Are you a Wahabbi, Arabman?

[Grant]

Arabman,

The variation in belief and practice across the Muslim world is enormous. Some groups feel women have rights to education and employment, while others such as the Taliban disagree. The ICU destroyed the tombs of the sheiks in the mosques in Barawe during their tenure, as they saw them as heretical pilgrimage sites. I don't have a link, but I understand there is a Wahabbi fatwa to the effect that non-Wahabbi/Salafis are sufficiently heretical they may be killed or enslaved. Is it the teachings of this school that you are saying Muslims can't change?

You will get a profound apology from me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that many of your attitudes come from Abdul Wahab. I am certainly no expert myself, but I am disgusted and somewhat frightened by what I can only call the excesses of his school of thought. I do hope you find this fatwa of interest and from a sufficiently Islamic source:

http://www.hizmetbooks.org/Advice_for_t ... wah-31.htm



FATWA ON THE HERESY OF THE WAHHABISM



31 - The following is again a translation from the book Ashadd al-jihad:


Muhammad ibn Sulaiman al-Madani ash-Shafi'i (rahmat-Allahi 'alaih), [who passed away in Medina in 1194 A.H. (1780),] was questioned about Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab an-Najdi. He said, "This man is leading the ignoramuses of the present age to a heretical path. He is extinguishing Allahu ta'ala's light. But Allahu ta'ala will not let His light be extinguished in spite of the opposition of polytheists, and He will enlighten everywhere with the light of the 'ulama' of Ahl as-Sunnat." The [collection of the] questions and his answers at the end of Muhammad ibn Sulaiman's fatwas are as follows:


"Question: Oh great 'ulama', the stars who lead to the path of the Best of Creatures (the Prophet)! I ask you: Is a person to be permitted to disseminate his ideas if he says that this umma has wholly dissented from the essence of Islam and from the path of Rasulullah (sall-Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam), just by measuring with his short sight and narrow mind the knowledge he has gathered from various religious books, and if he says that he is mujtahid and, therefore, is able to derive knowledge on Islam from Allah's Word and Rasulullah's hadiths, although he does not have any of the qualifications stated as necessary by the 'ulama' of Islam for being a mujtahid? Should he not give up this claim of his and follow the 'ulama' of Islam? He says that he is an imam, that it is necessary for every Muslim to follow him and that his madhhab is necessary. He forces Muslims to accept his madhhab. He says that those who do not obey him are unbelievers, that they should be killed and that their possessions should be confiscated. Does this man tell the truth? Or, is he wrong? Even if a person fulfilled all the requirements necessary for making ijtihad and founded a madhhab, would it be jaiz for him to force everyone to adopt this madhhab? Is it necessary to adopt a certain madhhab? Or, is everyone free to choose any madhhab he like? Does a Muslim go out of Islam if he visits the grave of a Sahabi or a pious servant of Allahu ta'ala, vows something for him, cuts an animal near a grave, prays making a mediator of a dead person, takes some soil from such a grave to receive blessings or asks help from Rasulullah or a Sahabi to get redeemed from danger? Is it permitted to kill such a Muslim even though he says, 'I do not worship the dead person and do not believe that he has the power to do anything. I make an intercessor, mediator, of that person with Allahu ta'ala to make me attain my wish, because, I believe that he is a beloved servant of Allahu ta'ala.' Does a person go out of Islam if he swears by something [or somebody] other than Allah?


"Answer: It should be well understood that knowledge is to be learned from a master. Those who learn knowledge, one's religion, from books by themselves make many mistakes. Their mistakes are more than their correct conclusions. There is no one who can employ ijtihad today. Al-Imam ar-Rafii, al-Imam an-Nawawi and Fakhr ad-din ar-Razi said, 'The 'ulama' have come to a unanimous conclusion that there is no one left capable of employing ijtihad today.' No alim argued with al-Imam as-Suyuti, who was like an ocean in every science and a profound alim, when he declared that he was a relative (nisbee) mujtahid, that is, a mujtahid belonging to a formerly established madhhab, though he did not say that he was an absolute (mutlaq) mujtahid or that he had his own madhhab. He wrote more than five hundred books. Every book of his shows that he was at a very high level in the sciences of tafsir and hadith and in every branch of Islamic knowledge. Is it apt to believe similar words of those who are very far from the high level of an alim such as al-Imam as-Suyuti while he was not accepted as a relative mujtahid? They should not even be listened to. And if one of them goes so far as to say that the books by the 'ulama' of Islam were wrong, we shall doubt his reason and faith. Because, we may ask: From whom has he acquired his knowledge? Since he has seen neither Rasulullah (sall-Allahu ta'ala 'alaihi wa sallam) nor any Sahabi, he should have learned by reading the books by the 'ulama' of Islam if he knows anything. If he says that the books of those 'ulama' are distorted, then how has he himself found the right path? He should explain this point to us! The imams of the four madhhabs and the great 'ulama' who came up in these madhhabs derived all their knowledge from ayats and hadiths. From which source has he acquired his knowledge which disagrees with theirs? It is obvious that he has not attained the degree of employing ijtihad. The thing this man should do when he encounters a hadith ash-Sharif which he cannot comprehend is to search for the interpretations of that hadith ash-Sharif by mujtahids. He should adopt the interpretation he likes. Al-Imam an-Nawawi (rahimah-Allahu ta'ala), a profound alim, wrote in his book Rawda that his was the way to be followed. Only those profound 'ulama' who had attained the degree of ijtihad could comprehend ayats and hadiths. Non-mujtahids are not permitted to attempt to understand ayats and hadiths. So, Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab had better return to the right path and give up his heresies.


"As for his calling Muslims 'unbelievers,' a hadith ash-Sharif declares, 'If a person calls a Muslim an "unbeliever," one of the two becomes an unbeliever. If the accused is a Muslim, the one who accuses becomes an unbeliever.' Al-Imam ar-Rafii (rahmat-Allahi 'alaih), with reference to Tuhfa, wrote in his book Ash-sharh al-kabir, 'The one who calls a Muslim a disbeliever but is unable to explain it away becomes a disbeliever himself, for he will have called Islam disbelief.' Al-Imam an-Nawawi, too, wrote the same in his book Rawda. Abu Ishaq al-Isfaraini, al-Halimi, an-Nasr Al-Muqaddasi, al-Ghazali, Ibn Daqiqi 'l-Id and many other 'ulama' said that he becomes a disbeliever whether he is able to explain it away or not.


"As to his permitting killing Muslims and confiscating their properties, a hadith ash-Sharif declares, 'I have been commanded to fight against disbelievers until they say La ilaha illa'llah.' This hadith ash-Sharif shows that it is not permissible to kill Muslims. This hadith ash-Sharif was said in the light of the sixth ayat al-karima of Surat at-Tawba which declares, 'Free them who make tawba and perform salat and give zakat.' The twelfth ayat al-karima of Surat at-Tawba declares, 'They are your brothers in Islam.' It is declared, 'We judge according to the appearance we see. Allahu ta'ala knows the secret,' [That author opposes this hadith sharif too, and says, "We do not care about the words. We look for the intentions and meanings," on the 146th page of his book. There are many such statements, incompatible with ayats and hadiths, in his book.] in a hadith ash-Sharif. Another hadith ash-Sharif declares, 'I am not ordered to dissect the hearts of men and see their secrets.' Hadrat Usama killed a man who had been heard to have said, 'La ilaha illa'llah'; when Usama claimed that the man had not had iman in his heart, Rasulullah declared, 'Did you dissect his heart?'


"It is not permissible for a mujtahid to compel people to accept his madhhab. If he is a Qadi at the court, he may give a ruling according to his ijtihad and may order that his decree be executed.


"As for making nadhr for awliya', the Shafi'i 'ulama' explained this subject in detail. It is noted in the book Hiba with reference to the book Tuhfa: 'If someone makes a vow for a dead wali with the intention that the goods he vowed be for the wali, this nadhr is not sahih. If he vows without this intention his nadhr is sahih, and the goods vowed are to be given to the servants of the wali's tomb, the students and teachers of the madrasa near the tomb and to the poor who live near the tomb. If the people who are used to receiving the vowed goods assemble near the tomb, and if it is a custom of that country that the goods vowed should be given to them, the goods are given to them. If there is no such custom, then the nadhr is invalid. This is reported from as-Samlawi and ar-Ramli, too. Everyone knows that no one amongst those who make nadhr for a dead wali would ever think the goods vowed should be given to the dead wali. Because, everyone knows that the dead do not take or use anything and that the goods are to be given to the poor or to the people who serve at the tomb. This is why it is an 'ibada. In fact, according to the Shafi'i madhhab it is not permissible to vow to do mubah, makruh or haram things. The 'ibadas and sunnas which are neither fard nor wajib can be vowed as nadhr.'


