Ads by Muslim Ad Network


No announcement yet.

the truth about Sheikh Muhamad ibn AbdulWahab & refutation to all false labels on him

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • the truth about Sheikh Muhamad ibn AbdulWahab & refutation to all false labels on him

    The eighteenth century was an era of Western colonial expansionism. The entire Muslim World was groaning under the iron heels of the European colonialists. The mighty Ottoman Empire was heading towards a collapse. Muslim society suffered from superstitions, pagan practices, heretical innovations and apostatical leanings. The concept of pure and uncompromising Tawhid (monotheism) got mixed up with polytheism. Hijaz, the land of two sanctuaries of Islam, was no exception. The whole of the Arabian Peninsula was under the grip of superstitions and Jahiliya practices. Najd, the central part of the Peninsula, had also lapsed into pre-Islamic heathenism. Despite such a gloomy picture, the reformative impulse was always active and operational.

    Religio-Cultural And Political Milieu Of Najd Before The Shaikh
    Bedouin Arabia had slipped into ignorance, barbarism, bloodletting, discord and corruption. Religion was perverted and the socioeconomic and cultural life was paralysed. Few God-fearing 'Ulama' were combating the heathen beliefs and practices, such as stone, tree and grave worship. The state of affairs in Najd was awful:
    "... They called upon idols and sought their intercession and aid, offered sacrifices to stones and rocks and trees in the belief that these possess the power to bring good and ward off evil, and so people sought their pleasure and approbation through
    offerings .....” (Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhaab; Ahmad Abdul Ghafur)

    The Najdians used to consult the soothsayers and oracles as if they were the successors of Al-Ablak al-Saadi, the famous oracle of pagan Najd. It resembled the practices of the Quraish before Islam. The life of Bedouins in the desert of Najd, as well as in its cities and villages, were characterised by lawlessness, bestiality, mad and brute freedom which was bound to let the society loose in ignorance, wickedness and political tyranny of the Amirs and Governors.

    Bedouins assaulted the travellers and caravans and killed innocent men and women. Assassins fell upon villages and towns during day and night. They would plunder towns, kill and enslave people and kidnap children and infants to sell them into slavery. Since there was no strong ruler to ensure peace and security and since petty states were ruled by absolute tyrants, devoid of Islamic spirit, public safety was non-existent. The devilish and wicked rulers and leaders hired criminals to kill the 'Ulama' who were preaching the truth of Islam or were frightening the people with the punishments of the Hereafter. The 'Ulama', judges, notables, preachers and guides of Al-Kasim were killed in 1196 A.H., without discrimination. A conference was convened by the criminals to decide the fate of all those who preached reform. The unanimous decision of the conference was:

    "... to get rid of the 'Ulama' by murder and every town and village would slay its 'Ulama' in a single day ... "

    Thus on the specified day the 'Ulama'and learned men in every town and village were killed. It was on Friday that the 'Ulama' of Al-Khabra, and Al-Janah were slain when they were going to the mosque for their Friday prayers. Other towns and villages followed Suit.

    Shaikh Husain ibn-Ghannam has recorded numerous tragedies of a similar nature in his famous book 'Rawdat al-Afkar wal-Afham' which mirrors the contemporary life in Najd. He shows how the Najdians had slipped into polytheism and heathenism and worshipped deities other than Allah, "calling them for protection in distress and invoking them to provide sustenance, and ward off evil and bring good". There was a general belief that certain shrines, domes, stones and trees possessed the power to harm and protect people. The famous palm tree called "al-Fahhal" in Bleida was worshipped by men and women who would call on it to provide sustenance, lighten their distress and cure their sicknesses. The women would invoke its help and ask it to give her a husband or a child. The tree of 'Tarjiya' was worshipped in the same way. The women begetting a male child would hang a rope or a piece of cloth on the tree, asking it to grant a long life to the child. The branches, leaves and stems of the tree was not visible because they were covered by piles of ropes and pieces of cloth. The cave, situated in the hill of Dar'iya, was the centre of pilgrimage. It was claimed that the cave was the grave of the daughter of a Prince. She was a great female saint. People invoked her for aid. (Ibid)

    "The story was invented by a deceiver to lead people astray and to extort money through jugglery" (Ibid)

    Similarly, a blind man was being worshipped after his death. To him was attributed great Karamat. There was hardly a city where tombs and graves were not worshipped. Special mosques were venerated and visited as objects of pilgrimage. People invoked succour and offered sacrifices on them. Islam as religion was forsaken and its teachings forgotten.

    The Amirs and rulers, being totally ignorant of the laws of Allah, were blinded by lust, prejudices and mad impulses, slaying people without reason, and plundering their houses and lands. Wars were rampant among the tribal chiefs and Amirs who would enslave women and sell them for adultery. The savage bestiality swayed supreme. The two families, comparatively better in administering justice, were the rulers of Dar'iya and 'Uyaina. The former was ruled by the Sa'ud family while the latter was under the rule of the family of Muammar. They were religiously orientated. Other parts of the country were governed by tyrants and despots. Riad was ruled by Daham ibn-Dawas, a tyrant and hypocrite of the first order, who would sew the mouths of women, cut the tongues of innocent people, break their teeth and slash flesh from their bodies and force them to eat their own flesh after being roasted. He was a peerless brute, whose sports was nothing but pillage, plunder and aggression.

    The economic life was as corrupt as was the religio-cultural life. Piracy and plunder had paralysed the trade routes and liquidated the import and export of merchandise. Agriculture perished due to the extortion of the tyrant rulers who would burn standing crops. Thus anarchy and famine prevailed, raiding, robbery and murders continued, and lust and ambitions swayed supreme. Moral and educational life was almost non-existent. Righteous 'Ulama' were resented and reformists were slain

    The Advent Of The Shaikh:
    It was in the background of such pitch darkness that Shaikh Muhammad ibn-'Abd-al-Wahhab appeared on the scene and started his Da'wa work. He was full of hope and promise and dispelled the clouds of gloom and frustration that had engulfed the souls of people. He revived the concept of pure Tawhid (monotheism) and called people to return to pristine Islam - the Quran and the Sunna. He launched his movement with full vigour and resolved to cut the roots of heathenism, superstitions and heretical innovations with the sharp scissor of Tawhid. Ruthless battles with the formidable adversaries had to follow and migration and persecutions were in store for the Shaikh. Had there been no protection of Allah descending on the Shaikh, he would have perished.

    The rise of the Tawhid Movement, threatened the rulers politically and the 'Ulamaa` as-Su`’ (evil-minded religious scholars), religiously. The Ottoman Empire got frightened and hastened to liquidate the movement through military operations. 'Ibrahim Pasha, the son of Muhammad 'Ali, the Turkish governor of Egypt, was sent to crush the movement which he did in April 1818, when Dar'iya was raised to the ground and men and women, old and young and infants were slain. Amir 'Abd-Allah, the Sa'udi ruler of Dar'iya, was arrested and sent to Turkey via Egypt, where he was executed at the Aya Sofia Square with humiliation. His companions were also executed in Turkey.

