[Talibilwajh]

Assalamua'laikum. Has any of you brothers read Hempher's-CONFESSIONS and Alexei Vassiliev's- A HISTORY OF SAUDI ARABIA? Do they both suggest Britian's support in the Saudi takeover of Hijaz? Moreover,is this 'Hempher' character authentic? And did'nt the Sauds revolt against the Ottoman Caliphate? Zarabozo tries to exhonerate them of this charge as well. Please enlighten. Wassalam.

[Suhaib Jobst]

Talibilwajh, on Jun 20 2009, 01:12 AM, said:

Assalamua'laikum. Has any of you brothers read Hempher's-CONFESSIONS and Alexei Vassiliev's- A HISTORY OF SAUDI ARABIA? Do they both suggest Britian's support in the Saudi takeover of Hijaz? Moreover,is this 'Hempher' character authentic? And did'nt the Sauds revolt against the Ottoman Caliphate? Zarabozo tries to exhonerate them of this charge as well. Please enlighten. Wassalam.

Wa alaikum as-salam - Yes, I have Hempher's book but don't know about the other one. I do not regard Hempher's Confessions as anything short of a forgery because it is just too sloppy on a number of details, contrary to accurate historical accounts about Ibn Abdul-Wahhab's travels, and there is no historical proof there was ever a British spy in the Mideast named Hempher not to mention the story is inaccurate on a number of chronological details. The book is published by Hakikat Kitabevi and while rejecting the authenticity of the actual Confessions, there is alot of good information in the section "British Enmity Against Islam". However, I do wish that more authentic books about the Wahhabi fitna - written by Ahl as-Sunna scholars - would be publicized more than Confessions of a British Spy, which merely serves to discredit our cause.

The Wahhabi movement was opposed and refuted by a number of Ahl as-Sunna scholars from the period, such as the Shafi'i Shaykh Ahmad Dahlan (rahimahullah). So I would rather rely on such efforts as the latters Fitnat al-Wahhabiyya or primary accounts such as those of Ibn Ghannam and Ibn Bishr, both of whom had first-hand knowledge on the ground of what the movement was about and what it did. I do not believe the British support the first Saudi takeover of Hijaz, although this doesn't detract from the atrocities the movement committed. I believe that the British supported came later, shortly before World War One when they were seeking to undermine the Uthmani khilafa. For during the time of the First Saudi State, the British were still consolidating their hold in the region and biding their time as the power of the Ottomans declined.

As for revolting against the khilafa, initially the Wahhabi movement was confined to the Najd which was not controlled by the Ottomans. But certainly they portrayed the Turks as mushriks and that their blood was lawful to spill. And they captured the Hijaz and committed atrocities in the Two Holy Cities, which were controlled by the Hashemites who were indeed recognized governors of the Uthmani khilafa. So we could view the matter in two ways: (1) the Wahhabis rebelled symbolically in the Najd, for they did not recognize the spiritual authority of the Khilafa and actually made takfir of the Uthmanis; and (2) the Wahhabis physically rebelled against them and made the blood halal to shed in the Hijaz, a region which did come under the Khilafa's authority. Wa Allahu A'lam.

This post has been edited by Suhaib Jobst: 21 June 2009 - 05:51 PM

[Talibilwajh]

Salaams.Br Shuaib d scholars of Ahlus Sunnah constitute d party of claiments & so their accounts, however true, wont suffice to convince a sceptic. It'd do well to have a 3rd party's account supporting ours. Hence an input w.r.t Vassiliev will b helpful , especially since Zarabozo quotes her very often. Let's b amply clear,nonetheless,that apparently impartial accounts may've been twitched.Wasslam

To elucidate d last statement of my previous post i'd like to present my personal observation(others' may differ) that,evidently, with every edition the 'Encyclopedia Encarta' has been regularly editing(sugar coating actually) all material linked to d word 'wahabi'. In fact in the 2009 edition the intro. to d movement seems to b written by a wahabi himself! I' ve been thru 06,08,09 edns.