"Some 'ulama' said 'permissible' and some said 'not permissible' for kissing and rubbing one's face on graves. Those who said 'not permissible' said that it was makruh. Nobody said it was haram.


"As declared in the hadiths quoted at the beginning of our book, to have recourse to prophets and pious Muslims, that is, to put them as intermediaries, or to entreat Allahu ta'ala through them is permissible. There are many hadiths which show that it is permissible to have tawassul (recommendation of oneself to Allahu ta'ala) through pious deeds. It is certainly permissible to have recourse to the mediation of pious men while it is permissible to make so of good deeds.


"As to swearing by some being other than Allahu ta'ala, it is disbelief only if that being is highly esteemed and attributed as a partner to Allahu ta'ala. The hadith ash-Sharif, 'He who swears by someone other than Allah become a disbeliever,' which was related by Hakim and Imam Ahmad and quoted in al-Munawi's book, explains this fact. But al-Imam an-Nawawi, depending on the majority of the 'ulama', wrote that it was makruh and added that the ijma' of Muslims was a document.


"The 114th ayat al-karima of Surat an-Nisa' declares, 'We put into Hell in the hereafter together with unbelievers the person who, after tawhid and guidance have been taught to him, dissents from the right path of Rasulullah and departs from the believers in belief and deeds.' It is understood from this ayat karima also that it is necessary for every believer to follow the path of Ahl as-Sunnat wal-Jamaat. It should not be forgotten that the wolf will devour the lamb out of the flock. Likewise, he who remains outside Ahl as-Sunnat wal-Jamaat will go to Hell."


After the above passage, Hadrat Dawud ibn Sulaiman goes on:


"This is the end of our short quotation from the profound scholar Muhammad ibn Sulaiman al-Madani's long fatwa on this subject. This will be sufficient for those whom Allahu ta'ala has decreed guidance. Muhammad ibn Sulaiman died in 1195 A.H. (1780). The heretic Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab was born in the Najd desert in 1111 A.H. (1699) and died in 1206 (1792). Muhammad ibn Sulaiman unmasked the ignorance of this man and refuted his opinions and claim that he employed ijtihad. He proved and disseminated in Muslim countries the fact that Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab had not learned anything or received faid from any scholar of Islam and that he had fallen into heresy on account of calling Muslims polytheists.


"Hanafi scholar Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-'Azim al-Makki [(rahmat-Allahi 'alaih) d. 1052 A.H. (1643)] listed and confuted the heretical statements of Ibn Hazm Muhammad 'Ali [az-Zahiri, d. 456 A.H. (1064)] in his book Al-qawl as-Sadid. Ibn Hazm ordered everybody to employ ijtihad and said that it was haram to follow other people. He presents the 58th ayat al-karima of Surat an-Nisa', 'If you cannot agree on a matter, do it the way Allahu ta'ala and His Prophet said,' as a support for these words of his. 'Abd al-'Azim said in answer: 'Thanks to Allahu ta'ala, we are not outside the state of following the great Islamic scholar al-Imam al-azam Abu Hanifa. We are honored by following that exalted imam and his great students and the profound 'ulama' who poured light into the world such as Shams al-aimma and other real 'ulama' who came throughout a millennium (rahimahum-Allahu ta'ala).'


"Ibn Hazm was an Andalusian. He was in the Zahiriyya madhhab, which was founded by Dawud al-Isfhani [az-Zahiri, d. Baghdad, 270 A.H. (883)], whose madhhab was forgotten in a short time. Ibn al-Ahad, az-Zahabi and Ibn Ahmad ibn Khallikan [d. Damascus, 681 A.H. (1281)] said, 'Even those who greeted Ibn Hazm hated him. They disliked his ideas. They all agreed that he was a heretic. They could not speak good of him. They warned the sultans to beware of him. They told Muslims to keep away from him.' Ibn al-'Arif said, 'Ibn Hazm's tongue and al-Hajjaj's sword did the same thing.' Ibn Hazm had many wicked, heretical ideas incompatible with the Hadith. Al-Hajjaj [Al Hajjaj az-zalim as-Saqafi, who died in 95 A.H. (714), was the Governor of Medina and Iraq during the caliphate of Abd al-Malik and his son Walid.] killed one hundred and twenty thousand innocent people without any reason. And Ibn Hazm's tongue led astray hundreds of thousands of Muslims who came after the 'good time' defined in the Hadith ash-Sharif. He died in 456 A.H. (1064).


"May Allahu ta'ala protect all my Muslim brothers against heretical and corrupt paths! May He bestow upon us the belief and deeds compatible with the correct ijtihads of the 'ulama' of the four madhhabs! May He assemble us as the followers of their madhhabs beside the prophets, Siddiqs, martyrs and the pious on the Day of Judgement! Amin." [Dawud ibn Sulaiman, Ashadd al-jihad, written in 1293 A.H., published in Bombay, 1305 A.H. Arabic reprint and Turkish version in 1390 (1970).]

[*Arabman]

Grant,

The variation in belief and practice across the Muslim world isn't enormous. Statistically, about 90% of Muslims are Sunni, 9.8% Shia, the remainder compromise of Sufis and other tiny cults or sects. Some of those cults or sects have no representation across the Muslim world and owe its existence and financing to the West. Adherents of those cults or sects number from a few hundreds, few thousands to few tens thousands. Therefore, such cults or sects and its variation in belief and practice do not factor. The variation in belief and practice between Sunnis and Shias is the only one worth mentioning.

Visiting the graves or tombs of owliyo isn't a common practice across the Muslim world. Only a fraction of Muslims practice it, namely Sufis. The practice isn't known in some Muslim countries, and it's associated with fringe cults or sects in other Muslim countries. To be frank, the practice is wanning, having seen its heyday during the colonial times. These are different times, with many Muslims rediscovering Islam and disassociating themselves from practices or rituals that have nothing to do with Islam. For instance, people are asking themselves why are there no owliyo performing miracles like the owliyo of the colonial times used to do? One of those owliyo was said to have neutralized bombs fired by the colonials with his blanket.

It's not logical the ICU destroyed tombs. Why? Because people know the location of tombs and will rebuild it in case it's destroyed. The logic of the ICU would have been to discourage people from visiting those tombs. They would accomplish that through banning, fining or punishing those who violate the ban.

I gather you understand Wahhabism is a school, and you think there are followers who subscribe to it and call themselves Wahhabi. Is that so? If so, which Wahhabism are you referring to? I mean, the US government has warm and strong relations with the Saudi monarchy, whose members are said to be Wahhabis. As you know, the Saudi monarchy is a dependable ally of the fight against terrorism and Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda's, as you know, makeup is Wahhabis. So, you have Saudi monarchy Wahhabis fighting Al-Qaeda Wahhabis. Some Westerners have redefined Al-Qaeda's Wahhabism, and now claim it's Qutubism. Others have redefined it as Salafism, with others redefining it as Takfiris. So, which is which?

P.S. You do a lot of copy/pasting. Most of what you copy/paste doesn't reflect an independent criticism.

[michael_ital]

^^ elightening. will be interested in hearing Grant's reply

[*Arabman]

Grant, check this link:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story ... 14,00.html

[RIIGHAYE]

From bottom line, the war is debated and seems Cultural, but it is resource control from the top line.

I like and indentify with Sufism. I have read the works of AlGhazali, a true Sufi writer and the most articulate writer and philosopher in Medieval Islam. I can fill these pages, using his findings and points about Sufism. It is the best practice a true Muslim should follow.
I don't think places where a worship of saints existed in Somalia except remembering them and praying for them. Anti-Sufist radicals falsely spread that it was idolatry.

[musika man]

[quote="RIIGHAYE"]From bottom line, the war is debated and seems Cultural, but it is resource control from the top line.

I like and indentify with Sufism. I have read the works of AlGhazali, a true Sufi writer and the most articulate writer and philosopher in Medieval Islam. I can fill these pages, using his findings and points about Sufism. It is the best practice a true Muslim should follow.
I don't think places where a worship of saints existed in Somalia except remembering them and praying for them. Anti-Sufist radicals falsely spread that it was idolatry.[/quote]

^^^

very true. giving respect to a saint and reading the koraan for them and asking allah to forgive their soul is not idolatry and no harm done. the saudi tariqa don't. muslims are different, and it is stupid to call other muslims names.

