Imaam Muqbil bin Haadee al-Waadi'ee (rahimahullaah), the great scholar and muhaddith of Yemen wrote in (فضائح ونصائح), p. 151, when he was asked about Qutb and Banna being considered "Two Imaams":

Yes, they are two Imaams, but from the Imaams of Ahl ul-Bid'ah (People of Innovation) and the evidence for this is what occured from Sayyid Qutb of belittlement of the affair of the Companions, and likewise his saying of Wahdat ul-Wujood, and there are affairs that our brother Rabee' bin Haadee - may Allaah preserve him - has clarified. And as for Hasan al-Banna, the one whom I used to think was upon good and guidance, and I had commented in my book "al-Makhraj min al-Fitnah" that I had said about him whatever I said before I came to know his aqidah (creed) and his haqiqah (reality). As for [what I say now]: Then he is a deviant strayer (zaa'igh daall).

Two Imaams of Ahl ul-Bid'ah wad-Dalaal and certainly if any of the Imaams of the Sunnah from the Salaf were alive today that would be the exact same judgement upon these Jahmite, Ash'aris for whose sake the Ikhwanis (posing as Salafis) show enmity to the Salafi da'wah, its scholars and its adherents and for whose sake nowadays they spend from their own wealth, and appear on blogs and forums, to defend them - in a manner that they never ever, not even for one day, let alone, one hour, came out to defend the honor of Uthmaan (radiallaahu anhu) or Mu'aawiyyah (radiallaahu anhu) except with that fake piety after they trawled through the tapes of Shaykh Rabee' just so that they could find a statement that they could run with, "Hey Shaykh Rabee' speaks ill of Mu'aawiyyah, and look at me, I'm defending the honor of Mu'aawiyyah" - these are fakes, liars and shysters. This judgment can be made because we judge by people's outward actions, and our deen is not the deen of the Murji'ah where the outward actions have no connection to the inward actions (of the heart). If they cared for Mu'awiyah and Uthman and the Bani Umayyah whom Qutb made Takfir of then it would have angered them more that Qutb actually said what he said, was refuted by Mahmood Shakir in 1952, and had the hujjah established upon him, persisted in that up until his death, continuing to publish those books in which he wrote those scathing attacks - this would have angered them more than it would have angered them that Shaykh Rabee wrote refutations against Qutb in defence of the Companions. But in reality they behaved the other way around - and they certainly are not going to deny this because the whole world will know them to be liars if they did so. So we say again: All praise is due to Allaah who exposed these fakes, shysters and liars by virtue of their own actions. Of what value is your concern today for Mu'aawiyyah (radiallaahu anhu) except as a means to take revenge upon Shaykh Rabee' because he started speaking about your rumooz as Shaykh Ibn Uthaymin very aptly, correctly and accurately described you (see here!)?

A Note About Wahdat ul-Wujood

As for what Shaykh Muqbil has said regarding Wahdat ul-Wujood then many Scholars have pointed out that Sayyid Qutb in his commentary on Surahs al-Hadid and al-Ikhlas has written with what amounts to the doctrine of Wahdat ul-Wujood, and they include the likes of Imaam al-Albaanee (see here and here), Imaam Ibn Uthaymin (see here), Shaykh Muhammad bin Jameel Zaynoo (see here), and it has also been pointed out by other Scholars whose statements we have yet to document.

And Shaykh Abdullaah ad-Dawaish also pointed out regarding the saying of Qutb in his commentary is Surah al-Ikhlas, as occurs in "al-Murid az-Zilaal" (p. 312):

This is the saying of the people of Ittihaad (Divine Union), the Heretics, who are more disbelieving than the Jews and the Christians, as has been pointed out by Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah ....

So he corroborated that this saying of Qutb is the saying of the people of Ittihaad, and a page later, Shaykh ad-Dawaish added:

Perhaps he did not intend what his words cause [one] to understand [from them] of the saying of the Ittihaadiyyah, but we only intended to make notification of his speech so that whoever does not understand is not deceived by it...

Then he goes on to mention that Qutb has other words in which he refutes Wahdat ul-Wujood in one of his works "Khasaa'is at-Tasawwur al-Islaamee". And Shaykh Rabee' himself pointed out in his book (أضواء إسلامية على عقيدة سيد قطب وفكره ), published around 15 years ago, that Qutb, in the very first edition of az-Zilaal, published in 1952, negated Wahdat ul-Wujood, and after quoting the passage, Shaykh Rabee' commented:

This is what Sayyid Qutb affirmed in the first edition, this good and strong speech in which he attacked Wahdat ul-Wujood with an attack of one who knows it is kufr and misguidance, and that it is the aqidah of other than Muslims...

And then the Shaykh gave evidence for this being in the first edition, by giving all the full print, publishing house, and print dates for the 1st edition where this was taken from:

For the reason that those who tried to defend Qutb, falsely claimed that in the second edition, Qutb refuted this doctrine of Wahdat ul-Wujood, thereby overturning what he wrote in Surah al-Hadid and Surah al-Ikhlas (in the first edition as they claimed), and this is incorrect, and was just a tactic to defend what is found in those Surahs of the saying of Ittihaad and which he wrote at the end of the 1950s, and which he never took out of his commentary, rather these sayings remained in az-Zilaal all the way to 1966 at the end of his life.

