Ads by Muslim Ad Network

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than ISIS

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than ISIS

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    All praise is due to Allah, the Lord of the worlds. And may the peace and blessings be upon the Master of all Messengers - our Prophet Muhammad - and upon his family and companions and those who followed them in goodness until the day of judgement.

    To proceed:

    Al-Salamu 'alaykum wa rahmatullah,

    I've read some threads on this forum and saw that there are people here who dislike the crimes of IS / ISIS against the Muslims and other innocent people, but at the same time they admire Muhammad bin 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH) and the original Najdi movement. This shows that there is huge amount of lack of information regarding the original Najdi movement and the level of their fanaticism.
    Know that IS / ISIS has not even committed 10 % of that which the original Najdi / Wahhabi movement committed against the Muslims in the time of the first Saudi state.

    The reason why it's important to know about the history of the original Wahhabiyyah is because it's necessary in order to understand the roots of fanaticism of an organization like ISIS and also in order not to be fooled by the deception, lies and propaganda of the Mashayikh of so called "Salafi" movement, who are exploiting the thirst of young people - especially those living in the West - to learn the religion. The reason why young people in the West are easily fooled by these so called "Salafis" is because of the ignorance regarding the [true] religion (i.e. Islam) that is unfortunately prevelant in the West.

    In this thread I'll insha`Allah try to lessen this lack of information concerning the original Najdi movement.

    Before I begin I would like to make an important note: This thread is NOT for the sake of dicussion and argumentation, but rather in order to inform those brother and sisters who don't know the reality of this movement and to warn them from being influenced by them or their descendants (i.e. the "Salafis"). I would also like to request that no one starts blindly defending Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab and his original followers in time of the first Saudi state, because I'm quite sure that you haven't read some of the Hardcore-Takfiri books of the original Najdis. All the informations that I will mention are from those books. If you want a proof for anything that I'll mention, then please write a comment here and I'll bring you the relevant qoutes in Arabic [from Najdi books] (and summarize its content).


    These are the most important Najdi sources in order to know the reality of this movement:

    - Tarikh Najd by the Wahhabi historian Hussayn bin Ghannam (d. 1225 AH): It's a history book and the author is a supporter and direct student of Muhammad bin 'Abd al-Wahhab.
    - 'Unwan al-Majd fi Tarikh Najd by the Wahhabi historian 'Uthman bin Bishr (d. 1288 AH): It's also a history book and the author lived during the time of the first and the second Saudi state. Similar to the book of Ibn Ghannam it's full of shocking passages where the author proudly reports how they attacked the cities of the Arabian peninsula and the surrounding areas and how "the Muslims" (while refering to themselves, i.e. the Najdis) killed the "Mushrikin" and "Murtadin" (while refering to the Muslims of the whole region!).
    - Mufid al-Mustafid fi Kufri Tarik al-Tawhid by Muhammad bin 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH): He wrote this book after he had made Takfir upon a whole town in Najd (i.e. Huraymila`) and tried to justify it. The reason for his Takfir was first and foremost that the people of the city didn't support his unjustified Takfir and call to bloodshed anymore.
    - Al-Rasa`il al-Shakhsiyyah: These are the personal letters that Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab sent to the scholars, people of authority and other imporant people. In these letters you'll see him making all kind of crazy statements like making Takfir upon the scholars of his time and claiming that he alone has understood Tawhid.
    - Al-Durar al-Saniyyah: A compilation of statements from Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab and his [blind] followers (whom the "Salafis" refer to as "scholars of Najd"). It was meant as a defence of their creed.

    So let's now begin with the important part:


    Who are the Wahhabiyyah and who is their leader?

    The Wahhabiyyah are the followers of Muhammad bin 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH).
    He was the son of a Hanbali scholar and was born in al-'Uyayynah, a village in Najd. He started to study Islam and to become a student of knowledge (Talib al-'Ilm), but somehow he developed strange and extreme views.

    He became obsessed with graves:
    He regarded the wrong actions concerning the graves, which according to classical understanding are either forbidden (haram) or disliked (makruh), as Shirk akbar (polytheism). He did not stop here: He even regarded actions which are allowed according to all 4 accepted Madhahib of the Ahl al-Sunnah (like for example the seeking of intercession through the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - (i.e. Tashaffu')) as "Shirk akbar" and regarded it as a nullifier of one's Islam.

    When his father saw that his son had developed these strange views and had deviated from the way of the Ahl al-Sunnah, he disallowed him to spread his wrong views. He feared however that his son would be the cause of great tribulations after his demise and he was indeed right with this feeling.

    When his father died, Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab started to try to spread his new call.
    Before I proceed I would like to show you what this person thought about himself, so that you do not have any doubts regarding his deviance from the way of the Ahl al-Sunnah and the Sawad al-A'dham of this Ummah.


    Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab: "No one knows Tawhid except me"

    He said in one of his letters:

    وأنا أخبركم عن نفسي والله الذي لا إله إلا هو لقد طلبت العلم واعتقد من عرفني أن لي معرفة وأنا ذلك الوقت لا أعرف معنى لا إله إلا الله، ولا أعرف دين الإسلام قبل هذا الخير الذي من الله به. وكذلك مشايخي ما منهم رجل عرف ذلك، فمن زعم من علماء العارض أنه عرف معنى لا إله إلا الله أو عرف معنى الإسلام قبل هذا الوقت أو زعم عن مشايخه أن أحداً عرف ذلك فقد كذب وافترى ولبس على الناس ومدح نفسه بما ليس فيه

    "And I inform you about myself - I swear by Allah whom there is none worthy to worship except Him - I have sought knowledge and those who knew me believed that I had knowledge while I did not know the meaning of La Ilaha illa Allah at that time and did not know the religion of Islam before this grace that Allah favored. As well as my teachers (Mashayikh) no one among them knew that. And if someone from the scholars of al-'Aridh (the lands of Najd and surrounding areas) claims that he knew the meaning of La Ilaha illa Allah or knew the meaning of Islam before this time, or claims on behalf of his teachers that someone from them knew that, then he has lied and said falsehood and deceived the people and praised himself with something he does not possess."

    Source: al-Rasa`il al-Shakhsiyyah and al-Durar al-Saniyyah 10/51

    Just look at the arrogance and narcissm of this person and how he claims that he alone knows Tawhid while accusing the scholars (!) of the whole region of not knowing it. And where did this "knowledge" come from if no one teached it him?
    And you'll be surprised how many times he makes such crazy statements in his letters and how he sometimes lies (like for example by accusing anyone who critises him of "Sabb al-Din"/"cursing the religion") in a very clear way without having any shame whatsoever! May Allah ta'ala give him what he deserves!


    What was his connection to the first Saudi state?

    After he was thrown out of his hometown he met the Amir of al-Dir'iyyah (which is a town in Najd), Muhammad bin Sa'ud (d. 1179 AH), in the year 1157 AH. Ibn Sa'ud accepted his call after Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab had told him that the people of Najd and the surrounding were upon "polytheism" and "ignorance" and after he explained to him his new religion. (Ibn Bishr has mentioned the incident.) Ibn Sa'ud and Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab made an alliance and agreed that the polical power shall be for Ibn Sa'ud (and his sons after him) and that the religious power shall be for Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab and his new ideas. This was the birth of the first Saudi state and he was the "Mufti" of this [accursed] state.


    The first Saudi state: The worst and most bloodthirsty Khawarij in the history!

    After the alliance was made Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab started throwing around with Fatawa of Takfir and to claim that most people of his time were are upon "Shirk akbar" (polytheism), so that the soldiers of the new born Saudi state could take this as a justifcation to fight the surrounding areas and occupy these regions. The Najdis first started with the towns and villages of Najd and attacked them one after the other.

    But they did not stop with Najd. Soon they started to attack the whole Arabian peninsula. They also attacked all surrounding areas like 'Iraq, Sham, Yemen, 'Oman, etc.
    They did no even shy away from making Takfir against the people of Makkah al-mukarramah and Madinah al-munawwarah and harming them and occupying these blessed cities!!

    If you read how the two Wahhabi historians Ibn Ghannam and Ibn Bishr proudly and without any shame reported these incidents you'll be shocked. They reported how they made Takfir upon whole towns and villages, attacked them and killed them on the streets, the markets and even in their houses. They even killed the Amir of al-'Uyayynah inside the mosque (!!!) after he had prayed the Salat al-Jum'ah. (Not even the houses of Allah had any sanctity for them!)
    They also reported how they burned and destroyed the fields of Muslims (while referring to them as "polytheists" and "apostates"), robbed and stole from them whatever they could take!
    They even reported what a great fear their attacks caused in the heart of the people (this was during their attack on al-Sham) or how the people - innocent Muslim men and women!!! - ran away from them and died from hunger and thirst in the desert (this is what happened to the people of al-Riyadh) or how the people fled to the ocean and drowned in the water (this happened to the people of al-Basrah). They also reported how they made an embargo against different cities which caused the people to die from hunger (this happened to the people Makkah al-mukarramah!).


    And as if all of these crimes are not enough: When they occupied Makkah al-mukarramah they stopped the people from the other Muslim lands from making Hajj for several years, because they regarded all of them to be "polytheists" and "apostates". The first time this happened in the year 1221 AH.

    When their tyranny and bloodshed had reached its peak, the Ottomans - who were the biggest "Mushrikin" (polytheists) upon this earth according the Najdis - decided to stop these criminal Mariqin and Khawarij and to retake every single city that they had occupied. The Ottomans crushed their Khariji state and the first Saudi state ceased to exist by the help of Allah and his permission.


    What is build upon deviation does not lead to anything except more deviation:

    After the first state they had a second state, but the second state was only in Najd and was weak compared to their first state. As for the third state: It's the current Saudi state and it was build upon treason against the whole Ummah of Islam.

    In the time of their first State the Wahhabiyyah were hated by all Muslims of the region (because everyone saw and knew of their crimes) and the people did not accept their views. However when time passed by the people started to forget about them.

    During the third state (i.e. the actual one) the government started to spread the so called "Salafi" Da'wah with huge amounts of money (because there is still an alliance between the Saudi rulers and the Wahhabi Al al-Shaykhs, who are the descendents of Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab). This and the widespread ignorance regarding the religion in our times are the main reason why the "Salafis" have spread. It should be noted that the so called "Salafi" Da'wah has nothing to do with the Salaf al-salih or the Ahl al-Sunnah. It's the result of a mix of the ideas of Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab and some other controversial personalities.

    So beware from whom you take religion and do not let these deceivers influence you.