[Salahuddiin]

It's good to visit graves sometimes to remember death and make ducaa for the deceased muslim. Unfortunately it doesn't stop to that for many people. Especially sufis take it to the extreme and they practically worship the dead for asking them corpses to make ducaa for living muslims, making salaat in the graveyard and sacrifice for them and they make this trip to the grave like it's hajj for them. And this falls into nothing but shirk.

Prophet (scws) said: "May Allaah curse the Jews and the Christians, for they have taken the graves of their Prophets as places of worship" and this was narrated by Bukhari and Muslim in their books. These people who visit graves thinking that these awliyaa help them in any way to get closer to Allah are doing only the same thing, only little bit differently that what was done by mushrikiin in the time of the Prophet (scws). They also said: "We worship them only that they may bring us near to Allaah." (39:3) These sufis are making the exact thing to seek love of Allah eventhough all Qur'an is filled with warnings against this.

SubhanAllah it's real sad how muslims have deviated from the right path. For example one guy was in Pakistan and when it was time to pray and he heard adhaan he went to a nearest masjid and he saw it was built in the grave of some saint. So he comes out and goes to another masjid and he sees the same thing. He fastly tried to go to every masjid in the area only to see that all of them were built on a grave, so he ended up praying in the street instead.

There was nothing wrong with Muhammad ibn AbdulWahhab to destroy the graves that were taken to an object of worship. Prophet (scws) said that don't leave any elevated grave without leveling it and he (scws) destroyed every false god when he took control of the kacba. So what was the difference with that?

[Padishah]

Error, Innovation and True Belief

Praise be to Allah, that He puts down innovation and innovators, and raises high the Sunnah of the Last Messenger, our Master and Protector Muhammad (sall-Allahu `alayhi wa sallam) and its people. Praise be to Allah that in every century he brings forth the sincere lovers of the Prophet (s) to defend the traditions of the Prophet (s) from the distortion of the ignorant--those who call the majority of Muslims throughout the Islamic world associationists (mushrikeen) and unbelievers (kuffar).

Salutations and Greetings of peace upon the Prophet (s), his Companions (r), and his Pure Family (Radhi Allahu Anhum wa Rahmatullahi alayhim), who are the owners and protectors of the Sunnah. In this century and before, there has appeared a group of people who are opposed to Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jama'at, and Shari'ah in general. Their opposition is mainly to the established religious schools of law (madhahib). They contradict the beliefs and practices of Muslims, while they mislead a minority of Muslims with incorrect beliefs. Further, these people have given a religious judgement (fatwa) that it is permissible for them to harm, even slay, anyone who does not accept their beliefs.

The intention this article was written is to clarify some of the beliefs to which the majority of Muslims adhere. It is intended to refute some of the maliciously incorrect teachings which are being presented as Islam by a small but vocal group in mosques and centers throughout the Western Hemisphere. One of the main claims of this group is that Muslims whose beliefs differ from theirs are innovators (ahl al-Bida'ah), Kuffar, and even Mushrikeen.

We will demonstrate, through the relevant texts from Holy Qur'an and Hadith, that such a claim is not only invalid but is even Haraam from one Muslim to another. Abdullah Ibn Mas'ud (Radhi Allahu Anhu) conveyed that the Prophet (s) said, "Cursing a Muslim is corruption and fighting a Muslim is unbelief." 1 Another hadith states that Thabit ibn al-Dahak said that the Prophet (s) said, "Whoever says that a believer is an unbeliever, it is the same as if he had killed him." 2 Abu Huraira and Abdullah Ibn `Umar (r) related that the Prophet (s) said, "If any man says to his brother `O unbeliever' it is the same as if he had killed him." 3 Abdullah Ibn `Umar related that the Prophet (s) said, "Don't say that people who proclaim `La ilaha ill-Allah' are unbelievers, even if they commit a sin, because the one who calls those who worship no God except Allah unbelievers, is himself an unbeliever." 4

There are many many hadiths regarding this particular subject. We humbly ask our Lord to maintain us as true Muslims and prevent us from falling into the error of invoking kufr for believing people. It is unacceptable for Muslims to call each other unbelievers for any reason, because it is against the Shari'ah (whose sources comprise the Holy Qur'an, Hadith, Ijma', and Qiyas) and it is a judgement which belongs to Allah Ta'ala alone.

HADITH: Hazrat Anas bin Malik relates that the Holy Prophet (s) said:

Three (3) things form the foundation of al-Islam:(1) Whosoever says 'La ilaha Illallah, Muhammadar-Rasulullah,' do not take him out of Islam because he committed a sin. .... [Sahih of Abu Dawud]

TAFSIR: Ahlus-Sunnah does not remove someone from Islam because he committed a sin, but the Khawarij say the person becomes a kafir. The Mu'tazila say the person will be out of Islam, but still be Muslim. If a person commits such an act which is a sign of kafir (wearing crosses,prostration to idols, etc...) then he will be out of Islam, but if someone says something that has one hundred meanings, 99 are kufr and one from Islam, then we must take the one meaning unless he's referring to any of the 99.

The Khawarij are vocal in calling Muslims who follow interpretations and practices different than themselves 'unbelievers'. A perfect example of this is when they labeled Sayyidina Ali bin Abi Talib (Karam Allah Wajhu) and Mu'awiyah (r) as being Mushrikeen for appointing an arbitrator. Ever since then, they have had a deep-rooted hatred for both, especially when it comes to Sayyidina Ali and his descendants (Ahl al-Bayt). For this reason alone, one will NEVER see any regard for the Ahl al-Bayt from the Wahhabi sect or any of its offshoots (who title themselves "Salafiyya").

This sect was founded by Muhammad bin Abdul-Wahhab, (1699-1792 A.D.). He was from eastern part of what is now Saudi Arabia in the area of Najd. His father was a very righteous and pious person, as was his brother Sulaiman, both of whom were Hanbali's.

Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab studied religion in Madinah. He was strongly influenced by the teachings of Ibn Taymiyyah (8th century H.) and Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyah and possessed extreme hatred for the Uthmani (Ottoman) Caliphate. Both of these scholars (Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyah) had deviated from the teachings of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jama'at in that they declared that there is no need to listen to or follow scholars nor the four schools of Law (madhahib). They proclaimed that those who did not follow their school were kuffar and mushrikeen. Theirs is known as the "Salafi" school.

As a result of the teachings he developed along the lines of the Salafi "school," both his father and his brother warned the Ummah about Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab's innovations, his new and dangerous beliefs, and his misdirected teachings, which became perversions. Through the years, many sincere yet naive people have been deceived by his teachings on the subject of Tawhid, Shirk, and Kufr.

Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab's teachings contradict the Imams and righteous scholars from the time of the Holy Prophet (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam) up until today and he considered anyone not following him to be a kafir, and his blood and property licit. He began his mission in 1143 A.H. (1731 A.D.) and his beliefs spread through the tribes of Najd after 1150 A.H. (1738 A.D.). Muhammad b. Sau'd, Prince of Dar'iya, and his son Abdul Aziz, supported him and tried to propagate his teachings.

Many of the teachers of Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab, said, "His teachings are going to deviate many people from the Sunnah and the true practices of Islam." These include his father and his brother Shaykh Sulaiman, who wrote the book Divine Lightning in Refuting the Najdi Teachings, printed in Iraq in 1888 A. D., Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab declared his intention of establishing a limited and narrow interpretation of Tawhid and to eliminate shirk. He considered all people from 1000 years ago up to his time, to have been associationists (mushrikeen) and that his teachings corrected the wrong beliefs of the majority of Muslims. He applied verses of Holy Qur'an, revealed concerning those who did not accept Allah Subhanahu wa ta'ala, in the time of the Holy Prophet (s), to any Muslims who rejected his beliefs. In short, according to his school, anyone who disbelieved in his interpretations was an unbeliever.