[Suhaib Jobst]

Talibilwajh, on Jun 22 2009, 04:15 AM, said:

Salaams.Br Shuaib d scholars of Ahlus Sunnah constitute d party of claiments & so their accounts, however true, wont suffice to convince a sceptic. It'd do well to have a 3rd party's account supporting ours. Hence an input w.r.t Vassiliev will b helpful, especially since Zarabozo quotes her very often. Let's b amply clear,nonetheless,that apparently impartial accounts may've been twitched.Wasslam

Wa alaikum as-salam - Unfortunately, I have nothing to offer concerning that book since I never read it and actually never heard of it until reading your post. However, it would be interesting that Zarabozo focuses on this book rather than those from scholars such as Fitnat Wahhabiyya. Clearly they have a vested interest in hiding the early opposition to them and pretend that the entire Umma welcomed their efforts to "return them to Tawhid and cleanse them from Shirk".

Talibilwajh, on Jun 22 2009, 04:42 AM, said:

Salaams. To elucidate d last statement of my previous post i'd like to present my personal observation(others' may differ) that,evidently, with every edition the 'Encyclopedia Encarta' has been regularly editing(sugar coating actually) all material linked to d word 'wahabi'. In fact in the 2009 edition the intro. to d movement seems to b written by a wahabi himself! I' ve been thru 06,08,09 edns.

Jazakallah khair, for this information. This is yet another indicator of the numerous parallels I have observed between Wahhabi/"Salafi" apologists and Orientalist scholarship, which revolves around a common view of Islamic history. For example, most Orientalist scholarship portrays Sufism as having no roots in Islam and calling for ijtihad, linking taqlid of the madhahib to "stagnation". On both counts, they are one with the Wahhabi apologists. I have also seen that enemies of Islam will often employ the utterances of Wahhabi/"Salafi" leaders as representative of all Muslims. Whose agenda is being served here?

[Talibilwajh]

Salaams.Last year, with d usual mushafs,an abriged version of Zarabozo's ' LIFE, TEACHINGS & INFLUENCE OF MUHAMMAD IBN ABDUL WAHHAB' was handed out to pilgrims. "Conclusions were derived based only on historically & logically d most reliable,accurate, substantiated & proof-based sources". It's here that i came across Vassiliev. Next I'll post some of her accounts as quoted by zarabozo. Wassalam.

Salams.Br.Jobst have u any idea as to d accounts of ibn bishr & ibn ghannam, for when i 1st read of what Zarabozo quotes from both i reckoned that they were supportive rather than critical of M.i.Abdul Wahhab. Consider for instance- ibn bishr vol 1 : "because of him heresies were removed, Muslims united, d religion was revived & Shirk uprooted after having been planted"! Salams.

[Talibilwajh]

Assalamua'laikum.Brother Jobst waiting for your reply while i compile the quotes frpm Vassiliev used by Zarabozo.
Wassalaam.

[Murat Yazici]

Talibilwajh, on Jun 20 2009, 09:12 AM, said:

Assalamua'laikum. Has any of you brothers read Hempher's-CONFESSIONS and Alexei Vassiliev's- A HISTORY OF SAUDI ARABIA? Do they both suggest Britian's support in the Saudi takeover of Hijaz? Moreover,is this 'Hempher' character authentic? And did'nt the Sauds revolt against the Ottoman Caliphate? Zarabozo tries to exhonerate them of this charge as well. Please enlighten. Wassalam.

I have read Hempher's confessions. I cannot comment about the authenticity of this character. I would be interested to know if there is any information about where and when these "confessions" first appeared.