    A Profile Of The Shaikh:
    The Shaikh, who descended from a noble family - the Musharraf - a branch of Banu-Tamim, was born in 1703/1115 in the family of learned 'Ulama'. His father 'Abd-al-Wahhab himself was a great Jurist, 'Alim and a chief Qadi (Judge) of Dar'iya. He personally taught his son all the sciences of Islamic learning. He learnt the Qur'aan by heart while still a child. His brilliance and good memory helped him to cut short the years of study. By the age of twenty, he excelled all the 'Ulama' of his town. Since his movement involved his whole family in open hostility leading to the use of force by the adversaries, his father had to migrate in 1139 from 'Uyaina to Huraimila, along with his family. The Shaikh resolved to stay behind and promote his Da'wa. The 'Ulamaa` as-Su`’ started refuting him and instigated people to rise against him, ridicule, abuse and insult him. The opposition reached such a passe that the Shaikh had to migrate from his hometown 'Uyaina', so that the fire of discord kindled by the opponents, could be extinguished. He went to Mecca and Madina for higher education and for the promotion of his mission. Many 'Ulama' in Mecca and Madina supported his Da'wa. He studied under the 'Ulama' of Madina, especially under Shaikh Ibn-Saif who initiated him to study Imaam Ahmad ibn-Hanbal, and the Sihah Sitta, the six famous compilations of Hadith. The Shaikh launched his Da'wa in the holy cities which were also under the grip of un-Islamic practices. One day he was shocked when he saw painful scenes in front of the tomb of the Holy Prophet (SAW), and he decided to emancipate people from acts which were forbidden even by the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.) himself. After having finished his education in Madina he returned to Najd and survived the ordeals that he had to face during the course of his journey from Madina to Najd via Basra, az-Zubair and al-Ahsa. He reached Huraimila where his parents lived. His father pledged his support, help and protection to the son and encouraged him to carry on with his call. The 'Ulama' of Huraimila rose against the Shaikh and instigated the rank and file to stiffen their resistance to his call and murder the Shaikh.

    The Shaikh left his parents and reached 'Uyaina where he was welcomed by the Amir, 'Uthman-ibn-Mu'ammar, who lent all his support to the Shaikh and gave the daughter of 'Abd-Allah ibn-Mu'ammar into his marriage. The matrimonial relations helped the Shaikh in the promotion of his Da'wa. Now people of 'Uyaina, in addition to people of Huraimila, Riad and Dar'iya also joined the Shaikh in his noble mission.

    The Da'wa In Action:
    The Shaikh started teaching people the Qur’aan, and Hadith and the concept of Tawhid and invited them to return to pristine Islam and renounce the idolatrous cult. The first acid test of public faith appeared when the Shaikh invited them to pull down the gigantic sacred tree at 'Uyaina and to demolish the idols that were worshipped by them. People were scared to do so because they feared that some divine curse would befall them soon after the act was committed. The tree was, however, pulled down and the idols were removed. People's faith was strengthened in the call of the Shaikh when no curse descended upon them after the tree was cut off. They were spellbound with amazement.

    There was still another test to follow, namely, the demolition of the dome from the tomb of a grave, which was ascribed to Zaid ibn-al-Khattab, situated at Gubaila. Scholars do hold that the said grave has not yet been located by archaeologists. The supposed grave was a centre of pilgrimage, where people committed idolatrous acts. It was, however, demolished in the presence of the ruler of 'Uyaina. The tomb was a means of earning a living. The ruler himself took part in its demolition. People were now more scared of divine afflictions and chastisement of the town that had to follow after such acts of desecration. But their faith was further strengthened when they saw that no affliction descended on them from the heavens. Consequently, people followed the call of the Shaikh in large numbers. 'Uyaina and its suburbs were cleared from such trees, stones and domes.

    The news of the success of the Shaikh and of the support given to him by the ruler of 'Uyaina alarmed other tyrant rulers who were afraid of losing their political power. The rulers of Najd and Al-Ahsa' made an alliance to destroy the movement as soon as possible. The ruler of Al-Ahsa' asked the Amir of 'Uyaina to suspend his support and present himself to Al-Ahsa', which he did not comply with. The ruler of Al-Ahsa' stirred a revolt against the Shaikh in order to expel him from 'Uyaina. He succeeded in doing so. The Shaikh left his hometown and reached Dar'iya, which was destined to become the cradle of the immortal Tawhid movement. Ibn-Sa'ud, the Amir of Dar'iya, lent his full support to the Da'wa of the Shaikh and protected and promoted the call. The town and its people were now transformed from darkness unto light and from ignorance to knowledge. The Shaikh gave lessons in the Holy Book, the Hadith and other Islamic 'Ulum in the famous hall Dar-an-Nadwa'. Mosques were filled with the youth. The envious 'Ulamd' could not see the scene and branded the Shaikh as soothsayer, sorcerer and false pretender and charged him with trickery and charlatanry. Some of them charged him of being a heretic, an unbeliever and a lying sorcerer. The Shaikh, however, exercised maximum forbearance for his sufferings at the hands of the clergy and the laity and endured the mischief they inflicted upon him. He simply prayed to Allah for the guidance of the opponents. Forbearance and fortitude became the elements of his sterling character and pattern of behaviour.

    An unholy alliance, against the Shaikh, was made between the rulers of Riad, Al-Katif and Basra. The 'Ulamaa` as-Su`’ joined them. The most determined and vehement enemies of the call were the Ulama' of Najd. Muhammad ibn-Sahim and his son Ibrahim were among them. Daham ibn-Dawas, the Amirr of Riad, and Sulaiman, the Amir of Al-Ahsa', the absolute tyrants, launched their offensive and militant crusades against the Da'wa. The war between Daham, the ruler of Riad and Ibn-Sa'ud, the ruler of Dar'iya, who was the protector of the Da'wa of Tawhid, raged for about twenty seven years, but to no avail. The Amir of Al-Ahsa', another sworn enemy of the Shaikh, approached various tribes to join him. Their combined armies swarmed the plains and heights of the desert as never witnessed before. The tribes had joined him in lure of plunder and booty. They unleashed their tyrannies, by killing the followers of the Shaikh. In 1188, he destroyed their towns, and burnt their homes. He wanted to march on Dar'iya but his sudden death in 1188 stopped him from his brute ambitions and after his death the opposition could not survive any more.

    The failures and discomfiture of the opponents became a source of strength to the Shaikh and his Da'wa and helped him to gain more adherents. The call reached the soil of Iraq, Syria and Hijaz. The call survived and brought radical transformation in the religious, intellectual and political life of the Umma. Now the 'Ulama' were divided into two camps, those who supported the Da'wa and those who opposed it vehemently.

    The Wahhabi-Sa'udi Rule:
    Since there was no separation between religion and state in Islam and since the state was supposed to enforce the laws of Islam as ordained by Divine Revelation and the Hadith, the Sa'udi rulers of Dar'iya, accepted the call of the Shaikh in letter and spirit and the new state was in fact a Wahhabi-Sa'udi State, promoting justice, truth, righteousness and happiness for the people. The Shaikh himself did not assume any power. He merely motivated the Sa'udi rulers to enforce canonical law and guided them towards Islamic justice. He gave his judgements in disputes in regard to religio-political conflicts or treaties signed between States. He worked both as a religio-social reformer as well as a political leader with vision, insight and acumen. He did not live in isolation from the society or political affairs of the state. The Shaikh and Ibn-Sa'ud acted in perfect harmony because they were on the same wave length of ideas.The harmony reached to such an extent that the Sa'udi rulers could not decide anything without consulting the Shaikh. Even his decisions on war and peace were accepted by the rulers. Thus the government of Dar'iya - was the first Islamic state in the eighteenth century - that was run jointly by the Sa'udi and Wahhabi" leaders.