Abdullah bin `Umar (r) said that the Prophet (s) said those who deviate from the beliefs of the majority of the Muslims, "using the verses of Holy Qur'an which were revealed about unbelievers to apply to believers, are themselves unbelievers. "5 In another narration Ibn `Umar (r) said that the Prophet (s) said, "The thing I fear most for my nation is that a man will apply verses of Holy Qur'an outside its intended context. "5

The followers of Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab tried to suppress the writings of Ahlus-Sunnah scholars from the eyes of Muslims, hiding all books of previous scholars from the market and propagating their own limited literature--that of Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Qayyim and Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab, and even attempting to corrupt the writings of Ahlus-Sunnah `ulama by buying out publishers for large sums of cash. It is an act of sacrilege for that man, Muhammad b. Abdul Wahhab and his followers, with their incorrect beliefs, to call the majority of Muslims unbelievers! In fact, the one who deviates from the majority of Muslims is nearer to unbelief than belief because he chooses a path removed from that of the majority of the Muslims. As Allah said in the Holy Qur'an,

"Whoever opposes the Prophet after he has found the Guidance and the Reality and follows a different way than the Believers, We are going to put him in Hell..."[4:115]

Many hadith of the Holy Prophet (s) predicted the coming of the Najdis and its destructive effect on Islam. the Holy Prophet said, "A people will emerge from the East, reading the Holy Qur'an in such a way that it never reaches past their throats. They pass through religion as the arrow passes through its target, consequently missing the mark." 6

This has been a short introduction concerning the Najdi sect. We mentioned their accusation of shirk and kufr (association and unbelief) for those who accept Shafa'a of the Prophet (s), despite the hadiths which prohibit calling someone who says `La ilaha illa-Allah, Muhammadar-Rasulullah' an unbeliever.



The Acceptability of Tawassul

One belief of the majority of Muslims which is rejected by the Najdi school is using the Prophet as intermediary to Allah (tawassul). Najdis regard this belief as constituting association or polytheism (shirk). However, clear proof of the acceptability of this belief is found in the Holy Qur'an and authentic Hadiths.

Here we will present some texts which will disprove their claim of shirk without a doubt. Firstly, if it was association, tawassul would never have been accepted by the Prophet (s) himself. As narrated in an authentic hadith, the Prophet in his prayers used to say, "O my Lord, I am asking you for the sake of those who ask You. . ." 7 He used to teach this supplication to his Sahabah and order them to use it. In this case, he (s) was using those who ask Allah to be the intermediaries for his supplication.

Question: Does belief in the use of the holy prophets and messengers as intermediaries (wasilah) make the believer asking through them a mushrik and a kafir? And is it true that his worship--salat, sawm, hajj, etc. --is corrupted by this belief?

Answer: Belief in the mediation (tawassul) of Prophets and messengers is faith, not unbelief, and it is permissible, not forbidden! The one who asks using the mediation (tawassul) of these Holy prophets TO Allah, in order that his request may be accepted, is a believer and a monotheist, and he is not a polytheist because he is asking Allah--not asking the holy prophets--but asking for the sake of their honor as holy prophets. That is why his worship is accepted--because he is worshipping Allah, not the prophets.

In support of this, we will quote first from the Holy Qur'an, secondly from the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (s), thirdly from the consensus of the Sahaba (Ijma'), and finally from scholars of Islam, because they are closer to understanding the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah than we are.



The Qur'anic Evidences

Among the Qur'anic evidence is the verse in Surat al-Maidah,

"O you with Iman! Do your duty to Allah and seek the means [AL-WASILAH] of approach unto Him, and strive (with might and main) in His Cause so that ye may prosper. " [5:35]

It is well-known from many hadiths that the possessor of the title al-Wasilah (means of approach), is the Prophet (s). That is why the majority of scholars have understood from this verse that it is permissible to use the mediation of righteous people and to make them a means between the Lord, Allah Suhanahu wa Ta'ala, and ourselves in order that our request will be accepted, on the condition that the one using the intermediary (wasilah) knows that the One granting his request is Allah, not the intermediary himself. If he believes otherwise than this, then he is an unbeliever. We quote the verse from Surat an-Nisa:

"If they had only, when they were unjust to themselves, come unto thee and asked Allah's forgiveness, and the Messenger of Allah had asked forgiveness for them, they would have found Allah indeed Oft-Returning, Most Merciful. " [4:64].

In explaining this verse, Ibn Kathir said,

"Allah guides the sinners and neglectful [`asi], if they do something sinful or corrupt, to come to the Prophet, take him as a means [wasilah], and ask forgiveness from Allah, and to ask the Prophet (s) to also request Allah's forgiveness for them. If they do this, Allah will forgive them, bless them and have mercy on them. "

Many other `ulama have explained this verse in a similar manner. We know that the Holy Qur'an is for all centuries, not only for a specific time, as it is Allah's Word. So all Muslims are under that order of Allah to come to Him through the means of the Prophet [wasilah]. Further, there are numerous other verses of Holy Qur'an which give a similar meaning, but for now it suffices to mention only these two.



Evidences from Hadith

`Uthman bin Hanif was with the Prophet, and a man came to the Prophet and complained about the loss of his sight. The Prophet told him, "If you like, I will supplicate Allah for you, but if you can be patient, it is better." He said, "O Prophet of Allah, it is very hard on me to have lost my sight, and I have no one to lead me about. " So the Prophet (s) ordered him to make ablution and perfect it, pray two rakats and then to come to Allah with this supplication, "O Allah! I am asking You and turning to You through Your Prophet Muhammad, the Prophet of Mercy. O Muhammad! [YA MUHAMMAD!] I am turning to My Lord, taking you as a means for my request to be granted. O Allah, grant me his intercession." (Ar: "Allahuma innee as'aluka wa atawajjahu ilayka bi nabiyyika Muhammad, Nabiyy ur-rahma, ya Muhammad inni atawajjahu bika ila rabbi fee hajati hadhihi li-tuqda lee. Allahumma shaffi`hu fiyya")

And `Uthman swore, "By Allah, we did not part company before that person returned to us and his prayer had been granted. It was as if he had never been afflicted. " This is a Sahih Hadith.8

The Last Messenger (s) was very clear in his order that anyone who has a request should take the Prophet as a means to Allah [wasilah]. That person called on Allah in the absence of the Prophet (s), i. e. he went out to make his supplication. Here he used the phrase, "Ya Muhammad!" addressing the Prophet (s) directly. From this we can understand that we can take the Prophet as a means to Allah in his presence or in his absence, during his life and after his passing away. This is the understanding the Companions (r) had of the Prophet's order, because his order to one person is like a general order in all times, unless there is a specific order to the contrary in the Sunnah.



Evidence from the Practice of the Sahabah

A man used to come to `Uthman b. `Affan (r), the third caliph after the death of Sayyidina Muhammad (s), in order to make a request of him. `Uthman (r) used to ignore him and would not consider his request. One day, the man met `Uthman b. Hanif and complained of this to him. `Uthman b. Hanif said to him, "make ablution and go to the masjid and pray two rakats and say [the famous supplication that the Prophet (s) had taught the blind man], `O my Lord, I am asking You and turning to You through Your Prophet Muhammad, the Prophet of Mercy. O Muhammad! I am turning to My Lord, taking you as a means for my request to be granted. Oh Allah, grant me his intercession. ' Then mention your request to Allah. And then come to me and we will go together to `Uthman b. `Affan. That person went and did as he was taught, and afterwards passed by the door of `Uthman b. `Affan. The doorkeeper asked him to come inside to meet with `Uthman b. `Affan. `Uthman b. `Affan made him sit beside him on the pillow designated for important visitors. He asked him, "What is your request?" The man mentioned his request. It was immediatedly granted. Then `Uthman b. `Affan asked him, "Why didn't you made this request before?" He then added, "Whenever you have a request come to us!" That man left and met `Uthman b. Hanif again. He told him, "Thank you, my brother. `Uthman b. `Affan would not look at me and entirely ignored my request until you spoke to him. . " `Uthman b. Hanif said, "By Allah, I did not speak with him, but I taught you what the Prophet (s) had taught the blind man. " This is an authentic hadith. 9

Here that man invoked the Prophet (s) by calling, "Ya Muhammad!" although he was fully aware that the Prophet (s) had passed away, and the Companions did not reject this.

It is narrated that `Umar b. al-Khattab, the second caliph (r), would pray to Allah for rain during times of drought through the means, the honor and intercession of the uncle of the Prophet, `Abbas b. `Abdul Muttalib (r) by using this supplication, "O Our Lord! Previously, when we had a drought, we used to come to You by means and intercession of Your Prophet. Now we are requesting intercession through the uncle of the Prophet to grant us rain. "10 And it was granted. `Umar added, after making this supplication: "He (al-`Abbas), by Allah, is the means to Allah" (hadha wallahi al-wasilatu ilallahi `azza wa jall).11

Mu'awiyah (r) once asked Allah for rain through the intercession of Yazid ibn al-Aswad, in the presence of the Sahabi and the Tabi'een. Now ask yourself... if this was "shirk," wouldn't the Sahabi and Tabi'een have IMMEDIATELY stopped it with their hands or spoke out against it?

