of Muslim civilization by the Mongols in the 13th century CE and the current ethnic cleansing of Palestinians by the barbaric Zionists.

The Rahmaniyyah order played a major role in galvanizing resistance to French colonialism in Algeria. The Rahmaniyyah is a branch of the Khalwatiyyah Sufi order and was founded by Sidi Muhammad bin Abd ur-Rahman al-Jurjuri, may Allah have mercy on him, who lived in 18th century Algeria.

This is a repudiation of the somewhat common misconception that Sufis are entirely passive or free themselves from armed Jihad.

Among the figures, either influenced by or aligned with the Rahmaniyyah, who claimed to be the Mahdi in 19th century Algeria were Jamina, Bu Maza and Bu Ziyan.

Julia A. Clancy-Smith is the principal modern researcher on these figures and their movements:

About Jamina she says: “In 1845 a self-proclaimed prophet named Jamina organized and led a small anticolonial insurrection in the region of el-Arrouch. Jamina was well known to the Ziban’s inhabitants since he had resided in the oases for at least a year before publicly advancing claims to mahdihood. There he had initially acquired a reputation as a local holy man through demonstrations of miraculous powers to the villagers who constituted his first popular following. Leaving the Ziban in 1844, Jamina and his partisans launched a rural protest movement the next year among the tribes just north of the city of Constantine, where progressive settler land expropriations were making inroads into the local agrarian economy. Jamina exchanged letters with Bu Ziyan, some of which were intercepted by French officials, until the eve of the 1849 Za’atsha insurrection.” (Rebel and Saint, p.94)

I believe it was misleading for Clancy-Smith to use the term “self-proclaimed prophet” about Jamina, whom, as she confirms, was actually claiming to be the Mahdi. The Mahdi is not understood to be a Prophet according to Islam, since the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, is the final Prophet. Either she is ignorant of this fundamental doctrine of Islam, or she used the term prophet in a non-Islamic sense to describe a charismatic, spiritual figure such as one claiming to be the Mahdi. Either way, I seriously doubt that Jamina would have actually claimed to be a Nabi (Prophet), and on the basis of such a claim established a following among some Algerian Muslims interested in resisting the French infidel. But him claiming to be the Mahdi does seem to be a historical fact and part of the pattern of the time and place.

Regarding Bu Maza, Clancy-Smith says, “In 1845 another rebellion broke out under the guidance of a young man of no more than twenty years. Popularly known as Bu Ma’za (Abu Ma’za, or the ‘man with the goat’), he assumed the provocative nom de guerre of Muhammad b. ‘Abd Allah, the name inevitably associated with the mahdi. Revered among the sedentary tribal populations of the Chelif Valley and Ouarsenis Mountains as an ascetic and holy man, Bu Ma’za promised to drive the Europeans into the sea.” (ibid, p.95)

Apparently, some elements among the Rahmaniyyah Sufis backed the Mahdist uprising of Bu Maza, “In 1847, Bu Ma‘za and a band of supporters drawn from the Awlad Na‘il confederacy were chased into the oasis of the Awlad Jallal where Shaykh al-Mukhtar al-Jallali headed the Rahmaniyya zawiya. So great was Bu Ma‘za’s reputation as the redeemer and an intrepid warrior that the indigenous troops under General Herbillon’s command fled in terror at the sight of the rebels’ flags and messianic banners. Apparently even those Algerians who had enrolled in the French army preferred the dangers of desertion to fighting the mahdi. The news of Bu Ma’za’s approach encouraged the oases of Sidi Khalid and Awlad Jallal to engage in their own rebellious behavior; the populace besieged the French-appointed qa’id in his residence. Significantly, the mahdi sought the assistance of the Rahmaniyya shaykh of Awlad Jallal, neither the first nor last example of political collaboration between a powerful sufi leader and a messianic figure. With the full backing of Shaykh al-Mukhtar, the insurgents used the fortified oasis as a base of resistance.” (ibid)