    The Da'wa of the Shaikh succeeded so rapidly because it had a political power and executive authority at its back. Despite hostile assaults, wars for decades, the Da'wa emerged triumphant and the Shaikh saw the fruits of his sacrifice during his own lifetime. The Shaikh, who started his Tawhi'd movement when he was only twenty years old or even less, was happy at heart for he had established the Islamic commonwealth at Dar'iya and had restored the Islamic life-style. After having achieved his mission, the Shaikh surrendered himself to the call of his Creator and passed away in 1792/1206. The news of his demise engulfed the souls of Muslims with sadness, sorrow and grief. Great 'Ulama' mourned the demise in elegiac odes. His message, however, reached Asia, Africa and Europe. One can see the hands of the Shaikh moving in the present resurgence of Islam throughout the Muslim World. It is, however, the saddest episode in the history of Islamic movement that the same Sa'udis who had promoted the call in the beginning have forgotten it today and have slipped into luxuries and are entrapped into the cobwebs of the Superpowers.

    Militant Crusade Launched By The 'Ulama':
    The 'Ulama', as alluded to repeatedly, constituted a united front in exciting the states and the public against the Shaikh. Since the Shaikh did not believe in verbal exhortation and guidance and since he was a political positivist, and took part in battles along with Ibn- Sa'ud, he was suspected, disliked and disowned by the 'Ulama' who had accepted gladly the divorce between religion and politics or the state. The Shaikh believed that Islam needed political authority in order to uphold and support the commandments of the Qur’aan and the Sunna. The Shaikh neither introduced any new doctrine nor invented a new creed in Islam. Revival of the concept of Tawhid and renunciation of heathen practices was the core of his call. Scholastic

    Disputes Disowned:
    Despite insurmountable obstacles blocking the way as fetters on his movement, he clung fast to the Qur’aan and the Sunna. He died as a poor man. The great Imaams of Islam, such as Imaam Ahmad ibn Hanbal of Madina, Imaam Ibn-Taimiya and Imaam ibn-Qayyim al-Jawzi, served as inspirational sources for him in the field of reform and reconstruction of the Muslim society which had relapsed into heathenism and had drifted rapidly from its pristine origins. The Shaikh adopted the Qur'anic method in proving and reviving the concept of Tawhid and rejected the scholastic methodology of Greek logic and dialectics that were adopted by some Muslim scholastic theologians (Mutakallimin). Revelation and not logic or empiricism, according to him was the sole guide in metaphysical affairs ('Ilm al-Ilahiyat). He believed that the method of the Qur’aan in regard to the assertion or negation of metaphysical issues and in arguing with disbelievers and sceptics was enough for the defence of the Islamic standpoint. Greek logic or dialectics aimed merely at defeating the opponents, rightly or wrongly, through false wrangling. The method adopted by him in proving the existence of God and His indivisible Unity was purely Qur'aanic. The reply given by him to Shaikh Ibn Sahim, is self-explanatory. Questions related to the Being or the Nature of God, (Zat and Sifat) such as, whether God is a substance, a body or an accident, were debated by the philosophers and scholastic theologians. Imaam Ahmad ibn-Hanbal argued that the Qur’aan and the Sunna, rather than logic and speculative philosophy of the Greeks, were the sole guides for the Muslims in this regard.

    The same view was endorsed by the Shaikh. Since scholastic theologians were not the real 'Ulama' of Islam, they had introduced erroneous doctrines that were based on Greek rationalism. They were disowned and denounced by all classical 'Ulama' of Islam. The Shaikh answered the queries that were made by Shaikh 'Abd-al-Latif of Al-Ahsa' in the same strain. He was well aware of the Ahadith in which the Holy Prophet (SAW) had warned the Muslim Umma not to get involved in speculative conjectures in regard to metaphysical issues, such as the essence of and attributes of God, (Zat and Sifat of Allah), predestination and the like, for previous nations lost their way due to such futile discourses; the Muslim Ummah had to follow as it was commanded by the Qur’aan and the Ahaadith. Muslims were dissuaded from discussing topics of no avail. The companions of the Prophet (SAW) followed the course prescribed by the Holy Prophet. The Shaikh followed the Ahaadith in letter and spirit and attacked the Mutakallimin who were ignorant of the evil consequences of 'Ilm al-Kalam and advised them to follow the path laid down by the Holy Prophet.

    Waves Of Allegations:
    Despite such orthodox faith in the Qurdn and Hadith, the Shaikh was branded by the 'Ulama' as an unbeliever, who regarded all Muslims as infidels, save his own followers. It was alleged that he did not believe in reciting Darood and Salaam on the Prophet and prevented people from doing so. Moreover, he prevented them from visiting the mausoleum of the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.). All such charges were refuted by the Shaikh in his books, letters and discourses.

    His response to the queries made by Shaikh 'Abd-ar-Rahman as-Suwaidi of Iraq, is illuminating. He asserted that he neither regarded any Muslim as apostate nor condemned their marriages as invalid. Neither had he ever thought of pulling down the dome of the Holy Prophet, nor to bring any change in the Kaba. These, he asserted, were blatant lies. He, however, advised people to read the Qur’aan instead of books like Dalaa'il al-Khairat. A similar reply was sent to 'Abd-Allah ibn-Sahim in response to his twelve questions addressed to the Shaikh. He rejected the allegation that he was at war with the 'Ulama'. On the contrary, he invited people to follow the rightly guided 'Ulama' of Islam. The domes that were demolished were not the result of desecration of holy shrines but because they were converted into centres of corruption and above all money-making complexes, which corrupted and enfeebled the faith (Aqaaid) of people. The Holy Prophet (S.A.W.) was the first to dismantle the centres of idolatry and priesthood and to ask people to turn to Allah alone and ask Him for Bounties or Favours instead of asking the stones and idols. His mission was, the Shaikh asserted, the revival of the same message. But no amount of explanation could satisfy the 'Ulama' who framed new stories and coined new phrases. It was alleged that Wahhabism and the sword go together and they were inseparable. Thus lies were ascribed to the Shaikh and his Tawhid movement, every now and then. He was intensely detested by the 'Ulama'. His statements and writings were tampered with in order to deceive the innocent public, who were the victims of 'Ulamaa` as-Su`’.

    Examples of the Prophet were followed by the Shaikh. The Holy Prophet himself had ordered the pulling down of a tree called 'Dhat Anwat', on which polytheists used to hang their arms and worship it. This analogy did not convince the theologians who charged the Shaikh of disrespecting the Holy Prophet. The truth is that the Shaikh rarely mentioned the name of the Holy Prophet without having recited the Darood and Salam on him.

    The 'Ulama' who ignited both the rulers and the public were in fact, court-'Ulama', patronised by the rulers and Amirs. They were afraid of losing face in the public if people were acquainted with the truth of the Tawhid movement, the most powerful emancipating and liberating force from all earthly bondages and mundane loyalties. Consequently, they sowed the seed of discord among the Muslims, instilled hatred and hostility in their hearts against the Da'wa of the Shaikh. The passions of the public, stirred by the 'Ulama' rose so high that they were ready to assassinate the Shaikh. The Sharif of Mecca - Ghalib ibn-Sa'id (1204), hastened to ask 'Abd-al-Aziz-ibn-Sa'ud, the Amir of Dar'iya to send to him some of the learned Wahhabi 'Ulama' in order to clear the mist of mistrust and suspicions befogging the climate about the credentials of the movement. The son of the Shaikh was sent to Mecca with a special message from the Shaikh which is worth reading.

    It was also alleged that the Shaikh was very harsh in his Da'wa works. The fact is that the Shaikh in his 'Sadir', advised his followers to be kind, and patient in Da'wa work. He cannot be held responsible for the harshness of some of his followers who were prone to such behaviour due to their Bedouin temperament. The Shaikh explained his views in regard to intercession and made it clear that he believed in the intercession of the Holy Prophet on the Day of Resurrection. Authentic books, such as 'Al-Tawassul wal-Wasila' by Ibn-Taimiya and 'Ad-Dur an-Nadir'by Imaam Shawkaani, were also cited by him. He finally quoted the Qur'anic verse: "... Those whom you call on, themselves desire nearness to Allah, which of them shall be nearer to Allah.”