From these Aadith, we can understand that tawassul through the Prophet (s) himself and through Saliheen, living or passed away, absent or present, is acceptable. None of the Sahaba nor the Tabi'een (Radhi Allahu Anhum) deny the use of tawassul by `Umar and Mu'awiyah. That is because the Holy Qur'anic verses we quoted previously from Surah an-Nisa and Surah al-Ma'edah gave a general command for all Muslims. Also the Hadiths we quoted gave a general order to use Saliheen as Wasilah without specifying if the tawassul was through their good deeds or through their pious personages. If tawassul by way of the personages of the Holy Prophet (Sallallahu Alayhi wa Sallam) and pious people was association and unbelief (shirk and kufr)--as ignorant people have claimed, then the Sahabi (r) would have denied the use of mediation (tawassul) by Hadarat `Umar (r) and Mua'wiyah (r).



The Evidence of Scholars

Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyah, the student of Ibn Taymiyyah, both of whom were the teachers who preceded Ibn Abdul-Wahhab, wrote in his book Za'd al Ma'ad:

There is no way to happiness and success in this life and the Hereafter except through the Messenger. You cannot receive Allah's satisfaction except through their hands [wasilah]. ...It is known that the means [wasilah] to happiness and success in this life and the Hereafter is through the personages of the Prophets and messengers themselves [bi dhawatihim].

He adds:

tawassul through the prophets ('Alayhim as-salaam) causes requests to be granted. And the granting of requests is by Allah. "

He continues:

Through mediation (tawassul) we receive blessings [ni'mat] from Allah. And the means to those blessings is itself a blessing from Allah. And no doubt the personages of the prophets and messengers is among the greatest of His blessings.

That is why it is permissible to say that the personages of the prophets are themselves intermediaries (wasilah) to Allah. He continues in his book:

It must be known that the biggest blessing and the greatest goodness and the greatest favor from Allah is the very existence of the personage of Muhammad (s), because he is the greatest Prophet, the Rahmah for all human beings, the seal of the prophets and the intercessor of sinners. And Allah has mentioned about the honor [shan] of the Prophet that Allah granted favors to the believers by sending Prophet Muhammad from among themselves.

He concludes:

It is confirmed that Prophet Muhammad (s) is `al-wasilat al-udhma fil dunya wal-akhirah. ' --the greatest means and intermediary to Allah in this life and the Hereafter. And happiness and success will never be obtained except through him.

This is what Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziya, one of the preceding teachers of Ibn Abdul-Wahhab, said in his book Za'd al Ma'ad. That is why we summarize and conclude that it is permissible to ask Allah by means of the Prophet and his mediation (tawassul) before his advent--as was done by our Abu, Sayydina Adam ('Alayhis-Sallam) --after his birth, during his life and after his death, as we have determined from the previous discussion.

We ask Allah to prevent us from slipping into errors and to guide us to the right path. Amin.

Wa Salaam `alaykum wa Rahmatullah.



References:

1. Narrated in Sahih al-Bukhari no: 6044, 7076 and Sahih Muslim 1:122.
2. Narrated in Sahih al-Bukhari.
3. Narrated in Sahih al-Bukhari.
4. Narrated in Sahih Bukhari.
5. Narrated in Sahih Bukhari.
6. Narrated in Sahih al-Bukhari and Muslim
7. Ibn Majah and others related this hadith and the-Hafidh, Ibn Hajar, deemed it a strong hadith .
8. Narrated in most books of Hadith, including Muslim, Ibn Khuzaimah, an-Nisa'i, al-Tirmidhi and Ibn Majah as a sahih (authentic) hadith. It is related by Ahmad (4:138 #17246-17247), Tirmidhi (hasan sahih gharib -- Da`awat Ch. 119), Ibn Majah (Book of Iqamat al-salat wa al-sunnat, Ch. on Salat al-hajat #1385), Nasa'i (`Amal al-yawm wa al-laylat p. 417-418 #658-660), al-Hakim (1:313, 1:526), Tabarani in al-Kabir, and rigorously authenticated as sound (sahih) by nearly fifteen hadith masters including Ibn Hajar, Dhahabi, Shawkani, and Ibn Taymiyya.
9. sound (sahih) hadith authenticated by Bayhaqi, Abu Nu`aym in the Ma`rifa, Mundhiri (Targhib 1:473-474), Haythami, and Tabarani in the Kabir (9:17-18) and the Saghir (1:184/201-202)
al-Bukhari, Baihaqi, Ibn Asakir al-Hakim and many other Imams relate this Tradition.
Ibn `Abd al-Barr relates it in al-Isti`ab bi ma`rifat al-ashab.

[Padishah]

Fitnatul Wahhabiyyah - The Menace of Wahhabism

Mawlana Shaykhu-l-Islam Ahmad Zayni Dahlan al-Makki ash-Shafi'i
(Chief Mufti of Mecca al-Mukarramah).


Introduction

During the reign of Sultan Salim III (1204-1222 AH) many tribulations took place. One was the tribulation of the Wahhabiyyah which started in the area of al-Hijaz(1) where they captured al-Haramayn(2), and prevented Muslims coming from ash-Sham(3) and Egypt from reaching their destination to perform Pilgrimage (Hajj). Another tribulation is that of the French who controlled Egypt from 1213 A.H. until 1216 A.H. Let us here speak briefly about the two adversities(4), because each was mentioned in detail in the books of history and in separate treatises.


Background On The Tribulations Of The Wahhabis

The fighting started between the Wahhabis and the Prince of Mecca, Mawlana Sharif Ghalib Ibn Bu Sa'id, who had been appointed by the honored Muslim Sultan as his ruling representative over the areas of al-Hijaz. This was in 1205 AH during the time of Sultan Salim III, the son of Sultan Mustafa III, the son of Ahmad. Previous to the outbreak of fighting, the Wahhabis began to build power and gain followers in their areas. As their territories expanded, their evil and harm increased They killed countless numbers of Muslims, legitimated confiscating their money and possessions, and captured their women. The founder of their wicked doctrine was Muhammad Ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab, who originated from eastern Arabia, from the tribe of Banu Tamim. He lived a long life, about one-hundred years. He was born in 1111 AH and died in 1200 AH. His history was narrated as follows:

Muhammad Ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab started as a student of knowledge in the city of the Prophet, sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam: Medina al-Munawwarah. Ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab's father was a good, pious man among the people of knowledge as was his brother, Shaykh Sulayman. His father, his brother, and his shaykhs (teachers of religion) had the foresight Ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab would innovate a great deal of deviation and misguidance, because of their observance of his sayings, actions, and inclinations concerning many issues. They used to reprimand him and warn people against him.


Some Of The Beliefs Of Ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab

What Ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab's father, brother, and shaykhs speculated about him came true-by the Will of Allah, Ta'ala. Ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab innovated deviant and misleading ways and beliefs and managed to allure some ignorant people to follow him. His deviant and misleading ways and beliefs disagreed with the sayings of the scholars of the Religion. His deviant beliefs led him to label the believers as blasphemers! He falsely claimed visiting the grave of the Prophet, sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, and performing the tawassul(5) by him as shirk(6). Additionally, he falsely claimed visiting the graves of other prophets and righteous Muslims (awliya’) and performing tawassul by them was shirk as well. He added to this by saying, "To call upon the Prophet, sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, when performing tawassul by the Prophet is shirk." He passed the same judgment of shirk on the ones who call upon other prophets and righteous Muslims (awliya’) in performing tawassul by them.

In an effort to give credibility to his innovations Ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab embellished his sayings by quotations which he selected from Islamic sources, i.e., quotations which are used as proofs for many issues but not the issues which Ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab was attempting to support. He brought false statements and tried to beautify them for the laymen until they followed him. He wrote treatises for them until they believed that most of the People of Tawhid(7) were blasphemers.


Alliance With The Saudi Family

Moreover, Ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab called upon the princes of eastern Arabia and the people of ad-Dar'iyyah(8) to support him. They carried his doctrine and made this endeavor a means to strengthen and expand their kingdom. They worked together to suppress the Bedouins of the deserts until they overcame them and those Bedouins followed them and became foot-soldiers for them without pay. After that, these masses started to believe that whoever does not believe in what Ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab said is a blasphemer, and it is Islamically lawful (halal) to shed his blood and plunder his money.