The issue here is this:

The books of Sayyid Qutb are distributed the world over, his brother Mohammad Qutb was advised by Shaykh Zainoo to clarify the mistakes of his brother and in particular his Ta'weel of al-Istiwaa and the doctrine of Wahdat ul-Wujood whose expression is found in the commentary (see here), a group of Scholars have corroborated that it is not possible to understand from Qutb's words except the doctrine of Wahdat ul-Wujood - from them Shaykh Ibn Uthaymin and Shaykh al-Albani - and when you add to this, the doctrines of the Jahmiyyah, Mu'tazilah, Ash'ariyyah that are also found in the book, alongside the madhhab of the Khawaarij, rather what is worse, more evil and more repugnant, which is Takfir of the entire Ummah without exception, and calls for violent Leninist revolutions and so on and so on - then even if Qutb refuted Wahdat ul-Wujood in another place in az-Zilal or another book, what is the correct Sunni, Salafi, Shar'iyy stance towards the books of the Innovators that contain these major innovations - [even if their authors repented, for argument's sake and passed away decades ago] - and especially when the one writing them is not a Scholar, but an ignoramus and does not have any sound Islamic Sharee'ah knowledge or knowledge of Hadith or Fiqh that the Ummah can benefit from and which would compensatec for his great misguidance?

Now that's the question that your Qutbi who is out there on the blogs and forums, bending over backwards to defend Qutb and his ideology and his books, needs to answer. Instead we see them running around latching on to this statement of the Muftee, and this old statement of al-Albani, and this other statement of Ibn Jibreen and so on - all to defend Qutb and his books, while there exists what is multiple times more than that of defenses, commendations, praises for Shaykh Rabee' from a multitude of Imaams of the religion and Scholars, and a lot of them specifically for refutation of Qutb's misguidance - and despite all of that, they do not apply these sayings in the same way for Shaykh Rabee', an Imaam of the religion and specifically in the field of da'wah and calling to Tawhid and refuting what opposes it as affirmed by Shaykh Ibn Uthaymin (see the Shaykh's words destroying the Qutbiyyah in this article here). So we see clearly these are followers of desires, and they follow shubuhaat, they do not implement the usool of the Salafi Manhaj - which is to follow the daleel, evidence and judge by the criterion of the usool that the Salaf were upon, and all of this effort to try and defend the Soofees, and Jahmite Ash'aris like Qutb and Banna is the clearest of evidences that these people have little in connection with the Salafi Manhaj and in fact it is a revilement of their own aqidah, because a sound Salafi aqidah would not make them go to these types of lengths for a people who, putting aside there Jahmism, Ash'arism, Sufism, Kharijism, Rafidism, have no other benefit in the religion except the creation of vile hizbiyyah, differing, splitting and hatred in the Ummah - all in the name of rectification!

The reality is that they are actually upon the "fikr" (ideology) of Sayyid Qutb, they agree with it and subscribe to it and that is why they are restless, read the absolutely excellent words of Shaykh Salih Aal ash-Shaykh, regarding Qutb and his "fikr" (ideology):

• Shaykh Saalih Aal ash-Shaykh: The Role of the 'Fikr' (Ideology) of Sayyid Qutb in Splitting, Disunity and The Emergence of the Jama'aat and the Freedom and Innocence of True Islamic Knowledge (Ilm) From All Of That - (see here)

Now lets go one step further and lets say Qutb repented from all of that before he died. Is that really the point here, about the individual and what is between him and his Lord? Of course not! It's not about Qutb as a person at all. He's gone and his affair is between him and his Lord. Its about his books which are spread the world over and which contain calamities, great great calamities which the Salaf would have shuddered at and for which a people claiming Sunnah and Salafiyyah are amassing all the shubuhaat (misconceptions) they can gather in order to defend Qutb and to prevent the people from asceticism towards his books! This is why we see them today making attachments to the Mufti Shaykh Abdul-Aziz Aal ash-Shaykh. To some of these people the Mufti is a kaafir, apostate, but its fine to use his words to defend the individual on account of whose doctrines they are making Takfir of the Mufti in the first place. Others consider the Mufti a stooge and a pawn and others may not verbally express Takfir, but harbor it on account of the doctrines of Sayyid Qutb they claim to be the truth. And there are others who simply have resentment and hate towards these Scholars, whilst finding utility in some of their sayings.

So this is the reality of the condition of these people, and these people are more interested in the fikr (ideology) of Qutb than they are about the person of Qutb himself. Because as we said in a previous article, no sane person, claiming Sunnah and Salafiyyah goes to these lengths in order to defend a man in whose books there is nothing to be found but some literary excellence in addition to the deen of the Khawaarij, the poison of the Raafidah, the deen of the Jahmiyyah in denying Allaah's uluww and the deen of the Kullaabiyyah Ash'ariyyah in negating "hawaadith" from Allaah, and the deen of the Mu'tazilah in negating al-Istiwaa and rejecting aahaad hadith in aqidah, and the doctrine of the Jabariyyah and statements amounting to the deen of the Ittihaadiyyah and what is more than this. You see no one exhibits this type of behaviour, its not possible. This shows that there is something that goes beyond the person of Qutb himself. It's his fikr (ideology) and his manhaj (methodology). If it had been Taqi ad-Din an-Nabahani in place of Sayyid Qutb, the battle today would have been over Taqi ad-Din an-Nabahani, and it would have been these same people conquering mountains, taking to the seas, entering the depths of the earth and rising into the heavens in balloons, for the sake of defending Taqi ad-Din an-Nabahani. You see the names and personalities are not really what is at issue here, its the ideologies and methodologies.

It is a battle between the Salafi aqidah and manhaj and between the doctrines, ideologies and methodologies which simply happen to be represented in the works of Qutb, Banna and Mawdudi - be not in any doubt about that!