    And our last call is that all praise be to Allah, the Lord of the worlds. And may the peace and blessings be upon our Master Muhammad - the seal of the Prophets and Messengers - and upon all of his familiy and companions.
    Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 09-05-15, 02:27 PM.

    #2
    Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

    What did the Najdi forefathers of ISIS think about the people of al-Sham al-sharif and how did they treat them?

    Some people still don't get it why ISIS / IS in al-Sham are first and foremost fighting against the Syrian rebels and people instead of fighting against the criminal Bashar. (They only attack Bashar when they need a oil field.) Know that they learned this from the Najdis!

    The Najdis would regard the Ottomans as the biggest "polytheists" upon this planet and would even make Takfir upon anyone who would regard them as Muslims or support them in any way. The Wahhabi historian Ibn Bishr (d. 1288 AH) would even refer to the Ottomans as al-Rum (the Romans...), which is quite ironic because the Ottomans were trying to defend the Muslims against the real Romans (i.e. Europeans) while the Najdis where busy with slaughtering the Muslims of the Arabian peninsula.

    So let's see what they thought about the people of al-Sham:
    Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH) said:

    لكن هو أتى من الشام، وهم يعبدون ابن عربي، جاعلين على قبره صنما يعبدونه، ولست أعني أهل الشام كلهم، حاشا وكلا; بل لا تزال طائفة على الحق، وإن قلّت، واغتربت

    "But he came from al-Sham, and they worship Ibn 'Arabi and have made an idol upon his grave to worship it. I do not mean all of the people of al-Sham, no of course not; rather there does not cease a group [from them] to be upon the truth, even if they're only few."

    Source:
    al-Durar al-Saniyyah 2/45

    In the above quote he accuses the majority of the people of al-Sham of worshipping other than Allah ta'ala.
    Know that this is from among his many many lies against this Ummah. (In al-Durar al-Saniyyah there is even a quote where accuses the majority of the people of the Hijaz of rejecting the resurrection [after death].)

    Let us see now how the Najdis treated the people of al-Sham:
    Ibn Bishr proudly reported in his 'Unwan al-Majd the following incident which happened in the year 1225 AH:

    بلغه الخبر أن بوادي الشام وعربانه من عنزة وبني صخر وغيرهم فيها , فلما وصل تلك الناحية لم يجد فيها أحداً منهم , وإذا قد سبقه النذير إليهم , فاجتمعوا على دوخي بن سمير رئيس ولد علي من عنزة , وهو من وراء الجبل المعروف بطويل الثلج قرب نابلس , نازلين عين القهوة من جبال حوران , ولما بلغ ابن سمير ومن معه إقبال سعود إليهم انهزم بمن معه من البوادي ونزلوا الغور من حوران , فسار سعود في تلك الناحية , وأقبل فيها وأدبر , واجتاز بالقرى التي حول مزيريب وبصرى , فنهبت الجموع ما وجدوا فيها من المتاع والطعام , وأشعلوا فيها النيران , وكان أهلها قد هربوا عنها لما سمعوا بمسيره , ثم نزل عين البجة , وروى منها المسلمون!! وشربت خيلهم وجيوشهم....
    ثم رجع قافلاً إلى وطنه ومعه غنائم كثيرة من الخيل والمتاع , والأثاث والطعام , وقتل من أهل الشام عدّة قتلى , وحصل في الشام رجفة ورهب عظيم بهذه الغزوة , في دمشق وغيرها من بلدانه وجميع بواديه


    Source: 'Unwan al-Majd 1/309-310

    Here it is described how they robbed the property of Muslims, burned their things down and how the people had fled from the areas they were attacking. It's also mentioned that a number of people from al-Sham got killed and that this attack (he refers to it as a Ghazwah) caused a huge fear in the hearts of the people of al-Sham - especially those in Dimashq (Damascus) and other towns and villages.

    In the next comment I'll insha`Allah show how much they hated the people of Makkah al-mukarramah. (They said that whoever does not make Takfir upon them is also a disbeliever and they made an embargo against them until many people in Makkah died from hunger.)
    Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 09-05-15, 02:28 PM.

    Comment


      #3
      Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

      wow, red writing and lots of highlighted, underlined text. Shows you've put a lot of effort into this refutation of yours... well the writing anyway, guess you missed out reading the bits of the Quran and hadith which forbid building over graves, calling upon other than Allaah etc. But nice colouring all the same. Give you a gold star for your presentation skills.
      Last edited by Gingerbeardman; 30-04-15, 01:48 PM.
      FOLLOW THE NEW BLOG - GINGERBEARDMAN - Muslim, father, husband, writer, defender of ginger rights!

      www.facebook.com/outreach4Islam - Outreach4Islam have been working together in Leicester, calling the not yet Muslims to Islam since 2006.

      Comment


        #4
        Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

        Originally posted by Outreach4Islam View Post
        wow, red writing and lots of highlighted, underlined text. Shows you've put a lot of effort into this refutation of yours... well the writing anyway, guess you missed out reading the bits of the Quran and hadith which forbid building over graves, calling upon other than Allaah etc. But nice colouring all the same. Give you a gold star for your presentation skills.
        Please read the posts before commenting and think about your intention before writing. Barakallahu fik.

