Archive for the ‘Wahabism’ category

False Wahabi Ijtihad

June 27, 2007

THE WAHHABIS’ IJTIHADS ARE FALSE

From http://www.hizmetbooks.org/Advice_for_the_Muslim/wah-25.htm

25 – The Wahhabis themselves say that what the ‘ulama’ of Ahl as-Sunnat (rahimahum-Allahu ta’ala) have written is right. Allahu ta’ala makes them, too, tell the truth. See how that book praises Ahl as-Sunnat on its 432nd page:

“Rasulullah (sall-Allahu ta’ala ‘alaihi wa sallam) asked Muaz how he was going to judge when he ordered Muaz to go to Yaman as a judge. ‘According to Allahu ta’ala’s Book,’ he said. ‘What if you cannot find [a solution] in it?’ asked Rasulullah. ‘I will look at Rasulullah’s sunnat,’ he answered. And when Rasulullah asked, ‘If you cannot find it there, either?’ Muaz said, ‘I shall do it according to what I understand as a result of my ijtihad.’ Thereupon, Rasulullah said, ‘My thanks be to Allahu ta’ala who bestows what His Rasul agrees upon His Rasul’s judge.’ Muaz was one of the most learned among the Sahabis in the knowledge of fiqh, halal and haram. Therefore, he was a profound alim who was able to make ijtihad. It was permissible for him to judge according to his ijtihad if he could not find any clear evidence in Allahu ta’ala’s Book and Rasulullah’s sunnat. But, today and in the past, there have been some people so ignorant as not to know the laws in Allahu ta’ala’s Book and His Rasul’s sunnat, but who still think that they can make ijtihad. Shame on them!”

That author has taken these lines from the books of great ‘ulama’ of Ahl as-Sunnat (rahimahum-Allahu ta’ala) as he has taken all his documentary evidence from them. There was no one who wrote heretical ideas before Ibn Taymiyya. He was the first to start this cult of false concepts. Those who came later went too far in this line to the extreme of impetuousness. They interpreted wrongly the invaluable words they quoted from the books of Ahl as-Sunnat. They said that everybody should learn Arabic and make ijtihad. They dissented from the right path and led astray millions of people. The above quotation refutes their assertions and shows that ignorant people like them do not have the ability to make ijtihad, that the conclusions or meanings they derive are wrong and heretical.

Nowadays, the number of people who do not believe ijtihad has been on the increase. They say,

“What is the use of madhhabs. They disunited Muslims. They made the religion difficult. Allah orders easiness. There is no such things as a ‘madhhab’ in Islam. They have been made up later. I follow the path of as-Sahaba and do not recognize another path.”

Such words are made up by the ignorant of Islam, who now cunningly disseminate them among Muslims. After quoting correct statements from the ‘ulama’ of Ahl as-Sunnat, they add their lies in as if the quotations going on. The people who see the correct statements consider all what they read as correct and thus are taken in. The path of salvation is that of the Sahabat al-kiram (ridwan-Allahi ta’ala ‘alaihim ajmain). The hadith ash-Sharif narrated by al-Baihaki and written in Kunuz ad-daqaiq declares, “My Companions are like the stars in the sky. You follow any one of them, and you will find the right path.” This hadith ash-Sharif shows that anyone who follows any one of the Sahabis will attain bliss in both worlds. The hadith ash-Sharif related by ad-Dailami (rahmat-Allahi ‘alaih) declares, “My companions are good human beings. May Allahu ta’ala always bestow goodness upon them.” Two hadiths, again related by ad-Dailami, declare, “Do not talk about the faults of my Companions!” and, “Muawiya will certainly become a ruler.”

From which source will those who claim that they follow the path of as-Sahabat al-kiram learn this path? Will they learn from the la-madhhabi who came about a thousand years after them? Or will they learn it from the books of those ‘ulama’ who lived during the time of and were educated by as-Sahabat al-kiram? The ‘ulama’ educated by as-Sahabat al-kiram and the students of those ‘ulama’ formed the ‘ulama’ of the madhhab of Ahl as-Sunnat wal-Jamaat (rahimahum-Allahu ta’ala). Madhhab means path. Ahl as-Sunnat wal-Jamaat means the Muslims who follow the path of Rasulullah and his jamaat, that is, his Companions. The blessed ‘ulama’ of this path wrote exactly what they learned from as-Sahabat al-kiram. They did not write their personal opinions. There is not a single statement in their books for which they did not give documents and proofs. The belief of all the four madhhabs is the same. The path of as-Sahabat al-kiram can only be learned from the books by the ‘ulama’ of Ahl as-Sunnat.

Those who want to be in the path of as-Sahabat al-kiram (ridwan-Allahu ta’ala ‘alaihim ajmain) have to belong to the madhhab of Ahl as-Sunnat and should avoid upstart, corrupt movements.

Advertisements

55 Orthodox Scholars OPPOSE Wahabism

June 27, 2007

WAHHABISM: UNDERSTANDING THE ROOTS AND ROLE MODELS OF ISLAMIC EXTREMISM

by Zubair Qamar

http://www.sunnah.org/articles/Wahhabiarticleedit.htm

Introduction

The most extremist pseudo-Sunni movement today is Wahhabism (also known as Salafism). While many may think that Wahhabi terror is a recent phenomenon that has only targeted non-Muslims, it will surprise many to know that the orthodox Sunni Muslims were the first to be slaughtered in waves of Wahhabi massacres in Arabia hundreds of years ago. One only has to read the historical evolution of Saudi Arabia to know the gruesome details of the tragedy – a tragedy in which thousands of Sunni and Shi’ite Muslims perished at the hands of Wahhabi militants.

The extremist interpretations of Wahhabism, although previously confined to small pockets of people in Arabia, has survived to this day under the protection, finance, and tutelage of the Saudi state religious organs. This has transformed Wahhabism – and related Salafi groups that receive inspiration and support from them – from a regional to a global threat to be reckoned with by the world community. To a Wahhabi-Salafi, all those who differ with them, including Sunni Muslims, Shi’ite Muslims, Christians, and Jews, are infidels who are fair targets.

Do the majority of Sunnis support Wahhabism? Are Sunnis and Wahhabis one and the same?

What is a Wahhabi?

Because Wahhabis claim to be “true Sunnis,” it is difficult for one who is unfamiliar with Wahhabism to distinguish it from orthodox Sunni Islam. If a Wahhabi is asked if he/she is Sunni, he/she will always reply in the affirmative. When asked if they are Wahhabis, they reply with an emphatic “no” as they consider it an insult to what they believe and stand for: “Purity of worship and reverence to God alone. The authentic carriers of Islam from the time of the Prophet (s)(1) until now.” Calling them Wahhabis implies that they learned ideas from a man – Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab – instead of the Qur’an and Sunnah – the two great sources of Islam. Irrespective of what they think, they are not following the Islamic sources authentically, but the wrong interpretations of the founder of the Wahhabi movement who appeared in the 1700s. Sunnis and other Wahhabi detractors have labeled them as Wahhabis to differentiate them from orthodox Sunnis.

Wahhabis as Salafis: deceptive semantics

Wahhabis differentiate themselves from orthodox Sunnis by labeling themselves Salafis, which refers to the word salaf – the time period in which the early Muslims lived in the first 300 years after the Hijra, or emigration, of Prophet Muhammad from Mecca to Medina in 622. The Companions (Sahaba), those who followed the Companions (Tabi’een), and those who followed those who followed the Companions (Taba al-Tabi’een) who lived in the time period of the Salaf are exemplars par excellence of what Muslims should be, as Prophet Muhammad (s) had praised these Muslims as being the best of Muslims. Therefore, it has been the aim of every Muslim since the time of Prophet Muhammad (s) to adhere to and to follow the footsteps of the adherents of the salaf. This means that when a Wahhabi calls himself a Salafi, he claims to be a genuine follower of pristine Islam. This, however, is far from the truth.

Orthodox Sunni Muslims believe that they are the true bearers of pristine Islam since the time period of the Salaf. Because there were time gaps between the noble period of the Salaf and centuries that followed, the authentic positions of the early Muslims were passed by scholars in those times and afterwards to later generations via meticulous, systematic, and methodological means of preservation. The knowledge was passed from qualified scholars to other qualified scholars through the centuries, who passed it to the masses. This uninterrupted chain of knowledge from the time of the Salaf until now has been authentically preserved by the orthodox Sunnis. Orthodox Sunnis, therefore, have roots in the Salaf, and are represented today by the four surviving authentic schools of Islamic jurisprudence: Hanafi, Shafi’i, Maliki, and Hanbali schools (madhahib).

The Wahhabis, by calling themselves Salafis, not only claim to follow the footsteps of the early Muslims, but also use semantics to fool and allure less informed Muslims into accepting Wahhabism. Wahhabis say, “You must follow the Muslims of the Salaf.” (This is undoubtedly true.) Then the Wahhabi semantics: “Therefore you must be a Salafi and nothing else. Following anything else means you’re following a path that is different from the Muslims of the Salaf.” By such deceptive semantics, the less informed Muslims believe that Salafis must truly represent the pristine interpretations of the early Muslims of the Salaf. After all, the word Salafi sounds like Salaf, so it must truly be representative of it. Far from it. When the less informed goes beyond semantics and blind faith and investigates what a Salafi believes, the truth unveiled is that the understanding of Salafis (Wahhabis) is different and contradictory to the understanding and positions of the pious Muslims who lived in the Salaf – and the majority of Muslims who have ever lived (Sunnis).

Wahhabi-Salafi variety

The Wahhabi-Salafis believe that Sunnis have been vehemently wrong for the past 1,000+ years and aim to bring the Muslims out of a state of ignorance (jahilliyya) that has existed, in their minds, since the time of the pious adherents of the Salaf. Even if the majority of orthodox Sunni Muslims were strong today, indeed if they ruled an empire that stretched far to every corner of the globe, it would still be a failure to Salafis because to them the foundations of such a political system would have been based on reprehensible innovation (bid’a) and blasphemy (kufr).

To the Salafi, the presence and power of Sunni orthodoxy, in all of its manifestations as illustrated throughout Islamic history, is just as impure as the rising European hegemony in all of its manifestations since the demise of the Muslim Ottoman Empire. To the Salafis, a minority in this world, the world is an abode of blasphemy, ruled and occupied by infidels that demands reformation through both non-violent and violent means to bring about a supposedly pure Islamic world system.

WahhabiSalafis come in various strains, some being more extreme than others. The variety in strains is due to differences in approach of bringing the Muslims back to a state of strengthened belief based on the example of the pious ancestors. It must be emphasized that although all Wahhabis are called Salafis, all Salafis are not purely Wahhabi. “Salafi Muslims” include those like Syed Qutb who wish to eradicate the supposed current state of ignorance (jahiliyya) and bring Muslims back to a state of purity – a purity reminiscent of the purity of Muslims who lived in the time period of the Salaf. However, all Salafi Muslims, whether they are Wahhabi or Qutbi, admire with exaggeration the role models Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab and Ahmad Ibn Taymiyah, whose hard-line interpretations have inspired revolutionaries today. Therefore, although all Salafis are not Wahhabis, they admire many of the same role models – role models who have been rejected and condemned by masses of orthodox Sunni scholars for their unauthentic representations of pristine Islam. It can also be said that all Wahhabis consider themselves to be Salafis and prefer to be called by this name (instead of Wahhabi), even though differences exist between Salafi groups.

Although there are differences in approach among Salafis, they have nonetheless allied themselves in an attempt to make the Salafi vision a reality by both non-violent and violent means.

An example of this are the Salafi-oriented Deobandis and their alliance with the Wahhabis. The alliance between the Muslim Brotherhood (and its various factions and offshoots) and the Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia was strengthened during the 1950s and 1960s in the struggle of the Muslim Brotherhood against Egypt’s Nasserist regime. Saudis had provided refuge for some leaders of the Brotherhood, and also provided assistance to them in other Arab States. The Wahhabi-Salafi alliance was further strengthened as a response to the growing threat of Shi’ah power when the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini of Iran revolted and overthrew the U.S.-allied Shah in 1979.

