[muzzammil]

Assalamu alaykum,

I am not a historian, but would like some feedback on the following issue(s) which I happened to come across. We tend to blame terrorism on Wahhabis, which is notoriously the case with Timothy Winter from Cambridge (e.g. here and in his appearance on the Dispatches programme), Hisham Kabbani from America, perhaps Nuh Keller from Jordan and Stephen Schwartz. BUT how accurate is this claim? The major manifestations of so-called Islamist terrorism are a result of the Afghani-Abduh-Banna revival; I know the Ikhwan al-Muslimin are diverse and tend to create what Oliver Roy calls "Islamo-nationalisms" as opposed to pan-Islamist objectives, but the extreme militant groups stem from this movement. The movement was created by a Sufi: Hasan al-Banna, influenced by a Sufi admirer: al-Afghani, and had little if anything to do with Wahhabis. Osama bid Laden was not greatly influenced by his Saudi background, and adopted moreso Qutbism than Wahhabism in his militant interpretations of Islam (according to Natana Delong-Bas, Wahhabi Islam). Also interesting is the affilitation of Sufis to this cause, e.g. Izz al-Qassam who began the military wing of Hamas was a Sufi and even the hadith expert Abd al-Fattah Abu Ghudda who was a major representative of the Ikhwan in Syria. Furthermore, the major Wahhabi muftis like Bin Baz condemned Bin Laden and his group in the ninetees when most hadn't even heard of Bin Laden; Wahhabis also condemned the killing of innocents and suicide bombing in the strongest of terms - so where does the Wahhabi link come from? Is it that they advocate fundamentalism, xenophobia, puritanism and anti-traditionalism? The political Wahhabis have been friends with the West ever since they gained power and ideologically opposed the Ikhwan; furthermore they are Hanbalis by their own claim although they differ to some degree with mainstream Hanbalism and advocate a softer form of Taqlid and more critical thinking (Ijtihad) e.g. see Idjtihad and Taqlid in 18th and 19th Century Islam by Rudolph Peters which compares the Ijtihad advocated by Shawkani, Sanusi, Shah Waliullah and Hamid ibn Nasir ibn Muammar (a Wahhabi) and it turns out the Wahhabi was the strongest in favour of Taqlid along with Dehlawi and the strongest against were Shawkani and (the Sufi) Sanusi. Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab's reform was directed towards Muslims in his emphasis on Tawhid, and not towards a global jihad; he and his son Abd Allah explicitly denied any antipathy to Sufism per se, although later Wahhabis rejected Sufism.

Moreover, with reference to the work of John Voll, the eighteenth and nineteenth century reforms carried out by Sufis e.g. Ahmad ibn Idris al-Fasi, Muhammad ibn Ali al-Sanusi, Uthman ibn al-Fudiye, the Naqshbandis Syed Ahmad Shaheed and Ismail Shaheed, Shah Waliullah al-Dehlawi (some who called themselves Taraqa Muhammadiyya, indicating their revival) had the following in common:

Strongly advocating Ijtihad and opposition to madhhab-fanaticism (e.g. Waliullah in al-iqd al-jid and al-Sunusi in iqaz al-wasnan)

An emphasis on Hadith scholarship

An antipathy to popular religion and saint veneration (Ibn Idris even changed the shaykh-murid relationsip to one of ustadh-talib)

Opposition to cultural practices

If these in any way mean "fundamentalism" (as they do to Voll), it means they are a Sufi phenomenan, internal and not external to the dynamics of Sunni intellectualism. Ahmad ibn Idris in fact enjoyed a close relation with Wahhabis although he disagreed with them in their near total rejection of Sufism and their branding of other Muslims as kafirs or mushriks; but he agreed with them in in their emphasis on tawhid, opposition to popular religion and extreme Taqlid. Note: Wahhabis are not anti-taqlid unlike the Ahl Hadith like Shawkani, Siddiq Hasan Khan and Al-Albani, whereas the latter are invariably politically inactive (in fact Albani thought the Palestinians should withdraw for which the Sufi Buti blasted him).

So, to ask: is it fair to blame Wahhabis as does Kabbani and Winter? And is not some of the reforms Wahhabis advocated closer to the Sunni/Sufi spirit but we're just afraid to say so because of being branded "Wahhabis" (which became a derogatory word especially in India even for those who had no relation with them whatsoever - Ahmad Shaheed, for example, had written Sirat Mustaqim and created his Tariqa before his visit to Mecca and Ismail Shaheed taught Sufism in Mecca)? I am certainly not advocating terrorism or the like which we all condemn, but asking for an intellectually honest position.

[muzzammil]

Articles referred to above:

Attached File(s)

•  Sindi_and_Wahhab_in_18th_Century_Medina.pdf (467.8K)
  Number of downloads: 19
•  Ijtiahad_and_Taqlid_in_Sanusi__Dehlawi__ibn_Muammar_Wahhabi_and_Shawkani.pdf (400.5K)
  Number of downloads: 29

[Hamoudeh]

Assalamu `Alaykum

I appreciate the effort brother, but it is all very messy and contains a number of fatal methodological and logical flaws. The worst part is that people are being linked to matters they are free of. And to end with Wahhabi apologetics concerning reform, that is just giving it away for free brother. I will address that part of your thread at a later time insha'Allah.

Quote

We tend to blame terrorism on Wahhabis, which is notoriously the case with Timothy Winter from Cambridge (e.g. here and in his appearance on the Dispatches programme), Hisham Kabbani from America, perhaps Nuh Keller from Jordan and Stephen Schwartz. BUT how accurate is this claim?

These four individuals are all very different people who have made different statements for different reasons in this regard. They cannot be grouped together this way, and so we are left without any actual claim. The one who comes closest to your three-worded description of the problem is Stephen Schwartz - so I don't know why you say 'perhaps' there. Shaykh Hisham Kabbani has broader views while Shaykh Murad's article - written shortly after 9-11 or another event if I'm not mistaken – proved to be in need of a commentary nearly just as long as the original shortly after. How about Shaykh Hamza at the time? Be that as it may, none of this can be pinned on Shaykh Nuh Keller. That leaves us with the question, how significant is this problem in the first place? Who is "we" in this regard? I know I'm not part of it. This brings us to the second problem:

Quote

terrorism ... Islamo-nationalisms ... pan-Islamist ... extreme militant groups ... militant interpretations ... killing of innocents and suicide bombing ... fundamentalism ...

What exactly are we speaking about here? If we are speaking of "blaming Wahhabism for terrorism" then how exactly is such terrorism defined? The above collective of terms used to linking someone to terrorism is clearly unacceptable as a proper definition. I understand guerilla terrorism [as opposed to state-terrorism] to be either violent and unlawful rebellion against authorities, or an unlawful attack against other authorities - by means of inflicting civilian casualties upon the said enemy. I suppose it can be broadened, but it does not need to include any of the above except the term itself, and the killing of innocents. Suicide-bombing is a matter of suicide, acceptable suicide, or no suicide at all - and thus not harming anyone else physically. A bomb - via suicide or otherwise - harming others, is then a matter of these others and the particular rules concerning harming these others. The rest can all be legitimate views having nothing to do with terrorism either in Islam or international law.

Quote

Oliver Roy ... Natana Delong-Bas ... Rudolph Peters ... John Voll

Within an orientalist context, orientalist sources are very valuable. In the context of actual Islamic history, however, let alone religious traditions they are of little value. I don't think it is necessary to expand upon the latter, as for the former suffice to say that the Muslims have a system that is superior to any other system in the world - including the western approach to history. I don't mean this to devaluate their opinions or disrespect their insights - as there are some very impressive orientalists around - but it is important to clarify what the methodology ought to be in a discussion amongst Muslims. If the purpose is to use this material in a different context, I will also add orientalists points of view in support of my arguments. However, in such a context I suggest a completely different approach, and perhaps we have reached the point where it is needed for Muslims as well. This being the fact that any terrorism or terrorist ideology attributed to any Islamic ideology, can as easily or even more strongly be attributed to other factors such as nationalism, communism, capitalism, secularism, and so on. Without these influences, we would have never reached the low point we are today in terrorism as much as many other problems in our societies.

Quote

The major manifestations of so-called Islamist terrorism are a result of the Afghani-Abduh-Banna revival; I know the Ikhwan al-Muslimin are diverse and tend to create what Oliver Roy calls "Islamo-nationalisms" as opposed to pan-Islamist objectives, but the extreme militant groups stem from this movement. The movement was created by a Sufi: Hasan al-Banna, influenced by a Sufi admirer: al-Afghani, and had little if anything to do with Wahhabis.

Absolutely no terrorist methodology is found in the teachings of Imam Hasan al-Banna, or even that of Shaykh Muhammad `Abduh or al-Afghani. The mere fact that they have been involved in the foundation of Islamic movements [political or religious] is of course no indication of such methodology whatsoever. What Roy calls Islamo-nationalism, is called Ummah in Islam; whether pan-Islamic, or on a regional basis. Moreover, like the previous four these three are no collective in their views concerning politics and religion. Al-Afghani had little to do with either Sufism or scholarship, he was a politician. `Abduh was a modernist Mufti of Egypt – not a Sufi either – while the only one in a Tariqa was Imam Hasan al-Banna and there is nothing heterodox to be found in his writings. `Abduh did have certain things in common with Wahhabism such as the Salafi methodology – albeit with different definitions – and the la madhhabi methodology, which you marginalize in reference to Peters later on. Later on comes a direct link, through his student Rashid Rida.

Quote

Also interesting is the affilitation of Sufis to this cause, e.g. Izz al-Qassam who began the military wing of Hamas was a Sufi and even the hadith expert Abd al-Fattah Abu Ghudda who was a major representative of the Ikhwan in Syria.

And neither of them have been involved in terrorism, Shaykh `Abd al-Fattah in fact opposed the violent factions that began their attacks in Halab and elsewhere, leading to the civil war between the Ba`ath and the Ikhwan at large.