        As a reminder:

        Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
        Before I begin I would like to make an important note: This thread is NOT for the sake of dicussion and argumentation, but rather in order to inform those brother and sisters who don't know the reality of this movement and to warn them from being influenced by them or their descendants (i.e. the "Salafis"). I would also like to request that no one starts blindly defending Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab and his original followers in time of the first Saudi state, because I'm quite sure that you haven't read some of the Hardcore-Takfiri books of the original Najdis. All the informations that I will mention are from those books. If you want a proof for anything that I'll mention, then please write a comment here and I'll bring you the relevant qoutes in Arabic [from Najdi books] (and summarize its content).

        Comment


          #5
          Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

          So you create a topic for where you lecture people about the evil of this movement but won't tolerate any discussion or argumentation of it by anyone that rejects these "facts" of yours. Sorry but that simply isn't gonna happen.
          Allah is always watching [VIDEO]

          How To Weep For The Fear Of Allah

          Please remember to share these links with people you know so they can also benefit from them. :jkk:

          Comment


            #6
            Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

            Are you the author of this blog?

            http://salafiaqeedah.blogspot.co.uk/

            Comment


              #7
              Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

              The return of the sufis on Ummah forum.

              I guess the excitement level of bin bayyah and hamza yusuf reformism got everyone hyped. lol.

              It's like this stupidity comes in waves... Deeply rooted in hatred of anyone who does not preach that stuff..

              The amazing thing for me since I became Muslim is that, come from a Christian background it boggles my mind how muslims want to be like christians in cherry picking the religion or trying to change the religion or watering down the religion when we got everything preserved in our deen. Ajeeb...

              While I am not without faults and none of us are perfect, I would never support or bolster support for anyone who tries to do this to our deen. Hurling 'wahabbi', and as of late 'khawarij' lol...

              The whole fallacy of leadership, "but he is such a great speaker" and "you are not a scholar" arguments buy little weight here.

              Mind you I do not support ISIS blindly at all, I only would ever stand up for the truth regardless of any 'faction'. The reason traditionalists oppose many mujahedin in syria is because of their own ulterior agendas (we can pick and chose any sufi sensitive subject like shrines, graves, watering down of anything in the religion, etc...)

              I may not be the picture perfect muslim, but I still hold principles and that's what has always helped me differentiate between any side. Christians have always been easy to change the religion because they follow their whims and desires and then justify themselves and CHANGE the religion. The problem with traditionalists/sufis is that they change the religion by introducing new matters then justify themselves with extrapolated and out of context arguments and rationalizations, RATHER than seeking out the roots hence the way of the salaf...

              I find it more dangerous someone who boasts of being on the right path and looking down on others or just plain claiming to be on the right path, WHILE changing the religion, than someone who admits their weaknesses and does not ever desire to change the religion but says my weaknesses are my own and some day I will change that inshAllah rather than go after changing the religion or justifying themselves.

              This same crowd of western sufi followers (hamza yusuf, bin bayyah) all cater to the western apologist narrative and adopting the western culture in the extreme to appease non-muslims and 'prove' we are 'one of you'.

              If we want to be respected as Muslims, we should stand up for the deen as is. SOME Muslims also do things in the opposite extreme which is also not helpful to our deen or ummah, where we show mercilessness towards others muslim or non-muslim, but none of these are the middle-path the prophet salalahu alaiyhi salam thought us.

              If you want to learn the deen and apply it correctly seek out the example of the early generations hence the way of the salaf.

              Saudi Arabia also is not a khilapha by any measure, it's a royalty and not everyone is interested in the deen, many are munafiq but many are also upon the haq. Cannot hurl them all together. At least there is no grave worship and other similar shirky non-sense in saudi arabia. After all Saudis are humans too so are they sinful too? Yes. Do I blindly defend them? No. The leadership is largely munafiq, but than which muslim country isn't today? It all goes back to the agenda of sufis/traditionalists wanting to destroy the lack of grave shrine worship and other sufi like traditions that are lacking in Saudi and prohibited in saudi while flourishing in other more ignorant muslim countries. I see them as just 'politicians' like any other.

              On the other hand scholars who want to change the religion, they are the ones that are more dangerous to the ummah. They sow the seeds of destruction of our religion.
              Last edited by Ahmed2013; 30-04-15, 03:34 PM.

              Comment


                #8
                Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

                Interesting thread.

                But i wonder how much "wahabism" has to do with the atrocities of Al-Saud family.

                You know even if Al-Saud were normal sunnis they would still be on a rampage because they were carrying out the commandments of the United Satanists of America.

                I really dont think religion or sect has anything to do with the crimes of al-saud family.

                Anyway, can the OP comment on the allegation made by shias that Wahabis think that Allah is physical? I think its just a rumour to defame the sect but still its good to learn.
                Thanks.
                -Spicen

                Comment


                  #9
                  Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

                  http://islamqa.info/en/9243

                  9243: Did Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab rebel against the Ottoman Caliphate and what was the reason for its fall?

                  Q: Some people talk very bad about Muhammad ibn Abdulwahhab (rh). They accuse him, that he fought against the ottoman islamic empire and against the caliph , so he was an enemy of the muslims. This is their argument. Is this right? How could one fought against the amir of the muslims, even if the caliph prayed, gave his zakah and so on? They say also that he made an contract with the english army and fought with them against the muslims.

                  Can you give me a detailed answere to this historical event and show me the truth? Whom should we believe?.