Lastly, the alliance made itself manifest in the holy struggle (jihad) against the atheist/Communist Soviets in Afghanistan. Salafis of all strains worked together as the “righteous Sunnis” to counter the Shi’ah-Communist threat, from proselytizing to killing to make their Salafism prevail. Indeed, Salafis have used both proselytizing and revolutionary means to express their message using both political and apolitical approaches. So-called “Sunni terrorism” today is perpetrated by radical Salafis who desire to replace “infidel” governments with myopic “scholars” who adhere to their fanatical interpretations and ideologies. Their tentacles are spread to all corners of the globe, including Bosnia, Albania, Indonesia, Philippines, Uzbekistan, England, Malaysia, South Africa, Lebanon, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Salafis have demonstrated the havoc they are capable of wreaking in recent decades.

Wahhabis as neo-Kharijites

The Wahhabis are especially notorious for reviving the ways of the Khawarij (or Kharijites). They originated in the time of the caliphates of Uthman and Ali, among the closest companions to Prophet Muhammad. They were the earliest group of fanatics who separated themselves from the Muslim community. They arose in opposition to Ali – Prophet Muhammad’s son-in-law – because of his willingness to arbitrate with Mu’awiyah, governor of Damascus at that time, over the issue of the caliphate. The Khawarij, meaning “those who exited,” slung accusations of blasphemy against Ali and Mu’awiyah – and those who followed them – saying that the Qur’an, and not them, had the ultimate authority in the matter. Ibn al-Jawzi, an orthodox Sunni scholar, in his book Talbis Iblis (The Devil’s Deception) under the chapter heading “A Mention of the Devil’s Delusion upon the Kharijites,” says that Dhu’l-Khuwaysira al-Tamimi was the first Kharijite in Islam and that “[h]is fault was to be satisfied with his own view; had he paused he would have realized that there is no view superior to that of Allah’s Messenger…Furthermore, the orthodox Sunni scholar Imam Abd al-Qahir al-Baghdadi discusses the Kharijite rebellions and their bloody massacres of tens of thousands of Muslims in one of his books. He explicitly mentions the Azariqa, one of the most atrocious Kharijite movements led by Nafi’ ibn al-Azraq from the tribe of Banu Hanifa – the same tribe where the heretic Musaylima the Prevaricator (or Liar) who claimed prophethood alongside Prophet Muhammad came from. Just as the Khawarij threw accusations of blasphemy on Ali and Mu’awiya, Wahhabis throw accusations of blasphemy against Sunnis and Shi’ites.

The Al-Sa`ud and Muhammad ibn `Abdul-Wahhab – the founder of Wahhabism

Wahhabism is named after the its founder, Muhammad ibn `Abdul-Wahhab (1703-1792), and has its roots in the land now known as Saudi Arabia. Without this man, the al-Sa`ud , one of many clans spread over the Arabian peninsula, would not have had the inspiration, reason, and determination to consolidate the power that they did and wage “jihad” on people they perceived to be “polytheists” – those who attribute partners in worship to Almighty God. How intimately close was al-Sa`ud’s association with Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab? Robert Lacey eloquently illustrates this association:

Until [Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab’s] coming the Al Sa`ud had been a minor sheikhly clan like many others in Nejd, townsmen and farmers, making a comfortable living from trade, dates and perhaps a little horse-breeding, combining with the desert tribes to raid outwards when they felt strong, prudently retrenching in times of weakness. Modestly independent, they were in no way empire builders, and it is not likely that the wider world would ever have heard of them without their alliance with the Teacher.(2)

The al-Sa`ud are originally from the village of ad-Diriyah, located in Najd, in eastern Arabia situated near modern day Riyadh, the capital of Sa`udi Arabia. Ancestors of Sau’ud Ibn Muhammad, whom little is known about, settled in the area as agriculturists and gradually grew in number over time into the clan of al-Sa`ud .

Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab was raised in Uyainah, an oasis in southern Najd, and was from the Banu Tamim tribe. He came from a religious family and left Uyainah in pursuit of Islamic knowledge. He traveled to Mecca, Medina, Iraq, and Iran to acquire knowledge from different teachers. When he returned to his homeland of Uyainah, he preached what he believed to be Islam in its purity – which was, in fact, a vicious assault on traditional Sunni Islam.

The orthodox Sunni scholar Jamil Effendi al-Zahawi said that the teachers of Ibn `Abdul-Wahhab, including two teachers he had studied with in Medina – Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Sulayman al-Kurdi and Shaykh Muhammad Hayat al-Sindi – became aware of his anti-Sunni Wahhabi creed and warned Muslims from him. His shaykhs, including the two aforementioned shaykhs, used to say: “God will allow him [to] be led astray; but even unhappier will be the lot of those misled by him.”(3)

Moreover, Ibn `Abdul-Wahhab’s own father had warned Muslims from him, as did his biological brother, Sulayman Ibn `Abdul-Wahhab, an orthodox Sunni scholar who refuted him in a book entitled al-Sawa’iq al-Ilahiyya fi al-radd `ala al-Wahhabiyya [“Divine Lightnings in Refuting the Wahhabis”]. Ibn `Abdul-Wahhab was refuted by the orthodox Sunni scholars for his many ugly innovations. Perhaps his most famous book, Kitab at-Tawheed (Book of Unity of God) is widely circulated amongst Wahhabis worldwide, including the United States. His book is popular in Wahhabi circles, although orthodox Sunni scholars have said that there is nothing scholarly about it, both in terms of its content and its style.

Ibn Taymiyah: the Wahhabi founder’s role model

It is worth giving an overview of a man named Ahmed Ibn Taymiyah (1263-1328) who lived a few hundred years before Muhammad ibn `Abdul-Wahhab. The Wahhabi founder admired him as a role model and embraced many of his pseudo-Sunni positions. Who exactly was Ibn Taymiyah and what did orthodox Sunni scholars say about him? Muslim scholars had mixed opinions about him depending on his interpretation of various issues. His straying from mainstream Sunni Islam on particular issues of creed (`aqeedah) and worship (`ibadat) made him an extremely controversial figure in the Muslim community.

Ibn Taymiya has won the reputation of being the true bearer of the early pious Muslims, especially among reformist revolutionaries, while the majority of orthodox Sunnis have accused him of reprehensible bid’ah (reprehenisible innovation), some accusing him of kufr (unbelief).(4)

It behooves one to ask why Ibn Taymiyah had received so much opposition from reputable Sunni scholars who were known for their asceticism, trustworthiness, and piety. Some of Ibn Taymiyah’s anti-Sunni and controversial positions include:

(1) His claim that Allah’s Attributes are “literal”, thereby attributing God with created attributes and becoming an anthropomorphist;

(2) His claim that created things existed eternally with Allah;

(3) His opposition to the scholarly consensus on the divorce issue;

(4) His opposition to the orthodox Sunni practice of tawassul (asking Allah for things using a deceased pious individual as an intermediary);

(5) His saying that starting a trip to visit the Prophet Muhammad’s (s) invalidates the shortening of prayer;

(6) His saying that the torture of the people of Hell stops and doesn’t last forever;

(7) His saying that Allah has a limit (hadd) that only He Knows;

(8) His saying that Allah literally sits on the Throne (al-Kursi) and has left space for Prophet Muhammad (s) to sit next to Him;

(9) His claim that touching the grave of Prophet Muhammad (s) is polytheism (shirk);

(10) His claim that that making supplication at the Prophet Muhammad’s grave to seek a better status from Allah is a reprehensible innovation;

(11) His claim that Allah descends and comparing Allah’s “descent” with his, as he stepped down from a minbar while giving a sermon (khutba) to Muslims;

(12) His classifying of oneness in worship of Allah (tawheed) into two parts: Tawhid al-rububiyya and Tawhid al-uluhiyya, which was never done by pious adherents of the salaf.

Although Ibn Taymiyah’s unorthodox, pseudo-Sunni positions were kept away from the public in Syria and Egypt due to the consensus of orthodox Sunni scholars of his deviance, his teachings were nevertheless circulating in hiding. An orthodox Sunni scholar says:

Indeed, when a wealthy trader from Jeddah brought to life the long-dead ‘aqida [creed] of Ibn Taymiya at the beginning of this century by financing the printing in Egypt of Ibn Taymiya’s Minhaj al-sunna al-nabawiyya [italics mine] and other works, the Mufti of Egypt Muhammad Bakhit al-Muti‘i, faced with new questions about the validity of anthropomorphism, wrote: “It was a fitna (strife) that was sleeping; may Allah curse him who awakened it.”

It is important to emphasize that although many of the positions of Ibn Taymiyah and Wahhabis are identical, they nonetheless contradict each other in some positions. While Ibn Taymiyah accepts Sufism (Tasawwuf) as a legitimate science of Islam (as all orthodox Sunni Muslims do), Wahhabis reject it wholesale as an ugly innovation in the religion. While Ibn Taymiyah accepts the legitimacy of commemorating Prophet Muhammad’s birthday (Mawlid) – accepted by orthodox Sunni Muslims as legitimate – Wahhabis reject it as a reprehensible innovation that is to be repudiated.

Ibn Taymiyah is an inspiration to Islamist groups that call for revolution. Kepel says, “Ibn Taymiyya (1268-1323) – a primary reference for the Sunni Islamist movement – would be abundantly quoted to justify the assassination of Sadat in 1981…and even to condemn the Saudi leadership and call for its overthrow in the mid-1990s”.(5)

Sivan says that only six months before Sadat was assassinated, the weekly Mayo singled out Ibn Taymiyya as “the most pervasive and deleterious influence upon Egyptian youth.” Sivan further says that Mayo concluded that “the proliferating Muslim associations at the [Egyptian] universities, where Ibn Taymiyya’s views prevail, have been spawning various terrorist groups.” Indeed, a book entitled The Absent Precept, by `Abd al-Salam Faraj – the “spiritual” leader of Sadat’s assassins who was tried and executed by the Egyptian government – strongly refers to Ibn Taymiyya’s and some of his disciples’ writings. Three of four of Sadat’s assassins willingly read a lot of Ibn Taymiyya’s works on their own.(6)

Ibn Taymiyah is also noted to be a favorite of other Salafi extremists, including the Muslim Brotherhood’s Syed Qutb. Ibn Taymiyyah’s student, Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah, is also frequently cited by Salafis of all colors.

Ibn Taymiyah’s “fatwa” of jihad against Muslims

What is also well-known about Ibn Taymiyah is that he lived in turbulent times when the Mongols had sacked Baghdad and conquered the Abassid Empire in 1258. In 1303, he was ordered by the Mamluk Sultan to give a fatwa (religious edict) legalizing jihad against the Mongols. Waging a holy war on the Mongols for the purpose of eliminating any threat to Mamluk power was no easy matter. The Mongol Khan Mahmoud Ghazan had converted to Islam in 1295. Although they were Muslims who did not adhere to Islamic Law in practice, and also supported the Yasa Mongol of code of law, they were deemed apostates by the edict of Ibn Taymiyah. To Ibn Taymiyah, Islamic Law was not only rejected by Mongols because of their lack of wholesale adherence, but the “infidel” Yasa code of law made them legal targets of extermination. The so-called jihad ensued and the Mongol threat to Syria was exterminated. Wahhabis and other Salafis to this day brand the Mongol Mahmoud Ghazan as a kafir (disbeliever). Orthodox Sunni Muslims, however, have praised Mahmoud Ghazan as a Muslim. Shaykh Muhammad Hisham Kabbani writes:

In fact, Ghazan Khan was a firm believer in Islam. Al-Dhahabi relates that he became a Muslim at the hands of the Sufi shaykh Sadr al-Din Abu al-Majami’ Ibrahim al-Juwayni (d.720), one of Dhahabi’s own shaykhs of hadith….During his rule he had a huge mosque built in Tabriz in addition to twelve Islamic schools (madrasa), numerous hostels (khaniqa), forts (ribat), a school for the secular sciences, and an observatory. He supplied Mecca and Medina with many gifts. He followed one of the schools (madhahib) of the Ahl al-Sunna [who are the orthodox Sunnis] and was respectful of religious scholars. He had the descendants of the Prophet mentioned before the princes and princesses of his house in the state records, and he introduced the turban as the court headgear.(7)

Muhammad ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhab would later follow Ibn Taymiyah’s footsteps and slaughter thousands of Muslims in Arabia.