    He further explained the Qur'anic injunctions in which Allah says that all intercessions belonged to Him and He alone will grant permission for intercessions. The Holy Prophet was granted the right to intercede. The chapter on intercession in his "Kitab at-Tawhid' is quite elaborate. Ibn-Taimiya had divided intercession into six categories. The Shaikh also discussed the visit to the graves in the light of Ahadith. Ibn-Qayyim made an express statement in the following words: "Among evil practices are using them (tombs) as religious festivals, performing prayers in them, walking round them, kissing them and touching them, rubbing the face against the dust, worshipping persons buried in them, making supplication to them and calling on them for sustenance, health, repayment of debts, alleviation of distress, aid to the needy, and other things such as idolaters used to ask their idols"

    Ibn-Taimiya, in his 'Al-Tawassul wal-Wasila' wrote that: “Numerous are the traditions telling that the Prophet forbade using tombs as mosques and cursed anyone who does so, and forbade using his grave as a religious festival, for polytheism first started among the people of Noah.”

    The Shaikh was not different in his message from those of Ibn-Qayyim or Ibn-Taimiya.

    From Hostility To Compromise:
    The mighty forces rallied against Wahhabism, in and outside of the Arabian Peninsula, could no longer afford to battle against it, either through the pen or the swords. They had to seek compromise and accommodation. The British had already exploited and abused the term of Wahhabism, in order to divide Muslims and rule over them. They had hired religious scholarship in order to produce books against the movement. Syed Ahmad Shahid of Baraili and his movement were branded as Wahhabi movements in the Indo-Pak Subcontinent and gave a brutal blow to his Jihad movements in Balakot in 1831. The Turkish Khilafat, already cracking down, used the term as a source of hate in the Arab and non-Arab world and smeared its good name. They also hired such 'Ulama' who could issue religious decrees of infidelity (Fatwa of Kufr). It was propagated that Wahhabism was a movement of assassins and of unbelievers.

    The offensive tides started receding only when progressive 'Ulama' and theologians began to write articles on the movement and evaluated the Shaikh as a great religious reformer and political leader that the eighteenth century had produced. They defended the movement and attacked the Arab rulers who had liquidated it in their countries. Muhammad Kurd 'Ali, a renowned Syrian scholar, wrote his famous article entitled "The Origins of Wahhabism" in the monthly 'Al-Muqtattaf' in 1901/1318, reproduced in his book entitled 'The Old and The New', printed in Egypt in 1925/1343. The movement was favourably evaluated and false accusations were dismissed. Dr. Taha Husain, a well known Egyptian scholar and stylist, changed the climate when he evaluated the movement highly and wrote an article in 'Al-Hilal' in March 1933, about the literary life in the Arabian Peninsula. He rejected the views of Al-Azhar about the Shaikh, and regarded the movement as a great Islamic movement in the Middle East, which liberated the Arabian Peninsula from heathenism and emancipated them from Jahiliyya practices and brought the Bedouins back into Islam, as the Holy Prophet had done in his own time. He concluded by saying: "Had the Turks and Egyptians not made common cause to combat this doctrine and did not combat it in its homeland with force and arm, never known before to the people of the desert, it would have been very probable that this doctrine could have united the Arabs in the twelfth and the thirteenth centuries, just as the advent of Islam had united them in the first century. It awakened the Arab soul and presented it with the lofty ideal it loved."

    These statements captured the imagination of the Arab youth who were enchanted with the magical prose style of Taha Husain (1889 - 1973). They were emancipated from both hate and hostility towards Wahhabism, that they had inherited from their elders. 'Abbas Mahmud al-'Aqqad, (1882 - 1964), Muhammad Abduh (d. 1905), Rashid Rida and Ahmad Amin rejected the prejudiced approach and regarded it as a great Islamic movement in the eighteenth century.

    The impact of the movement reached beyond the confines of the Arabian Peninsula. The whole of the Islamic World, whether in Asia, Africa or Europe, was influenced by its reform movements. Al-‘Aqqad remarked that the Hajj pilgrims imported the revolutionary message to Iraq, Sudan, India and other distant parts of the world, such as China, Java, Indonesia and Africa. The African leaders, such as Ahmad Bello of Nigeria, killed in 1966 for his Islamic commitment and reform impulse, was influenced by the movement. The Shaikh can be bracketted along with Shah Wali-AllAh, Jamal ad-Din al-Afghani, and Syed Ahmad Shahid of Baraili.

    European Colonialists and Wahhabism:
    The movement of Tawhid (pure monotheism), launched by Muhammad-ibn-'Abd-al-Wahhab, was slandered and maligned by the Europeans as well. The very term "Wahhabism" or "Wahhabiya", coined by them had malicious designs. It intended to prove that the movement was nonconformist and was out of the pale of Islam. This forgery was hatched by the English, the Turks and the Egyptians. It was unfortunate to note that for the last two centuries, all resurgent or reformist movements initiated in the Muslim World, are being branded by the Orientalists as "Wahhabi Movement", in order to discourage the revival of Islam or Islamisation of the Muslim lands. The colonial powers were afraid of any kind of Islamic revival or of Jihad movement in Muslim lands colonised by them. They connected all Islamic reformist movements with Wahhabism. Since the Sanusi Jihad Movement of North Africa (al-Maghrib) had challenged the Italian colonialists and wanted to expel them from North Africa, the Italian Orientalists linked the Sanusi' movement with Wahhabism. Similarly, the English colonialists, being challenged by the Jihad Movement of Syed Ahmad Shahid, branded his Jihad movement as the replica of Wahhabism. The truth is that the latter was never influenced by the former. Logically speaking, the movement of Muhammad should have been called either "Muhammadis" or "Muhammadiyun" rather than “Wahhabiyun", related to the name of his father 'Abd-al-Wahhab.

    The European Travellers And Writers On Wahhabism:
    The Orientalists tried to confuse people about the founder of the movement. H.J. Bryges, in his "Wahhabiya", regarded 'Abd-al-Wahhab as the founder of the movement and W.W. Hunter declared 'Abd-Allah, the son of Muhammad, as his grandson (Hafid). The earliest traveller of Bedouin Arabia, Caresten Nie Bury, believed in Bryges' theory and wrote that Muhammad was opposed to the movement of his father. He wrote it in 1764 when Muhammad was alive and was leading his movement. He died twenty eight years later. A Christian clergy regarded the movement as a new religion. He asserted that Ibn-Taimiya, who proclaimed himself a Hanbali, was in fact a "Wahhabi”. Can there be a statement more ridiculous than this? This was either a gross ignorance or wilful distortion. How could ibn-Taimiya be a follower of the Wahhabi Movement which emerged four hundred years after his death? How could ibn-Taimiya then be regarded as a Wahhabi?

    It is not certain as to who invented the term "Wahhabi” and when. It is, however, certain that the term was used during the lifetime of Muhammad. The term was used frequently during the First World War.

    The travellers started mentioning the movement immediately after the death of Muhammad 'Ali Beg (1807) and N. Burkhardt (1814) who visited Arabia before and after the invasion of Dar'iya by Muhammad 'Ali of Egypt. The latter wrote his books in 1816, entitl ed: 'Notes on the Bedouins and the Wahhabis', 1831 and frequently used the term 'Wahhabi’ in Volume two. The famous Egyptian historian 'Abd-ar-Rahman al-Jabarti, who wrote his history in 1238, also referred to the term in his third volume.