                  A: Praise be to Allaah.

                  There is never a man who brings some goodness to this world but he has enemies among mankind and the jinn. Even the Prophets of Allaah were not safe from that.

                  The enmity of people was directed against the scholars in the past, especially the proponents of the true call (of Islam). They were met with intense hostility from the people. An example of that is Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him); some of those who were jealous of him regarded it as permissible to shed his blood, others accused him of being misguided and of going beyond the pale of Islam and becoming an apostate.

                  Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab was simply another of these wronged scholars who were falsely accused by people, in an attempt to cause trouble (fitnah). People’s only motives for doing that were jealousy and hatred, along with the fact that bid’ah was so firmly entrenched in their hearts, or they were ignorant and were blindly imitating the people of whims and desires.

                  We will mention some of the false accusations that were made against the Shaykh, and will refute them.

                  Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Azeez al-‘Abd al-‘Lateef said:

                  Some opponents of the salafi da’wah claim that Imam Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab rebelled against the Ottoman Caliphate, thus splitting the jamaa’ah (main body of the Muslims) and refusing to hear and obey (the ruler).

                  Da’aawa al-Munaawi’een li Da’wat al-Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahaab, p. 233

                  He said:

                  ‘Abd al-Qadeem Zalloom claims that the emergence of the Wahhaabis and their call was a cause of the fall of the Caliphate. It was said that the Wahhaabis formed a state within the Islamic state, under the leadership of Muhammad ibn Sa’ood and subsequently his son ‘Abd al-‘Azeez, which was supplied with weapons and money by the British, and they set out to gain control of other lands that were under the rule of Caliphate, motivated by the urge to spread their beliefs, i.e., they raised their swords against the Caliph and fought the Muslim army, the army of the Ameer al-Mu’mineen, with the encouragement and support of the British.

                  Kayfa hudimat al-Khilaafah, p. 10.

                  Before we respond to the false accusation that Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab rebelled against the Caliphate, we should mention the fact that the Shaykh believed that hearing and obeying the imams (leaders) of the Muslims was obligatory, whether they are righteous or immoral, so long as they did not enjoin disobedience towards Allaah, because obedience is only with regard to what is right and proper.

                  The Shaykh said in his letter to the people of al-Qaseem: “I believe that it is obligatory to hear and obey the leaders of the Muslims, whether they are righteous or immoral, so long as they do not enjoin disobedience towards Allaah. Whoever has become Caliph and the people have given him their support and accepted him, even if he has gained the position of caliph by force, is to be obeyed and it is haraam to rebel against him.”

                  Majmoo’at Mu’allafaat al-Shaykh, 5/11

                  And he also said:

                  One of the main principles of unity is to hear and obey whoever is appointed over us even if he is an Abyssinian slave…”

                  Majmoo’ah Mu’allafaat al-Shaykh, 1/394; quoted in Da’aawa al-Munaawi’een, 233-234.

                  And Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Azeez al-‘Abd al-Lateef said:

                  After stating these facts which explain that the Shaykh believed it was obligatory to hear and obey the leaders of the Muslims, whether they are righteous or immoral, so long as they do not enjoin disobedience towards Allaah, we may refer to an important issue in response to that false accusation. There is an important question which is: was Najd, where this call originated and first developed, under the sovereignty of the Ottoman state?

                  Dr Saalih al-‘Abood answered this by saying:

                  Najd never came under Ottoman rule, because the rule of the Ottoman state never reached that far, no Ottoman governor was appointed over that region and the Turkish soldiers never marched through its land during the period that preceded the emergence of the call of Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab (may Allaah have mercy on him). This fact is indicated by the fact that the Ottoman state was divided into administrative provinces. This is known from a Turkish document entitled Qawaaneen Aal ‘Uthmaan Mudaameen Daftar al-Deewaan (Laws of the Ottomans concerning what is contained in the Legislation), which was written by Yameen ‘Ali Effendi who was in charge of the Constitution in 1018 AH/1609 CE. This document indicates that from the beginning of the eleventh century AH the Ottoman state was divided into 23 provinces, of which 14 were Arabic provinces, and the land of Najd was not one of them, with the except of al-Ihsa’, if we count al-Ihsa’ as part of Najd.

                  ‘Aqeedat al-Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab wa atharuha fi’l-‘Aalam al-Islami (unpublished), 1/27

                  And Dr ‘Abd-Allaah al-‘Uthaymeen said:

                  Whatever the case, Najd never experienced direct Ottoman rule before the call of Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab emerged, just as it never experienced any strong influence that could have an impact on events inside Najd. No one had any such influence, and the influence of Bani Jabr or Bani Khaalid in some parts, or the Ashraaf in other parts, was limited. None of them were able to bring about political stability, so wars between the various regions of Najd continued and there were ongoing violent conflicts between its various tribes.

                  Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab Hayaatuhu wa Fikruhu, p. 11; quoted in Da’aawa al-Munaawi’een, 234-235.