Orthodox Sunni scholars who refuted Ibn Taymiyah’s pseudo-Sunni positions

Ibn Taymiyah was imprisoned by a fatwa (religious edict) signed by four orthodox Sunni judges in the year 726 A.H for his deviant and unorthodox positions. Note that each of the four judges represents the four schools of Islamic jurisprudence that Sunni Muslims belong to today. This illustrates that Ibn Taymiyah did not adhere to the authentic teachings of orthodox Sunni Islam as represented by the four schools of Sunni jurisprudence. There is no evidence to indicate that there was a “conspiracy” against Ibn Taymiyyah to condemn him, as Wahhabis and other Salafis purport in his defense. The names of the four judges are: Qadi [Judge] Muhammad Ibn Ibrahim Ibn Jama’ah, ash-Shafi’i, Qadi [Judge] Muhammad Ibn al-Hariri, al-`Ansari, al-Hanafi, Qadi [Judge] Muhammad Ibn Abi Bakr, al-Maliki, and Qadi [Judge] Ahmad Ibn `Umar, al-Maqdisi, al-Hanbali.

Some orthodox Sunni scholars who refuted Ibn Taymiyya for his deviances and opposition to the positions of orthodox Sunni Islam include: Taqiyy-ud-Din as-Subkiyy, Faqih Muhammad Ibn `Umar Ibn Makkiyy, Hafiz Salah-ud-Din al-`Ala’i, Qadi, Mufassir Badr-ud-Din Ibn Jama’ah, Shaykh Ahmad Ibn Yahya al-Kilabi al-Halabi, Hafiz Ibn Daqiq al-`Id, Qadi Kamal-ud-Din az-Zamalkani, Qadi Safi-ud-Din al-Hindi, Faqih and Muhaddith `Ali Ibn Muhammad al-Baji ash-Shafi’i, the historian al-Fakhr Ibn al-Mu`allim al-Qurashi, Hafiz Dhahabi, Mufassir Abu Hayyan al-`Andalusi, and Faqih and voyager Ibn Batutah.

Najd – A place not so holy

Najd, in Saudi Arabia, is where the founder of Wahhabism came from. It was a mostly barren and dry land inhabited by Bedouins who used to graze animals. With sparse water, it is not the most comfortable of places since its climate has extremes of heat and cold in the summer and winter seasons. Najd has a notorious reputation in the orthodox Sunni community for originating seditions (fitan) long before Muhammad ibn `Abdul-Wahhab came. Indeed, it is known to have harbored many trouble mongering individuals who challenged the Muslims both spiritually and physically. The orthodox Sunni Iraqi scholar Jamal Effendi al-Zahawi says:

Famous writers of the day made a point of noting the similarity between Ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhab’s beginnings and those of the false prophets prominent in Islam’s intial epoch like Musaylima the Prevaricator, Sajah al-Aswad al-Anasi, Tulaiha al-Asadi and others of his kind [14].

Fenari says that although Najd is closest to to the holy cities of Mecca and Medina, it has only been dispraised by Prophet Muhammad (s) in authentic traditions. He raises another interesting point that while many Arabian tribes were praised by Prophet Muhammad, the Banu Tamim – the most well known tribe of Central Arabia where Muhammad ibn `Abdul Wahhab was from – is praised only once. Moreover, authentic traditions that “explicitly critique” the Banu Tamimites are far more numerous. Ibn al-Jawzi, an orthodox Sunni scholar, documents the evolution of the Kharijite movements and illustrates how the tribe of Banu Tamim played a leading role in it. Imam Abd al-Qahir also states that the Tamimites – and the Central Arabians in general – were intimately involved in the Kharijite rebellions against the Muslims, contrasting their immense contribution to the minimal contribution of members of the tribes of Medina and Yemen. It is from Banu Tamim where a man name Abu Bilal Mirdas came from, who, although being a relentless worshipper, turned out to be one of the most barbaric Kharijite fanatics. “He is remembered as the first who said the Tahkim – the formula ‘The judgment is Allah’s alone’ – on the Day of Siffin, which became the slogan of the later Kharijite da’wa.It is reminiscent of what Wahhabis say today – that they strictly adhere to nothing but the Qur’an and Sunnah – although it is merely a jumble of words without coherent meaning. Najda ibn Amir of the tribe of Banu Hanifa was a Kharijite whose homeland was Najd, and the best known woman among the Kharijites was a Tamimite named Qutam bint `Alqama. It is fascinating to see that fanatics of all types came from a region where the fanatic Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab came from.

The Wahhabi assault on graves and the massacre of Muslim communities in Riyadh and Karbala

With the ferocious zeal of a “divine” mission, aimed at terminating what they perceived as the filthy polytheistic scum of Arabia, the Wahhabi army led by Muhammad ibn Sa`ud first destroyed graves and objects in Najdi towns and villages that were used for what they condemned as “polytheistic practices.The Wahhabi movement mustered supporters who rallied behind their cause, increased the size of their army, and successfully united most of the people of Najd under the banner of Wahhabism by 1765.

The assault and “jihad”of Wahhabism did not stop after the death of Muhammad ibn Sa`ud in 1765, but continued with unrelenting and barbaric force under the leadership of his son, Abdul-Aziz, who captured the city of Riyadh in 1773. Muhammad Ibn Abdul-Wahhab died a year earlier but left four sons who continued spreading Wahhabism and strengthened the Wahhabi family’s alliance with the Al-Sa`ud (8). Later, in 1801, the Wahhabi army marched to Karbala with a force of 10,000 men and 6,000 camels (9). Upon reaching Karbala, they mercilessly and indiscriminately attacked its inhabitants for eight hours, massacring about 5,000 people. Moreover, they severely damaged Imam Hussein’s mosque, looted the city, and left the carnage-laden city with its treasures on 200 camels(10). This holocaust won the Wahhabi criminals the unforgiving hatred and wrath of the Shi’ite and Sunni Muslims, who, until this day, curse them passionately. The Shi’ite Muslims consider Imam Hussein, a grandson of Prophet Muhammad (s), one of the most sacred figures and his tomb one of the most sacred sites on earth. Every year, thousands of Shi’ites gather at the site to commemorate the death of Imam Hussein. Visiting Karbala one is indeed filled me with awe and spiritual strength even as a devout Sunni. Shi’ite wrath, of course, didn’t mean much to the Wahhabis. The Shi’ites, along with the Sunnis, had already been labeled as “blasphemers” for practicing tawassul and tabarruk. What are these practices? Are they part of Sunni Islam or not?

Tawassul and Tabarruk

Nuh Keller, an orthodox Sunni scholar, defines tawassul as “supplicating Allah by means of an intermediary, whether it be a living person, dead person, a good deed, or a name or attribute of Allah Most High”. I remember doing tawassul in 1989 at Imam Abu Hanifah’s tomb, the noble and renowned Islamic scholar whose ijtihad the majority of Sunni Muslims follow. Although I had not studied much about Islam and the practices of tawassul at that time, I had been told by trustworthy Muslims that using pious individuals as intermediaries when asking Allah for something was a blessed opportunity that I couldn’t afford to miss. I had also visited the tomb of the great sufi and saint Abdul-Qadir Jilani and performed tawassul over there. An example of tawassul is: “Oh Allah, I ask you to cure my illness by means of the noble status of Imam Abu Hanifah (s).”

When doing tawassul, the source of blessings (barakah) when asking Allah through an intermediary is Allah – not the intermediary. The intermediary is simply a means to ask Allah for things. Although it is not necessary for a Muslim to use a pious intermediary when asking Allah, it is recommended because it was a practice of Prophet Muhammad (s), the Companions (ra), and of the great scholars of Islam (ra). It is not only prophets and saints (in their graves) that are used as means to asking Allah. A Muslim can also ask Allah through relics (tabarruk) that belonged to pious people, and may even use amulets with verses on the Qur’an on them as a means of asking God for protection from evil. It is not the means that provides protection, but Allah.

Wahhabis reject a type of tawassul accepted by orthodox Sunni Muslims

Although Sunnis, Shi’ites, and Wahhabis believe that tawassul by one’s good deeds, a name or attribute of God, or intercession by someone who is alive and present is permissible, Wahhabis accuse Sunnis (and Shi’ites) of committing shirk (attributing partners in worship to God) when doing tawassul through an intermediary who is not alive or present (in the worldly life). That is, to a Wahhabi, tawassul through an intermediary who has died and is in his grave is ugly blasphemy. This is critical to know because this is the primary reason why Muhammad ibn `Abdul-Wahhab and the Al-Sa`ud criminals that collaborated with him massacred many Muslims in the Arabian peninsula. Muslims had been doing this form of tawassul for over 1,000 years but the Wahhabis believed it was blasphemy that had to be exterminated by the sword. What Wahhabis were doing in actuality was massacring orthodox Sunni Muslims, even though they foolishly believed they were fighting against evil blasphemors that didn’t deserve to live. Wahhabis were not following the footsteps of the pious Salaf, but the footsteps of Ibn Taymiyyah who a couple of hundred years before them denounced that particular form of tawassul as sinful. Wahhabis today forbid Muslims from doing tawassul through Prophet Muhammad, and have enforced strict rules around his grave in Medina, Saudi Arabia. It is for this reason that Wahhabis forbid Muslims from visiting the graves of pious Muslims, and have destroyed markings on graves to prevent Muslims from knowing the specific spots where saints are buried. Yet, it is interesting to note the hypocritical nature of the Wahhabis when they had refused the demolishing of the grave of Ibn Taymiyah in Damascus, Syria to make way for a road. Somehow, this is not “polytheism” to them, but it is “polytheism” for the majority of the Islamic community.

The flawed Wahhabi understanding of tawassul: confusing the means with the Giver

Wahhabis wrongly accuse orthodox Sunnis of committing shirk (polytheism) when asking God for something using an intermediary, whether the means is a pious human being in his grave, objects (tabarruk), or seeking protection from God using amulets with verses of the Qur’an written on them (ruqya). The Wahhabi believes that asking God for something through a means is the same as worshipping the means itself. That is, for people who do tawassul through a pious saint in his grave is asking the pious saint – and not God – for things. People who do tabarruk through a relic of Prophet Muhammad (s) are asking the relic – and not God – for blessings, and people who wear ruqya are asking the ruqya itself for protection – and not God. When a Muslim visits the Prophet Muhammad’s (s) grave and calls on the Prophet (s), “Oh Prophet,” (Ya Rasulullah), the Wahhabis accuse such a person of worshipping the Prophet (s) and refuse to accept the understanding that the Prophet himself is a means to asking God for things. Such an act to Wahhabis drives a Muslim out of the realms of the religion of Islam. In sum, the Wahhabis believe that such people are worshipping creation alongside God, and are therefore guilty of polytheism – attributing partners in worship to God.

The now deceased former Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Abdul-Aziz ibn Abdullah Ibn Baz, defends Ibn Abdul-Wahhab’s accusation of polytheism that he had heaped on the Muslim masses and his resorting to “jihad” by saying that Muslims had gone astray because they had “worshipped” things are than God:

The people of Najd had lived in a condition that could not be approved of by any believer. Polytheism had appeared there and spread widely. People worshipped domes, trees, rocks, caves or any persons who claimed to be Auliya (saints) though they might be insane and idiotic.

There were few to rise up for the sake of Allah and support His Religion. Same was the situation in Makkah and Madinah as well as Yemen where building domes on the graves, invoking the saints for their help and other forms of polytheism were predominant. But in Najd polytheistic beliefs and practices were all the more intense.

In Najd people had worshipped different objects ranging from the graves, caves and trees to the obsessed and mad men who were called saints.

When the Sheikh [Ibn Abdul-Wahhab] saw that polytheism was dominating the people and that no one showed any disapproval of it or no one was ready to call the people back to Allah, he decided to labour singly and patiently in the field. He knew that nothing could be achieved without jihad (holy fighting), patience and suffering [italics mine].(11)

Orthodox Sunnis, however, have never claimed to worship the means, but only God. Because Wahhabis didn’t tolerate this, they massacred thousands of Muslims who they saw as being “polytheists” in Arabia. In actuality, they were Sunni Muslims who were following Islam in its purity as taught by the pious ancestors that lived in the time period of the Salaf.