Quote

Osama bin Laden was not greatly influenced by his Saudi background, and adopted moreso Qutbism than Wahhabism in his militant interpretations of Islam (according to Natana Delong-Bas, Wahhabi Islam). … Furthermore, the major Wahhabi muftis like Bin Baz condemned Bin Laden and his group in the ninetees when most hadn't even heard of Bin Laden;

The distinguishing between Wahhabism and Qutbism is one that is made by both orientalists as those known by these Qutbists as Madakhila. These are amongst those in the tradition of Ahl al-Sa`ud, and much more loyal followers to their Shaykh Rabi` al-Madkhali than the Qutbists of Qutb. In fact, the limited attention that is given to Qutb is interpreted in a particular fashion which is not agreed upon at all - even amongst orientalists. According to Professor David Waines, Qutb is free of the destructive ideology of some of those that came after him. As for Bin Laden, he was influenced by his Sa`udi background like anyone else, and even today there are discussions whether he is or was Hanbali or not. As for his conflict with the Sa`udi scholars, one needs to go back to before Bin Baz’ gave his Fatwa for the Americans as well as the Oslo Accords. Before that time, there was praise from the likes of Ibn `Uthaymin and others in Sa`udi – which perfectly fits in the context of an Afghan war. The one you should have mentioned was Ayman al-Zawahiri.

Quote

The political Wahhabis have been friends with the West ever since they gained power and ideologically opposed the Ikhwan

Politics go beyond ideology, and geopolitics go beyond regional conflicts. The Ikhwan were in fact natural allies of Sa`udi considering their opposition to the ruling nationalists in Syria, Egypt and elsewhere. When Shaykh Abu Ghudda was forced to leave Syria, where did he go to? When Shaykh al-Albani was forced to do so, where did he go to? The Takfiris have been greater opponents of the Ikhwan than the Sa`udis, which went as far as al-Zarqawi accusing them of betrayal and treating them as enemies in Iraq.

Quote

Wahhabis also condemned the killing of innocents and suicide bombing in the strongest of terms - so where does the Wahhabi link come from? Is it that they advocate fundamentalism, xenophobia, puritanism and anti-traditionalism? ... Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab's reform was directed towards Muslims in his emphasis on Tawhid, and not towards a global jihad; he and his son Abd Allah explicitly denied any antipathy to Sufism per se, although later Wahhabis rejected Sufism.

It comes from what followed from the alliance between the Wahhabis and Ahl al-Sa`ud, which took the anathematic views of Wahhabism and directed them against the Ottomans . This meant that rebellion was obligated, and Muslim blood became permitted. It is here where the terrorism of the kind we see today is to be found that includes the killing of civilians. The fact that they have split a few decades ago, one becoming involved with non-Muslims and the other becoming involved with other heretic sects in different regions, doesn’t change the source – which dates from far before anything mentioned in that regard so far. And though Ibn `Abd al-Wahhab and even his son may not have had this in mind, their followers fought what they believed to be Jihad against what they considered to be the polytheist Ottoman empire.

Wassalam

[muzzammil]

I don't disagree with most of what you wrote, but I would like clarification on a few matters. You connect "salafism" to "Wahhabism", although the latter is to some extent pro-Taqlid and the former anti-Taqlid. You seem to shift blame from the salafist stream of anti-traditionalism and put blame on the Wahhabis. Furthermore, why do you not attack the la-madhhabiyya (or its semblance) and the tawhid movements of Uthman ibn al-Fudiye, Shah Waliullah, Ahmad ibn Idris and Muhammad al-Sanusi? Also, the trend by Winter and others to put the blame squarely on Wahhabis, ignores puritanism and efforts of tajdid within Sufism and Salafism which arose independently. So the question that needs to be asked: what strains of thought created "terrorism" (the purposeful targeting of civilians for political aims) and do they have more ephasis in Wahhabism than any other movement (say, the Sufi Murabitun?)?

Hamoudeh, on Apr 17 2009, 04:26 AM, said:

And though Ibn `Abd al-Wahhab and even his son may not have had this in mind, their followers fought what they believed to be Jihad against what they considered to be the polytheist Ottoman empire.

Arabia was not under effective Ottoman control, and I think it can safely be said Wahhabis during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries did not rebel against the Ottomans nor did they consider it a “polytheist empire” - where is the evidence for this from the words of Wahhabis? It was the Ottoman Empire (Pasha from Egypt) that attacked the Wahhabis, not the other way round, as far as I can tell. Also Uthman ibn al-Fudiye did not recognise the Ottoman caliphate when he created the Sokoto caliphate.

This post has been edited by muzzammil: 17 April 2009 - 11:43 AM

[Hamoudeh]

Quote

You connect "salafism" to "Wahhabism", although the latter is to some extent pro-Taqlid and the former anti-Taqlid.

If by Salafism you mean the Salafiyya of `Abduh, and by Wahhabism you mean the early Wahhabism that precedes that movement - then indeed there is a difference in their approach to Taqlid. To say that early Wahhabism is pro-Taqlid, however, is unfounded. In reality, it was simply not anti-Taqlid as such and only to the extent where juristic matters were not promoted to the level of creed - which happen to be the matters the dispute is about. As for the latter Wahhabi movement, the Khajnadites, Albanis and Madakhila are no less la madhhabi than `Abduh. In fact, as `Abduh's modernist Da`wa was far more broad it is these later factions of Wahhabism that have become typified as al-la madhhabiyya in the Islamic world. Moreover, the early Wahhabi approach for as far as it exists today is to be found amongst those you consider Qutbist - and there are political reasons in the midst of it all. In the end, similarities are far beyond Taqlid and Ijtihad, and included issues revolving around graves, gatherings and Sufism.

Quote

You seem to shift blame from the salafist stream of anti-traditionalism and put blame on the Wahhabis.

What "salafist stream of anti-traditionalism" are you speaking of when excluding Wahhabism from it, and why?

Quote

Furthermore, why do you not attack the la-madhhabiyya (or its semblance) and the tawhid movements of Uthman ibn al-Fudiye, Shah Waliullah, Ahmad ibn Idris and Muhammad al-Sanusi?

I'm not in the business of attacking anyone for the sake of it, but where exactly have I neglected the relevance of al-la madhhabiyya? Instead, I made the point that later Wahhabism has indeed significant la madhhabi factions. Are you familiar with Shaykh al-Buti's treatise Al-La Madhhabiyya, whose translation has been published by Sunni Publications last year? See: http://www.sunnipubs...h...t&Itemid=26

As for the others, I mention that "I will address that part of your thread at a later time insha'Allah." I am happy you bring it up though, because as I said you are giving this one away for free. This thread of yours was about blaming terrorism on Wahhabis, how exactly has it turned into all-out apologetics for Wahhabism under the umbrella of Sunni reform? Imagine if someone would begin a topic on blaming Shi`a for terrorism, only to be followed by an attempt to justify Shi`ism under the umbrella of some sort of Islamic reform? Would you then still take the first part seriously?

Quote

Also, the trend by Winter and others to put the blame squarely on Wahhabis, ignores puritanism and efforts of tajdid within Sufism and Salafism which arose independently. So the question that needs to be asked: what strains of thought created "terrorism" (the purposeful targeting of civilians for political aims) and do they have more ephasis in Wahhabism than any other movement (say, the Sufi Murabitun?)?

I am still waiting to see how Sufi movements have been the cause of any terrorism in the same fashion. You named names before, they are addressed; you now name others, and if those are addressed you can simply name others yet again. So I await your argument regarding the Murabitun.

Quote

Arabia was not under effective Ottoman control, and I think it can safely be said Wahhabis during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries did not rebel against the Ottomans nor did they consider it a “polytheist empire” - where is the evidence for this from the words of Wahhabis? It was the Ottoman Empire (Pasha from Egypt) that attacked the Wahhabis, not the other way round, as far as I can tell. Also Uthman ibn al-Fudiye did not recognize the Ottoman caliphate when he created the Sokoto caliphate.

The point was terrorism, being violent and unlawful rebellion against authorities, or an unlawful attack against other authorities - by means of inflicting civilian casualties upon the said enemy - and not recognition. If by Arabia you mean Najd, then this wasn't the point either; it is the Hijaz that is relevant here. The Wahhabis captured Mecca [as well as Karbala in Iraq] in the first years of the 19th century, and the entire Hijaz in the 20th century. It is not a secret that Ottoman and Sunni beliefs in general were and still are being declared to be polytheism, but indeed this had occurred politically as well. Shaykh Salih al-Munajjid has written an apologetic treatise expressing the exact views you are expressing, but unfortunately this only concerns Najd and Ibn `Abd al-Wahhab himself. A much better treatise is that of Shaykh Nasir al-Fahd, which makes clear that the war was one of creed and cites for example Su`ud b. `Abd al-`Aziz who accused the Ottomans of shirk in a letter to their `Iraqi governor [see: http://talk.islamicn...read.php?t=2485 ].

Wassalam

[Suhaib Jobst]

I would largely agree with the analysis given by Sidi Hamoudeh, jazakallah khair. The missing link between Salafiyya and Wahhabism was provided by Rashid Rida, the student of Abduh, who opened up a link between the two that would later be forged by others. The leading la-madhhabi Masoo'mee acknowledged his debt to Abduh, while Albani frequently cited Abduh and Rida favorably in his books. Wahhabism and Salafiyya have far more commonalities than differences: both claim to be a "return" to the "Qur'an and Sunna", free from the madhahib. Their 'aqida is one the same as well, especially when it comes to the Divine Sifat. Wa Allahu A'lam.

[muzzammil]

Hamoudeh, on 17 April 2009 - 05:46 PM, said:

The point was terrorism, being violent and unlawful rebellion against authorities, or an unlawful attack against other authorities - by means of inflicting civilian casualties upon the said enemy - and not recognition. If by Arabia you mean Najd, then this wasn't the point either; it is the Hijaz that is relevant here. The Wahhabis captured Mecca [as well as Karbala in Iraq] in the first years of the 19th century, and the entire Hijaz in the 20th century. It is not a secret that Ottoman and Sunni beliefs in general were and still are being declared to be polytheism, but indeed this had occurred politically as well. Shaykh Salih al-Munajjid has written an apologetic treatise expressing the exact views you are expressing, but unfortunately this only concerns Najd and Ibn `Abd al-Wahhab himself. A much better treatise is that of Shaykh Nasir al-Fahd, which makes clear that the war was one of creed and cites for example Su`ud b. `Abd al-`Aziz who accused the Ottomans of shirk in a letter to their `Iraqi governor [see: http://talk.islamicn...read.php?t=2485 ]

The major criticism of Orientialism (by Edward Said and others) was its analysis of Islam from a Western vantage point that thought of it as backwards, intellectually barren and monolithic. I think the same can be said about many Muslim opinions of Wahhabism. Natana DeLong Bas' 2004 book Wahhabi Islam covers the topic in great and accurate detail, using sources contemporary to Ibn Abd al-Wahhab (his own writings, interviews conducted with Wahhabis at the time, and writings of opponents e.g. Ahmad Zayn Dahlan).