                  We will complete this discussion by quoting what Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Azeez ibn ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Baaz said in response to this false accusation. He said (may Allaah have mercy on him):

                  Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab did not rebel against the Ottoman Caliphate as far as I know, because there was no area in Najd that was under Turkish rule. Rather Najd consisted of small emirates and scattered villages, and each town or village, no matter how small, was ruled by an independent emir. These were emirates between which there were fighting, wars and disputes. So Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab did not rebel against the Ottoman state, rather he rebelled against the corrupt situation in his own land, and he strove in jihad for the sake of Allaah and persisted until the light of this call spread to other lands…

                  Conversation recorded on tape; quoted in Da’aawa al-Munaawi’een, p. 237

                  Dr. ‘Ajeel al-Nashmi said: … The Caliphate did not react in any way and did not show any discontent or resentment during the life of the Shaykh, even though there were four Ottoman sultans during his lifetime…

                  Majallat al-Mujtama’, issue # 510.

                  If the above is a reflection of the Shaykh’s attitude towards the Caliphate, how did the Caliphate view the call of Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab?

                  Dr. al-Nashmi said, answering this question:

                  The view that the Caliphate had of the movement of Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab was very distorted and confused, because the Caliphate only listened to those who were hostile towards the movement of Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab, whether that was via reports sent by their governors in the Hijaaz, Baghdad and elsewhere, or via some individuals who reached Istanbul bearing news.

                  Al-Mujtama’, issue #504; quoted in Da’aawa al-Munaawi’een, p. 238-239.

                  With regard to Zalloum’s claims that the Shaykh’s call was one of the reasons for the fall of the Caliphate and that the English helped the Wahhaabis to topple it, Mahmoud Mahdi al-Istanbuli says concerning this ridiculous claim:

                  This writer should be expected to produce proof and evidence for his opinion. Long ago the poet said:

                  If claims are not supported by proof, they are used only by the fools as evidence.

                  We should also note that history tells us that the English were opposed to this call from the outset, fearing that it might wake the Muslim world up.

                  Al-Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab fi Mar’aat al-Sharq wa’l-Gharb, p. 240

                  And he says:

                  The ironic fact is that this professor accuses the movement of Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab of being one of the factors that led to the destruction of the Ottoman Caliphate, even though this movement began in 1811 CE and the Caliphate was abolished in 1922 CE.

                  Op. cit., p. 64

                  What indicates that the English were opposed to the Wahhabi movement is the fact that they sent Captain Foster Sadler to congratulate Ibrahim Pasha on his success against the Wahhabis – during the war of Ibrahim Pasha in Dar’iyyah – and also to find out to what extent he was prepared to cooperate with the British authorities to reduce what they called Wahhabi piracy in the Arabian Gulf.

                  Indeed, this letter clearly expressed a desire to establish an agreement between the British government and Ibrahim Pasha with the aim of destroying the Wahhabis completely.

                  Shaykh Muhammad ibn Manzoor al-Nu’maani said:

                  The English made the most of the hostility that existed in India towards Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab and they accused everyone who opposed them and stood in their way, or whom they regarded as dangerous, of being Wahhabis… Similarly the English called the scholars of Deoband – in India – Wahhaabis, because of their blunt opposition to the English and their putting pressure on them.

                  Di’aaya Mukaththafah Didd al- Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab, p. 105-106

                  From these various quotations we can see the falseness of these flawed arguments when compared to the clear academic proofs in the essays and books of the Shaykh; that falseness is also obvious when compared to the historical facts are recorded by fair-minded writers.

                  Da’aawa al-Munaawi’een, 239, 240.

                  Finally, we advise everyone who has slandered the Shaykh to restrain his tongue and to fear Allaah with regard to him. Perhaps Allaah will accept their repentance and guide them to the straight path.

                  And Allaah knows best.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

                    Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                    Before I begin I would like to make an important note: This thread is NOT for the sake of dicussion and argumentation,
                    Well it's too late to make this even more important note before you begin, but I'll make it now anyway. This is not a blog, it's a forum.
                    والمبادرة إلى التكفير إنما تغلب على طباع من يغلب عليهم الجهل - ابن تيمية رحمه الله - بغية المرتاد

                    "Rushing towards takfir is an attitude which is dominant over those who are defeated by ignorance." - Ibn Taymiyyah Rahimahullah [Bughyatul Murtaad, page 354]

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

                      Originally posted by Outreach4Islam View Post
                      wow, red writing and lots of highlighted, underlined text. Shows you've put a lot of effort into this refutation of yours... well the writing anyway, guess you missed out reading the bits of the Quran and hadith which forbid building over graves, calling upon other than Allaah etc. But nice colouring all the same. Give you a gold star for your presentation skills.
                      seriously tell me about it. I stopped reading when he got to the khawarij part.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

                        get a life dude
                        Please Please Please Make Dua for these [URL="http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?455964-Plz-Make-Dua-for-these-members&p=6715010&viewfull=1#post6715010"]Click Here[/URL] JazakAllahi

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

                          Originally posted by Mikha’eel View Post
                          So you create a topic for where you lecture people about the evil of this movement but won't tolerate any discussion or argumentation of it by anyone that rejects these "facts" of yours. Sorry but that simply isn't gonna happen.
                          The reason why I said that this thread is not for the sake of discussion and argumentation is the following:

                          In order to have a serious and fruitful discussion both sides must have knowledge regarding the issue that they're talking about (and both sides need to be read to accept the truth).
                          The problem however is that most people who are influenced by the so called "Salafi" Mashayikh do not know the history of the movement that they're admiring. The "Salafi" Mashayikh have simply told them that Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH) "fought against Shirk and Bid'ah" and they've unfortunately simply accepted this without further investigation. May Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala guide us and them.
                          The absolute majority of the laymen who are influenced by the "Salafi" Mashayikh have never read books/works like Mufid al-Mustafid, al-Rasa`il al-Shakhsiyyah, Tarikh Najd, 'Unwan al-Majd or al-Durar al-Saniyyah.