Wahhabis attribute a place and direction to Allah

While accusing the masses of Muslims of being polytheists, Wahhabis themselves have differentiated themselves from other Muslims in their understanding of creed. Due to the Wahhabis’ adherence to an unorthodox, grossly flawed literal understanding of God’s Attributes, they comfortably believe that Allah has created or human attributes, and then attempt to hide their anthropomorphism by saying that they don’t know ‘how’ Allah has such attributes. For example, Bilal Philips, a Wahhabi author says:

He has neither corporeal body nor is He a formless spirit. He has a form befitting His majesty [italics mine], the like of which no man has ever seen or conceived, and which will only be seen (to the degree of man’s finite limitations) by the people of paradise.

Discussing each part of his statement will shed light into his anthropomorphic mind. Bilal Philips says that “Allah has a form befitting His majesty…What he confirms in his mind is that Allah definitely has a form. He even specifies the kind of form by saying: “He [Allah] has neither corporeal body…” meaning that Allah has a form that is not like the forms of creation, and then says, “nor is He a formless spirit. Then he says, “He has a form befitting His majesty…The problem with such statements to a Muslim is that they express blatant anthropomorphism. What Bilal Philips is doing here is foolishly attributing a “form” to God that, in his mind, nobody has ever seen. Therefore, Bilal Philips believes that God has some type of form, or non-corporeal body. No orthodox Sunni Muslim scholar has ever said such a perfidious thing.

Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, one of the greatest mujtahid Sunni imams ever to have lived, refuted such anthropomorphic statements over a thousand years before Bilal Philips was born. The great Sunni Ash`ari scholar, Imam al-Bayhaqi, in his Manaqib Ahmad relates with an authentic chain that Imam Ahmed said:

A person commits an act of disbelief (kufr) if he says Allah is a body, even if he says: Allah is a body but not like other bodies.

Imam Ahmad continues:

The expressions are taken from language and from Islam, and linguists applied ‘body’ to a thing that has length, width, thickness, form, structure, and components. The expression has not been handed down in Shari’ah. Therefore, it is invalid and cannot be used.

Imam Ahmed is a pious adherer of the time period of the Salaf that was praised by Prophet Muhammad (s). How can Bilal Philips claim to represent the pious forefathers of the Salaf? He not only contradicts them but is vehemently refuted by them. The great pious predecessors had refuted ignoramuses like Bilal Philips in their times long ago.

Blatant anthropomorphism is also illustrated by the Wahhabi Ibn Baz’s commentary on the great work of Imam Abu Ja’afar at-Tahawi called “Aqeedah at-Tahawiyyah” (The Creed of Tahawi), a work that has been praised by the orthodox Sunni community as being representative of Sunni orthodoxy. The now deceased Ibn Baz was Saudi Arabia’s grand Mufti.

Article #38 of Imam Tahawi’s work states:

He is beyond having limits placed on Him, or being restricted, or having parts or limbs. Nor is He contained by the six directions as all created entities are.

Ibn Baz, in a footnote, comments:

Allah is beyond limits that we know but has limits He knows.

In another footnote, he says:

By hudood (limits) the author [referring to Imam Tahawi] means [limits] such as known by humans since no one except Allah Almighty knows His limits.

Ibn Baz deceptively attempts to represent the noble Sunni Imam al-Tahawi as an anthropomorphist by putting his own anthropomorphic interpretation of Imam Tahawi’s words in his mouth. It must be emphasized that not a single orthodox Sunni scholar understood Imam Tahawi’s statement as Ibn Baz did.

Ibn Baz’s also shows anthropomorphism in a commentary by the great Sunni scholar Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalani. Ibn Baz says:

As for Ahl ul-Sunna – and these are the Companions and those who followed them in excellence – they assert a direction for Allah, and that is the direction of elevation, believing that the Exalted is above the Throne without giving an example and without entering into modality.

Another now deceased Wahhabi scholar, Muhammad Saleh al-Uthaymeen, blatantly expresses his anthropomorphism. He says:

Allah’s establishment on the throne means that He is sitting ‘in person’ on His Throne.

The great Sunni Hanbali scholar, Ibn al-Jawzi, had refuted anthropomorphists who were saying that Allah’s establishment is ‘in person’ hundreds of years ago:

Whoever says: He is established on the Throne ‘in person’ (bi dhatihi), has diverted the sense of the verse to that of sensory perception. Such a person must not neglect that the principle is established by the mind, by which we have come to know Allah, and have attributed pre-eternity to Him decisively. If you said: We read the hadiths and keep quiet, no one would criticize you; it is only your taking them in the external sense which is hideous. Therefore do not bring into the school of this pious man of the Salaf – Imam Ahmad [Ibn Hanbal] – what does not belong in it. You have clothed this madhab [or school of jurisprudence] with an ugly deed, so that it is no longer said ‘Hanbali’ except in the sense of ‘anthropomorphist’

Sulayman ibn `Abdul Allah ibn Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Wahhab, the grandson of the Wahhabi movement’s founder, says:

Whoever believes or says: Allah is in person (bi dhatihi) in every place, or in one place: he is a disbeliever (kafir). It is obligatory to declare that Allah is distinct from His creation, established over His Throne without modality or likeness or exemplarity. Allah was and there was no place, then He created place and He is exalted as He was before He created place

Just as Bilal Philips affirms a form to Allah in his mind, and Ibn Baz confirms limits to Allah in his mind, al-Uthaymeen confirms that Allah is literally sitting ‘in person’ on the Throne in his mind. All of them have loyally followed the footsteps of Ibn Taymiyyah and Muhammad ibn `Abdul-Wahhab – the two arch-heretics who were instrumental in causing tribulation (fitna) and division among the Muslim masses because of their reprehensible, unorthodox interpretations of the Islamic sources.

Wahhabi anthropomorphists say: Allah is in a direction, Allah has limits, Allah is literally above the Throne, and that Allah is sitting ‘in person’ on the Throne. To a Muslim, the fact is that the Throne is located in a particular direction and a certain place. By understanding Allah to be above the Throne literally as the Wahhabis do, they are attributing Allah with created attributes and, as a result, are implying that a part of the creation was eternal with Allah. This opposes what the the Qur’an and the following hadith authentically related by al-Bukhari says:

Allah existed eternally and there was nothing else [italics mine].

Sunni orthodoxy clears Allah of all directions and places. To a Sunni, Allah has always existed without the need of a place, and He did not take a place for Himself after creating it. Orthodox Sunni scholars have said exactly what was understood by Prophet Muhammad (s) and his Companions (ra). Imam Abu Hanifah, the great mujtahid Imam who lived in the time period of the Salaf said: “Allah has no limits…”, period. And this is what Sunni orthodoxy represents.

Orthodox Sunni scholars oppose Wahhabism

I end this article with a selected list of orthodox Sunni scholars who have refuted Wahhabism and warned Muslims from its poison. The list of scholars, along with names of their books and related information, is quoted from the orthodox Sunni scholar Muhammad Hisham Kabbani(12):

Al-Ahsa’i Al-Misri, Ahmad (1753-1826): Unpublished manuscript of a refutation of the Wahhabi sect. His son Shaykh Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn `Abd al-Latif al-Ahsa’i also wrote a book refuting them.

Al-Ahsa’i, Al-Sayyid `Abd al-Rahman: wrote a sixty-seven verse poem which begins with the verse:

Badat fitnatun kal layli qad ghattatil aafaaqa

wa sha“at fa kadat tublighul gharba wash sharaqa

[A confusion came about like nightfall covering the skies

and became widespread almost reaching the whole world]

Al-`Amrawi, `Abd al-Hayy, and `Abd al-Hakim Murad (Qarawiyyin University, Morocco): Al-tahdhir min al-ightirar bi ma ja’a fi kitab al-hiwar [“Warning Against Being Fooled By the Contents of the Book (by Ibn Mani`) A Debate With al-Maliki (an attack on Ibn `Alawi al-Maliki by a Wahhabi writer)”] (Fes: Qarawiyyin, 1984).

`Ata’ Allah al-Makki: al-sarim al-hindi fil `unuq al-najdi [“The Indian Scimitar on the Najdi’s Neck”].

Al-Azhari, `Abd Rabbih ibn Sulayman al-Shafi`i (The author of Sharh Jami’ al-Usul li ahadith al-Rasul, a basic book of Usul al-Fiqh: Fayd al-Wahhab fi Bayan Ahl al-Haqq wa man dalla `an al-sawab, 4 vols. [“Allah’s Outpouring in Differentiating the True Muslims From Those Who Deviated From the Truth”].

Al-`Azzami, `Allama al-shaykh Salama (d. 1379H): Al-Barahin al-sati`at [“The Radiant Proofs…”].

Al-Barakat al-Shafi`i al-Ahmadi al-Makki, `Abd al-Wahhab ibn Ahmad: unpublished manuscript of a refutation of the Wahhabi sect.

al-Bulaqi, Mustafa al-Masri wrote a refutation to San`a’i’s poem in which the latter had praised Ibn `Abd al-Wahhab. It is in Samnudi’s “Sa`adat al-Darayn” and consists in 126 verses beginning thus:

Bi hamdi wali al-hamdi la al-dhammi astabdi

Wa bil haqqi la bil khalqi lil haqqi astahdi

[By the glory of the Owner of glory, not baseness, do I overcome;

And by Allah, not by creatures, do I seek guidance to Allah]

Al-Buti, Dr. Muhammad Sa`id Ramadan (University of Damascus): Al-Salafiyyatu marhalatun zamaniyyatun mubarakatun la madhhabun islami [“The Salafiyya is a blessed historical period not an Islamic school of law”] (Damascus: Dar al-fikr, 1988); Al-lamadhhabiyya akhtaru bid`atin tuhaddidu al-shari`a al-islamiyya [“Non-madhhabism is the most dangerous innovation presently menacing Islamic law”] (Damascus: Maktabat al-Farabi, n.d.).

Al-Dahesh ibn `Abd Allah, Dr. (Arab University of Morocco), ed. Munazara `ilmiyya bayna `Ali ibn Muhammad al-Sharif wa al-Imam Ahmad ibn Idris fi al-radd `ala Wahhabiyyat Najd, Tihama, wa `Asir [“Scholarly Debate Between the Sharif and Ahmad ibn Idris Against the Wahhabis of Najd, Tihama, and `Asir”].

Dahlan, al-Sayyid Ahmad ibn Zayni (d. 1304/1886). Mufti of Mecca and Shaykh al-Islam (highest religious authority in the Ottoman jurisdiction) for the Hijaz region: al-Durar al-saniyyah fi al-radd ala al-Wahhabiyyah [“The Pure Pearls in Answering the Wahhabis”] pub. Egypt 1319 & 1347 H; Fitnat al-Wahhabiyyah [“The Wahhabi Fitna”]; Khulasat al-Kalam fi bayan Umara’ al-Balad al-Haram [“The Summation Concerning the Leaders of the Sacrosanct Country”], a history of the Wahhabi fitna in Najd and the Hijaz.

al-Dajwi, Hamd Allah: al-Basa’ir li Munkiri al-tawassul ka amthal Muhd. Ibn `Abdul Wahhab [“The Evident Proofs Against Those Who Deny the Seeking of Intercession Like Muhammad Ibn `Abdul Wahhab”].

Shaykh al-Islam Dawud ibn Sulayman al-Baghdadi al-Hanafi (1815-1881 CE): al-Minha al-Wahbiyya fi radd al-Wahhabiyya [“The Divine Dispensation Concerning the Wahhabi Deviation”]; Ashadd al-Jihad fi Ibtal Da`wa al-Ijtihad [“The Most Violent Jihad in Proving False Those Who Falsely Claim Ijtihad”].

Al-Falani al-Maghribi, al-Muhaddith Salih: authored a large volume collating the answers of scholars of the Four Schools to Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Wahhab.

al-Habibi, Muhammad `Ashiq al-Rahman: `Adhab Allah al-Mujdi li Junun al-Munkir al-Najdi [“Allah’s Terrible Punishment for the Mad Rejector From Najd”].