Concerning Bu Ziyan, Clancy-Smith says, “In the early months of 1849, Bu Ziyan was beset by divinely inspired visions and disturbing dreams, universally regarded in that society as constituting a means of ‘access to the invisible world.’ He dispatched emissaries to the Awras and Biskra to inform the populace of these portents from on high. Before long Bu Ziyan’s otherworldly experiences entered into the rumor mill: ‘People were constantly speaking about [him] and much preoccupied with this man from Za‘atsha who had seen the Prophet and grouped around him numerous partisans.’ In addition to publicizing these supernatural visitations, which brought the pious and the curious to his side, Bu Ziyan also proceeded quite methodically to fashion a base of support by sacrificing sheep every day and distributing food to the poor; he held lavish banquets and entertained visitors. Since these rituals of sacrifice and the cultural behavior normally associated with them were outside of the normal liturgical cycle, they may have signaled a break in the ordinary flow of time, thus hinting at the mahdi’s arrival. However, up to this point, there was not much to distinguish Bu Ziyan’s gradually emerging call to prophecy from the initial stages of the saint in gestation. Then came more visions and supernatural signs; the Prophet Muhammad announced in a dream that Bu Ziyan was the mahdi. The suspension of historical time was near; conquering piety was at hand. Nevertheless, some refused to believe that the Prophet had so honored the man from Za‘atsha. To win over skeptics, Bu Ziyan predicted that other signs would soon follow. Once again the Prophet appeared in a nightly vision and seized Bu Ziyan by the hand, which turned green in color, a manifestation of mu‘jizat, or those miracles attributed to prophets. The crowds gathered to behold the mystery, and his residence became a pilgrimage site as villagers arrived from far and wide. Divine election was finally confirmed—and any remaining skeptics won over—when the Prophet reappeared a third time, informing Bu Ziyan that ‘the reign of the impious had come to an end and the rule of the true believers is about to commence.’ Having convinced an audience of his prophecy, Bu Ziyan then expanded the public nature of his preaching; his message combined exhortations to piety and right conduct with moral censure of local religious notables, who were upbraided for the ‘disorders of their private lives.’ At the same time, the new mahdi capitalized upon widespread dissatisfaction with the recently imposed colonial fiscal regime.” (ibid, pp.105-106)

Bu Ziyan’s Jihad against the French was “solemnly proclaimed from the minaret of the mosque attached to the Rahmaniyya zawiya” (ibid, p.107)

Some reflections are in order; while much of the Rahmaniyyah and their following went along with Bu Ziyan and his Mahdist revolt, others were more cautious and skeptical of his claim to being the Mahdi, and his claim of having had visions of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, confirming him as such. But the popularity of the uprising against the evil French ended up suppressing their instinct for caution and skepticism.

Muslims should know that the theater of activity and conflict when the true Mahdi appears, at least initially, shall not be North Africa, or Egypt, or Sudan, or India. It shall be Arabia, and the Mahdi will first be proclaimed from Mecca, where he shall be given the bayah by the eminent saints and sages of this Ummah and the rest of the Muslims present there. 

This fact alone should have been sufficient to dismiss the claims of the likes of Bu Ziyan in Algeria and Muhammad Ahmad in Sudan. Yet the oppression and danger posed to Islam in those times and places caused the Muslims there, including some of the Ulama and Sufis, to go against their better judgment. 

I am not saying that the Muslims were wrong to challenge the imperialist project of the European infidel and to proclaim a holy war against them for the defense of Islam and the Muslims. But to consider certain leaders of these anti-colonial revolts to be the Mahdi when in fact they were not was a serious error.

Nor am I saying that Muslims should not take seriously someone or some people who say they have had a vision of the Holy Prophet, peace be upon him. Such visions and visitations are an important part of our Faith and a demonstration of it being a living Faith. We should have a probative attitude toward claims of such blessed visions and visitations, rather than a dismissive one like that of the wretched materialists and modernists.

In fact, it is mentioned that Shaykh al-Mukhtar al-Jallali, a fervent supporter of the Mahdist revolts of both Bu Maza and then Bu Ziyan, had a vision warning him that the latter’s revolt was bound to end in disaster, “The Angel Gabriel (Jibril) had appeared to him in a dream warning that the Muslims would suffer ruin at Za’atsha and their leaders would perish.” (ibid, p.115)

This prophecy was indeed fulfilled, as Bu Ziyan was eventually captured by the French, “Bu Ziyan’s head was offered as a prize of war to General Herbillon, who had it displayed on the gatepost for all to see.” (ibid, p.116)