A few years ago, I came across and recorded the following mesaage in a forum (most of the message is irrelevant, note only the bold text):

Re: I just wanna know
« Reply #20 on: May 18th, 2003, 2:39am » Quote Modify

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oxygen I have read for the authors you have mentioned. I dont concentrate on one topic or a certain literature or writings by a specific author. I like to sample writings from all over the world, from different cultures and different point of views. I have read material by some of the Russian authors you mentioned, including Nabokov who left Russia because of the communists and learned his English in 1930. Marquez wrote about his country, but his work was in Spanish and Naipaul writes of India and the West Indies in English. And there is Bill Bryson, who's best book was about an American wandering around Europe and commenting on how strange Europeans look to an American. He has a sense of humour and I like his books. J.D. Salinger (Catcher in the Rye) is also good. Those are just novels and I am not saying they are the best of authors..but you just have to sample everything, to be able to grasp more knowledge. It is like food, you dont necessarily have to like the taste, but you just have to eat it to gain certain nutrients that arent provided by other dishes.
There is this book written by Humayun Nama some 1000 years ago about being a Gulf Arab woman and I would like to get my hands on that.
And just remembering the books burned and thrown in Dejlas river or the books burned and damaged by the Christians .. makes me sad. What a shame.

The last book I read (and that would be two hours ago) is a book about the spy Hempher. My dad got this book from a book fair some 40 years ago, and just as he purchased the book, British troops entered the fair and closed down that cubicle and ceased the selling of that book. You can now easily find his not so detailed diary online. And probably find his book just as easy.

You said it Oxygen "The study of history is the best medicine for a sick mind; for in history you have a record of the infinite variety of human experience plainly set out for all to see."
Livius

Ra3yPiCkUp my books arent for sale, they are much too valuable for that, but I would love to spread it around, as long as I dont get busted for doing so. I dont mind making copies and giving them out.
The country is safe now and much more organized than it used to be 30 years ago. Unrevealing the history wont create bloodshed.
I have books on the UAE's history from 1600 up till 1960 and they come in 4 volumes. They have been published by the London Arab Research Center (or something). They are in Arabic ofcourse. There is this book .. it was a research done by Dr Marsi on the UAE and it's neighbours and it is called "Al Emarat wa Jeeranuha". There is another valuable book that we only have the photocopied version to and it is called "Al Jawaher wal La2ali fee Taree'7 3man Alshamali". It is by Abdulla Saleh Al Mutawa.
I also got the "ma3endech salfa" a lot from my friends, but at home, my family couldnt be more supportive.
xWurteYx if you are interested in fantasy and fiction then I recommend you read by JRR Tolkein and start by reading "The Hobbit". You watched Lord of the Rings, right? Well he is the author of the 3 books that are now made into movies.
« Last Edit: May 19th, 2003, 4:08pm by Kinky Lady »
***

The link for this was

http://www.arabschat...;num=1051377725

But this link seems to be useless at the moment, perhaps the forum in question was deleted.

From this I understand that Hempher's book was present and available in the UAE some 45-50 years ago.

[Murat Yazici]

As for the British-Wahhabi relations, there are some relatively new scholarly publications in Turkish. A paper written by Professor Zekeriya Kurşun titled "The Ibn Suud Family, Wahhabism, and the British" [in Turkish] can be found in my blog:

http://muratyazici.b...ingilizler.html

Prof. Kurşun has published a number of books and articles on the subject.

Another recent text is "Saudi Arabia and Wahhabism" [also in Turkish] by Professor Mehmet Ali Büyükkara. This work is based mostly on Western sources whereas Prof. Kurşun's work is based on Ottoman archives.

Prof. Büyükkara notes that there was a formal agreement between the British and Ibn Suud in 1915 and Ibn Suud was paid five thousand British pounds per month between 1915-1923 according to this agreement and that Ibn Suud was granted the title "Knight" by the British-Indian Empire on November 1916 (p. 46 of the mentioned book).

This post has been edited by Murat Yazici: 05 September 2009 - 11:41 AM

[Talibilwajh]

Salaams. Can any kind brother find time to translate this manuscript page from ibn bishr's account:

http://www.bl.uk/onl...wahhabi_lg.html