Effect of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah on the da’wah of Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab
Question

                Is there any connection between Shaykh Ibn Taymiyah, the Shaykh al-Islam, and the Wahhaabi movement?.
Praise be to Allah.
    Firstly: 

    First of all it must be noted that the label “Wahhaabi” was 
    first given to the call of Imam Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab by the enemies 
    of this call, with the aim of putting people off and warning people against 
    it. They try to present it as an odd call with weird ideas, which is extreme 
    in following the ideas of its imam and goes against the way of ahl al-sunnah 
    wa’l-jamaa’ah. 

    It says in Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah (2/255): 

    Wahhaabism is a name given by the opponents of Shaykh 
    Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab (may Allaah have mercy on him) to his call to 
    cleanse Tawheed of all elements of shirk and to abolish all ways except the 
    way of Muhammad ibn ‘Abd-Allaah  (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon 
    him). What they intend thereby is to put people off his call and block them 
    from what he promoted. But it was not harmed by that, rather it caused it to 
    spread even further and caused more people to come to it whom Allaah guided 
    to look into what the da’wah was all about and what evidence it had from the 
    Qur’aan and Sunnah. So they adhered to it, clung firmly to it and started 
    calling other people to it, praise be to Allaah.  End quote. 

    Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzaan (may Allaah preserve him) said in 
    al-Bayaan li Akhta’ Ba’d al-Kuttaab (70): 

    This label is wrong with regard to wording, and with regard 
    to the meaning. 

    With regard to wording, that is because the da’wah is not 
    being attributed to the one who started it, namely Shaykh Muhammad, rather 
    it is being attributed to ‘Abd al-Wahhaab, who had nothing to do with it. 
    The proper name for it would be al-Da’wah al-Muhammadiyyah (“the Muhammadan 
    call”).  

    But these opponents realized that this would be a good name 
    that would not put anyone off, so they changed it to this distorted name. 

    With regard to the meaning, that is because this da’wah did 
    not drift away from the way of the righteous salaf, namely the Sahaabah, 
    Taabi’een and their followers. So it should rightly be called the Salafi 
    da’wah, because the one who founded it did not introduce any innovation in 
    that which was named after him, as the promoters of misguided sects such as 
    the Ismailis and Qarmatiyyah introduced innovations. If those misguided 
    sects had called themselves salafis, the people and the historical record 
    would have rejected this name, because they are outside the path of the 
    salaf and were introduced by their founders. 

    The correct name, both in wording and meaning, for the call 
    of Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab is the Muhammadan da’wah or the 
    Salafi da’wah. 

    But because this name annoys the enemies, they used an 
    incorrect name. Therefore the word Wahhaabi was not known among the 
    followers of the Shaykh, and it is their opponents who gave them this 
    offensive nickname. Indeed, they gave this name to everyone who follows the 
    way of the salaf, even in India, Egypt, Africa and elsewhere. By giving it 
    this label, its opponents wanted to isolate the da’wah from the right path. 
    So they excluded it from the four madhhabs and counted it as a fifth 
    madhhab, “out of envy from their ownselves, even after the truth has become 
    manifest unto them” (al-Baqarah 2:109). End quote.  

    Secondly: 

    The call of Imam Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab in the twelfth 
    century AH was a continuation of the call of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah 
    which appeared in the seventh and eighth centuries AH.  

    The Imam was influenced by it because it was in agreement 
    with the basic principles of Islam with regard to beliefs and rulings. These 
    principles included the following: 

    1-Relying on the Holy Qur’aan and 
    the saheeh Sunnah as the primary sources of legislation

    2-Keenness to adhere to the way 
    of the righteous salaf, namely the Sahaabah, Taabi’een, the four imams and 
    those who followed them.

    3-Calling people to Tawheed and 
    rejection of shirk.

    4-Affirming that which Allaah has 
    affirmed for Himself and denying that which He has denied for Himself with 
    regard to the divine names and attributes.

    5-Rejection of fanaticism in 
    following imams and calling for adherence to the truth based on evidence.

    6-Promotion of the Sunnah and 
    fighting innovation.

    The book was the link between the two imams. Imam Muhammad 
    ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab paid a great deal of attention to the books of Shaykh 
    al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah and his student Ibn al-Qayyim. 

    ‘Abd al-Rahmaan ibn ‘Abd al-Lateef Aal al-Shaykh said in
    Mashaaheer ‘Ulama’ Najd wa Ghayrihim 
    (18): 

    He wrote out with his own hand many of the books of Shaykh 
    al-Islam Ibn Tayimiyah, and some of them are still extant in the British 
    Museum in London. End quote. 

    Muslim writers and others, such as some of the Orientalists, 
    have pointed in their books to the link between Imam Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab and 
    the da’wah of Shaykh al-Islam. 

    The great scholar Shaykh Ahmad ibn Hajar Aal Bootaami 
    mentioned many statements in his book al-Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd 
    al-Wahhaab, such as the following: 

    ‘Abd al-Muta’aal al-Sa’eedi said in his book 
    al-Mujaddidoon fi’l-Islam: 

    He started to promote the same message as Ibn Taymiyah before 
    him, of Tawheed and worship of Allaah alone. 