Firstly, the things for which Ibn Abd al-Wahhab (d 1791/2) was criticised, e.g. opposition to grave veneration, opposition to fanatic madhhabism, and his emphasis on hadith scholarship, was in fact consistent with other reform movements in his time (the 18th century). Ahmad b Idris one of the great Sufi masters of Morocco from the 18th century had many of the same views: he strongly opposed saint veneration, he rejected kalam entirely, rejected madhhabs entirely (he was a more hardline critic than was Ibn Abd al-Wahhab), and used Tasawwuf as the vehicle by which the seeker could attain a direct relationship with the Prophet; his emphasis, however, was Prayer and remembrance of Allah. Ibn Idris was the greatest influence on Muhammad b Ali al-Sanusi, the founder of the Sanusi tariqa, prominent in Libya. Sanusi also rejected taqlid. When students of the Sanusi Way took up arms against the Italian colonialists, foremost amongst them the great Mujahid Omar Mukhtar, they were branded as Wahhabis. This guilt by association was common, but not without some truth. Ahmad b Idris visited Mecca during Wahhabi rule (in the early 19th century) and found sanctuary there with his hardline view on adherance to the Shari'ah. Ahmad b Idris had problems with popular religion as did Wahhabi scholars for which reason they had a common ideological interest. However Ibn Idris had mild criticisms of the Wahhabis, mostly for their rejection of (or indifference to) Tasawwuf which he considered the main vehicle for reform. Similarly, Ahmad Shahid from India, who also opposed popular religion and had some problems (though a lot less than his N African counterparts) with taqlid, was also branded a Wahhabi by the British although his interaction with the Saudi Wahhabis was very limited. In your view, would this mean Ahmad b Idris, Muhammad al-Sanusi and Ahmad Shahid, all renown Sufi masters from the 18th and 19th centuries, were Wahhabis? If not, how would you pigeonhole them? As Sufis? Or Salafis? Or Salafi Sufis?

Secondly, on the issue of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab and violence. Delong Bas shows Ibn Abd al-Wahhab's emphasis was educational and religious reform not violent or political reform as some (like Ibn Abidin) have imagined mostly due to politically inspired propaganda. When he began his preaching on "the message of tawhid", he attacked many of the ulama for ignorance and turning a blind eye to shirk, for which he attained notoreity. In fact during preaching at a certain town an attempt was made at his life. He later returned to al-Uyayna and received protection from Ibn Muamar the amir of the town. Such alliances between religious and political leaders were not unusual at the time. Ibn Abd al-Wahhab was accused of violence against fellow Muslims in his very lifetime, which he vehemently denied. He preferred education and da'wa.

Here is a description of Muhammad ibn al-Wahhab's alliance with Muhammad ibn Saud in 1744 and the different agendas of the two, though they are often conflated:

"Upon his arrival in al-Dir’iyh, Ibn Abd al-Wahhab stayed briefly with Abd Allah ibn Abd al-Rahman ibn Suwaylim and his cousin, Hamid ibn Suwaylim. However, he soon set his sights on the local leader, Muhammad Ibn Saud. As with his stay in al-Uyaynah, Ibn Abd al-Wahhab did not immediately engage in public preaching activities in al-Dir’iyah, nor did he immediately preach his message of tawhid to Muhammad Ibn Saud. Rather, he conducted his preaching activities in clandestine visits with small groups of people. It was only after gaining some important adherents that a delegation of two blind men and a prominent woman renowned for her “intelligence, knowledge and religion” was sent to Muhammad Ibn Saud’s wife and brother with the express purpose of introducing Ibn Abd al-Wahhab’s message to them, particularly the hallmark theme of tawhid.

Muhammad Ibn Saud’s wife was the first to accept Ibn Abd al-Wahhab’s proclamation of God’s special role for Muhammad Ibn Said and to proclaim her belief in it to her husband. Subsequently, two of his brothers, Thunayn and Mashari, also declared their belief and encouraged Muhammad Ibn Saud to support and promote tawhid. After these three declarations, Muhammad Ibn Saud ordered that Ibn Abd al-Wahhab be placed under his protection and brought to him under the escort of his own men. When his brothers persuaded him that his personal intervention would be most effective, Muhammad Ibn Saud himself set out to Ibn Suwaylim’s house to meet Ibn Abd al-Wahhab in person.

Ibn Abd al-Wahhab greeted Muhammad Ibn Saud with the message of tawhid, promising him that if he dedicated himself to the promotion of tawhid and the eradiction of shirk, jahl and divisions among the people, God would grant him and his descendents rule over the lands of Najd and its regions, as well as the people within them. It was clear from his remarks that Ibn Abd al-Wahhab’s interest remained in religious issues but that he was also a pragmatic man who realised that no political leader would be willing to take such great risks for the sake of religion unless some kind of early reward accompanied it.

Thus, in 1744, the famous alliance [between ibn Abd al-Wabbab and Muhammad al-Saud] that led to the first Saudi state was formed between Ibn Abd al-Wahhab and Muhammad ibn Saud, sealed by mutual oath swearing of loyalty. According to this arrangement, ibn Abd al-Wahhab was responsible for religious matters and Muhammad Ibn Saud was in charge of political and military issues. Ibn Abd al-Wahhab promised not to interfere with Muhammad Ibn Saud’s state consolidation, and Muhammad Ibn Saud promised to uphold Ibn Abd al-Wahhab’s religious teachings.

The fault lines of this alliance soon became clear. There is a marked difference between non-interference in military activities and active support and religious legitimation for them. If Ibn Saud had expected Ibn Abd al-Wahhab to legitimate all of his military undertakings for the sake of state consolidation and accumulation of power in the name of jihad as holy war, he must have been severely disappointed. Muhammad Ibn Saud’s first conquest, the people of al-Dir’iyah and their possessions, met with neither approval nor condemnation from Ibn Abd al-Wahhab. Rather than actively supporting or promoting conquest, Ibn Abd al-Wahhab merely acceded to it, hoping that Ibn Saud would get his fell of conquest and then focus on more important matters – those pertaining to religious reform. In fact, as evidence of the lack of religious support this military conquest enjoyed, Ibn Abd al-Wahhab left Ibn Saud’s company altogether during his campaign, devoting himself instead to spiritual matters and prayer. This was hardly what one would expect had Ibn Abd al-Wahhab believed that jihad as holy war was intended to be used as a tool for conquest.

The tension between the two was also apparent in Ibn Abd al-Wahhab’s careful delineation of parameters to be followed by each in their roles as political leader (amir, Muhammad Ibn Saud) and religious leader (imam, Ibn Abd al-Wahhab). According to this vision, the amir was responsible for political, military and economic matters and the imam for religious issues. Only the imam could declare jihad as holy war and this only when the motivating factor was faith alone. Jihad was not intended to serve as a means of acquiring power, wealth or glory. This did not preclude the amir from engaging in military activities he believed were necessary or expedient [but these were not “jihad”]. What it did do was to limit the religious legitimation of those military activities. Because only the imam could declare a jihad as holy war, the amir could not automatically claim that any and all military activities were being carried out in the name of jihad. Thus, Ibn Abd al-Wahhab was able to restrict the declaration of jihad to cases that he believed fir the religious criteria.

Although observers and historians have assumed that any and all military activities undertaken by the Saudis after the 1744 alliance were jihad activities, Ibn Abd al-Wahhab’s teachings and writings do not support this contention. His behaviour – his tendency to withdraw from Ibn Saud’s company during such engagements and his ultimate withdrawal from his position as imam in 1223 – further makes it clear that he did not actively support all Saudi military actions. In fact, Ibn Abd al-Wahhab’s writings and activities after the alliance demonstrate his continued efforts to win converts through discussion, debate and persuasion rather than force.

For example, during the two years following the alliance, Ibn Abd al-Wahhab engaged in a letter-writing campaign in which he contacted local leaders, scholars, and rulers throughout Arabia, explaining his interpretation of tawhid and inviting them to join his movement. Many, though not all, of the recipients responded positively to these missives, although they did not always do so out of religious conviction. These notables were well aware that Ibn Abd al-Wahhab was “in a house of strength” due to his alliance with Muhammad Ibn Saud and that their own continued power bases necessitated accommodation with these two parties.

Those who did not respond positively to Ibn Abd al-Wahhab’s invitiation were not immediately or necessarily declared to be unbelievers (kafirs), who were therefore subject to jihad as holy war. Rather than engaging in immediate warfare, Ibn Abd al-Wahhab persisted in his attempts to engage those who resisted in dialogue and debate in order to try to work out a formal relationship. The conquests of Riyadh and Washm are particularly instructive in this regard.

The conquest of Riyadh occurred neither quickly nor forcibly. It took the Saudis twenty-seven years to consolidate their hold over the important city, suggesting that a considerable amount of time was allowed for the inhabitants to grown in their understanding of and adherence to tawhid.

The conquest began with Ibn Abd al-Wahhab extending an invitation to its ruler, Dham ibn Dawwas, to adhere to his religious teachings. Although Dham ibn Dawwas initially refused his offer, he made peace with the Wahhabis and entered into a truce. This is significant because it shows that a truce with non-Wahhabis was permissible. Initial rejection of Wahhabi teachings did not result in an immediate or permanent state of warfare.

Over time, Dham ibn Dawwas accepted Ibn Abd al-Wahhab’s teachings and even invited some Wahhabi ulama to live and teach in Riyadh. However, Dham ibn Dawwas broke this truce several times. It was only at this point that protracted military activities began, culminating with the final conquest of Riyahd in 1773…Although the Wahhabis legally had the right to put to death any person who had actively fought to oppose them, they did not do so. People were not forced to convert, nor were all of their properties or financial assets confiscated. Instead, Ibn Abd al-Wahhab declared that this was an opportunity to offer the inhabitants protection and to implement order and justice…

Similarly, the conquest of Washm tookm seven years to accomplish. As with Riyadh, Ibn Abd al-Wahhab first engaged in a letter-writing campaign with the inhabitants of Washm” (Wahhabi Islam, 34-37)

In her analysis of his views on jihad it was found Ibn Abd al-Wahhab parted with much traditional views on Jihad and took a very limited view, applying it only for the purposes of defense and self-determination, but in the long-term preferring truces and educational reform. Ibn Abd al-Wahhab taught at Dir'iya but the town was transformed by the Saudi family into a place of luxury and permissiveness much to the distaste of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab himself. But eventually this image of "Wahhabism", i.e. the political one, is what stuck. "Ibn Abd al-Wahhab’s goal of reforming Islam was overshadowed and ultimately overwhelmed by Muhammad Ibn Saud’s quest for state consolidation." (ibid. p. 38).