The matter of Ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab started to evidence itself in 1143 A.H. and began spreading after 1150 A.H. Subsequently, the scholars--even his brother, Shaykh Sulayman and the rest of his shaykhs-- authored many treatises to refute him. But Muhammad Ibn Su'ud, the Prince of ad-Dar'iyyah in eastern Arabia, supported him and worked to spread his ideology. Ibn Su'ud was from Banu Hanifah, the people of Musaylimah al-Kadhdhab(9). When Muhammad Ibn Su'ud died, his son 'Abdul-'Aziz Ibn Muhammad Ibn Su'ud took over the responsibility of fulfilling the vile task of spreading the Wahhabi beliefs.

Many of the shaykhs of Ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab in Medina used to say, "He will be misguided, and he will misguide those for whom Allah willed the misguidance." Things took place as per the speculation of the scholars. Ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab claimed his intention behind the madhhab he invented was "to purify the Tawhid" and "repudiate the shirk." He also claimed people had been following the shirk for six-hundred years and he revived their Religion for them!!



The Methodology of Ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab


Ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab took the verses revealed to speak about the blasphemers and applied them to the Muslims. The following examples from the Qur'an illustrate this point. Allah, ta'ala, said in Surat al-Ahqaf, Ayah 5:

Who is more astray than the one who performs supplication (du'a') to [worship] other than Allah; the one other than Allah he supplicates to will not answer his du'a'.


Allah, ta'ala said in Surat Yunus, Ayah 106 :


"Do not perform supplication (du'a') to [worship] other than Allah; the one other than Allah you supplicate to will not benefit you and will not harm you"


The verses in the Qur'an similar to these ones are numerous. Muhammad Ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab gravely misinterpreted the previously cited verses and said: "The Muslim who asks help from the Prophet, sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, other prophets, or the righteous people (salihun), or who calls or asks any of them for intercession is like those blasphemers mentioned in the Qur'an." According to the false claim of Ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab, the Muslims who do these things are blasphemers.

He also considered visiting the grave of Prophet Muhammad and the graves of other prophets and righteous Muslims for blessings as blasphemy. Allah revealed Ayah 3 of Surat az-Zumar in reference to the mushrikun:

Those who worship the idols said: "We do not worship them except to achieve a higher status from Allah Ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab falsely stated: "Those who perform tawassul (asking Allah by the prophets, for example) are similar to those blasphemers mentioned in Surat az-Zumar, Ayah 3, who claim they do not worship the idols except to achieve a higher status from Allah." He said: "The blasphemers did not believe the idols create anything; they believed Allah is the Creator." He gave his version of proof from the Qur'an by citing Surat Luqman, Ayah 25 and Surat az-Zumar, Ayah 38, in which Allah said: If you ask them, `Who created the heavens and earth?' They will say, `Allah'. In Surat az-Zukhruf, Ayah 87, Allah said:

If you ask them, `Who created them?' They will say,’Allah’. Ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab falsely concluded from these verses that the Muslims who perform tawassul are similar to those blasphemers.


The Scholars refute Ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab


In their writings to refute Ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab's sayings, the scholars said his deduction was false. The believers did not consider the prophets or the awliya’ as gods and they did not deem them partners to Allah. Instead, they correctly believe the prophets and awliya’ are good slaves and creations of Allah, and they do not deserve to be worshipped.


The blasphemers intended in these verses believed their idols deserved Godhood. They exalted them as one would exalt his Creator, even though they believed the idols did not create the heavens and the earth. The believers, on the other hand, do not believe the prophets or righteous Muslims (awliya’) deserve to be worshipped, nor do they deserve to be attributed with Godhood, nor do they exalt them as one would exalt God. They believe these people are good slaves of Allah, His beloved ones whom He chose, and by their blessings (barakah) Allah grants His mercy to His creation. Hence, when the slaves of Allah seek the blessings (barakah) of the prophets and righteous Muslims (awliya’) they are seeking these blessings as a mercy from Allah.


There are many proofs and examples from the Qur'an and Sunnah about this basic belief of the Muslims. Muslims believe Allah is the Creator, the One Who grants benefit and inflicts harm, and the only One Who deserves to be worshipped. Muslims believe that no one other than Allah has the power to affect the creation. The prophets and righteous people do not create anything. They do not possess the power to bestow benefit or inflict harm on others, but Allah is the One Who bestows the mercy upon the slaves by the righteous Muslims' blessings.


Hence, the belief of the blasphemers, i.e., the belief their idols deserve to be worshipped and have Godhood, is what makes them fall into blasphemy. This saying of the blasphemers, as previously cited in Surat az-Zumar, Ayah 3, was said in an effort to justify their belief when they were disproved and shown idols do not deserve to be worshipped.


How can Ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab and those who follow him find it permissible to equate the believers, who believed in Tawhid, to those blasphemers, who believed in the Godhood of the idols? All the previously cited verses and the verses which are similar to them are specific to the blasphemers who associate partners with Allah--none of the believers are included.


Al-Bukhari narrated by the route of Ibn 'Umar, may Allah raise their ranks, that the Prophet, sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, described the Khawarij as those who took the verses revealed about the blasphemers and attributed them to the believers! In the narration by the route of Ibn 'Umar the Prophet said:


"What I fear most for my nation is a man who mis-explains the Qur'an and takes it out of context."


Proofs For Tawassul - The Permissibility of Asking Allah for things by some of His Creation.


If performing tawassul had been blasphemy, then the believers, i.e., the Prophet, sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, his Companions, and the Salaf and Khalaf of this nation would not have done it. Yet it is mentioned in the sahih hadith of the Prophet that the Prophet used to ask Allah by saying:


"O Allah, I ask You by the status of those who ask You.(10) "


Without doubt, this is tawassul. The Prophet, sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, used to teach this supplication (du'a') to his Companions and order them to say it. This issue was expounded upon in different books and treatises refuting Ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab.


There is a hadith related by al-Hakim that mentions after Adam ate from the tree, he performed tawassul by our Prophet, sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. He did that, because he saw the name of the Prophet written on the 'Arsh, Adam said: "O Allah, by the dignity of this son [Muhammad], forgive this father [Adam]."


It was also related by Ibn Hibban, that upon the death of Fatimah Bint Asad, may Allah raise her rank, the Prophet, sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, with his own honorable hands, put her in her grave and said:


"O Allah, forgive my mother(11), Fatimah Binti Asad, and widen her place by the status of Your Prophet and the prophets who came before me. You are the most Merciful."


There is a hadith classified as sahih(12), that a blind man asked the Prophet, sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, to make a supplication (du'a') to Allah to return his sight. The Prophet ordered him to make ablution (wudu') and pray two rak'ahs and then say:


"O Allah, I ask You and direct myself to You by Your Prophet, Muhammad, the Prophet of Mercy. O Muhammad, I ask Allah by you to fulfill my need. O Allah, enable him to intercede for me."


The blind man did what the Prophet taught him to do(13) and Allah brought his sight back. Moreover, as related by at-Tabarani, the tawassul made by the blind man was used by the Companions and Salaf after the death of the Prophet.


'Umar Ibn al-Khattab performed the tawassul by al-'Abbas (the uncle of the Prophet), may Allah reward their deeds, when he prayed the Salah of 'Istisqa'(14) with the people. There are other proofs mentioned in the books of the Islamic scholars but we will not recount them at length here.


The one who pursues the saying of the Companions and their followers will find a great deal of proof about the validity of calling the prophet by saying "O Muhammad" in his presence as well as in his absence and in his life as well as after his death. In fact, many texts include the phrase which means, "O Muhammad". Calling the name of the Prophet, sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, is permissible. An example is the saying of the Companion, Bilal Ibn al-Harith, may Allah reward his deeds, when he went to the grave of the Prophet. He said: "O Messenger of Allah, ask Allah to send rain to your Nation." His saying contains this format(15).


Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Sulayman al-Kurdi(16) was among the authors who wrote refuting Ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab. He was Ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab's own shaykh. Among what he said is as follows:


O Ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab, I advise you, for the sake of Allah, ta'ala, to hold your tongue regarding the Muslims. If you hear from anyone who asks for help from other than Allah that one has the power to effect things without the Will of Allah, then teach him the right thing about this issue, and show him the proofs which state no one other than Allah brings things from non-existence into existence. The one who rejects that is blasphemous. You have no right to label the majority of the Muslims as blasphemers(17) while you are deviant from the majority of the Muslims. In fact, it is more reasonable to consider the one who deviates from the majority of the Muslims as a blasphemer then to consider the Muslims as a nation as blasphemers--because the deviant one has followed a path other than the path of the believers. In Surat an-Nisa', Ayah 15, Allah said:


Whomever contends with the Messenger after the right path was exposed to him and follows other than the way of the believers, Allah will leave him to whatever he followed and put him in Hell (Jahannam)].