    Caresten Nie Bury, the first traveller of Arabia, who set out from Denmark in 1761 along with his companions and reached Yemen in 1762, has recorded some of his observations in his book 'Travels Through Arabia and other Countries in the East'. Since he could not visit Najd he had to depend on secondary sources for his information about Muhammad, which led him to erratic judgements. His work was translated by Robert Heren and published in Edinburgh in 1792. Harford Jone Bryges, an English governor of Basra (1784 - 1794) and of Baghdad (1797 - 1806), in his 'Brief History of the Wahhabys', has furnished some valuable information. But his accounts are also based on N. Burkhardt who visited Hijaz in 1814 and wrote 'Notes on the Bedoins and the Wahhabys', published in two volumes in 1829 and 1831 respectively. The work of Bryges, which appeared in London in 1834 was, therefore, not based on primary experience.

    No account of the Shaikh and his movement, furnished by the Europeans, was fair and objective. Grifford Paigrave, in his 'Narrative of a Year's Journey through Central and Eastern Arabia' (1862 - 1863), has slandered Islam in general and Muhammad and his movement of Tawhid in Najd, in particular. G. Percy Bedger, in his 'Imaams and Syeds of Oman' (London 1871), and Ch. M. Doughty, in his 'Travels in Arabia Deserta' (1875), have mentioned nothing worthwhile. Wilfred Scawn Blint, who visited Najd in 1879, in his 'Future of Islam' (1882), made erratic and false statements. Zwemer's work 'Arabia the Cradle of Islam' is full of falsehood. It is he who forged the story of the demolition of the tomb of the Holy Prophet by King Sa'ud and flashed it in Europe. David George Hagarth, in his 'The Penetration of Arabia' (London 1904), and 'A History of Arabia', despite his accuracies, has made serious errors. H. St. J. Philby, in his 'Arabia', has covered the history of Najd, highlighting the mission of Muhammad. His work is mostly based on Arabic sources. D.S. Margoliouth, in his 'Wahhabiya and Wahhabies', has proved both his ignorance and antipathy against Islam. No different is W.W. Hunter, who in his 'The Indian Musalman' (1871) has shown his indignation against the Jihad movement of Syed Ahmad Shahid and has connected the Jihad movement with the Wahhabi movement. Andre Servier, in his 'Islam and Psychology of the Musalman' could not hide his hatred both against Islam and the mission of Muhammad. He regarded Islam as the greatest enemy of humanity. 'The Expansion of Islam', written by Wilson Cash, is a heap of falsehood. He scoffed at the movement of Muhammad. Richard Coke, who, in his 'The Arab's Place in the Sun', despite his sympathetic attitude to the movement, has relied on superstitions and forgeries. He could not make a distinction between 'Abd-Allah ibn-Sa'ud and Sa'ud ibn-'Abd-al-'Aziz. These are only few names among the primary and contemporary sources which contain some information regarding the Tawhid movement of Muhammad ibn-'Abd-al-Wahhab. Many works have appeared in recent decades which are worth studying.

    The Muslim Writers:
    Books written about Muhammad and his movement, by the Muslims merit brief mention here. Among the early Arab writers the noted ones are Shaikh 'Abd-al-Ghafur Attar, and Amin Sa'id. Among the writers of the Indo-Pak Subcontinent are Moulana Manzur Nu'mani and Moulana Mas'ud 'Alam Nadwiy. The latter's work, Muhammad ibn-Abd-al-Wahhab: Muslih, Mazlum and Muftara 'Alaih' (Arabic version Zamzam Press, 1977) is based on high scholarship and research. The author has exhausted all accessible material in Arabic, Urdu and Persian, in addition to European sources. Chapter one deals with the life and works of Muhammad while chapters two and three treat the rise of the Sa'ud family and the Turkish conquest of Hijaz and Najd respectively. The writings of Muhammad have been examined in the third chapter, while his Da 'wa and message have been analysed in the fourth chapter. The fifth chapter exposes the falsehood that were forged against Muhammad by pioneer forgers. The last chapter, being the critique of sources, is most significant. The author analyses his Arabic, Urdu and Persian, as well as the European sources objectively.

    Writings Of Muhammad: A Critique Of His Critics:
    Muhammad ibn-'Abd-al-Wahhab wrote many treatises (Risalat). Sixteen of them are extant now, while the others have been mentioned in his other works. The main treatise, being 'Kitab at- Tawhid’, served as the manifesto of his movement. He revitalised the concept of Tawhid in the light of the Qur'anic verses and the Ahadith. All other writings revolved around the same axis of Tawhid. The doctrinal, moral and ethical issues were discussed in the light of Tawhid. He also wrote commentaries of certain chapters of the Holy Qur’aan, the biography of the Holy Prophet and summarised the Sira of Ibn-Hisham and Zad-al-Ma’ad of Imaam Ibn-Qayyim.

    Extravagance Of Accusations And Slanders And Mutilation Of Historical Facts:
    Strange stories were forged by the opponents of the Shaikh. The pioneer of the movement was Sulaiman bin Muhammad bin Sahim (d. 1181) who, during the lifetime of Muhammad, launched the campaign of slander and accused him of demolishing the tomb of Zaid-ibn al-Khattab in Jahila, of the mosque adjacent to the grave, of burning books such as Dalaail Khairat and Rauda ar-Riyaahin and of condemning books such as Ibn-al-Farid and ibn-al-'Arabi as apostates. The truth is that the graves of Zaid and his companions, as aforesaid, were still unknown and the story of burning of the books is a blatant lie. The Shaikh, however, advised his followers not to read such books. With regard to the belief in sufi-Pantheism, he, being opposed to pantheistic ideas, cautioned his followers about the hazards of such beliefs.

    Many scholars and Shaikhs joined the campaign of slander which was based on enmity and hatred, rather than on academic grounds. Shameless poems were written by Ibn-Firoze (d. 1801).

    Muhammad ibn-'Abd-al-Wahhab, who purified and sanctified the concept of Tawhid and revived the Sunna of the Prophet, was also accused of laying claims to Prophethood and of denying the body corpus of Hadith. Shaikh Ahmad Zainil Wahlan was a deadly enemy of Muhammad and accused him of laying claims to Prophethood, although he could not declare it openly, due to public fear. These rumours were imported to the Indo-Pak Subcontinent. Moulvi Fadl Rasul Badayuni (d. 1822), spread the rumour about the denial of Hadith literature by the Wahhabis. 'Abd-Allah Yusuf 'Ali, the translator of the Holy Qur’aan, also believed in such fanciful rumours. It merely shows his ignorance about such an important Islamic movement. Even the Christian writers, such as Thomas Patrick Huges, who compared Wahhabism with the Protestants, confessed that the Wahhabis were the staunch followers of the Qur'aan and Sunna.

    Another serious allegation was made that Muhammad considered Muslims, other than his own followers, as apostates and recommended their execution. Ibn-'Abdin ash-Shami (d. 1842), forged the story and he was joined by Ahmad Zaini Wahlan (d. 1886).These allegations were emphatically denied by Mubammad himself. It was unfortunate that a great scholar like Qadhi Muhammad ibn-'Ali Shawkani, without making a thorough investigation into the matter, supported such forged views. Similar confusion prevailed in the Indo-Pak Subcontinent when a scholar like Nawab Siddiq Hasan Khan (d. 1890), made conflicting remarks and statements about the movement, in his writings.