Your allusion to the letter from Abdul Aziz ibn Saud and the Wahhabi conquests, occured long after Ibn Abd al-Wahhab retreated from public life. "Abd al-Aziz proceeded to expand his vision beyond the confines of Najd into the rest of Arabia, Iraq and Syria. His actions made it clear that the Al Saud family had as its ultimate goal the expansion of its territories and power, with or without religious legitimation. In fact, Saudi-Wahhabi power reached its height between 1792 and 1814, long after Ibn Abd al-Wahhab withdrew from public life. Ibn Abd al-Wahhab remained a consultant to Abd al-Aziz but largely withdrew his legitimation of Saudi military activities." (ibid. p. 39)

Modern jihadism does not derive from Ibn Abd al-Wahhab's teachings, but from Qutb's modernist reading of the Qur'an and Sunna which draws much from "traditional" Islam.

Ibn Abd al-Wahhab's ideas of reform were not much different to those of other reform movements, particularly the Sufi groups of "Tariqa Muhammadiyya" in N Africa and India, the major difference being an indifference (though not outright opposition) to Tasawwuf. In this, he along with the other reformers, was correct in criticising the excessive saint/tomb veneration, the fanaticism in madhhab following, and the mixing of culture with religion. They may have exaggarated the other way (Ahmad b Idris/al-Sanusi in their outright rejection of taqlid/madhhabs, and Muhammad b Abd al-Wahhab's declaring certain acts to be shirk), but this does not make their crticism any less valid, and in fact may have contributed to a resurgence in Muslim scholarship and a useful "tip" of the balance in the right direction: towards the "middle way" in all of these matters. The Wahhabis who originated from Najd may have hardened after the death of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, but this cannot be attributed directly to their founder. In my view, their major errors are twofold: one, their opposition to Tasawwuf, and two, the ta'assub of some of them in declaring all contrary views to theirs illegitimate. The "horn of the devil" may be the power-hungry Saud family, but this must be differentiated from the Wahhabi religious ideology itself which has/had some good in it, but some bad in it too - but so does other religious ideologies including "traditionalist" ones.

1. Was Ahmad ibn Idris founder of the Idrisi Tariqa, Muhammad al-Sanusi founder of the Sanusi Tariqa, and Ahmad Shahid of the Naqshbandi Tariqa, Wahhabis, in their downplaying of taqlid, opposition to kalam, and attack of popular saint/grave veneration?

2. Do you believe the Wahhabi conquests were inspired by the religious convicitions of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab or the political and material greed of the Saudi family based on what I wrote above?

"Although historical and contemporary discussions of Wahhabis and the Wahhabi movement tend to assume that whatever violence Wahhabis have engaged or currently engage in is due to an interpretation of Islam that emphasizes jihad as holy war, this vision is inconsistent with both the historical record and Ibn Abd al-Wahhab’s writings. Rather than proclaiming the responsibility of Muslims to fight permanently and continuously against ungodliness and evil in this world and to consider all non-Wahhabis as unbelievers, Ibn Abd al-Wahhab’s writings reveal a world view in which education and dialogue play a more important role in winning converts and establishing justice than does violence." (Wahhabi Islam, p. 201)

[faqir]

I was wondering if you'd come across the English Translation of "Ad-Dawlat al-'Uthmaniyyah wa-Mawqif Da'wat ash-Shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdil-Wahhab minha" = "The 'Uthmani State & Standpoint of The Da'wah of Shaykh Ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab concerning it" which is widely available on the internet and what your views are about it.

THE 'UTHMAANI STATE AND THE STANDPOINT OF THE DA'WAH OF SHAYKH MUHAMMAD IBN 'ABD AL-WAHHAAB CONCERNING IT

By Shaykh Naasir ibn Hamad al-Fahd

(fakkallaahu asrahu)

In the Name of Allaah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.

All praise is due to Allaah, and may prayers and peace be upon the Messenger of Allaah, and upon his family and his companions and all who followed him.

To proceed:

This is a short study that clarifies the reality of the 'Uthmaani state, which many from among those who are called "Islaamic thinkers" praise and speak well of, and describe it as the last of the bastions of al-Islaam, the destruction of which took away the honour of the Muslims.

Also, it clarifies the reality of the position of the da'wah of Shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhaab – rahimahullaahu ta'aalaa – concerning this state.

And I have divided it into two sections:

The first section: Regarding the 'Uthmaani state.
The second section: Regarding the standpoint of the Shaykh's da'wah concerning it.

THE FIRST SECTION:

THE REALITY OF THE 'UTHMAANI STATE

Verily, whoever considers the nature of the 'Uthmaani state – from its rise up to its fall – will not have any doubt regarding its direct contribution in corrupting the 'aqaa'id (beliefs) of the Muslims, and this becomes clear through two matters:

The first one: through its spreading of shirk.
The second one: through its war against tawheed.

[Those who defend the war of the 'Uthmaaniyyoon against ad-Da'wah as-Salafiyyah claim that this war was a political war. But the case is not so; rather it was from the very beginning a war based on 'aqeedah, started by the fataawaa of their 'ulamaa' from the qubooriyyoon. See Haashiyat Ibn 'Aabideen, 4/262.]

And the 'Uthmaani state spread shirk by spreading the shirk-based tasawwuf that is founded on worshipping the graves and the awliyaa', and this is an established fact that no-one argues about, even those who defend it. And I will quote in what follows some of the texts that prove this, from the very sympathisers with the 'Uthmaani state themselves:

'Abd al-'Azeez ash-Shanaawi said in his book ad-Dawlah al-'Uthmaaniyyah: Dawlah Islaamiyyah Muftaraa 'Alayhaa (The 'Uthmaani State: An Islaamic State Slandered) (1/59) – by way of praise – :

"And one of the manifestations of the religious direction in the policy of the state was the encouragement of tasawwuf among the 'Uthmaaniyyoon. And the state gave the mashaayikh of the sufi tareeqahs wide-ranging authorities and powers over their students and followers. And these tareeqahs initially became widespread in Central Asia, then they moved to the majority of the areas of the state... And the state extended a helping hand financially to some of the sufi tareeqahs... And some of the most important sufi tareeqahs were the Naqshabandiyyah, the Mawlawiyyah, the Baktaashiyyah and the Rifaa'iyyah..." [End of quote.]

[And these tareeqahs are all founded on worshipping the graves and the awliyaa', and indeed upon shirk in the ruboobiyyah that the Arab mushrikoon confirmed belief in, and that is through the soofiyyah's beliefs in "al-ghawth", "al-aqtaab", "al-abdaal", and others whom they claim to control the universe. Refer to what Shaykh al-Islaam [Ibn Taymiyyah] wrote about the soofiyyah, and his debates with the followers of the Rifaa'iyyah (al-Fataawaa, volume 11), and refer to what Ihsaan Ilaahi Dhaheer wrote about the soofiyyah and about these tareeqahs and their practices of shirk in his book Diraasaat fit-Tasawwuf (Studies Regarding Tasawwuf), and what as-Sindi wrote in his book at-Tasawwuf fee Meezaan al-Bahth wat-Tahqeeq (Tasawwuf in the Balance of Investigation and Verification), and what al-Wakeel wrote in his book Haadhihi Hiyas-Soofiyyah (This is Sufism). And a detailed description of some of these tareeqahs will follow, in shaa' Allaah.]

And Muhammad Qutb said in his book Waaqi'unaa al-Mu'aasir (Our Present Situation), page 155:

"Sufism began to spread in the 'Abbaasi society, however it was an isolated corner of the society. But in the shade of the 'Uthmaani state, and in Turkey to be exact, it became the society itself, and it became the religion itself." [End of quote.]

And in al-Mawsoo'ah al-Muyassarah fil-Adyaan wal-Madhaahib al-Mu'aasirah (The Simplified Compendium of Contemporary Religions and Sects), page 348:

"Al-Baktaashiyyah: The 'Uthmaani Turks were affiliated with this tareeqah, and it continues to be widespread in Albania. And it is closer to the shee'i tasawwuf than the sunni tasawwuf... and it had great authority over the rulers of the 'Uthmaaniyyoon themselves." [End of quote.]

[All of tasawwuf is innovation and bid'ah, and there is no such thing as a "sunni tasawwuf". And there will follow the details of this particular tareeqah.]

And in the book al-Fikr as-Soofi fi Dhaw' al-Kitaab was-Sunnah (The Sufi Thinking in the Light of the Book and the Sunnah), page 411:

"And the 'Uthmaani sultaans competed with each other in building tekkes, zaawiyahs, and the graves of the Baktaashiyyah. So some of the sultaans supported it, and others were opposed to them, preferring another different tareeqah." [End of quote.]

For this reason, it is unsurprising that shirk and kufr became widespread, and tawheed began to fade away, in the lands that they ruled. And Shaykh Husayn ibn Ghannaam – rahimahullaahu ta'aalaa – said, describing their lands:

"Most of the people in his time – i.e. Shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhaab – were sunk in pollution and smeared by the mire of impurity to the extent that they went headlong into shirk, after the Sunnah had been buried... So they turned to worshipping the awliyaa' and the righteous people, and they discarded the collar of tawheed and the religion. So they exerted themselves in seeking aid from them in times of calamities, accidents, and disastrous events, and they ran to them asking them to fulfill their needs and remove their difficulties, from the living ones among them as well as their dead. And many people believed that inanimate objects could bring help or harm..." Then he mentioned the forms of shirk that existed in Najd, al-Hijaaz, al-'Iraaq, ash-Shaam, Egypt, and elsewhere. [End of quote.]

[Rawdhat al-Afkaar, page 5 onwards.]