The Permissibility Of Visiting The Grave Of The Prophet

Visiting the grave of the Prophet, sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, was performed by the Companions and the Salaf and Khalaf who came after them. Many hadiths cite the benefit of this deed and the scholars of Islam have written books about this matter(18).


Calling On Someone Other Than Allah

Among of what was mentioned concerning calling on someone other than Allah, whether that one is present, absent, dead or alive, is the saying of the Prophet:


"If the animal of anyone of you went out of control in the wilderness, then call: `O slaves of Allah, help me'", since there are slaves of Allah [i.e. the angels] who will respond to him.


There is another hadith related by al-Bazzar in which the Prophet said:

" If one of you lost something or needs help while in an open land, then let him say:
"O slaves of Allah, help me."


Another narration says, "Rescue me, because Allah has created slaves whom you do not see." When traveling at nightfall the Prophet, sallallahu 'alyhi wa sallam, used to say:" O earth, my Lord and your Lord is Allah." When the Prophet visited the grave of Muslims, he used to say:"O people of the graves, peace be upon you."


In the Tashahhud in as-Salah the Muslim says: "O Prophet of Allah, may Allah protect you from infirmities, and have mercy and blessings on you."


There is no harm in calling on and performing tawassul by someone unless one believes that someone other than Allah actually creates things. Hence, as long as one believes that only Allah creates them, there is no harm in performing tawassul. Likewise, attributing a certain doing to other than Allah does not harm unless one believes this doer actually creates. So once it is established the person does not believe the creating is for other than Allah then attributing a doing to other than Allah is understood in its proper context. When one says: "This medicine benefited me," or "This particular righteous Muslim benefited me," he is merely exposing the created reason of the benefit. These statements are also similar to when one says: "This food satisfied my hunger," or "This water quenched my thirst," or "This medicine cured me." When Muslims say such statements, they understand them in their proper context, i.e., food, water, and medicine are only reasons, and Allah is the Creator of their benefit.


The general proofs mentioned in this summary are enough to refute Ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab. The scholars of Islam have expounded on this issue in several treatises.


Footnotes:

1 - Al-Hijaz refers to the western part of Arabia which includes Mecca and Medina.
2 - Al-Haramayn refers to Mecca and Medina.
3 - Ash-Sham refers to the area that includes Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Palestine.
4 - Only the first adversity will be presented in this booklet.
5 - Tawassul is asking Allah for goodness by a prophet, righteous believer, etc.
6 - Shirk refers to associating partners to Allah.
7 - The People of Tawhid refers to the Muslims.
8 - Ad-Dar'iyyah is a region north of the city of Riyad, Saudi Arabia.
9 - Musaylimah al-Kadhdhab was a blasphemous man who claimed the status of prophethood for 10 himself after the death of Prophet Muhammad. He was killed by the Muslims during the caliphate of Abu Bakr, may Allah raise his rank.
10 - Ibn Majah and others related this hadith and the-Hafidh, Ibn Hajar, deemed it a strong hadith
11 - The Prophet called her `my mother' out of likening her to his real mother.
12 - Sixteen hafidhs of hadith classified this hadith as sahih, including at-Tirmidhi, at-Tabarani, al-Bayhaqi, as-Subki, among others.
13 - It is clear in the narrations of this hadith, the blind man was not in the session of the Prophet when he did as the Prophet ordered him.
14 - Salah of 'Istisqa' refers to performing a specific prayer which includes making supplication for rain.
15 - Al-Bayhaqi related this hadith and classified it as sahih.
16 - Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Sulaym al-Kurdi was the one who wrote al-Hashiyah on the explanation of Ibn Hajar to the text of Bafadl.
17 - It is mentioned in a hadith it is easier for the devil to trick the lonely person who is away from other Muslims. The Prophet, sallallahu al 'alayhi wa sallam, while encouraging the Muslims to perform the prayers in congregation said: "Moreover, the wolf will eat the lonely lamb."
18 - Among these hadiths is the one related by ad-Daraqutni that the Prophet said: "On the Day of Judgment, I will intercede for the one who visits my grave with the good intention."

[Salahuddiin]

What is meant by the word waseelah [means of approach] in the verse, (interpretation of the meaning):

“O you who believe! Do your duty to Allaah and fear Him. And seek the means of approach to Him, and strive hard in His Cause (as much as you can), so that you may be successful”

[al-Maa’idah 5:35]

is the way of reaching Allaah, and there is no way of reaching Him except the way that Allaah loves and is pleased with, which is by obeying Him and not disobeying Him.

Ibn Katheer (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:

Allaah commands His believing slaves to fear Him (taqwa). When this word is accompanied by mention of obedience, it means refraining from haraam things. After that Allaah says, “And seek the means of approach to Him”. Sufyaan al-Thawri said, narrating from Talhah, from ‘Ata’, from Ibn ‘Abbaas: i.e., drawing close to Him. This was also stated by Mujaahid, Abu Waa’il, al-Hasan, Qataadah, ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Katheer, al-Saddi, Ibn Zayd and others. Qataadah said: i.e., draw close to Him by obeying Him and doing that which pleases Him, and Ibn Zayd recited (interpretation of the meaning):

“Those whom they call upon [like ‘Eesa (Jesus) ‑ son of Maryam (Mary), ‘Uzayr (Ezra), angels and others] desire (for themselves) means of access to their Lord (Allaah)”

[al-Isra’ 17:57]

There is no difference of opinion among the mufassireen concerning what these imams said.

Means of approach or means of access means that by means of which one reaches one’s goal. End quote.

Tafseer Ibn Katheer, 2/53, 54.

Al-Shanqeeti (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:

Note that the majority of scholars are of the view that what is meant by waseelah here is drawing close to Allaah by obeying His commands and avoiding that which He has forbidden, in accordance with the teachings brought by Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), doing that sincerely for the sake of Allaah alone, because this is the only path that leads to the pleasure of Allaah and attaining what is with Him and what is good in this world and in the Hereafter.

The basic meaning of the word waseelah is a path that brings one near to something. Here it means righteous deeds, according to scholarly consensus, because there is no other way of drawing close to Allaah apart from following the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Based on this, there are many verses which explain the meaning of waseelah, such as the following (interpretation of the meaning):

“And whatsoever the Messenger (Muhammad) gives you, take it; and whatsoever he forbids you, abstain (from it”

[al-Hashr 59:7]

“Say (O Muhammad to mankind): ‘If you (really) love Allaah, then follow me’”

[Aal ‘Imraan 3:31]

“Say: Obey Allaah and obey the Messenger”

[al-Noor 24:54]

And there are other similar verses.

It was narrated from Ibn ‘Abbaas that what is meant by waseelah is need.

Based on this, the words narrated from Ibn ‘Abbaas, “Seek with Him al-waseelah” mean, seek your needs from Allaah, for He alone is the one who is able to meet them. This is further explained by the verses in which Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“Verily, those whom you worship besides Allaah have no power to give you provision, so seek your provision from Allaah (Alone), and worship Him (Alone)”

[al-‘Ankaboot 29:17]

“and ask Allaah of His Bounty”

[al-Nisa’ 4:32]

And by the hadeeth: “If you ask, then ask of Allaah.”

Then al-Shanqeeti (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: The correct view concerning the meaning of waseelah is that of the majority of scholars, that it means drawing closer to Allaah by worshipping Him alone, in accordance with the teachings of the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). The tafseer of Ibn ‘Abbaas comes under this heading, because calling upon Allaah (du’aa’) and praying humbly to Him when asking for one’s needs is one of the greatest forms of worship which is waseelah or seeking to draw closer to Him and attain His pleasure and mercy.

From this it may be understood that what many of the heretics and followers of ignorant men who claim to be Sufis say, which is that what is meant by waseelah in the verse is the Shaykh who has the power of mediation between him and his Lord, is ignorance, blindness and obvious misguidance; it is toying with the Book of Allaah. Taking intermediaries is the essence of the kufr of the kaafirs, as Allaah clearly stated when He said concerning them (interpretation of the meaning):

“[They say:] We worship them only that they may bring us near to Allaah”

[al-Zumar 39:3]

“and they say: ‘These are our intercessors with Allaah.’ Say: ‘Do you inform Allaah of that which He knows not in the heavens and on the earth?’ Glorified and Exalted is He above all that which they associate as partners (with Him)!”

[Yoonus 10:18]

Every one who is accountable must understand that the way to attain the pleasure of Allaah and His Paradise and His mercy is to follow His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Whoever deviates from that has gone astray from the straight path.