    Some of the students of Muhammad took a hard line. Shaikh Ahmad ibn-Nasir ibn-'Uthman al-Mu'ammar (d. 1225 A.H.), a pupil of Muhammad, believed that the grave-worshippers and seekers of help from anyone other than Allah, were apostates. Similar views were held by Muhammad ibn-Ismail al-Aamir al-Yamani (d. 1182 A.H.), a contemporary supporter of Muhammad, although he softened his attitude later on.

    The opposition movement reached its peak when it declared that Muhammad "kills people, robs them of their wealth and condemns Muslims as apostates". Some of the Indian scholars, such as Moulana Anwar Shah Kashmiri (d. 1933), also accused Muhammad of baseless charges, as mentioned above.

    Allegations, such as undermining the Holy Prophet, free interpretation of the Qur’aan and the Sunna, denial of intercession of the Holy Prophet on the Day of Judgement, were emphatically refuted by both Muhammad and his son 'Abd-Allah. Among the forgeries, most shameful was the story that was concocted by the enemies about Sa'ud ibn-'Abd-al-Aziz ibn-Muhammad ibn-Saud (d. 1803). The enemies rumoured that King Sa'ud wanted to demolish the tomb of the Holy Prophet, but could not do so because of the lack of heavy instruments which could demolish such a solid building. This was a pure lie. Such stories were exploited by the colonialists and the Orientalists in order to incite Muslim sentiments against the movement. The Turkish government propagated that the Saudis had prohibited the Muslims from going for Hajj. One of the most amazing forgeries committed by Shaikh Badawi was when he wrote that portions of the Holy Qur'aan, deleted by Hadhrat 'Uthman the third Caliph from the main text of the Book, was still in possession of the Wahhabis.

    Such lies, falsehood and slanders were broadcast and exploited by Western authors, in favour of the colonialists who were already trying to incite the colonized Muslims against the Wahhabi movement. They succeeded in doing so, especially in the Indo-Pak Subcontinent where they incited Muslims against the Jihad movement of Syed Ahmad Shahid, of which the prime targets were the English. They sowed the seed of incurable division, now being ploughed and harvested by their sympathisers - both the laity and the lettered.
    Please Re-update your Signature

  • #2

    Assalaamalaikum Wa Rehmatullah!

    I am from another forum, and I have registered solely to ask you for the source of this excellent work on Sheikh Ibn Abdul Wahhab (Rahimuhullah). Please provide us with the source of this text or a bibliography in case this is your own work.

    Please Re-update your Signature


    • #3
      this kafirs brother wrote a book about him..and his father said he was insane

      and there is not one known scholar form his era that agreed with him..all the top scholars of his time, refuted him and looked down on him

      why is he a kafir?. beacsue he says allah has a body like us...and that Allah is sitting on the throne

      and that is not a lie...nor it is is taugh in detail in his tafseer..where is says (in his tafseer) that all ayyat are to be taken literaly

      when the quran itself says not all the ayyat have literal meansing

      this man also iopenly denies sufism, yet he quotes from sufi books, such as the 40 hadith

      anyone who follows him needs guidence

      this is utter blapshemy, and according to takes you OUT of islam

      this guy is prolly being tormented by the anegls in his grave right now
      Please Re-update your Signature


      • #4

        Perhaps you should do some research and verification before accusing a true servant of Allah of Kuffar. I hope you don't take this as a challenge or something that will belittle you, because what this is, is truth and it is the duty of the Muslims to find truth. I don't think you have even read the text posted above. Anyway, the following is a refutation of these ridiculous allegations made by his enemies, who are in fact the enemies of Tawheed and Sunnah -