And Imaam Sa'ood ibn 'Abd al-'Azeez – rahimahullaahu ta'aalaa – (died 1229H) said in one of his letters to the 'Uthmaani governor of al-'Iraaq, describing the nature of their state:

"So the sha'aa'ir (symbols) of kufr in Allaah and shirk, this is the situation that exists among you. Such as building domes over the graves, lighting lamps over them, hanging curtains over them, the visits to them in manners not legislated by Allaah or His Messenger, celebrating yearly festivals there, and asking those buried therein to fulfill needs, remove difficulties and answer pleas; all of this along with the abandoning of the obligatory duties of the religion that Allaah has ordered to be established, such as the five prayers and other than them. For the one who wants to pray prays alone, and the one who leaves the prayer is not objected to. And likewise is the case with zakaah. And this matter has spread and become well-known, and has filled the ears of many in the lands of ash-Shaam, al-'Iraaq, Egypt and elsewhere from among the lands." [End of quote.]

[Ad-Durar as-Saniyyah, 1/382.]

This was, very briefly, the situation of the 'Uthmaani state. If the above quotations are not sufficient to convince a person of this, then there is no hope for him to understand.

And as for the situation of its sultaans – which I have briefly indicated already – it is also of this kind. And I will mention a number of miscellaneous examples of these sultaans, in order to clarify their situation:

.

Sultaan Orkhaan the First (died 761H):

He is the second sultaan of this state, after his father 'Uthmaan ('Uthmaan the first, died 726H). His rule lasted for 35 years. And this sultaan was a sufi upon the Baktaashi tareeqah.

[See Taareekh ad-Dawlah al-'Aliyyah al-'Uthmaaniyyah, page 123, and al-Fikr as-Soofi, page 411. And al-Baktaashiyyah is also spelled al-Bakdaashiyyah (with a "daal" د ) and al-Baktashiyyah (with a "taa'" ط ). And the historians have mentioned about this sultaan that he helped the Roman king against the Serbian king, because the Roman king promised to give his daughter to him in marriage. See Taareekh ad-Dawlah, page 125.]

And the Baktaashi tareeqah – which I have mentioned several times already – is a sufi, shee'i, baatini tareeqah founded by Khankaar Muhammad Baktaash al-Khurasaani, who spread it in Turkey in the year 761H. And it is a mix of the 'aqeedah of wahdat al-wujood (the unity of all existence, essentially negating the separateness of Allaah from His creation), worship and deification of the mashaayikh, the 'aqeedah of the Raafidhah regarding the imams, and they exaggerate regarding the Prophet (sallallaahu 'alayhi wa-sallam) in a manner that takes them out of al-Islaam.

And from that is the saying of the student or "mureed" when he wants to enter into this tareeqah: "I have come with longing to the door of the Truth as a beggar, affirming Muhammad and Haydar (i.e. 'Ali), and seeking the "secret" (as-sirr) and the "outpouring" (al-faydh) from both of them, and from az-Zahraa' (i.e. Faatimah) and Shubayr and Shabar (i.e. al-Husayn and al-Hasan)." Then he says: "And with love I have submitted my inner self as a servant of the family of al-'Abbaas, and my refuge is al-Haajj Baktaash, the qutb (pivot) of the awliyaa'." And he says to his shaykh: "Your face is a lamp, and a lighthouse of guidance, your face is an indicator to the form of the Truth, your face is the Hajj and the 'Umrah and the Ziyaarah, your face is to the obedient ones the qiblah of leadership, your face is a summary of the Qur'aan."

And the awraad of the Baktaashiyyah are on the 'aqeedah of the Ithnaa' 'Ashariyyah Raafidhah. And they have in their 'aqeedah, from their baatini awraad, and the way that they visit the graves to get their shirk-based "acceptance", such things that are too terrible to mention.

[See them in detail in al-Fikr as-Soofi fi Dhaw' al-Kitaab was-Sunnah, page 409-424.]

Sultaan Muhammad the Second (al-Faatih) (died 886H):

He is one of the most famous of the sultaans of this state, and he ruled for 31 years.

After conquering Constantinople in the year 857H, he discovered the site of the grave of Abu Ayyoob al-Ansaari – radhiyallaahu 'anhu – and built a tomb over it, and next to it he built a masjid, and the masjid was decorated with white stone. And he built over the tomb of Abu Ayyoob a dome. And the custom of the 'Uthmaaniyyoon, in their blind-following of the sultaans, was that they would come in a big procession to this masjid, then the new sultaan would enter this tomb, and he would then receive the sword of Sultaan 'Uthmaan the First from the shaykh of the Mawlawi tareeqah.

[See ad-Dawlah al-'Uthmaaniyyah: Dawlah Islaamiyyah Muftaraa 'Alayhaa, 1/64.]

And this sultaan was the first to lay down the foundations of "civil law" and "penal law". So he replaced the shar'i bodily punishments that are narrated in the Book and the Sunnah – i.e. a tooth for a tooth, and an eye for an eye – with monetary fines, in a clear methodology that was completed by Sultaan Sulaymaan al-Qaanooni.

[See Taareekh ad-Dawlah al-'Aliyyah, page 177, and Fath al-Qustanteeniyyah wa-Muhammad al-Faatih, page 177.]

And he also issued a legislation – that continued to be implemented after him – which was that every sultaan who came to power could kill all of his brothers, so that the throne would be safe for him alone!!

[See ad-Dawlah al-'Uthmaaniyyah: Dawlah Islaamiyyah...", 1/64. And he began his rule by killing his own infant brother Ahmad! (Taareekh ad-Dawlah al-'Aliyyah, page 161).]

Sultaan Sulaymaan al-Qaanooni (i.e. the legislator) (died 974H):

And he is also one of the most famous sultaans of the 'Uthmaani state, and his rule was approximately 46 years.

When he entered Baghdaad, he built a dome over the tomb of Abu Haneefah. And he visited the holy places of the Raafidhah in an-Najaf and Karbalaa', and he rebuilt the structures there that had begun to deteriorate.

[See ad-Dawlah al-'Uthmaaniyyah: Dawlah Islaamiyyah...", 1/25, and Taareekh ad-Dawlah al-'Aliyyah, page 223.]

And he was called "Al-Qaanooni" because he was the first to introduce the European laws upon the Muslims, and to make them enforced in the courts. And it was the Jews and Christians who influenced him to do that.

[See Waaqi'unaa al-Mu'aasir, page 160, and Taareekh ad-Dawlah al-'Aliyyah, page 177 and page 198 onwards.]

Sultaan Saleem Khaan the Third (died 1223H):

Imaam Sa'ood ibn 'Abd al-'Azeez – rahimahullaahu ta'aalaa – said in his letter to the governor of Baghdaad, which we have previously mentioned:

"Your situation, and the situation of your imams and your sultaans, testifies to your falsehood and your lying in regard to that (i.e. their claim to al-Islaam). For we have seen, when we opened al-Hujrah ash-Shareefah (the room of the Prophet), upon its owner be the best of prayers and peace, in the year 22, a letter from your sultaan, Saleem, sent by his cousin to the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu 'alayhi wa-sallam), asking help from him and calling upon him to grant victory over the enemies. And it contains enough lowliness, humilation and self-abasement to testify to your falsehood. It begins: "From your little slave, Sultaan Saleem. To proceed: Yaa Rasoolallaah, we have experienced difficulty and hardship that we are unable to avert, and the slaves of the cross have taken over the slaves of ar-Rahmaan! We ask you to grant us victory over them and help us against them." And he mentioned a lot of words of this general meaning. So look at this enormous shirk, and kufr in Allaah, the One, the All-Knowing! The mushrikoon did not even ask this from their idols al-'Uzzaa and al-Laat, for when hardship and calamities befell them they used to call only on the Creator of all beings!" [End of quote.]

[See ad-Durar as-Saniyyah, page 160, and Taareekh ad-Dawlah al-'Aliyyah, page 177 and page 190 onwards.]

Sultaan 'Abd al-Hameed the Second (died 1327H):

This sultaan was a fanatical sufi upon the Shaadhili tareeqah. Here is a letter from him to the shaykh of the Shaadhili tareeqah of his time. He says in it:

"All praise is due to Allaah... I lift up this request of mine to the shaykh of the high Shaadhili tareeqah, and to the one who pours out the spirit and the life, the shaykh of the people of his age, Shaykh Mahmood Effendi, Abush-Shaamaat, and I kiss his two blessed hands, hoping for his righteous prayers. My master: By the tawfeeq of Allaah ta'aalaa I am constantly reciting the awraad of the Shaadhiliyyah night and day, and I request that I continue to be in perpetual need of your heartful prayers."

[See Imaam at-Tawheed, by Ahmad al-Qattaan and Muhammad Zayn, page 148, and at-Tareeq ilal-Jamaa'ah al-Umm, page 56, and the filthy Kuwaiti magazine al-'Arabi, number 157-169.]

And the Shaadhili tareeqah is a sufi, grave-worshipping, shirk-based tareeqah, full of enough enormities and blasphemies to classify it among the idol-worshipping kuffaar.

[See some of the forms of their shirk, deviance and bid'ahs in Diraasaat fit-Tasawwuf, page 235, and at-Tasawwuf fee Meezaan al-Bahth wat-Tahqeeq, page 327.

As for the stories of the relations of this state with the Jews and Christians and other kuffaar, in their appointing them to positions of power, aiding them, and even making them equal with the Muslims, then they are many. Look, if you wish, in Taareekh ad-Dawlah al-'Aliyyah and ad-Dawlah al-'Uthmaaniyyah: Dawlah Islaamiyyah... and you will hardly find a single 'Uthmaani sultaan whose life does not feature something of that. See, for example, the life of 'Abd al-Majeed ibn Mahmood, who issued the Gulkhaanah Decree in the year 1255H, in which he declared total freedom in personal matters and in ideas, and made non-Muslims equal to the Muslims. See Taareekh ad-Dawlah al-'Aliyyah, page 455, and al-Islaam wal-Hadhaarah al-Gharbiyyah, page 15.]

.

.

Section:

As for the war of the 'Uthmaaniyyoon against tawheed, then it is well-known. For they declared war against the da'wah of Shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhaab – rahimahullaah – as is known. "They wish to extinguish Allaah's Light with their mouths."

And they sent campaign after campaign to war against the people of tawheed, until they crowned this war of theirs with the destruction of ad-Dir'iyyah, the capital of ad-Da'wah as-Salafiyyah, in the year 1233H.

[To know about some of their crimes, see 'Unwaan al-Majd, 1/157.]