Al-Haddad, al-Sayyid al-`Alawi ibn Ahmad ibn Hasan ibn al-Qutb Sayyidi `Abd Allah ibn `Alawi al-Haddad al-Shafi`i: al-Sayf al-batir li `unq al-munkir `ala al-akabir [“The Sharp Sword for the Neck of the Assailant of Great Scholars”]. Unpublished manuscript of about 100 folios; Misbah al-anam wa jala’ al-zalam fi radd shubah al-bid`i al-najdi al-lati adalla biha al-`awamm [“The Lamp of Mankind and the Illumination of Darkness Concerning the Refutation of the Errors of the Innovator From Najd by Which He Had Misled the Common People”]. Published 1325H.

Al-Hamami al-Misri, Shaykh Mustafa: Ghawth al-`ibad bi bayan al-rashad [“The Helper of Allah’s Servants According to the Affirmation of Guidance”].

Al-Hilmi al-Qadiri al-Iskandari, Shaykh Ibrahim: Jalal al-haqq fi kashf ahwal ashrar al-khalq [“The Splendor of Truth in Exposing the Worst of People] (pub. 1355H).

Al-Husayni, `Amili, Muhsin (1865-1952). Kashf al-irtiyab fi atba` Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Wahhab [“The Dispelling of Doubt Concerning the Followers of Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Wahhab”]. [Yemen?]: Maktabat al-Yaman al-Kubra, 198?.

Al-Kabbani, Muhammad Hisham, Encyclopedia of Islamic Doctrine, vol. 1-7, As-Sunnah Foundation of America, 1998.

_____, Islamic Beliefs and Doctrine According to Ahl as-Sunna – A Repudiation of “Salafi” Innovations, ASFA, 1996.

_____, Innovation and True Belief: the Celebration of Mawlid According to the Qur’an and Sunna and the Scholars of Islam, ASFA, 1995.

_____, Salafi Movement Unveiled, ASFA, 1997.
<!–[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]–>
<!–[endif]–>

Ibn `Abd al-Latif al-Shafi`i, `Abd Allah: Tajrid sayf al-jihad `ala mudda`i al-ijtihad [“The drawing of the sword of jihad against the false claimants to ijtihad”].

The family of Ibn `Abd al-Razzaq al-Hanbali in Zubara and Bahrayn possess both manuscript and printed refutations by scholars of the Four Schools from Mecca, Madina, al-Ahsa’, al-Basra, Baghdad, Aleppo, Yemen and other Islamic regions.

Ibn `Abd al-Wahhab al-Najdi, `Allama al-Shaykh Sulayman, elder brother of Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Wahhab: al-Sawa’iq al-Ilahiyya fi al-radd ‘ala al-Wahhabiyya [“Divine Lightnings in Answering the Wahhabis”]. Ed. Ibrahim Muhammad al-Batawi. Cairo: Dar al-insan, 1987. Offset reprint by Waqf Ikhlas, Istanbul: Hakikat Kitabevi, 1994. Prefaces by Shaykh Muhammad ibn Sulayman al-Kurdi al-Shafi`i and Shaykh Muhammad Hayyan al-Sindi (Muhammad Ibn `Abd al-Wahhab’s shaykh) to the effect that Ibn `Abd al-Wahhab is “dall mudill” (“misguided and misguiding”).

Ibn `Abidin al-Hanafi, al-Sayyid Muhammad Amin: Radd al-muhtar `ala al-durr al-mukhtar, Vol. 3, Kitab al-Iman, Bab al-bughat [“Answer to the Perplexed: A Commentary on “The Chosen Pearl,”” Book of Belief, Chapter on Rebels]. Cairo: Dar al-Tiba`a al-Misriyya, 1272 H.

Ibn `Afaliq al-Hanbali, Muhammad Ibn `Abdul Rahman: Tahakkum al-muqallidin bi man idda`a tajdid al-din [Sarcasm of the muqallids against the false claimants to the Renewal of Religion]. A very comprehensive book refuting the Wahhabi heresy and posting questions which Ibn `Abdul Wahhab and his followers were unable to answer for the most part.

Ibn Dawud al-Hanbali, `Afif al-Din `Abd Allah: as-sawa`iq wa al-ru`ud [“Lightnings and thunder”], a very important book in 20 chapters. According to the Mufti of Yemen Shaykh al-`Alawi ibn Ahmad al-Haddad, the mufti of Yemen, “This book has received the approval of the `ulama of Basra, Baghdad, Aleppo, and Ahsa’ [Arabian peninsula]. It was summarized by Muhammad ibn Bashir the qadi of Ra’s al-Khayma in Oman.”

Ibn Ghalbun al-Libi also wrote a refutation in forty verses of al-San`ani’s poem in which the latter had praised Ibn `Abd al-Wahhab. It is in Samnudi’s Sa`adat al-darayn and begins thus:

Salami `ala ahlil isabati wal-rushdi

Wa laysa `ala najdi wa man halla fi najdi

[My salutation is upon the people of truth and guidance

And not upon Najd nor the one who settled in Najd]

Ibn Khalifa `Ulyawi al-Azhari: Hadhihi `aqidatu al-salaf wa al-khalaf fi dhat Allahi ta`ala wa sifatihi wa af`alihi wa al-jawab al-sahih li ma waqa`a fihi al-khilaf min al-furu` bayna al-da`in li al-Salafiyya wa atba` al-madhahib al-arba`a al-islamiyya [“This is the doctrine of the Predecessors and the Descendants concerning the divergences in the branches between those who call to al-Salafiyya and the followers of the Four Islamic Schools of Law”] (Damascus: Matba`at Zayd ibn Thabit, 1398/1977.

Kawthari al-Hanafi, Muhammad Zahid. Maqalat al-Kawthari. (Cairo: al-Maktabah al-Azhariyah li al-Turath, 1994).

Al-Kawwash al-Tunisi, `Allama Al-Shaykh Salih: his refutation of the Wahhabi sect is contained in Samnudi’s volume: “Sa`adat al-darayn fi al-radd `ala al-firqatayn.”

Khazbek, Shaykh Hasan: Al-maqalat al-wafiyyat fi al-radd `ala al-wahhabiyyah [“Complete Treatise in Refuting the Wahhabis”].

Makhluf, Muhammad Hasanayn: Risalat fi hukm al-tawassul bil-anbiya wal-awliya [“Treatise on the Ruling Concerning the Use of Prophets and Saints as Intermediaries”].

Al-Maliki al-Husayni, Al-muhaddith Muhammad al-Hasan ibn `Alawi: Mafahimu yajibu an tusahhah [“Notions that should be corrected”] 4th ed. (Dubai: Hashr ibn Muhammad Dalmuk, 1986); Muhammad al-insanu al-kamil [“Muhammad, the Perfect Human Being”] 3rd ed. (Jeddah: Dar al-Shuruq, 1404/1984).

Al-Mashrifi al-Maliki al-Jaza’iri: Izhar al-`uquq mimman mana`a al-tawassul bil nabi wa al-wali al-saduq [“The Exposure of the Disobedience of Those Who Forbid Using the Intermediary of the Prophets and the Truthful Saints].

Al-Mirghani al-Ta’ifi, `Allama `Abd Allah ibn Ibrahim (d. 1793): Tahrid al-aghbiya’ `ala al-Istighatha bil-anbiya’ wal-awliya [“The Provocations of the Ignorant Against Seeking the Help of Prophets and Saints”] (Cairo: al-Halabi, 1939).

Mu’in al-Haqq al-Dehlawi (d. 1289): Sayf al-Jabbar al-maslul `ala a`da’ al-Abrar [“The Sword of the Almighty Drawn Against the Enemies of the Pure Ones”].

Al-Muwaysi al-Yamani, `Abd Allah ibn `Isa: Unpublished manuscript of a refutation of the Wahhabi sect.

Al-Nabahani al-Shafi`i, al-qadi al-muhaddith Yusuf ibn Isma`il (1850-1932): Shawahid al-Haqq fi al-istighatha bi sayyid al-Khalq (s) [“The Proofs of Truth in the Seeking of the Intercession of the Prophet”].

Al-Qabbani al-Basri al-Shafi`i, Allama Ahmad ibn `Ali: A manuscript treatise in approximately 10 chapters.

Al-Qadumi al-Nabulusi al-Hanbali: `AbdAllah: Rihlat [“Journey”].

Al-Qazwini, Muhammad Hasan, (d. 1825). Al-Barahin al-jaliyyah fi raf` tashkikat al-Wahhabiyah [“The Plain Demonstrations That Dispel the Aspersions of the Wahhabis”]. Ed. Muhammad Munir al-Husayni al-Milani. 1st ed. Beirut: Mu’assasat al-Wafa’, 1987.

Al-Qudsi: al-Suyuf al-Siqal fi A`naq man ankara `ala al-awliya ba`d al-intiqal [“The Burnished Swords on the Necks of Those Who Deny the Role of Saints After Their Leaving This World”].

Al-Rifa`i, Yusuf al-Sayyid Hashim, President of the World Union of Islamic Propagation and Information: Adillat Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama`at aw al-radd al-muhkam al-mani` `ala munkarat wa shubuhat Ibn Mani` fi tahajjumihi `ala al-sayyid Muhammad `Alawi al-Maliki al-Makki [“The Proofs of the People of the Way of the Prophet and the Muslim Community: or, the Strong and Decisive Refutation of Ibn Mani`’s Aberrations and Aspersions in his Assault on Muhammad `Alawi al-Maliki al-Makki”] (Kuwait: Dar al-siyasa, 1984).

Al-Samnudi al-Mansuri, al-`Allama al-Shaykh Ibrahim: Sa`adat al-darayn fi al-radd `ala al-firqatayn al-wahhabiyya wa muqallidat al-zahiriyyah [“Bliss in the Two Abodes: Refutation of the Two Sects, Wahhabis and Zahiri Followers”].

Al-Saqqaf al-Shafi`i, Hasan ibn `Ali, Islamic Research Intitute, Amman, Jordan: al-Ighatha bi adillat al-istighatha wa al-radd al-mubin `ala munkiri al-tawassul [“The Mercy of Allah in the Proofs of Seeking Intercession and the Clear Answer to Those who Reject it”]; Ilqam al hajar li al-mutatawil `ala al-Asha`ira min al-Bashar [“The Stoning of All Those Who Attack Ash’aris”]; Qamus shata’im al-Albani wa al-alfaz al-munkara al-lati yatluquha fi haqq ulama al-ummah wa fudalai’ha wa ghayrihim… [“Encyclopedia of al-Albani’s Abhorrent Expressions Which He Uses Against the Scholars of the Community, its Eminent Men, and Others…”] Amman : Dar al-Imam al-Nawawi, 1993.

Al-Sawi al-Misri: Hashiyat `ala al-jalalayn [“Commentary on the Tafsir of the Two Jalal al-Din”].

Sayf al-Din Ahmed ibn Muhammad: Al-Albani Unveiled: An Exposition of His Errors and Other Important Issues, 2nd ed. (London: s.n., 1994).

Al-Shatti al-Athari al-Hanbali, al-Sayyid Mustafa ibn Ahmad ibn Hasan, Mufti of Syria: al-Nuqul al-shar’iyyah fi al-radd ‘ala al-Wahhabiyya [“The Legal Proofs in Answering the Wahhabis”].

Al-Subki, al-hafiz Taqi al-Din (d. 756/1355): Al-durra al-mudiyya fi al-radd `ala Ibn Taymiyya, ed. Muhammad Zahid al-Kawthari [“The Luminous Pearl: A Refutation of Ibn Taymiyya”]; Al-rasa’il al-subkiyya fi al-radd `ala Ibn Taymiyya wa tilmidhihi Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, ed. Kamal al-Hut [“Subki’s treatises in Answer to Ibn Taymiyya and his pupil Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya”] (Beirut: `Alam al-Kutub, 1983); Al-sayf al-saqil fi al-radd `ala Ibn Zafil [“The Burnished Sword in Refuting Ibn Zafil (Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya)” Cairo: Matba`at al-Sa`ada, 1937; Shifa’ al-siqam fi ziyarat khayr al-anam [“The healing of the sick in visiting the Best of Creation”].