The fourth Mahdi claimant to be discussed from this setting is the Sharif of Warqala (also spelled Ouargla), who called himself Muhammad bin Abdullah, though it is not certain if that was his actual name. It has been said his original name was Ibrahim bin Abi Faris. His true origin cannot be ascertained with any degree of certainty, but it is said he was a man of piety and respected by the people of Warqala among whom he settled: “Unfortunately for the historian, scarcely more is known of Muhammad b. ‘Abd Allah than of his apocalyptic predecessor, Bu Ziyan; the sharif’s family background, and real name remain a matter of dispute. What is certain is that he had been a faqir (wandering ascetic) from the maraboutic tribe of the Awlad Sidi b. Yusuf, who occupied the territory north of Tilimsan.” (Ibid, pp.177-178)

“Muhammad b. ‘Abd Allah met an enthusiastic reception from Warqala’s leading female saint, Lalla Zuhra, venerated for her piety and gift of divination. Lalla Zuhra later pronounced him to be ‘the one sent from God,’ and prophesied a brilliant future for the mysterious guest as ‘sultan and terror of the Christians.’” (ibid, p.179)

The Sharif or Warqala was set apart from his failed predecessors, Bu Maza and Bu Ziyan, in that he was associated with the Sanusiyyah and its founder Muhammad bin Ali as-Sanusi (d.1859).

Clancy-Smith mentions yet another Mahdi claimant of this setting who aspired to overthrow the French: “During the 1871 Muqrani revolt in the northern Constantine, another mahdist rebel arose in the Algerian Sahara and was accorded an enthusiastic reception in Warqala and Tuqqurt. Muhammad b. Tuni b. Ibrahim, or Bu Shusha (Bou Choucha) as he was called by his cohorts, purported to be the son of Muhammad b. ‘Abd Allah. Such a claim indicates that in the popular mind at least, the social production of revolutionary mahdis, like saints and descendants of the prophets, was believed governed by the genealogical principle. For a brief period, Warqala’s inhabitants proclaimed Bu Shusha their sultan in place of the French appointed shaykh, which was tantamount to a declaration of revolt in the eyes of the colonial regime. General de Lacroix-Vaubois chased the would-be redeemer from the oasis in January 1872.” (ibid, p.211)

Albani: I'tikaf Only Valid in the Three Mosques

 بِسۡمِ اللّٰہِ الرَّحۡمٰنِ الرَّحِیۡمِ

يَا نَبِي سَلَام عَلَيكَ

In the Name of Allah, the Rahman, the Merciful

Peace be upon you, O Prophet

I’tikaf is one of the most beautiful acts of worship in Islam, when someone secludes themself in the Mosque as a means of devotion to Allah.

وَاَنۡتُمۡ عٰکِفُوۡنَ ۙ فِی الۡمَسٰجِدِ

And you are doing i’tikaf in the Mosques

(Surah 2, Ayah 187)

Here the word Mosques is general, and is a proof that I’tikaf may be made at any proper Mosque in which the five daily Salah are established in congregation.

But Albani dissented from the consensus of the Four Schools in declaring that i’tikaf may only be made in the three holiest Mosques; Masjid al-Haram in Mecca, Masjid an-Nabawi in Medina and Masjid al-Aqsa in Jerusalem (Qiyamu Ramadan, p.36)

Once again, as in the matters of women saying talbiyah loudly, masah over sandals, obligation of ghusl on Jumu’ah, physically joining feet in congregational Salah, and forbidding women from gold jewelry, Albani has audaciously defied the consensus of the Four Schools, the established ruling of Sunni jurisprudence. 

His position on restricting i’tikaf to the three holy places of Islam results in potentially depriving billions of Muslims worldwide from the blessing and goodness of making i’tikaf in a mosque of their vicinity.

Practically, the bizarre legal opinions of Albani, and the proliferation of Salafism in general, are not having a good result of bringing the people nearer to Allah, which is a powerful indication that they are in serious error. In declaring so many acts of worship and goodness to be either innovative or invalid, Salafism has produced societies and communities that are spiritually barren. The invalidating of i’tikaf in any mosque except the three holy Mosques of Mecca, Medina and Jerusalem is a prime example. Billions of Muslims do not have access to those sacred locations because they are too distant, and in the case of Masjid al-Aqsa in particular, because it is under de facto Zionist control. If they were to follow Albani’s absurd position, and these days a growing number of Muslims are following him, they would be deprived of the blessing and goodness of making i’tikaf, which is especially encouraged during Ramadan.