And the 'Uthmaaniyyoon, in their war against tawheed, sought help from their brothers the Christians. For one of the researchers in Europe discovered documents of correspondence between Napoleon Bonaparte, the ruler of France, and "al-Baab al-'Aali" (the "High Door", the title of the 'Uthmaani ruler), regarding the da'wah of Shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhaab, and the necessity of taking decisive action against it, as it was a threat to their interests in the east.

[The introduction of 'Atiyyah Saalim to the book al-Imaam Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhaab, by Ibn Baaz. And the researcher was Ahmad at-Taweel, while presenting his doctorate.]

And during the wars of the 'Uthmaaniyyoon against the people of tawheed, such atrocities were committed that made those of the crusaders pale in comparison. Here are some examples for you:

The 'Uthmaani state wanted to incite its troops to kill the people of tawheed, so it issues a decree that every soldier will receive a reward for every one that he killed, and it was necessary that the soldier prove his kill by cutting off the ears of his victim and sending them to the capital al-Astaanah (Istanbul). So they did that in al-Madeenah, al-Qunfudhah, al-Qaseem, Dhirmaa, and elsewhere.

[See that in detail in Taareekh al-'Arabiyyah as-Sa'oodiyyah, by the Russian historian Vasiliev, page 173, 183, 176, and 184.]

As for their destruction of villages and cities, and even their burning of masaajid, then narrate without difficulty.

[See that in 'Unwaan al-Majd, 1/157-219, and also in the previous reference.]

And from their crimes is that they took the women and children of the people of tawheed as captives, and sold them as slaves. Al-Jabarti said in his Taareekh:

"And the month of Safar began on a Friday in the year 1235H... and during it a group of the Arab and Maghaaribah troops arrived, who had been in the land of al-Hijaaz. And they were accompanied by prisoners from the "Wahhaabiyyah", women, girls, and boys. They came to al-Hamaayil, and sold them to whoever would buy them, even though they were Muslims and free people." [End of quote.]

[Taareekh 'Ajaa'ib al-Aathaar, 3/606. But be careful regarding this book, for al-Jabarti, as is apparent from his Taareekh, was a sufi khalwati who venerated the graves and the awliyaa', indeed even the heretical deviants such as the zindeeq Ibn 'Arabi.]

And I conclude that with this event that was narrated by a Russian historian. He said:

"In the year 1818M – i.e. 1234H – 'Abdullaah (Imaam 'Abdullaah ibn Sa'ood ibn 'Abd al-'Azeez ibn Muhammad ibn Sa'ood, the last imaam of the first Sa'oodi state) was taken via al-Qaahirah (Cairo) road to al-Astaanah (Istanbul), accompanied by two of those close to him, at the beginning of Kaanoon al-Awwal (December). And the Russian ambassador in al-Astaanah gave the following information:

Last week, the leader of the Wahhaabiyyoon, his minister and his imaam, who had been captured in ad-Dir'iyyah and later taken to the capital, were beheaded. Seeking to add to the impression of his victory over the worst enemies of the two cities that are considered to be the cradle of al-Islaam, the sultaan ordered on that day for an assembly to be made in the old palace in the capital, and they brought to the palace the three prisoners, bound in heavy chains and surrounded by the crowds of spectators. And after the introductory formalities, the sultaan ordered their execution, so the leader was beheaded in front of the main gate of the "Hagia Sofia", and the minister was beheaded in front of the "Saraay Entrance", and the third was beheaded in one of the main markets in the capital. And their bodies were put out on display with their heads under their armpits, and after three days they were thrown into the sea. And His Majesty ordered the observance of a special prayer of thanks to Allaah for the victory of the sultaan's armies, and for the extermination of the group that had laid waste to Makkah and al-Madeenah, spread fear in the hearts of the Muslims, and exposed them to danger." [End of quote.]

[Taareekh ad-Dawlah as-Sa'oodiyyah, by Vasiliev, page 186.]

Section:

So this was their enmity towards tawheed and its people, and this was their spreading of shirk and kufr. So how can it possibly be claimed that this corrupt, infidel state was an "Islaamic khilaafah"?! May Allaah have mercy on Imaam Sa'ood ibn 'Abd al-'Azeez (died 1229H) when the 'Uthmaani governor of al-'Iraaq said to him: "For we are Muslims in truth, and this is what all of our imaams have agreed upon, from all four madhaahib, and the mujtahidoon of the Deen and the Millah."

So the Imaam replied:

"We have clarified from the Words of Allaah ta'aalaa, the words of His Messenger, and the words of the followers of the four imaams, that which refutes your weak case, and defeats your false claim. For not everyone who makes a claim proves it by his action. And a poor person does not become rich simply by saying: "A thousand deenaars!" And a tongue does not burn simply by saying: "Fire". For verily, the Jews, the enemies of the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu 'alayhi wa-sallam) said to the Messenger of Allaah when he called them to al-Islaam: "We are Muslims!" And the Christians said similar to that. And likewise Fir'awn said to his people: "And I show you not except that which I see to be correct, and I guide you not except to the path of correctness." Yet he lied and uttered falsehood in that." [End of quote.]

[Ad-Durar as-Saniyyah, 1/391.]

And likewise, whoever claims that the 'Uthmaani state was a Muslim state, then he has uttered a lie and a falsehood, and the greatest forgery in this regard is that it was an Islaamic khilaafah!

[The fact that the 'Uthmaani state was a kaafir state does not necessitate the takfeer of everyone in it, and the two sons of Shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhaab (Husayn and 'Abdullaah) – rahimahumullaahu ta'aalaa – "It might be ruled that this village is one of kufr, and its people kuffaar whose ruling is that of the kuffaar, but it is not ruled that every single individual of them is himself a kaafir, because it is possible that among them were those upon al-Islaam who were excused from making hijrah, or who openly displayed his religion yet the Muslims did not know about him." Majmoo'at al-Masaa'il, 1/44.]

And know, O my brother, that no-one claims that the 'Uthmaani state was an Islaamic state except for one of two people:

Either a misguided deviant who sees that shirk is al-Islaam.
Or a person ignorant about the affair of this state.

As for the one who understands tawheed, and who understands what this state was upon, and still has doubt regarding its affair, then he is in a very dangerous position, wallaahul-musta'aan (and from Allaah all help is sought).

[faqir]

THE SECOND SECTION:

THE STANDPOINT OF THE DA'WAH OF SHAYKH MUHAMMAD IBN 'ABD AL-WAHHAAB CONCERNING IT

One of the misconceptions that is often brought up about the da'wah of Shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhaab – rahimahullaahu ta'aalaa – is that it rose up against the 'Uthmaani khilaafah, and divided the Muslims.

And many of the 'ulamaa' who defended the da'wah of the Shaykh tried to respond to this misconception, but the most that they could say was: "Najd was, from the beginning, independent from the 'Uthmaani state, so for that reason the Shaykh's coming was not an uprising against it."

[See Da'aawaa al-Munaawi'een, 233-240.]

And the reality is that this statement is incorrect, for three reasons:

The first is that the 'Uthmaani state did have nominal rule over Najd, because it ruled al-Hijaaz, al-Yemen, al-Ahsaa', al-'Iraaq and ash-Shaam, and the taxes of the ameers of Najd used to come to the state via some of these countries.

[See ad-Dawlah al-'Uthmaaniyyah... 1/20, and 'Unwaan al-Majd, 1/97 onwards.]

The second is that even if we were to assume that Najd was independent, the da'wah of the Shaykh had entered al-Hijaaz, al-Yemen, al-Ahsaa', al-Khaleej, and the outlying areas of al-'Iraaq and ash-Shaam. They attacked Karbalaa' and beseiged Dimashq, and all of these were indisputably under the control of the 'Uthmaani state.

The third is that the sayings of the imaams of the da'wah – rahimahumullaah – are in agreement that the 'Uthmaani state was daar harb (in a state of war with the Muslims), except those who responded to the da'wah of tawheed, as we will later see, in shaa' Allaahu ta'aalaa.

For the da'wah of the Shaykh – rahimahullaah – was the da'wah to pure tawheed, and war against shirk and its people. And one of the greatest defenders of shirk in that time was the 'Uthmaani state. So the da'wah was an act of war against it. And I will narrate, in what follows, various quotes from the imaams of the da'wah and their followers, clarifying their standpoint regarding this state:

Imaam Sa'ood ibn 'Abd al-'Azeez – rahimahullaah (died 1229H):

I have already narrated some quotes from him regarding the affair of this state. Here are more of his statements in the letter that he sent to the governor of Baghdaad:

"And as for your saying: "How can you so boldly and recklessly stir up fitnah by making takfeer of the Muslims and the people of the qiblah, and fight against a people who believe in Allaah and the Last Day...?" So we say: "We have already stated that we do not make takfeer due to sins, but rather we only fight against those who made shirk with Allaah, and attributed to Allaah partners, calling upon them as they call upon Allaah, slaughtering for them as they slaughter for Him, vowing to them as they vow to Allaah, fearing them as they fear Allaah, calling to them for aid in difficulties and for bringing good, and who fight to defend the idols and the domes built over the graves, which have been taken as idols worshipped besides Allaah. So if you are truthful in your claim that you are on the Millah of Ibraaheem and following the Messenger (sallallaahu 'alayhi wa-sallam), then demolish those idols, all of them, and level them to the ground. And repent to Allaah from all of the shirk and bid'ah."

Then he said: "Or, if you persist in this state of yours, and do not repent from the shirk that you are upon and observe correctly the religion of Allaah with which He sent His Messenger, leaving the shirk, bid'ah and superstitions, then we will not cease fighting you until you return to Allaah's straight religion."

[Ad-Durar as-Saniyyah, 7/397.]

Shaykh Sulaymaan ibn 'Abdillaah ibn ash-Shaykh – rahimahullaah – (died 1233H):

When the Turks invaded the land of tawheed, Shaykh Sulaymaan ibn 'Abdillaah wrote a book entitled ad-Dalaa'il (The Proofs), regarding the apostasy and kufr of whoever aided them and sided with them, even if he was not upon their religion of shirk. And he mentioned therein more than twenty proofs for that, and he referred to the invading army as "the troops of domes and shirk."

[Ad-Durar as-Saniyyah, 7/57-69.]


.