                          If someone wants to speak about the original Najdi movement with knowledge then he's welcome to do so, but if someone wants to blindly defend them without having looked into the above mentioned books then I believe that this is not acceptable, because our religion prohibits talking without knowledge.

                          Originally posted by Abu 'Abdullaah View Post
                          Are you the author of this blog?

                          http://salafiaqeedah.blogspot.co.uk/
                          No, I don't have a blog.
                          But I've already seen that the author of the blog has quoted me in some of his articles.
                          From the content of the blog the author seems to be from the indian subcontinent. (I'm from the Middle East.)

                          Originally posted by Ahmed2013 View Post
                          reformism
                          The people who claim to be "reformists" in our time are usually modernists and I regard them as deviants. I believe that it's obligatory upon every Muslim to follow the classical understanding of Islam.

                          Originally posted by Ahmed2013 View Post
                          This same crowd of western sufi followers (hamza yusuf, bin bayyah) all cater to the western apologist narrative and adopting the western culture in the extreme to appease non-muslims and 'prove' we are 'one of you'.
                          My loyality is to Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala, his noble Messenger - 'alayhis salatu wa salam - and the believers.
                          And my name is not Hamza Yusuf, so what is your point?

                          Originally posted by علي View Post
                          Well it's too late to make this even more important note before you begin, but I'll make it now anyway. This is not a blog, it's a forum.
                          I know that already. Please read what I wrote to bro Mikha’eel.
                          Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 09-05-15, 02:29 PM.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

                            Originally posted by emirali View Post
                            The problem with the link you posted is that the author hides some very important facts and he even made incorrect statements and lied.

                            Here is my short reply:

                            - It's claimed that Najd was not under the direct control of the Ottomans. But wasn't it under their indirect control? (Of course it was.)
                            And it's not even important whether it was under their control or not, because even if Najd was not under their control, it would not justify attacking its cities and villages (the people living there were Muslims), slaughtering its people, destroying their fields and stealing from them whatever one can take! (All of this is reported by the Wahhabi historians Ibn Ghannam (d. 1225 AH) and Ibn Bishr (d. 1288 AH) in an explicit manner, so there is no way to deny it.)

                            - The Wahhabiyyah also attacked al-Ahsa`, al-Hijaz, al-Yaman, al-'Iraq, al-Sham and other areas. All of these lands were Ottoman land without any doubt. So what is the justification for that? And again: There is no way whatsoever to deny it, because Ibn Bishr - the Wahhabi! - reported all of that and when he would mention an attack he would call it as Ghazwah (military expidition) and when he mentioned how they stole whatever they could he would call it as Ghanimah (war booty). These kind of words are usually only used when one fights against disbelievers who are at war with Muslims, but Ibn Bishr uses them while describing their attacks against Muslims.

                            - And the most important point: The early Najdi movement (i.e. those in the time of the first and second Saudi state) would make Takfir upon the Ottomans and this is a known issue to whoever has read or looked into their works. There are so many explicit and clear statements in al-Durar al-Saniyyah and other books. Whenever they mention the Ottomans they accuse them of "Shirk" (polytheism) or "Kufr" and they explicitly said that whoever does not regard them as "polytheists" is a "disbeliever" and that whoever support them in any way is also a "disbeliever" and so on.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

                              The orginal Wahhabi movement: "Whoever does not make Takfir upon the people of Makkah is a disbeliever!"

                              Let us see what the Najdis said:

                              الأمر الثاني: الكفر بما يعبد من دون الله، والمراد بذلك تكفير المشركين، والبراءة منهم، ومما يعبدون مع الله. فمن لم يكفر المشركين من الدولة التركية، وعباد القبور، كأهل مكة وغيرهم، ممن عبد الصالحين، وعدل عن توحيد الله إلى الشرك، وبدّل سنّة رسوله صلى الله عليه وسلم بالبدع، فهو كافر مثلهم، وإن كان يكره دينهم، ويبغضهم، ويحب الإسلام والمسلمين ; فإن الذي لا يكفر المشركين، غير مصدق بالقرآن، فإن القرآن قد كفر المشركين، وأمر بتكفيرهم، وعداوتهم وقتالهم

                              "The second issue: To disbelieve in that which is worshipped instead of Allah, and this means to make Takfir (declare as disbelievers) upon the polytheists (Mushrikin) and the disavowal from them and that which they worship alongside Allah.
                              So whoever does not make Takfir upon the polytheists of the turkish state (i.e. the Ottomans!) and the grave-worshippers like the people of Makkah (!!!) and [upon] others from those who worship the righteous (Salihin) and left the Tawhid (monotheism) of Allah for Shirk (polytheism) and exchanged the Sunnah of his Messenger - sallalalhu 'alayhi wa sallam - with innovations, then he is a disbeliever like them even if dislikes their religion und hates them and loves Islam and its people.
                              This is so because the one who does not declare the polytheists to be disbelievers has not accepted the Qur`an. The Qur`an declares the polytheists as disbelievers, and commands to declare them as such and to show enmity towards them and to fight them."