    Al-Ameer Shakeeb Arsalaan said in Part Four of Haadir 
    al-‘Aalim al-Islaami, under the tile Tareekh Najd al-Hadeeth (the 
    history of modern Najd): 

    He had imbibed the principles of al-Haafiz Hujjat al-Islam 
    Ibn Taymiyah … and he started to think of restoring Islam to its former 
    purity. I do not think that he come up with any ideas different from the 
    ideas of Ibn Taymiyah. End quote.  

    Al-Haafiz Wahbah said in his book Jazeerat al-‘Arab: 

    Their teachings are identical to that which was written by 
    Ibn Taymiyah and his student in their books, although they differed with 
    them concerning a few minor issues. End quote. 

    Manhaj Haroon said, refuting the English writer Count Wales: 

    Everything that Shaykh Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab said has been said 
    by others who came before him of imams and scholars, and the noble Sahaabah. 
    He did not go beyond anything that Imam Ahmad and Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah 
    have mercy on them) had said. End quote. 

    Muhammad Diya’ al-Deen al-Rayyis said: 

    … Ibn Taymiyah is the direct teacher of Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab, 
    even though there were four centuries between them. He read his books and 
    was completely influenced by his teachings. End quote. 

    Brockelmann said in History of the Islamic Peoples: 

    In Baghdad, Muhammad studied the fiqh of Ahmad ibn Hanbal, 
    then he studied the writings of Ahmad ibn Taymiyah who had revived the 
    teachings of Ibn Hanbal in the fourteenth century (CE). In fact his study of 
    the views of these two imams led him to the conclusion that Islam, in the 
    form that was prevalent during his time, especially among the Turks, was 
    mixed with a great deal of incorrect ideas that had nothing to so with the 
    sound Islamic teachings. End quote. 

    Ahmad Ameen said: 

    … In his da’wah and teachings, he followed the example of a 
    great scholar and teacher who had appeared in the seventh century AH at the 
    time of the Sultan al-Naasir, namely Ibn Taymiyah, who believed in ijtihaad 
    and was a free thinker within the limits set by the Qur’aan and Sunnah. It 
    seems that Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab knew of Ibn Taymiyah, who was his 
    imam and leader, and his example, the one who inspired him with regard to 
    ijtihaad and calling for reform. End quote. 

    See: Athar Da’wat Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah 
    fi’l-Harakaat al-Islamiyyah al-Mu’aasirah (1/136-138) by Salaah al-Deen 
    Maqbool. 

    Thirdly: 

    But despite this strong link between the two imams, Imam 
    Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab was a follower of evidence and was not a blind 
    follower of personalities. He understood that Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah 
    was one of the great imams of Islam, but that all humans are prone to error. 
    He understood that Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) was not an 
    innovator who introduced a new message that was alien to Islam, rather he 
    was following the way of the righteous salaf and following should be based 
    on evidence and consensus among the imams. But no imam should be followed 
    blindly no matter how great his level of knowledge, rather anyone’s opinion 
    may be accepted or rejected except the Prophet  (peace and blessings of 
    Allaah be upon him). 

    Shaykh al-Fawzaan (may Allaah preserve him) said in 
    al-Bayaan bi’l-Daleel (150), refuting the claim that Shaykh Muhammad ibn 
    ‘Abd al-Wahhaab was nothing but a carbon-copy of Ibn Taymiyah: 

    This is what he said about the academic level of Shaykh 
    Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab: He did not study anything but the writing of 
    Ibn Taymiyah! It is as if he had not read the biography of the Shaykh and 
    did not know anything about his level of knowledge, or he did know it but he 
    concealed it in order to demean him and to deceive those who knew nothing 
    about the Shaykh.  

    But this does not conceal the truth. Writers have written 
    many books about the Shaykh (may Allaah have mercy on him) that have been 
    published throughout the world and which are known to the elite and common 
    folk alike. He (may Allaah have mercy on him) studied fiqh, hadeeth and 
    usool in depth, including the books of ‘aqeedah that were compiled and 
    written by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah and his student Ibn al-Qayyim. He 
    graduated at the hands of great scholars and imams in various fields in 
    Najd, the Hijaaz, al-Ihsa’ and Basrah. He was granted ijaazahs to narrate 
    from them and convey their knowledge.  He studied, issued fatwas and wrote 
    books about fiqh, hadeeth and ‘aqeedah until he earned the admiration of 
    those who gathered around him or listened to his lessons and debates, or who 
    read any of his writings. His writings point to the vastness of his 
    knowledge of Islamic sciences and the depth of his understanding. What he 
    spoke of in those writings was not limited only to the books of Ibn Taymiyah 
    – as those who are ignorant or who pretend to be ignorant think – rather he 
    also quoted the views of prominent imams on fiqh, tafseer and hadeeth, which 
    is indicative of the depth of his knowledge and understanding, and his keen 
    insight. His books that have been printed and are in circulation bear 
    witness to that, praise be to Allaah. He did not quote only the words of 
    Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah and ignore the opinions of others, unless he 
    believed Ibn Taymiyah’s view to be stronger on the basis of evidence. In 
    fact, he disagreed with Ibn Taymiyah on some matters of fiqh. End quote. 

    For more information please see the answers to questions no. 
    36616, 
    10867 and 
    12203.