Shaykh 'Abd al-Lateef ibn 'Abd ar-Rahmaan ibn Hasan – rahimahullaah (died 1293H):

In one of his letter to Shaykh Hamad ibn 'Ateeq – rahimahullaah – regarding the case of 'Abdullaah ibn Faysal, the imaam at that time, seeking help from the 'Uthmaaniyyoon against his brother Sa'ood ibn Faysal, when the latter defeated him in the battle of Joodah during the events around the year 1289H, he said:

"And 'Abdullaah had a legitimate rule and bay'ah in general, but later on I found out that he had corresponded with the kaafir state (i.e. the 'Uthmaani state), sought help from it and brought it to the lands of the Muslims. So he became like the one about whom it is said [poetry]:

And the one who seeks protection with 'Amr in his difficulty,
Is like the one who seeks protection with fire from the burning heat.

So I spoke to him verbally, objecting to his action and declaring my disassociation from it, and I spoke harshly to him, telling him that this is destruction of the fundamentals of al-Islaam and uprooting of its bases, and that it was this and that and the other... the details of which conversation I cannot remember right now, so he expressed repentance and regret, and he made much istighfaar. And I wrote, at his dictation, to the governor of Baghdaad: "Allaah has sufficed, made easy, and arranged for the people of Najd and the bedouins that which has fulfilled our need, in shaa' Allaah. So we are no longer in need of the army of the state," and words to that effect. And I believe he sent the letter and disassociated himself from what had occurred, and it was a long letter."[End of quote.]

[Ad-Durar as-Saniyyah, 7/184, and Tadhkirat Ulin-Nuhaa wal-'Irfaan, events of the year 1289H, from the first volume.]

And he said in another letter to one of the students of knowledge regarding the same affair:

"As for Imaam 'Abdullaah ibn Faysal, then I have advised him, as I have mentioned, with very harsh advice. And I reminded him in the advice of the aayaat of Allaah and His right, and the obligation of preferring His good-pleasure, and keeping far away from the enemies of His religion, the people of ta'teel (negation of the Sharee'ah), shirk, and clear kufr. And he expressed repentance and regret..." [End of quote.]

[Majmoo'at ar-Rasaa'il, 2/69.]

And he said regarding the entry of the 'Uthmaaniyyoon to the Peninsula in the year 1298H:

"So whoever understands this fundamental principle – i.e. tawheed – will understand the harm of the fitnah that is current in these times regarding the Turkish armies. And he will understand that it (i.e. the fitnah) comes back to this principle, breaking it and demolishing and and utterly effacing it. And it leads to the predominance of shirk and ta'teel, and the raising of its banners of kufr."

[Ad-Durar as-Saniyyah, 7/148-152.]

And he said in a poem about this affair:

And the leader of the people has brought to the Turks a state
Which has committed the greatest crimes against the Millah of al-Islaam.

And it contains:

And they travelled to the people of shirk and submitted to them,
And there came to them every slander and every magician.

And it contains:

And the power has gone to the people of refusal and shirk,
And by them has been established the marketplace of destruction and evil.
And places for sodomy and vileness have returned among them,
That are frequented by every immoral one.
And the unity of the religion has been shattered, and its rope cut,
And it has become lost among the ranks of the soldiers.

And it contains:

And you have made alliance with the people of the Fire, in your stupidity,
And you have become, for the religion of Allaah, the first kaafir.
So ask the dweller of al-Ahsaa', are you a believer
In this, and what is contained in the authentic books?

[Ad-Durar as-Saniyyah, 7/187-191, and Tadhkirat Ulin-Nuhaa... 1/198-202. And he made particular mention of al-Ahsaa' here because the 'Uthmaaniyyoon, after Imaam 'Abdullaah had asked them for aid, entered al-Ahsaa' and took over it first. See the details of that in the events of the year 1289H, from Tadhkirat Ulin-Nuhaa 1/197, from his saying: "The mention of what occurred and took place with the arrival of the 'Uthmaani soldiers and the Turkish troops."]

And he said in another poem:

When the army of deviation appeared, to demolish
The land of guidance and the laws of goodness,
A people intoxicated, their companion would not wake up,
Never, and he would end up in loss,
A people, you see them rushing to every gathering
In which is misfortune and every kufr is close by,
Indeed, in which the laws of the Christians are ruling,
Without any text that has come from the Qur'aan.
So look at the rivers of kufr that have exploded,
They have clashed with the Sharee'ah of ar-Rahmaan.

[Ad-Durar 192-194, at-Tadhkirah 1/203-206. And the amazing thing is that this is the description of the 'Uthmaani troops in the year 1289H, and in the Taareekh of al-Jabarti there is an identical description of the troops who entered the Peninsula around the year 1226H, as he says in his Taareekh (3/341): "And some of their high-ranking people who call to righteousness and piety said to me: "How will we attain victory when the majority of our soldiers are not on the Millah, and among them are those who do not practice the religion? And boxes of intoxicating drinks were brought with us, and you would never hear in our ranks the adhaan being called, nor was the obligatory salaah established among them, and they gave no concern at all to the symbols of the religion... etc." [End of quote.]]

Shaykh Hamad ibn 'Ateeq – rahimahullaahu ta'aalaa – (died 1301H):

He was – rahimahullaahu ta'aalaa – one of the hardest of the 'ulamaa' in his stance regarding this state. See the letters written between him and Shaykh 'Abd al-Lateef ibn 'Abd ar-Rahmaan ibn Hasan in the seventh and eighth volumes of ad-Durar as-Saniyyah, and I have mentioned some of them. And when the kaafir 'Uthmaani armies entered the Arabian Peninsula, some of the traitors and deviants from the bedouin entered their ranks. So just as Shaykh Sulaymaan ibn 'Abdillaah – rahimahullaahu ta'aalaa – had written the book ad-Dalaa'il, when the 'Uthmaaniyyoon entered the Peninsula in his time, regarding the ruling of aiding them, likewise Shaykh Hamad – rahimahullaahu ta'aalaa – wrote a book entitled Sabeel an-Najaah wal-Fikaak min Muwaalaat al-Murtaddeen wal-Atraak (The Path of Salvation and Release from the Alliance with the Apostates and the Turks), regarding the takfeer of whoever aided these armies that were called "Islaamic"!!

[This book is well-known by the name Sabeel an-Najaah wal-Fikaak min Muwaalaat al-Murtaddeen wa-Ahl al-Ishraak (The Path of Salvation and Release from the Alliance with the Apostates and the People of Shirk) instead of wal-Atraak (and the Turks), and the correct name is the one we have mentioned for the following reasons:

a] The original written copy was of this title, and it was from the time of the Shaykh. See Sabeel an-Najaah with the editing of al-Faryaan, page 12.

b] The Shaykh himself mentioned this title in the introductory khutbah of his book Sabeel an-Najaah, page 24.

c] The time of the book's writing and also its contents point to this title, such as his saying on page 35: "O you who believe! Do not take the Jews and Christians as awliyaa'..." And likewise whoever allies with the Turks becomes a Turki." And Allaah knows better.]

Shaykh 'Abdullaah ibn 'Abd al-Lateef – rahimahullaahu ta'aalaa – (died 1339H):

He was asked – rahimahullaahu ta'aalaa – about the one who did not make takfeer of the state – i.e. the 'Uthmaani state – and the one who brought them to fight against the Muslims, and chose their wilaayah (authority) and that it was obligatory to wage jihaad alongside them, and about another who did not have that view but rather said that the state and those who brought them were Muslim transgressors (bughaat), and it is not lawful do deal with them except in the way that the Muslim transgressors are dealt with, and that what was taken as booty from the bedouins is haraam. So he replied:

"Whoever does not know the kufr of the state, and does not differentiate between them and the Muslim transgressors, then he does not know the meaning of "laa ilaaha illallaah". So if he believes, along with that, that the state are Muslims, then this is even worse and severe, because it is doubting the kufr of one who has committed kufr in Allaah and shirk with Him. And whoever brought them and aided them against the Muslims with any form of aid, then this is clear apostasy (riddah)." [End of quote.]

[Ad-Durar as-Saniyyah, 8/242.]

Shaykh Sulaymaan ibn Sahmaan – rahimahullaahu ta'aalaa – (died 1349H):

He said – rahimahullaah – in one of his poems:

And what is said of the description of the Turks regarding their kufr,
Then it is true, for they are the most disbelieving of the people (akfar an-naas) in the religions.
And their enmity towards the Muslims and their evil,
Grows and increases in the deviation, more than the other sects.
And whoever takes the kaafiroon as awliyaa' then he is like them,
And there is no doubt regarding his takfeer for anyone with intelligence.
And whoever might ally with them or go towards them for support,
Then there is no doubt as to declaring him a faasiq, and he is in a shaky position.

[Deewaan ibn Sahmaan, page 191.]

Shaykh 'Abdullaah ibn Muhammad ibn Saleem – rahimahullaah – (died 1351H):

The Shaykh – rahimahullaah – was sitting one afternoon in the corner of al-Masjid al-Jaami', waiting for the Maghrib prayer, and in the first row there were men who did not know that the shaykh was present there. So one of them spoke to his companion saying to him: "It has reached us that the 'Uthmaani state has predominated, and that its banners have become victorious!" And he went on praising it. So as the shaykh prayed with them, and after the salaah he gave a touching sermon, and he went on to blame the 'Uthmaaniyyoon and to blame those who loved them and praised them [saying]: "Whoever said that saying must regret what he said and make repentance for it! What religion is there for the one who loves the kuffaar and is happy with their predominance and their advancement?! If the Muslim does not affiliate himself with the Muslims, then with whom will he affiliate himself?"

[Tadhkirat Ulin-Nuhaa, 3/275.]

And Shaykh Husayn ibn 'Ali ibn Nufaysah [one of the contemporaries of Shaykh Sulaymaan ibn Sahmaan] said in one of his poems:

So O state of the Turks, may your power never come back
To us, and to our homelands may you never return,
You took power, and opposed the way of our Prophet,
And the evils and intoxicants you made permissible.
You made the symbols of the mushrikoon your own symbols,
So you were quicker to committing shirk than they were.
You gave the religion of the Christians pre-eminence,
So you have borne impurity upon great impurity.
So away with you, off with you, defeat upon you,
And whoever loved you and inclined towards you.

[Tadhkirat Ulin-Nuhaa, 2/149. And in a poem of Saalih ibn Saleem, in memory of Ibn Sahmaan:

And he clarified therein the ruling of the Turks, and their kufr
And the ruling of friendship and alliance with the state.

(Tadhkirat Ulin-Nuhaa, 3/254.)]