                              Source: al-Durar al-Saniyya 9/291

                              Look what a great lie they made against the people of Makkah, who were from the people of Tawhid and Tanzih! (And do you see the Takfir against the Ottomans?)
                              And look how they make Takfir even upon the one who does not make Takfir upon them. If this is not Ghuluww (extremism), then I don't know what is!

                              Now look at this letter of Sa'ud I. bin 'Abd al-'Aziz [bin Muhammad bin Sa'ud] (d. 1229 AH) addressing the people of Makkah:

                              من سعود بن عبد العزيز , إلى كافة اهل مكة والعلماء والآغوات وقاضي السلطان , السلام على من اتبع الهدى
                              أما بعد: فأنتم جيران الله وسكان حرمه آمنون بأمنه.
                              إنما ندعوكم لدين الله ورسوله , ( قل يا اهل الكتاب تعالوا الى كلمة سواء بيننا وبينكم ان لا نعبد الاّ الله ولا نشرك به شيئاً ولا يتخذ بعضنا بعضاً أرباباً من دون الله ، فان تولوا فقولوا: اشهدوا باننا مسلمون ) , فأنتم في أمان الله ثم في أمان أمير المسلمين سعود بن عبد العزيز , وأميركم عبد المعين بن مساعد ، فاسمعوا له وأطيعوا ما أطاع الله والسلام


                              "From Sa'ud bin 'Abd al-'Aziz to all of the people of Makkah, the scholars, the chiefs and the judge of the Sultan: Peace be upon the one who follows guidance.
                              To proceed: You're are the neighbours of Allah and the inhabitants of his sanctity and secure by his safety. We are calling you to the religion of Allah and that of his Messenger (!!!), { Say: O People of the Scripture! Come to an agreement between us and you: that we shall worship none but Allah, and that we shall ascribe no partner unto Him, and that none of us shall take others for lords beside Allah. And if they turn away, then say: Bear witness that we are they who have surrendered (unto Him). } [3:64].
                              You're in the safety of Allah and then in the safety of the leader of the Muslims (!) Sa'ud bin 'Abd al-'Aziz, and your leader 'Abd al-Mu'in bin Musa'ad. So listen to him and obey him as long as he obeys Allah. Peace."

                              Source: Hashiyyah of 'Unwan al-Majd 1/261 by Ibn Bishr (d. 1288 AH)

                              Look how he greets them with "Peace be upon the one who follows guidance" instead of "Peace be upon you". (It should be obvious by now why he's doing that!)
                              Then he's calling them "to the religion of Allah and that of his Messenger"?!?! Why?? Are the People of Makkah not already upon the religion of Allah?
                              And then look at the Ayah he qoutes and how we declares himself to be the leader of Muslims!

                              There are two important things that you need to know about this Sa'ud I. bin 'Abd al-'Aziz (d. 1229 AH):

                              - He was not just the third leader/ruler of the first Saudi state, but also a direct student of Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH) himself
                              - The one who commanded all of the people of Najd to make Bay'ah to him after 'Abd al-'Aziz bin Muhammad bin Sa'ud (d. 1218 AH) was none other than Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab as Ibn Bishr mentioned in his 'Unwan al-Majd 1/162: "أمر الشيخ محمد بن عبد الوهاب جميع أهل نجد أن يبايعوا سعود بن عبد العزيز , وأن يكون ولي العهد بعد أبيه , وذلك بإذن عبد العزيز , فبايعوه" - end of the qoute -

                              Know that he's still trying to sound nice in the above letter, because he said that after being able to control the city.
                              But let's see how this "safety" that he claimed to give to the people of Makkah looked like when he lost the control over the city.


                              The Wahhabiyyah made an embargo against Makkah al-mukarramah, which caused the death of many of its people

                              Ibn Bishr said while speaking about the incidents of the year 1220 AH:

                              وفي هذه السنة اشتد الغلاء والقحط على الناس ... وأما مكة فالأمر فيها أعظم مما ذكرنا بسبب الحرب والحصار وقطع الميرة والسابلة , وذلك حيث انتقض الصلح بين غالب وبين سعود , فسدّت الطرق كلّها عن مكة من جهة اليمن وتهامة والحجاز ونجد , لأنهم كلهم رعية سعود وتحت أمره , فثبت عندنا وتواتر أن كيلة الأرز والحب بلغت في مكة ستة أريل , وكيلتهم أنقص من صاع نجد , وبيع فيها لحوم الحمير والجيف بيعت فيها بأغلى الأثمان ، وأكلت الكلاب ، وبلغ رطل الدهن ريالين , ومات خلق كثير منهم جوعاً

                              Source: 'Unwan al-Majd 1/284-258

                              It's mentioned that there was a drought in that year. What did the Wahhabiyyah do in this situation against the people of Makkah?
                              They made an embargo against them so that nothing could enter the city from the direction of Yemen, Tihamah, Hijaz and Najd (because all of these regions were already under Wahhabi occupation), which made the situation in Makkah even more serious. The people had even started eating the meat of dogs and Ibn Bishr says that many people [in Makkah] died from hunger.

                              Know that they treated Madinah al-munawwarah in the same way (and this was in the same year and Ibn Bishr mentioned that some pages after the above qoute), even though Rasulullah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - has explicitly warned from harming al-Madinah!
                              Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 09-05-15, 02:29 PM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X