“It will not be in accordance with your desires (Muslims), nor those of the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), whosoever works evil, will have the recompense thereof”

[al-Nisa’4:123]

The meaning of waseelah that we have explained here is also the meaning in the verse where Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“Those whom they call upon [like ‘Eesa (Jesus) ‑ son of Maryam (Mary), ‘Uzayr (Ezra), angels and others] desire (for themselves) means of access to their Lord (Allaah) as to which of them should be the nearest”

[al-Isra’ 17:57]

Another meaning of waseelah is the status in Paradise which the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) told us to ask Allaah to grant to him, and we hope that Allaah will give it to him, because only one person will be entitled to it, and he hoped that he would be the one. End quote.

Adwa’ al-Bayaan, 2/86-88

And Allaah knows best.

[Salahuddiin]

Question:
Why is so much of what is said about Shaykh al-Islam Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab so hostile, and why are his followers called Wahhabis?.

Answer:
Praise be to Allaah.

You should note that one of the ways in which Allaah deals with His chosen slaves is to test them according to the level of their faith, to show who is sincere and who is not. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“Alif-Laam-Meem.

[These letters are one of the miracles of the Qur’aan, and none but Allaah (Alone) knows their meanings.]

2. Do people think that they will be left alone because they say: ‘We believe,’ and will not be tested.

3. And We indeed tested those who were before them. And Allaah will certainly make (it) known (the truth of) those who are true, and will certainly make (it) known (the falsehood of) those who are liars, (although Allaah knows all that before putting them to test)”

[al-‘Ankaboot 29:1-3]

Those who are most severely tested are the Prophets, then the next best and the next best, as it says in the saheeh hadeeth of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).

If you study the seerah (biography) of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), you will see that he went through severe tests; he was even accused of being a liar, a sorcerer and a madman; garbage and filth were thrown on his back; he was expelled from Makkah; and his feet bled in al-Taa’if. This was the situation of all the Prophets who were rejected before him (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).

Shaykh al-Islam Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab (may Allaah have mercy on him) suffered the same as other sincere scholars and daa’iyahs, but in the end the message of truth that he brought prevailed. How could it be otherwise? How could the light of truth be extinguished? Think about this man and how Allaah helped him to sow the seeds of Tawheed throughout the Arabian Peninsula and put an end to all kinds of shirk. If this indicates anything, it indicates that he was sincere in his call and made sacrifices for that cause as far as we can tell, and of course his efforts were supported and helped by Allaah.

But the enemies of this call have spared no effort to make false accusations concerning it. They claimed – falsely – that the Shaykh claimed to be a prophet, and that he did not respect the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) properly, and that he condemned all the ummah as kaafirs… and other fabrications and lies that were told about him. Anyone who examines these claims will realize for sure that they are all lies and fabrications. The books of the Shaykh which are widely circulated bear the greatest witness to that, and his followers who answered his call never mentioned anything to that effect. If the matter were as they claim, his followers would have conveyed the same ideas, otherwise they would have been disloyal to him. If you want to know more details about this and to clarify the matter, you should read the book Da’aawa al-Manaawi’een li Da’wah al-Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab by Dr ‘Abd al-‘Azeez al-‘Abd al-Lateef, which will answer all your questions, if Allaah wills.

With regard to calling his followers Wahhaabis, this is just another in a long series of fabrications made up by the enemies of his call, to divert people away from the call of truth and to place a barrier between his call and the people so that the call will not reach them. If you study the story of how al-Tufayl ibn ‘Amr al-Dawsi (may Allaah be pleased with him) became Muslim, you will see the parallels with what happened in the case of Imam Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab.

Ibn Hishaam narrated in his Seerah (1/394) that al-Tufayl set out towards Makkah, but Quraysh intercepted him at the gates of the city and warned him against listening to Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). They made him think that he was a sorcerer who could cause division between man and wife… they kept on at him until he took some cotton and put it in his ears. Then when he saw the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), he thought to himself that he would take out the cotton and listen to him, and if what he said was true then he would accept it from him, and if he what he said was false and abhorrent, he would reject it. When he listened to him, all he could do was become Muslim on the spot.

Yes, he became Muslim after putting cotton in his ears. Those who oppose the call of Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab fabricated lies the same way Quraysh did. Quraysh understood full well that the call of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) had the power to reach people’s hearts and minds, so they exaggerated in their lies about the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) in an attempt to stop the truth reaching people. Similarly we see that those who speak against Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab and his followers repeat the same lies that were told against the original call.

You should – if you follow the truth – not pay any attention to these lies and fabrications. You should look for the truth of the matter by reading the books of Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab, for his books are the greatest proof that these people are lying, praise be to Allaah.

There is another subtle point that should be noted, which is that the Shaykh’s name was Muhammad, the attributive of which is Muhammadi. The word Wahhabi is the attributive derived from al-Wahhaab (the Bestower), who is Allaah, as He says (interpretation of the meaning):

“Our Lord! Let not our hearts deviate (from the truth) after You have guided us, and grant us mercy from You. Truly, You are the Bestower [al-Wahhaab]”

[Aal ‘Imraan 3:8]

As al-Zajjaaj said in Ishtiqaaq Asma’-Allaah, p. 126, al-Wahhaab “is the One Who gives a great deal. This form (fa’’aal) in Arabic is indicative of something that is done to a great extent. Allaah is al-Wahhaab (the Bestower) Who gives to His slaves one after another.”

Undoubtedly the path of al-Wahhaab is the path of truth in which there is no crookedness or fabrication, and His party is the one that will prevail. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And whosoever takes Allaah, His Messenger, and those who have believed, as Protectors, then the party of Allaah will be the victorious”

[al-Maa’idah 5:56]

“They are the party of Allaah. Verily, it is the party of Allaah that will be the successful”

[al-Mujaadilah 58:22]

Long ago they accused al-Shaafa’i of being a Raafidi (Shi’ah) and he refuted them by saying:

“If being a Raafidi means loving the family of Muhammad, then let the two races (of mankind and the jinn) bear witness that I am a Raafidi.”

We refute the claims of those who accuse us of being Wahhabis by quoting the words of Shaykh Mullah ‘Imraan who was a Shi’i but Allaah guided him to the Sunnah. He said:

“If the follower of Ahmad [the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)] is a Wahhaabi, then I affirm that I am a Wahhaabi

I reject the association of any other with Allaah, for I have no Lord except the Unique, the Bestower (al-Wahhaab)

Those who were called by the Prophet accused him of being a sorcerer and a liar.”

(See: Manhaaj al-Firqat al-Naajiyah by Shaykh Muhammad Jameel Zayno, p. 142-143.

And Allaah knows best.

[Salahuddiin]

Question:
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?.

Answer:
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.

[Grant]

Arabman,

My cut and paste style derives partly from ignorance in this area and partly from a desire as a non-Muslim not be be seen as interferring in Islamic religious affairs.

What I notice in the various fatwas quoted above is that they contradict each other violently and that they represent points of view from within just the Sunni branch of Islam. There are, in fact, hundreds if not thousands of competing and contradictory fatwas out there. I call that variation.

You will have noticed that virtually all mature religions devide into camps, usually following the pattern Fundamentalist-Orthodox-Conservative-Liberal-Reform. This is true even of Islam.

For purposes of this argument, let us stick with the issues of slavery and rape. Is it your personal opinion that the enslavement of non-muslims and non-Wahabbi/Salafis is a religious obligation ordained by God until the end of time? And Is it your personal opinion that it is proper to execute the victims of rape who are unable to find four male Muslim witness that will testify it was involuntary ?

[*Arabman]

[Is it your personal opinion that the enslavement of non-muslims and non-Wahabbi/Salafis is a religious obligation ordained by God until the end of time? And Is it your personal opinion that it is proper to execute the victims of rape who are unable to find four male Muslim witness that will testify it was involuntary ?]

Regarding Islamic laws or obligations, I do not have a personal opinion; I abide by it. If what you allege is true, that the enslavement of non-muslims and non-Wahabbi/Salafis is a religious obligation ordained by God until the end of time, then I abide by it.

The same applies to your other question; I do not have a personal opinion for it. If it's the Islamic law or obligation that victims of rape who are unable to find four male Muslim witness that will testify it was involuntary- should be executed, then I abide by that law or obligation. For me, Allah's laws and obligations are for the good of Muslims. Those laws and obligations are perfect and infallible, because it were ordained by Allah. We humans are weak and deficient to comprehend Allah's wisdom.

[Grant]

"If what you allege is true, that the enslavement of non-muslims and non-Wahabbi/Salafis is a religious obligation ordained by God until the end of time, then I abide by it."

Was that a yes or a no?