And 'Abd ar-Rahmaan ibn 'Abd al-Lateef ibn 'Abdillaah ibn 'Abd al-Lateef Aal ash-Shaykh said:

"And it is well-known that the Turkish state was an idol-worshipping state, whose religion was shirk and bid'ah, and which used to defend such things..." [End of quote.]

['Ulamaa' ad-Da'wah, written by him, page 56.]





Section:

It is clear from what has preceded that the imaams of the da'wah viewed the kufr of the 'Uthmaani state, and that it was a daar harb. And this is an open and clear matter – I mean the kufr of the 'Uthmaani state – and I do not believe that anyone who has read or heard what they were upon of shirk, or who has read what the imaams of the da'wah said regarding their standpoint from this state, will continue to hold any doubt regarding them.

Otherwise, one of the following three applies to him. Either:

a] He is accusing the imaams of the da'wah of ignorance.

b] Or he considers tawheed to be a secondary matter.

c] Or he is a stubborn rejector.

We ask Allaah to grant us sincerity and conformity in our knowledge and deeds, and may Allaah bless and grant peace to our Prophet Muhammad, his family and all of his companions.

[abulhussain]

These rabid lying wahhabis have no shame rebelling against Khilafah ? What about the present Aal Saud and their alliance with enemies of Islam. What about the recent comments made by Saudi Foreign minister Saud Al Faisal..

[faqir]

In Saudi the government and the 'terrorists' who seek to remove them have all previously laid claim to being the true 'Wahabbis'. I remember the late King Fahad coming on TV once proclaiming his wahabbiness and how the state was on the methodology of Ibn Abdul Wahhab.

My question to Muzammil, all those people quoted in the above article of Nasir al-Fahad - are they Wahabbis or not?

[Revan]

As-Salamu 'alaykum,

My heart really aches after reading such things about the Ottoman State...
In this writing we can see the "traditional" and "real" Wahabism - declaring all as Kuffar and Mushrikun...

May Allah protect us from their Fitna and may he destroy them as fast as possible.

[abulhussain]

these takfiris have no shame. Just one question, We had Mutazili Kaafir type Caliphs in Islamic History who persecuted Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal ? But did any of the Imams rebel against the Khilafa ? Did any of the imams say these Mutazilites are kuffar let us fight against them ?

ANy answers to that ?

[muzzammil]

faqir, on 22 March 2010 - 08:19 AM, said:

In Saudi the government and the 'terrorists' who seek to remove them have all previously laid claim to being the true 'Wahabbis'. I remember the late King Fahad coming on TV once proclaiming his wahabbiness and how the state was on the methodology of Ibn Abdul Wahhab.

My question to Muzammil, all those people quoted in the above article of Nasir al-Fahad - are they Wahabbis or not?

abulhussain, on 22 March 2010 - 12:35 PM, said:

these takfiris have no shame. Just one question, We had Mutazili Kaafir type Caliphs in Islamic History who persecuted Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal ? But did any of the Imams rebel against the Khilafa ? Did any of the imams say these Mutazilites are kuffar let us fight against them ?

ANy answers to that ?

Those quoted in the article above are Wahhabis. However, a one-dimensional reading of those quotes, as in the above posts, does injustice to actual historical facts. As Natana Delong Bas said "Historically, Wahhabism has been viewed mainly through the eyes of its opponents. Particularly prominent in the opposition writings were claims that the Wahhabis killed anyone who did not subscribe to their purportedly austere and puritanical intererprtation of Islam." (Wahhabi Islam, p. 243) For a better understanding of the historical circumstances and the evolution of Wahhabi thought on jihad and the massive propaganda in opposition to the Wahhabis, see the last chapter of her book.

Ibn Abd al-Wahhab did not do takfir of personalities or the Ottoman empire. He condemned many in general terms, attempting to invite them to accept his criticisms of the general state of the Muslims. And he certainly did not advocate a rebellion against the caliph: "Although Ibn Abd al-Wahhab had recognized the possibility of a Muslim leader failing to fulfil his duties, he had limited the response to such failure to discussion and debate with the leader…Following the teachings of Ahmad ibn Hanbal and the general stance of classical Muslim scholarship, he did not call for the removal of such a leader from power" (ibid, p. 247). The Saud family, however, had a different agenda: "Muhammad Ibn Saud had supported the teachings of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab but did not use a “convert or die” approach to gaining adherents. This practice was used only during the reign of Abd al-Aziz, who made selective use of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab’s teachings for the express purpose of acquiring wealth and property through a convert or die approach to state consolidation – a contention supported by Ibn Bishr’s chronicle" (ibid p. 245). Also recall, Ibn Abd al-Wahhab retreated from public life by the time Abd al-Aziz came to power. Most of the conquests occured at the hand of the latter, and because he sought religious justifications, he selectively quoted Ibn Abd al-Wahhab's writings - the parts that condemned practices that the Ottomans supported; some of these that were mentioned are: neglect of Zaka, failure of maintaining sumptuary regulations, partiality in administering justice, alcoholism, womanizing, legitimizing silk etc., things that all Muslims today would abhore.

The propaganda against the "Wahhabis" began in the 1780s and 1790s when the Sauds grew in power. Although the public brought into this propaganda and thought of Wahhabis as backwards, ignorant, intolerant and violent, two chroniclers at that time challenged this view: the chronicle of Ali Bey from 1803 and al-Jabrati (mentioned also in the article above) from 1814 (when some Wahhabis were moved to Egypt). Ali Bey expected the Wahhabis to be backward and intolerant, instead he found them to be moderate, reasonable and civilised. He also found them to be peaceful and orderly despite the availability of guns. Contrary to popular belief, Ali Bey wrote "I discovered much reason and moderation among the Wehhabites to whome I spoke and from whom I obtained the greater part of the information which I have given concerning their nation". Al-Jabrati was impressed by the knowledge of Wahhabis transported to Egypt in 1814 – "I myself met with the two Wahhabis twice and found them to be friendly and articulate, knowledge and well versed in historical events and curistoies. They were modest men of good morals, well trained in oratory, in the principles of religion, the branches of fiqh and the disagreements of the Schools of Law. In all this they were extraordinary."

The Saud ruler Abd al-Aziz was the first to do takfir of the Ottoman empire as a whole in order to fight against them. But his purpose was expansion, not religious compulsion, hence a "Wahhabi" influence is precluded. Rather he found justification in some of Ibn Taymiyya's writings that declared unbeliever those who did not uphold Islamic law and thus may be attacked. Ibn Abd al-Wahhab however did not share this view with Ibn Taymiyya. "When [Kitab al-Tawhid is] read in the context of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab’s full body of writings, it is clear that it was not a blanket prescription for violence even against unbelievers or those who violated the key theological concept of absolute monotheism by committing associationism. Nor was it designed as a blueprint for exclusion from the Muslim community. Rather its purpose was to detail erroneous practices and beliefs, both within and outside of the Muslim community…although Kitab al-Tawhid repeatedly condemns certain practices, it does not call for violence against their perpetrators." (p. 251) "The limitations on violence, killing, and destruction of property detailed in Kitab al-Tawhid stand in marked contrast to Ibn Taymiyya’s call to jihad over any infraction of Islamic law or perceived offence agains the Muslim communituy" (p. 252) "While there is no validity to the claim that Ibn Abd al-Wahhab was simply a copier and imitator of the works of ibn Taymiyya, the reality remains that scholars and activists commonly identified as Wahhabis have drawn significant inspiration from some of ibn Taymiyya’s hallmark themes, particularly the permissibility of overthrowing a ruler who is classified as an unbeliever due to a failure to adhere to Islaamic law…It is important to recall that the conscious adoption of Ibn Taymiyya’s writings into the Wahhabi tradition occurred in the early 19th century when the Wahhabis had a theological and legal need for the strict division of the world into Muslims and unbelievers and overthrow of rulers who were labled as unbelievers as a result." (p. 256)

In terms of anathematising the Ottoman empire by Wahhabis, there is a clear confusion of cause and effect. Ibn Abd al-Wahhab's theology did not inspire this takfir, hence was not the cause. Rather the takfir was a result mostly of Ottoman aggression against the Wahhabis. You'll notice the article above gives lengthy quotes and descriptions of Ottoman brutality in the Hijaz and Dir'iya (the Wahhabi capital). Sulayman, the grandson of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, only did takfir of the Ottomans after Ottoman aggression. The article above clearly mentions "When the Turks invaded the land of tawheed, Shaykh Sulaymaan ibn 'Abdillaah wrote a book entitled ad-Dalaa'il (The Proofs), regarding the apostasy and kufr of whoever aided them and sided with them". Such one-sided views as in above posts tends to ignore the fact of Ottoman brutality in displacing the Saudi rulers (and other acts of permissiveness as listed above).

From the early 19th century, therefore, there was a break from Ibn Abd al-Wahhab's original thought, that combined his religious views with Ibn Taymiyya's classical and traditional political views. However, "mad "jihadism" against the world" (as Qaradawi calls it) in this last century was inspired, not by Ibn Abd al-Wahhab's teachings, nor exclusively from Ibn Taymiyya's, but from Syed Qutb's ideas. Qutbist and Taymiyyan ideas were mixed together with a Wahhabi upbringing in Bin Laden, but the source of influence for global "Khariji" jihadism lies more in Egypt than it does in Saudi Arabia - so my point still stands. Most of the caricatures of Wahhabism of being anti-taqlid, severely anti-tasawwuf (for Ibn Abd al-Wahhab and his son's positive views on tasawwuf see Abd al-Hafiz Makki's quote translated in sunniforum), violent, intolerant and takfiri in fact originated elsewhere, and had little or nothing to do with Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab or his students.

I would now humbly ask you to reply to my questions above that challenge the popular dichotomisation of Muslims into "sufi" and "wahhabi".

[faqir]

Quote

Those quoted in the article above are Wahhabis.

Well, there goes the whole 'scapegoat' idea.

Quote

However, a one-dimensional reading of those quotes, as in the above posts, does injustice to actual historical facts. As Natana Delong Bas said "Historically, Wahhabism has been viewed mainly through the eyes of its opponents. Particularly prominent in the opposition writings were claims that the Wahhabis killed anyone who did not subscribe to their purportedly austere and puritanical intererprtation of Islam." (Wahhabi Islam, p. 243)

In fact, the article I posted was not written by 'an opponent' of Wahhabis but a follower of Muhammad b. Abdul Wahhab.

Your whole argument seems to be based around a book called 'Wahhabi Islam' - I'll try and get hold of it, insha'Allah - is it available on line?