Sunbul al-Hanafi al-Ta’ifi, Allama Tahir: Sima al-Intisar lil awliya’ al-abrar [“The Mark of Victory Belongs to Allah’s Pure Friends”].

Al-Tabataba’i al-Basri, al-Sayyid: also wrote a reply to San`a’i’s poem which was excerpted in Samnudi’s Sa`adat al-Darayn. After reading it, San`a’i reversed his position and said: “I have repented from what I said concerning the Najdi.”

Al-Tamimi al-Maliki, `Allama Isma`il (d. 1248), Shaykh al-Islam in Tunis: wrote a refutation of a treatise of Ibn `Abd al-Wahhab.

Al-Wazzani, al-Shaykh al-Mahdi, Mufti of Fes, Morocco: Wrote a refutation of Muhammad `Abduh’s prohibition of tawassul.

al-Zahawi al-Baghdadi, Jamil Effendi Sidqi (d. 1355/1936): al-Fajr al-Sadiq fi al-radd ‘ala munkiri al-tawassul wa al-khawariq [“The True Dawn in Refuting Those Who Deny the Seeking of Intercession and the Miracles of Saints”] Pub. 1323/1905 in Egypt.

Al-Zamzami al-Shafi`i, Muhammad Salih, Imam of the Maqam Ibrahim in Mecca, wrote a book in 20 chapters against them according to al-Sayyid al-Haddad.

See also:

Ahmad, Qeyamuddin. The Wahhabi movement in India. 2nd rev. ed. New Delhi : Manohar, 1994.

(1)Throughout the article, (s) means “peace be upon him,” and (ra) means “may Allah (swt) be pleased them.”

(2)Lacy, Robert. The Kingdom: Arabia & the House of Sa`ud . p. 59.

(3)Zahawi, Jamal E (1996) The Doctrine of Ahl al-Sunna Versus the ‘Salafi’ Movement. Translated by Shaykh Muhammad Hisham Kabbani. As-Sunna Foundation of America.

(4)For example, orthodox Sunni scholar Abu Ala Bukhari accused people of unbelief (kufr) if they called Ibn Taymiyah “Shaykh”. Imam Zahid al-Kawthari accused Ibn Taymiyah’s positions on the creed to be tantamount to apostasy.

(5)Gilles, Kepel. Jihad: The Trail of Political Islam, p. 72.

(6)Sivan, Emmanuel. Radical Islam: Medieval Theology and Modern Politics. Yale University Press, New Haven and London. pg. 102-103.

(7)Kabbani, Hisham M (1996). Islamic Beliefs & Doctrine According to Ahl al-Sunna A Repudiation of “Salafi” Innovations. Volume I. As-Sunna Foundation of America.

(8)Safran, Nadav. (1988). Saudi Arabia: The Ceaseless Quest for Security. Cornell University Press: Ithaca, NY. Pg. 11.

(9)Safran, Nadav. (1988). Saudi Arabia: The Ceaseless Quest for Security. Cornell University Press: Ithaca, NY. Pg. 12.

(10)Bagot, Blubb, Sir J. (1961). War in the Desert .New York: Norton. Pg. 44.

(11)Abdul Aziz ibn Abdullah ibn Baz. “Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul-Wahhab.” Available: http://www.alinaam.org.za/library/hist_bio/ibnwahhaab.htm.

(12)Ibid., Zahawi. pp. 7-15

The Ottomans Defeats Wahabis

June 27, 2007

THE OTTOMANS CLEAR THE BLESSED CITIES OF THE WAHHABITE BANDITS

From http://www.hizmetbooks.org/Advice_for_the_Muslim/wah-41.htm

41 – During those years, the Ottoman State was busy with foreign affairs and was trying to extinguish the fire of rebellion incited by freemasons. When Sa’ud’s torture to the Muslims and insults towards Islam reached an unbearable severity in 1226 A.H. (1811), the Caliph of the Muslims, Sultan Mahmud Khan ‘Adli II (rahmat-Allahi ‘alaih), sent a written order to the Governor of Egypt, Muhammad ‘Ali Pasha (rahimah-Allahu ta’ala), to punish the bandits. Muhammad ‘Ali Pasha set out an army corps from Egypt under the command of his son Tosun Pasha in the month of Ramadan. Tosun Pasha captured Yanbu’ town, the seaport of Medina, but he was defeated in a severe battle at a place between the Safra Valley and the Judaida Pass on his way to Medina during the first days of Dhu ‘l-Hijja, 1226. Although Tosun Pasha did not suffer any harm, most of the Ottoman Muslims were martyred. Muhammad ‘Ali Pasha grieved about this misfortune and set out with a bigger army corps armed with eighteen cannons, three big mortars and many other weapons. They passed the Safra Valley and the Judaida Pass in Shaban 1227 (1812). They captured many villages without any combat in Ramadan. Muhammad ‘Ali Pasha, as he was advised by Sharif Ghalib Effendi, acted very intelligently in gaining these successes by distributing 118,000 rials to the villages which easily gave in to money. If Tosun Pasha had consulted Sharif Ghalib Effendi as his father did, he would not have lost his big army corps. Sharif Ghalib Effendi was the amir of Mecca appointed by the Wahhabis; however, he had a heartfelt desire to liberate Mecca from those ferocious bandits. Muhammad ‘Ali Pasha also captured Medina without bloodshed at the end of Dhu ‘l-Qada. Reports of these victories were sent to Egypt to be communicated to the Caliph. The people of Egypt rejoiced over the victories for three days and nights, and the good news of the victories were made known to all Muslim countries. Muhammad ‘Ali Pasha had sent a division to Mecca via Jidda. The division arrived in Jidda early in Muharram 1228 and marched on towards Mecca. They entered Mecca easily by following the plans secretly organized by Sharif Ghalib Effendi. The bandits and their commander had fled the city and taken refuge in the mountains when they had heard the news that the Ottoman division was nearing Mecca.

Sa’ud ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz had turned back to his den of mischief, Dar’iyya, in 1227, after the pilgrimage and a visit to Ta’if where much Muslim blood had been shed. He was astonished to learn that al-Madinat al-Munawwara and then al-Makkat al-Mukarrama were taken by the Ottomans when he arrived in Dar’iyya. Just during those days, the Ottoman soldiers attacked Ta’if but met no resistance, for the tyrant of Ta’if, ‘Uthman al-Mudayiqi, and his soldiers had fled from fear. The good news was presented to the Caliph of the Muslims in Istanbul, Hadrat Sultan Mahmud Khan ‘Adli, who felt very happy and expressed thanks in the deepest sense for this blessing of Allahu ta’ala. He sent his thanks and gifts to Muhammad ‘Ali Pasha and ordered him to go to the Hijaz again to inspect and control the bandits.

Muhammad ‘Ali Pasha, obeying Sultan Mahmud Khan’s order, set out from Egypt again. At that time, Sharif Ghalib Effendi was in Ta’if with the Ottoman soldiers, busy with searching for the bloody-handed tyrant ‘Uthman. After a well-organized search, ‘Uthman was arrested and sent to Egypt and then to Istanbul. Muhammad ‘Ali Pasha sent Sharif Ghalib Effendi to Istanbul when he arrived in Mecca and appointed his brother Yahya ibn Masud Effendi (rahimah-Allahu ta’ala) to be the amir of Mecca. Mubarak ibn Maghyan, another bandit, was also arrested and sent to Istanbul in Muharram 1229. These two bandits, who shed the blood of thousands of Muslims, got the punishment they deserved after being paraded in the streets of Istanbul for exposition. Sharif Ghalib Effendi, who served as the amir of Mecca for 26 years, was given a warm welcome of respect and love in Istanbul, and he was sent to Salonika where he reposed until he passed away in 1231 (1815). His shrine in Salonika is open to visitors.

A division was sent out to clear the places far down to Yaman after sweeping the bandits out from the blessed cities in the Hijaz. Muhammad ‘Ali Pasha went to help this division with his soldiers and cleared the whole district. He came back to Mecca and stayed there until Rajab 1230, then he appointed his son Hasan Pasha to be the governor of Mecca and returned to Egypt. Sa’ud bin ‘Abd al-‘Aziz died in 1231 and his son, ‘Abdullah ibn Sa’ud, succeeded him. Muhammad ‘Ali Pasha sent his son Ibrahim Pasha with a division under his order against ‘Abdullah ibn Sa’ud. ‘Abdullah made an agreement with Tosun Pasha that he would be loyal to the Ottomans on the condition that he would be recognized as the governor of Dar’iyya, but Muhammad ‘Ali Pasha did not accept this agreement. Ibrahim Pasha set out from Egypt towards the end of the year 1231 and arrived in Dar’iyya in the beginning of 1232. ‘Abdullah ibn Sa’ud resisted against Ibrahim Pasha with all his soldiers but was arrested after very bloody battles in Dhu ‘l-Qada 1233 (1818). The good news of the victory was welcomed in Egypt with a salute of a hundred guns from the castle and rejoiced over for seven days and nights. All the streets were decked with flags. Takbirs and munajat (supplications) were recited on the minarets.

Muhammad ‘Ali Pasha, who deemed it a very important duty to clear the blessed cities in Arabia of the bandits, struggled hard to achieve this goal and expended innumerable gold coins for this cause. [It is now seen with sorrow that the Saudi government is in a struggle to disseminating their heretical beliefs all over the world by expending many more dollars. There is no way out other than to learn true Islam by reading the books of Religion written by the ulama of Ahl as-Sunna in order to save ourselves from the destruction of la-madhhabism.]

‘Abdullah ibn Sa’ud with his ferocious looters who had tortured Muslims were arrested and sent to Egypt. They were all taken to Cairo before the eyes of innumerable people in Muharram 1234. Muhammad ‘Ali Pasha gave a very kind and happy welcome to ‘Abdullah ibn Sa’ud. The conversation between them was as follows:

“You have struggled very hard!” the Pasha said.

“War is an affair of fate and luck,” Ibn Sa’ud answered.

“How do you find my son Ibrahim Pasha?”

“He is very brave. His intelligence is much greater than his bravery. We strove hard, too. But, it happened as Allah had decreed.”

“Do not worry! I shall write a letter of intercession for you to the Caliph of the Muslims.”

“What was fated will happen.”

“Why do you carry that casket with you?”

“In it, I keep very valuable things that my father took from the Hujrat an-Nabawiyya. I shall offer it to our magnificent Sultan.”

Muhammad ‘Ali Pasha ordered the casket to be opened. Three copies of the Qur’an al-karim with invaluable gildings, 330 very large pearls, a large emerald and gold chains, all stolen from the Hujrat an-Nabawiyya, were seen.

“This is not all of the valuable treasures taken from the Khazinat an-Nabawiyya. There should be more, shouldn’t there?” Muhammad ‘Ali Pasha inquired.

“You are right, my noble lord. But, this is all I could find in my father’s treasure. My father was not the only one who attended the plunder of the Hujrat as-Saada. The Arab chiefs, notables of Mecca, the servants of he Haram as-Saada and the amir of Mecca, Sharif Ghalib Effendi, were all his partners in the plunder. What was seized belonged to whomever grasped it.”

“Yes, that is right! We found many things with Sharif Ghalib Effendi [rahmat-Allahi ‘alaih] and took them from him,” said Muhammad ‘Ali Pasha. [Ayyub Sabri Pasha comments in his text: “It should be thought that Sharif Ghalib Effendi took them with the purpose of saving them from being plundered by the Wahhabite looters. Muhammad Ali Pasha said, ‘Yes, that is right!’ not because he believed that Sharif Ghalib Effendi really looted, but because he accepted the reason why there were so very few things in the casket.”]

After this conversation, ‘Abdullah ibn Sa’ud and his accomplices were sent to Istanbul. These ferocious bandits, who had murdered thousands of Muslims were hung in front of a gate of the Topkapi Palace.

Ibrahim Pasha demolished the Dar’iyya fortress and returned to Egypt in Muharram 1235 A.H. And one of Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab’s sons was brought to Egypt and kept in prison till he died.