        <big><big>The movement of Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab</big></big>
        <hr width="75%">
        <big>Correcting some mistaken notions about the movement of Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab in some non-Arabic sources <O:P> </O:P></big>
        <big>The movement of Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab (1115-1206 AH/ 1730-1793 CE) in the Arabian Peninsula was destined to abide and be well-accepted. It was the starting-point of a rightly-guided government which took it upon itself to apply the Islamic sharee’ah in totality and to seek the guidance of the Qur’aan and Sunnah in all its dealings, so Allaah granted it support and victory. From its first founding two centuries ago this government continued to remain strong in the face of opposing trends at both the sectarian and political levels. The call of the Shaykh went beyond the borders of the Arabian Peninsula and bore fruit in a number of Muslim lands, at the hands of rightly-guided callers and sincere shaykhs who were guided by its light. The movement was blessed, like a good tree whose roods are firm and whose branches reach the sky. Like any other reform movement, the shaykh’s movement was not spared attacks made against the personality, ‘aqeedah (beliefs) and books of the founder of this movement, starting with the label of “Wahhabism” – which soon became known far and wide and became a label by which the movement was known, even though it was not acceptable to its founder and followers – and ending with attacks against the state itself, with criticism which indicates hatred and the wish for evil on the part of the critics.</big>
        <big> The number of books produced by the lovers of bid’ah and myths increased, and were confronted by scholars in all Muslim lands who refuted every lie with definitive proof and clear evidence so that the doubts of the stubborn became like dust in the air (were reduced to naught). <O:P> </O:P></big>
        <big>Because most of these books – for or against the movement – were written in Arabic, there is no need to quote them here. The author of this article is interested in looking at what has been written in English or Urdu, in order to quote relevant material whilst refuting all the doubts that are mentioned therein, in the light of what has been written by Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab himself or by shaykhs in the Kingdom [Saudi Arabia] and people of virtue and knowledge in other Muslim lands who wrote in his defence. <O:P> </O:P></big>
        <big>It is not possible in this short article to discuss the topic from all aspects. I hope that readers will accept my apologies if they find any unintentional mistakes in this effort, and that they will pray for me to be granted strength and steadfastness if they gain any benefits from reading it. And Allaah is the Guide to the Straight Path. <O:P> </O:P></big>
        <big>Firstly: what was written in the Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, which is counted as one of the oldest and most comprehensive encyclopaedias of religion and sects in the English language, under the heading of “Wahhabism”: that their differences with Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah (the Sunnis) are limited to ten things. The author of this article was the famous Orientals Margoliouth, who said: <O:P> </O:P></big>
        <big>1- They affirm that Allaah has physical attributes, such as His Face, two Hands, etc.</big>
        <big>2- Reason plays no role in religious matters, which must be resolved in the light of the ahaadeeth.</big>
        <big>3- They do not accept ijmaa’ (scholarly consensus).</big>
        <big>4- They reject qiyaas (analogy).</big>
        <big>5- They believe that the opinions of the madhhabs are not evidence, and that those who follow them are not Muslims.</big>
        <big>6- They think that everyone who does not join their group is a kaafir.</big>
        <big>7- They think that it is not permissible to seek the intercession of the Prophet or of a wali (“saint”).</big>
        <big>8- Visiting tombs and shrines is haraam in their view.</big>
        <big>9- Swearing by anything other than Allaah is haraam.</big>
        <big>10-Making vows to anything other than Allaah and offering sacrifices to the awliyaa’ (“saints”) at their tombs is haraam.</big>
        <big> He was not sure about attributing the fifth point to them, because the Wahhabis are followers of Imaam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, one of the four Imaams. At the end of his article he mentions that al-Sayyid Ahmad ibn ‘Irfaan al-Shaheed (d. 1831 CE) brought the idea of Wahhabism back [to India] when he went to Hajj in 1824 CE and brought it from Makkah al-Mukarramah. (James Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, ed. by Hastings, Edinburgh, 12:660-661)<O:P> </O:P></big>
        <big> Margoliouth, the author of this article, is held in high esteem by the orientalists. It is very strange indeed that he lists the views of the opponents of Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab (may Allaah have mercy on him) and of the Wahhabis in general, but he does not find any of them to be false apart from the fifth point!</big>
        <big> Let us look at these doubts one by one and comment briefly on each of them.</big>
        <big> 1 – The belief of Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab (may Allaah have mercy on him) concerning the Attributes of Allaah is like the belief of the salaf in all respects. They affirmed that Allaah had all the attributes with which He described Himself, whether they were attributes which referred to His Essence, such as His Face, Hand or Eye, or attributes which referred to His actions, such as His pleasure, anger, coming down [to the first heaven] or rising above [the Throne], without asking how, denying any attributes or likening them to human attributes. Their evidence with regard to this matter was the aayah (interpretation of the meaning):</big>
        <big>There is nothing like Him, and He is the All‑Hearer, the All‑Seer”<O:P> </O:P></big>
        <big>[al-Shoora 42:11]<O:P> </O:P></big>
        <big>Their view concerning the attributes of Allaah is like their view concerning the Essence of Allaah, which does not resemble the essence of His created beings.</big><big> <O:P> </O:P></big>
        <big>2 – Their notion that the followers of Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab lend no weight to reason is not correct. They say that reason should operate in the light of the Revelation, just as the eye needs light to work; for the eye cannot do its job unless there is also light from outside, whether it is the light of the sun, moon or stars, or artificial light. Similarly, reason needs and depends upon the light of Divine Revelation; if Revelation is not there, then it becomes confused in the darkness. For this reason, the mind of the thinker is different from the mind of the philosopher, and the mind of the historian is different from the mind of the mathematician. <O:P> </O:P></big>
        <big>3 – Attributing rejection of ijmaa’ (scholarly consensus) to them is not correct either. Imaam Ahmad considered the ijmaa’ of the Sahaabah to be true ijmaa’, because their time is known from beginning to end; they witnessed the Revelation and learned the guidance of the Prophet <!--#include virtual="/saws.htm" -->(peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) directly from him. <O:P> </O:P></big>
        <big>As Imaam Muhammad Abu Zahrah mentioned, ijmaa’ is of two types: consensus on the basic obligatory duties, which is accepted by all, and consensus on other rulings, such as their consensus that apostates should be fought, etc. In the second case, there are different reports narrated from Ahmad, hence some of the scholars narrated that he said, “Whoever claims that there is consensus is a liar.” <O:P> </O:P></big>
        <big>Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: The one who claims that there is consensus is lying, and it is not right to give ijmaa’ priority over proven hadeeth. ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Ahmad ibn Hanbal said: I heard my father say: “Whoever claims that there is consensus is a liar. The people may have differed. How does he know that there was no one who expressed an opposing view? Let him say, we do not know of any opposing view.” From this we may conclude that Imaam Ahmad did not deny the principle of ijmaa’, but he denied the certainty of ijmaa’ taking place after the time of the Sahaabah. (Taareekh al-Madhaahib al-Islamiyyah by Muhammad Abu Zahrah, p. 532)</big>
        <big> 4 – His comment that they reject qiyaas (analogy) is also not correct. Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab (may Allaah have mercy on him) held the same view as the Hanbalis with regard to qiyaas.</big>
        <big> Abu Zahrah said: “It was narrated that Ahmad said that we cannot do without qiyaas, and that the Sahaabah used it. Because Ahmad had stated the principle of accepting qiyaas, the Hanbalis paid a great deal of attention to it and used it a great deal whenever they came across issues concerning which there was no report narrated of any ruling from the Prophet <!--#include virtual="/saws.htm" -->(peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) or his Companions.” (Taareekh al-Madhaahib al-Islamiyyah by Muhammad Abu Zahrah, p. 532)</big>
        <big> 5 – With regard to his notion that the opinions of the madhhabs are not evidence and that those who follow them are not Muslims …</big>
        <big> 6 – … and his view that those who do not join them (the Wahhabis) are kaafirs. This is also an obvious lie. Shaykh ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab said, in a letter that he wrote when he joined al-Ameer Sa’ood ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azeez, when he took over Makkah on Saturday 8 Muharram 1218 AH: “Our madhhab with regard to the basic principles of religion is the madhhab of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah. Our way is the way of the salaf, and with regard to minor issues our madhhab is that of Imaam Ahmad ibn Hanbal. We do not denounce those who follow any of the four imaams in exclusion to others, because the madhhabs of the others have not been codified.”</big>
        <big> Then he said: “Lies are told about us to conceal the truth and confuse the people, so that they will think that we want to undermine the status of our Prophet Muhammad <!--#include virtual="/saws.htm" -->(peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and (that we say) that he has no power of intercession and that it is not recommended to visit him (his grave), and that we do not lend any weight to the views of the scholars, and that we denounce all people as kaafirs in, and that we forbid sending blessings on the Prophet <!--#include virtual="/saws.htm" -->(peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and that we do not respect the rights of Ahl al-Bayt (the members of the Prophet’s houshold). Our response to all of that is: Glory be to You, this is a grave lie! Whoever attributes anything of this sort to us is telling lies and uttering fabrications against us.”</big>
        <big>(‘Ulamaa’ al-Najd Khilaal Sittat Quroon by ‘Abd-Allaah ibn ‘Abd al-Rahmaan ibn Saalih al-Bassaam, 1/51)<O:P> </O:P></big>
        <big> 7 – His comment that they believe it is not permitted to seek the intercession of the Prophet <!--#include virtual="/saws.htm" -->(peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) or of a wali (“saint”) shows that he did not know the difference between the kind of intercession which the Shaykh rejected, which contains elements of shirk, and that which he acknowledged, which is the kind of intercession which will only happen with permission from Allaah on the Day of Resurrection, where no intercession will be accepted except intercession made for those with whom He is pleased. (Kitaab al-Tawheed by Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab, Baab al-Shafaa’ah). <O:P></O:P></big>
        <big> If what the critic meant was tawassul (seeking to draw closer to Allaah) by means of the Prophets and awliyaa’, the fact is that many people are unaware of the view of Imaam Ahmad ibn Hanbal on this matter, and they attribute to him and to Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab things that they did not say.</big>
        <big> Imaam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: “There was narrated from Ahmad ibn Hanbal in Mansik al-Marwadhi a report which indicated tawassul by means of the Prophet <!--#include virtual="/saws.htm" -->(peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) in his du’aa’, but other scholars forbade that. If what is meant is tawassul (drawing close to Allaah) by believing in him, loving him, being loyal to him and obeying him, then there is no dispute between the two sides on this point. But if what is meant is tawassul by means of the person of the Prophet <!--#include virtual="/saws.htm" -->(peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), then there is a dispute here, and what they dispute about should be referred to Allaah and His Messenger.” (Majmoo’ Fataawa Shaykh al-Islam, 1/264)<O:P> </O:P></big>
        <big> 8 – With regard to visiting tombs and shrines, we will discuss this matter below when we comment on the writings of Goldziher.</big>
        <big> 9 – With regard to their saying that swearing by anything other than Allaah is haraam, the Shaykh also believes that, as stated in the saheeh hadeeth narrated by ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab, according to which the Messenger of Allaah <!--#include virtual="/saws.htm" -->(peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Whoever swears by anything other than Allaah has committed an act of kufr or shirk.” (Narrated and classed as hasan by al-Tirmidhi; classed as saheeh by al-Haakim). Ibn Mas’ood said: “Swearing falsely by Allaah is more liked by me than swearing sincerely by anything other than Allaah.” (Kitaab al-Tawheed, Baab Qawl Allaah ta’aal ‘Fa laa taj’alu Lillaahi andaadan wa antum ta’lamoon’)<O:P> </O:P></big>
        <big> 10 – They attribute to the Shaykh the view that it is haraam to make vows to anyone other than Allaah or to offer sacrifices to the awliyaa’ (“saints) at their tombs. Undoubtedly this view is the religion of Allaah which is followed by every Muslim who believes in Allaah and His Messenger. Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab (may Allaah have mercy on him) included in his great book Kitaab al-Tawheed a chapter entitled Laa yudhbah Lillaahi fi makaan yudhbaah li ghayr Allaah (Sacrifices should not be offered to Allaah in places where sacrifices are offered to anyone other than Allaah). The following chapter is entitled, Min al-Shirk al-nadhr li ghayr Allaah (It is shirk to make vows to anyone other than Allaah). In these two chapters he quotes the evidence from the Qur’aan and Sunnah to prove that these two actions are invalid.</big>
        <big> This book was published in two volumes, in German, in 1889/1890 CE, then it was translated into Arabic in 1967 CE. The author wrote an entire chapter, 96 pages long, entitled “Veneration of the ‘saints’ in Islam”, in which he discussed in detail the extremes to which the Muslims had gone in attributing miracles to the ‘saints’, both living and dead. He also quoted examples, from Islamic books and the actions of the masses, of the veneration of tombs and shrines, intending to show that there was no difference between Muslims and Christians in the matter of venerating saints. He also quoted ayaat and ahaadeeth which denounced and opposed this action.</big>
        <big> The author said: after this, there is no need to provide further proof that there is no room in the true Islamic religion for venerating ‘saints’, because this is a matter which was innovated and introduced later on. The Qur’aan denounces the veneration of saints and glorifying them to the extent of believing in rabbis and monks as lords besides Allaah.</big>
        <big> Then he quotes the comment of Carl Heis about the idea of awliyaa’ being an attempt to fulfil the need for shirk within the religion of Tawheed, in order to fill the huge gap between the people and their God. (Ignaz Goldziher, Muslim Studies, p. 259)<O:P> </O:P></big>
        <big> After giving dozens of examples of how the masses venerated the saints and visited their tombs and shrines in order to fulfil their needs, the author lists examples of people who denounced any manifestation of shirk in the Muslims’ actions. Then he mentions the strict stance which Ibn Taymiyah took concerning the matter of tawassul and journeying to visit any mosques apart from the three mosques [in Makkah, Madeenah and al-Quds].</big>
        <big> Then he said: “All of this indicates that there were precedents to the Wahhabis with regard to this issue, and that the open demonstration of their belief was in fact an echo of the beliefs of Muslims in the past. In this regard it may be useful – in order to write the cultural and religious history of Islam – to compile a list of all phenomena and events which had come down from the times of Jaahiliyyah or had come in from the outside prior to the emergence of Wahhabism, which is considered to be a Tawheedi reaction against the manifestations of idolatry, and connect them to the societies in which they emerged.”</big>
        <big> Then he mentioned an incident which occurred in 1711 CE, before the emergence of Wahhabism, in the Mosque of al-Mu’ayyad in Cairo, where a young man stood up one night in Ramadaan and fiercely denounced those who venerated the saints and called for the destruction of the shrines which were build over the graves of the awliyaa’ and for an end to the Mevlevi and Bakhsiyyah traditions. He also called upon the dervishes to learn instead of dancing. This young man made this call for a number of nights, then he disappeared. The author of this report, the poet Hasan al-Hijaazi (d. 1131 AH) said: “The preacher fled, or it was said that he was killed.”</big>
        <big>(Ignaz Goldziher, Muslim Studies, p. 334-335)<O:P> </O:P></big>
        <big> The point is that this German orientalist has saved us the job of refuring the accusations made against the Wahhabis that they destroyed the domes on the shrines and stopped people from visiting graves to call upon the dead for help. Islam as brought by Muhammad <!--#include virtual="/saws.htm" -->(peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) does not allow either of these things. <O:P> </O:P></big>
        <big>Al-Da’wah magazine, issue #1754, pp. 60-61 </big>
        <big><!--#include virtual="/navbar.htm" --></big>