After ‘Abdullah ibn Sa’ud, Tarkee ibn ‘Abdullah of the same lineage became the chief of the Wahhabis in 1240 (1824). Tarkee’s father, ‘Abdullah, was the uncle of Sa’ud ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz. In 1249, Mashshari ibn Sa’ud killed Tarkee and took the reign. And Faysal, Tarkee’s son, murdered Mashshari to succeed him in leading the Wahhabis in 1254 A.H. (1838). Though he tried to resist the soldiers sent by Muhammad ‘Ali Pasha the same year, he was captured by Mirliwa (Brigadier-general) Khurshid Pasha and was sent to Egypt, where he was imprisoned. Then, Sa’ud’s son Khalid Bey, who had lived in Egypt till then, was appointed to be the amir of Dar’iyya and sent to Riyadh. Khalid Bey, who was trained according to Ottoman manners, was a polite person with the faith of Ahl as-Sunnat. Therefore, he managed to remain as the amir only for one and a half years. Someone named ‘Abdullah ibn Sazyan, pretending to be faithful towards the Ottoman State, captured many villages. He assaulted Dar’iyya and announced himself as the amir of the Najd. Khalid took refuge in Mecca. Faysal, who was in prison in Egypt, fled and, with the help of Ibn ar-Rashid, the amir of Jaba as-Samr, went to the Najd and killed Ibn Sazyan. Taking the oath of allegiance to the Ottoman State, he was appointed the amir of Dar’iyya in 1259. he kept his word till he died in 1282 (1865).

Faysal had four sons, namely ‘Abdullah, Sa’ud, ‘Abd ar-Rahman and Muhammad Said. The eldest one, ‘Abdullah, was appointed as the amir of Najd. Sa’ud rose in rebellion against his elder brother with the people he gathered around him on the Bahrain Island in 1288 A.H. (1871). ‘Abdullah sent his brother Muhammad Said to defeat Sa’ud, but Said’s soldiers were defeated. Sa’ud had the desire of capturing all the cities of the Najd, but, because ‘Abdullah was an amir appointed by the Ottoman State, Fareeq (Major-General) Nafidh Pasha was sent with the sixth army to defeat Sa’ud. Sa’ud and all the rebels with him were annihilated, and the Najd regained comfort and peace, and all the Muslims prayed for the Caliph of the Faithful (rahmat-Allahi ‘alaih). In 1306 (1888), however, Muhammad ibn ar-Rashid captured the Najd and imprisoned ‘Abdullah.

About one million savages of Asir who lived in the Sawwat Mountains between the cities of Ta’if and San’a had been made Wahhabis when Yaman had been invaded. Muhammad ‘Ali Pasha, after clearing the home of raiders had postponed the clearance on these mountains to a later date. This district was also taken under the control of the Ottomans during the time of Sultan ‘Abd al-Majid Khan (rahmat-Allahi ‘alaih) in 1263 A.H.

The people of Asir had an amir, whom they elected, and a governor, who was appointed by the Ottoman State. They frequently rebelled against the governor who treated them kindly, but they deemed it an act of worship to obey their amir. They even attacked the port of Hodeida in Yaman during a rebellion when Kurd Mahmud Pasha was the governor, but they were killed by a fatal simum. Although they rebelled and attacked Hodeida again in 1287, a small number of Ottoman soldiers heroically prevented them from entering the town. Thereupon, a group of soldiers were sent under the command of Radif Pasha and the dens of brigands on the steep mountains were captured one by one by the fine plans and organization of Radif Pasha and the Ottoman staff officers. The dens of mischief and rebellion were cleared away. When Radif Pasha fell ill, Ghazi Ahmad Mukhtar Pasha was appointed to civilize the savages in the deserts of Yaman and in the Asir Mountains and to establish and disseminate Islamic knowledge and morals in that district.

The Arabian Peninsula had been governed by the Ottomans since 923 A.H. (1517), when Yavuz Sultan Salim Khan (rahmat-Allahi ‘alaih) conquered Egypt and became the first Turkish caliph. Although the cities were governed in full peace and quietness, the nomadic, ignorant people in the deserts and on the mountains were left to be governed by their own shaikhs or amirs. These amirs occasionally rebelled. Most of them became Wahhabis and started attacking people and killing Muslims. They robbed and killed the pilgrims.

In 1274 (1858), the British organized a revolution and overthrew the Islamic State in India and worked mischief also in Jidda; nevertheless, peace was maintained with the policy implemented by Namiq Pasha, the governor of Mecca at that time.

All the rebellious, savage amirs were brought to obedience and put under the control of the Ottoman State in 1277.

It is noted in the book Mirat al-Haramain that twelve million people lived on the Arabian Peninsula in 1306 A.H. (1888) when the book was written. Although they were very intelligent and understanding, they were also extremely ignorant, cruel and murderous. Their allegiance to Sa’ud increased the intensity of their barbarism.

Amir Ibn ar-Rashid, the great grandson of Ibn ar-Rashid, fought with the Ottomans against the British during the First World War. ‘Ali, his son, the amir of Ha’il, a town south-east of Medina, passed away in 1251 (1835) and was succeeded by his elder son ‘Abdullah ar-Rashid, who governed as the amir for thirteen years. His eldest son and successor, Tallal, was poisoned by Faysal ibn Sa’ud and, as a result, went mad and committed suicide with a revolver in 1282 (1866). Mu’tab, his brother, became the amir after him, but Bandar ibn Tallal killed his uncle Mu’tab and took the reign. This amir, too, was assassinated by his uncle, Muhammad ar-Rashid, who later captured the Najd and Riyadh and imprisoned amir ‘Abdullah ibn Faysal, who belonged to the Sa’udi family, and took him to Ha’il. ‘Abd ar-Rahman, ‘Abdullah ibn Faysal’s brother, fled with his son, ‘Abd al-Aziz, and took refuge in Kuwait. Muhammad ar-Rashid died in 1315 (1897). He was succeeded by his brother’s son, ‘Abd al-‘Aziz, whose cruelty caused the rise of Wahhabism again: the amirs of Riyadh, Qasim and Buraida, united with ‘Abd al-‘Aziz who was then in the village of Al-Muhanna. ‘Abd al-‘Aziz ibn ‘Abd ar-Rahman ibn Faysal [ibn Sa’ud] set out for Riyadh from Kuwait with twelve dromedaries. He entered Riyadh one night in 1319 (1901). At a feast, he killed Ajlan, the governor of Riyadh, appointed by ‘Abd al-‘Aziz ibn ar-Rashid. The people of Riyadh, who had suffered much cruelty till then, elected him as the amir. Thus, the Saudi State was established in Riyadh. Many battles took place for three years. ‘Abd al-‘Aziz ibn ar-Rashid was killed. The Ottomans intervened in the dispute in 1333 (1915) and an agreement was made with ‘Abd al-‘Aziz ibn Sa’ud on the condition that he would be the head official in Riyadh. Later, Rashidees and Sa’udis fought a battle in Qasim; Abd al-‘Aziz ibn Sa’ud suffered defeat and retreated to Riyadh.

On the 17th of June, 1336 [This is not in the year of the Hijra (Hegira), with which Arabic months are used, but in the Rumi calendar, which was introduced after the Tanzimat (1839). The Ottoman State used only the Hijri calendar before the Tanzimat.] (1918), ‘Abd al-‘Aziz ibn ‘Abd ar-Rahman, with the encouragement from the British, published a declaration saying that Sharif Husain and those with him in Mecca were disbelievers and that he was performing jihad against them; he assaulted Mecca and Ta’if but could not capture these two cities from Sharif Husain Pasha. The British soldiers seized Sharif Husain ibn ‘Ali Pasha and took him to Cyprus in 1342 (1924). The Pasha died in a hotel where he was imprisoned in 1349 (1931). ‘Abd al-‘Aziz ibn ‘Abd ar-Rahman easily captured Mecca and Ta’if in 1924. Earlier, on February 28th, 1337 (1919), the Ottoman soldiers, who had guarded Medina against the amir of Mecca, Sharif Husain Pasha, who was not on friendly terms with the Ittihajjilar [‘Unionists’; members of Ittihad wa Taraqqi Jam’iyyati, the secret ‘Union and Progress Society,’ which later became the Union and Progress Party.] who had taken the government of the Ottoman Empire under their own control at that time, had left the Hijaz in accord with the terms of the Mondros Armistice. Sharif ‘Abdullah, Sharif Husain Pasha’s son, had settled in Medina but the British government banished him from Medina to Amman after his father’s death. He founded the State of Jordan in 1365 (1946) but was killed by British assassins while he was performing salat in Masjid al-Aqsa in 1307 (1951). His son, Tallal, succeeded him but soon handed the rule to his soon Malik Husain because of his illness. Sharif Husain Pasha’s second son, Sharif Faysal, founded the State of Iraq in 1339 (1921) and died in 1351 (1933). He was succeeded by his son, Ghazi, who died in 1939 at the age of twenty-one. The next ruler of Iraq, his son Faysal II, was murdered by General Qasim in the coup of August 14, 1958, when he was twenty-three years old. Qasim was killed in a second coup. Iraq and Syria were captured by the socialist Ba’th Party after several coups and became dependencies of Russia.

‘Abd al-‘Aziz ibn ‘Abd ar-Rahman attacked Medina many times. He even bombed Rasulullah’s (sall-Allahu ta’ala ‘alaihi wa sallam) blessed shrine in an attack in 1926 but, fortunately, could not capture the city. The following news was reported in the paperson Sa’at in Istanbul on September 9, 1344 (1926):

MEDINA BOMBARDED – We had previously reported that the Muslims of India were agitated by the bombardment of Medina by ‘Abd al-‘Aziz [Ibn Sa’ud]. The Times of India published in India says:

“The recent news that Medina was assaulted and the Qabr an-Nabawi was bombarded caused such a great agitation among Indian Muslims as no other event has ever caused before. The Muslims living all over India showed how much they respected that sacred place. This serious grieving in India and Iran will certainly influence Ibn Sa’ud and prevent him from such vile actions so that he may not incur the hatred of all Muslim countries against him. The Indian Muslims have openly expressed this to Ibn Sa’ud.”

The partisans of the Union and Progress Party who governed the Ottoman Empire during the First World War were ignorant of Islam. They lacked Islam, Islamic training and morals. Most of those who took active parts in the government were freemasons, who tortured the Muslims in Arabia, too, as they did all over the Empire. They oppressed Muslims very ruthlessly. The people of Arabia, who were used to justice, mercy, favor and respect during the reign of Sultan ‘Abd al-Hamid Khan II (rahmat-Allahi ‘alaih), loved the Turks as their brethren. They were astonished at the torture and robbery committed by the Unionists. The son-in-law and other relatives of Sharif Husain ibn ‘Ali Pasha, the Amir of Mecca (rahmat-Allahi ‘alaih), and many Arab notables were tortured to death by the Unionist Jamal Pasha in Damascus.

After the Unionist army came from Saloniki to Istanbul and dethroned Sultan ‘Abd al-Hamid Khan II, they locked in dungeons many notables of the government, ‘ulama’ and authors of the time of the Caliph, and murdered others by shooting them from behind when they were leaving their offices or mosques after prayer. They used Sultan Rashad (rahmat-Allahi ‘alaih), whom they brought to the Caliphate, like a puppet, and the legislators they appointed like tools under the threat of pistols in running the Empire from war to war, from one disaster to another. Ignoring Islam totally, they took to torturing the people and amusing themselves in dissipation. They sent into exile or hanged those zealous patriots, foresighted and sincere Muslims who opposed this crazy current flowing at full speed. Sharif Husain ibn ‘Ali Pasha was one of these sagacious Muslims who held the rank of Mir-i miran or Beghler Beghi (provincial governor) and served the Caliph and the Empire during Sultan ‘Abd al-Hamid Khan’s reign. To keep him away from Istanbul, he was appointed the Amir of Mecca when he opposed the Unionists’ putting the Empire into the disaster of the First World War. The unionists gave the name of “Jihad-i akbar” falsely to the declaration of war, which was prepared by Anwar Pasha and signed by Sultan Rashad on 22 Dhu’l-Hijja 1332 (October 29, 1914), and sent its copies to all Muslim countries. poor Sultan Rashad supposed that he was the real caliph but could not help complaining, “They do not listen to me at all!” to his close companions, expressing that he was aware of the tricks played, when he was forced to sign orders incompatible with Islam.