        Please Re-update your Signature


        • #5
          again..the FACT that he BELIEVE Allah is a big man in jannah (which he openly admits to in his books) is ALL I NEED TO KNOW

          becasue that there is a kafir belief, and that's mattwer how much history you still won't change the fact he believes Allah resembles a man, and this is kafir

          GO READ HIS TAFSEER!!!!

          he says this..i am not lieing..he believe Allah resembles a man..and this is blasphemy

          good servant my arse!
          Please Re-update your Signature


          • #6
            crony it does not say what you accuse
            we are not anthromorphists
            we disagree with ta'weel, tamtheel, ta'aleel, tamfeedh, unless text tells us to do it
            do not make accusations little boy as you and your sect will be destroyed in a discussion
            sufi grave worshippers who like Allah swt to man
            and liken RasoolAllah to Allah swt
            and liken shaytaan to RAsoolAllah saw
            Please Re-update your Signature


            • #7
              1 – The belief of Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab (may Allaah have mercy on him) concerning the Attributes of Allaah is like the belief of the salaf in all respects. They affirmed that Allaah had all the attributes with which He described Himself, whether they were attributes which referred to His Essence, such as His Face, Hand or Eye, or attributes which referred to His actions, such as His pleasure, anger, coming down [to the first heaven] or rising above [the Throne], without asking how, denying any attributes or likening them to human attributes. Their evidence with regard to this matter was the aayah (interpretation of the meaning):</big>
              <big>There is nothing like Him, and He is the All‑Hearer, the All‑Seer”<o =""></o></big>
              <big>[al-Shoora 42:11]<o =""></o></big>
              <big>Their view concerning the attributes of Allaah is like their view concerning the Essence of Allaah, which does not resemble the essence of His created beings.

              I think you missed the above part. Like I said, try to read before replying.
              </big><big> </big>
              Please Re-update your Signature


              • #8
                Assalaam Alaikum Wa Rehmatullahi Wa Barakatahu!
                mashallah great revolutunist indeed!! may Allah reward him immensely for saddens me how his rivals tried to defame him and to make it worse the act of defaming was extremely successful atleast around me that i hardly find anyone who doesnt say that he had corrupt believes which make one exit islam etc ! and are not willing to give up these false assumptions easily ! its a shame!
                Please Re-update your Signature


                • #9
                  i don't see how saying Allah has a body [which is what ibn whahab does] makes him a good guy....but you go on your way and i'll go on mine

                  kafir or not..he attacked mecca and madinah...that is enough for me to know he isn't a muslim anymore

                  may Allah bring misery to those evil kafirs that try to currupt his religion.
                  Please Re-update your Signature


                  • #10
                    Re: the truth about Sheikh Muhamad ibn AbdulWahab &amp; refutation to all false labels on

                    Last edited by Nafs al Tawabah; 07-08-14, 05:28 PM.
                    ‘If only I had done such-and-such, then such-and-such would have happened.’ Rather you should say, ‘Qaddara Allah wa ma sha a fa’ala (Allah decrees, and what He wills He does),’ for (the words) ‘If only’ open the door to the Shaytan.” (Narrated by Muslim).


                    • #11
                      Re: the truth about Sheikh Muhamad ibn AbdulWahab &amp; refutation to all false labels on



                      His story is the same as all the people of Haq rahimuAllah

                      لا إله إلا الله محمد رسول الله