Sharif Husain Pasha (rahmat-Allahi ‘alaih) saw that the Unionists, exploiting the faith of Muslims and talking about jihad against non-Muslims, were leading the great empire to partition, that they were throwing thousands of Muslim youth into the fire, that their unawareness and dissipation were not compatible with their words in the least. He tried to find a way out to save Muslims from the hands of these bandits, and the Empire from the dangerous consequences likely to come. Upon hearing that Jamal Pasha amused himself outrageously and killed the notable personages of the Sharif in Damascus, he sent his son Sharif Faysal Effendi to Damascus [to investigate the matter]. Faysal Effendi saw what they had heard was true and informed his father of all the wicked events. Sharif Husain Pasha could not endure any more and published two declarations, one on 25 Shaban 1334 (1916), and the second on 11 Dhu’l-Qada 1334, in order to make Muslims aware of what was going on. The Unionists called those two just invitations “declarations of rebellion.” The hired pens of the Unionist press in Istanbul swore at and slandered Sharif Husain Pasha vilely and spitefully. The Unionists, instead of paying attention to Sharif Husain Pasha’s declarations, proclaimed him to be a traitor disloyal to the country. They sent regiments on him to defeat him. They made brothers fight with one another for years. They caused the martyrdom of many innocent people in order not to leave Mecca and Medina to those khalis Muslims who were the sons of our Prophet (sall-Allahu ta’ala ‘alaihi wa sallam). Worst of all, they surrendered those blessed places to the murderers of Islam, ignorant and cruel bandits of deserts. Nevertheless, it eventually came out that Sharif Husain Pasha was right. The Unionists handed the Ottoman Empire to the enemies and fled the country. If it were not for the Turkish Independence Victory on 30th of August 1340 (1922), the Turks and Islam would have been completely annihilated as Sharif Husain Pasha feared, and the dagger trusted by the British through the terms of the Sevres Treaty (Aug. 10, 1920) would have annihilated the Muslim World.

It will be clearly understood from a careful study of Sharif Husain Pasha’s declarations translated below that he did not have any such idea as “Arab independence.” He was not a nationalist. He wanted all Muslims to go on living brotherly under the flag of Islam. The pure Muslims in Mecca and Medina believed that all Muslim nations were brethren and loved them as their brothers, while the Unionist newspapers insulted the Arabs by calling black dogs “Arab, Arab!” and making up such terms as “Arabic hair” for “Fuzzy hair” and “Arabic soap” for “soft soap” and “black Fatma (Fatima)” for “cockroach.” What a pity the Unionist partisans lacked the faithful soul and noble understanding of those Muslims. While regarding those sincere Muslims as rebels, they kept silent for the rebellion of those who attacked the Turkish soldiers and captured the Ottoman lands. The Unionists, who ordered the Turkish soldiers again and again to fight with the pure Muslims of the Prophet’s family, wrote letters of alliance to the rebellious ‘Abd al-‘Aziz ibn ‘Abd ar-Rahman ibn Faysal, saying, “Come to Medina with your soldiers; we shall go to Mecca with you and arrest amir Husain who raised rebellion against the Sultan.” ‘Abd al-‘Aziz did not even answer their letters, because he did not want Turks in Mecca. He had already made an agreement with the commander of the British forces, which were on Bahrain Islands in those days. He was in a struggle of assaulting and capturing the Ottoman cities on the coast of the Persian Gulf with the weapons he obtained from the British and was expecting Arabia to be given to him. And so it happened as follows:

Faruqi Sami Pasha was appointed the mutasarrif (governor of a subdivision of a province) of the Qasim town to end the bloody battles which had been taking place between the tribe of ‘Abd al-‘Aziz and that of Ibn ar-Rashid in the Najd deserts. Although ‘Abd al-‘Aziz planned to capture Sami Pasha and the Turkish soldiers with the view of taking them to Riyadh, the shaikhs in Qasim prevented him by advising him that it would be very hard to settle the problem that would arise with the [Ottoman] State. But he played a trick on Sami Pasha, saying, “It will be difficult to supply food for all these soldiers in Qasim. You may suffer hunger. Go back to Medina.” Sami Pasha thought that this was friendly advice and went to Medina. After the soldiers left, “Abd al-‘Aziz removed the Ottoman flag from the castle, and thus Qasim was captured. Next, he attacked al-Khassa, the capital of the province of Najd, and captured the city by defeating the Ottomans. The Unionists approved and did not react against ‘Abd al-‘Aziz, especially Talib an-Naqib, a modernist reformer of religion and the deputy of Basra, introduced his assaults as service to Islam. Meanwhile, “Abd al-‘Aziz attacked Ibn ar-Rashid, too, but he was badly defeated and ruined. Many in the Sa’udi family were killed. There were British-made weapons and many hats among the booty taken from ‘Abd al-‘Aziz. This blow to ‘Abd al-‘Aziz postponed his attacks upon Mecca and Medina. With the incitement of the famous British spy Captain [later Colonel] Lawrence, he declared war against Sharif Husain Pasha and attacked Mecca on June 17th, 1336 (1918) but was defeated and went back to the Najd. [Abd-ul-Aziz ibn Abd ar-Rahman took over Mecca and Taif in 1342 A.H. (1924) and Medina in 1349 (1931) from the British forces and founded the state of Saudi Arabia on September 23, 1351 (1932). After his death in 1373 (1953), his successor was his son, Saud, who was the twentieth descendant of the Saudi lineage. Having led a life of debauchery, he died in a drunken sexual debauch in Athens in 1964. His succeding brother Faisal generously expended millions of gold coins, which he collected from petroleum companies and pilgrims every year, in the dissemination of Wahhabism in every country. He was killed by his nephew in his palace in Riyadh in 1395 (March 1975), and his brother Khalid became the ruler of Saudi Arabia. In 1402 (1982), Khalid died and was succeeded bu Fahd.]

The commandants of Medina, Basri Pasha and Fakhree Pasha, although they closely observed the perfidies of ‘Abd al-‘Aziz, proclaimed Sharif Husain Pasha and his sons to be rebels, deeming it a duty for themselves to obey the orders of the Unionists. They were used like tools to make Muslim brothers strangle one another. Ghalib Pasha, the Governor and Commander of the Hijaz, was not deceived by the Unionists for he was a foresighted, experienced commander of extensive Islamic knowledge. He understood from his detailed, careful investigation and examination that Sharif Husain Pasha was right and that he wrote his two declarations out of his love for Islam and the whole Muslim nation. He issued the following “Daily Command” to defend Sharif Husain Pasha against the slanders:

“There should not be any doubt about the sincerity of Hadrat Amir [Sharif Husain Pasha]. There is no such possibility that he would incite rebellion. The hearsay about him is not true in the least. Sharif Husain Pasha is devoted to the Caliph of the Faithful in full obedience and always prays for the long life of His Majesty.”

Ghalib Pasha sent copies of this statement to Jamal Pasha, the commander of the fourth army and one of the ring-leaders of the Unionist bandits, and also to Istanbul. He openly defended Sharif Husain Pasha by stating that he was a sincere Muslim and was correct in his cause. Unfortunately, the Unionists deemed Sharif Husain Pasha and his sons are great obstacles in their way and feared very much that they would enlighten Muslims and prevent their oppressions and other excessive behavior. They plotted filthy tricks to put the Sharifs in the position of rebels. The brave Turkish officers in Medina were ordered to fight against them, and the brothers were made to shed one another’s blood for years. At last, most innocent officers, who shot the Sharifs regarding them as rebels or even traitors, understood that they were misled. Hundreds of officers united and founded Merkez hay’ati (the Central Council) under the leadership of Colonel Amin Beg, the Chief of Staff of the Division. They revealed the murders that had been committed in the Hijaz by publishing various declarations. They said: “The commandant [Fakhree, or Fakhr ad-din Pasha] and his flatterers are lying. The Arabs and the Turks will go on living together as two brother nations as they have done before. Haven’t we been already brothers? Are we not connected to each other with historical and religious bonds? Will the Noble Nation of the Arabs (Qawm-i Najib-i ‘Arab) be our enemies if they become independent? If you ask it to them, they, too, will say ‘No!’ We shall continue working in unity. Hadrat Sharif [Husain Pasha] prepared camels for our soldiers to go to the sea-port Yanbu’. He sent medicine for the sick. He kindly thought of our comfort on our journey to Yanbu’. Is this not a sign of great humanity? Can there be a better example of brotherhood? If, instead of this favor, he had said, ‘You can go to Yanbu’ on foot,’ would we say, ‘No! We are heroes! We shall hang and slay you! We want cars? It is not bravery to die aimlessly from now on. This declaration of ours is meant for those who could not see the truth. The majority has come to understand the truth. Would our master Hadrat Prophet (sall-Allahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) approve of this cruelty?”

Fakhr ad-din Pasha, the Commandant of Medina, was still insisting on obeying the orders of the Unionist government. The Turkish officers encircled his Badroom early on 10 January 1337 (1919). First Lieutenant Shawkat Bey, his aide-de-camp, heard the noise and came out. He saw colonels, lieutenant-colonels, lieutenants, selected infantrymen and gendarmes climbing up the stairs. They took away the aide-de-camp. Those who entered the Badroom held the pasha by the wrists and took him to the sea-port of Yanbu’ between two officers in a car. The officers and the soldiers were happy to travel homeward to Istanbul. However, the British forces took them to Egypt ant kept them in prison for six months. The pasha was banished as a prisoner of war to Malta on August 5th. He was kept there for two years. Because he had deemed it a duty to his country to obey the mad orders of the Unionists, this brave Turkish commandant had remained inactive in Medina and had not found the opportunity of fight against the British forces, the ferocious enemies of Islam. The Unionists, after they took hold of the government, not only partitioned the country of heroes but also caused many patriots of this country like Fakhr ad-din Pasha to groan in the enemy dungeons. They shed the blood of thousands of innocent Muslims and Muslim Turks in order not to give the Sacred Lands, Mecca and Medina, to the Sharifs who were khalis Muslims of our Prophet’s family. They left the Sacred Lands to the bloody-handed, stony-hearted people who were the historical enemies of true Muslims and Turks.

SHARIF HUSAIN PASHA’S FIRST DECLARATION:
Those with a good knowledge of history know very well that the amirs of al-Makkat al-Mukarrama have been the first among those Muslim leaders and rulers to affiliate with ad-Dawlat al-‘aliyyat al-‘Osmaniyya (the Supreme Ottoman Empire) to strengthen Muslim Unity.

These Arab amirs have always been strictly loyal to the Ottomans because the Ottoman sultans have been zealous in executing the Holy Book of Allah and the Sunnat of Rasulullah and obeying Islam and because they sacrificed their bodies for this purpose. For instance, I tried to break up the siege of Abha by attacking with armed forces raised from Arabs against Arabs to protect the honor and dignity of ad-Dawlat al-‘Osmaniyya in the year 1327 [1909]; one year later, I carried out that action to success under the command of one of my sons, again for the same purpose. As everyone knows, I have never deviated from this great aim.

The appearance of Ittihad wa Taraqqi Jamiyyati, their taking control state affairs and their administration, which is corrupt at its very foundation, have caused, as known by everyone, many domestic and foreign disorders and many battles and shocked the greatness and power of the Empire, and, by entering into the last war, [The First World War.] led the Empire into a very dangerous situation. There is no one who does not see and experience the dismal situation; it is not necessary to explain the details.

We do not want to see any people of Islam loosen their relations with this great Muslim empire and be in grief and difficulties. The unity of the people of the Ottoman [Empire] has been spoilt and thus the people’s trust in the security of their possessions and lives is lost because of the executions by hanging and imprisonment in dungeons and the banishment of Muslim and non-Muslim citizens who live on the last portion of our empire. The distress that the people in the Sacred Lands suffered has been so severe that the people of moderate status have had to sell the doors and windows of their houses and household utensils, and even the timber from the roofs of their houses.

The Unionists, unsatisfied with all of what they have done, have also attempted to distort the Book of Allah and the Exalted Sunnat, which are the only bonds between the Exalted Ottoman State and the Muslims; the newspaper Ijtihad, which is published in the capital of the Exalted Ottoman State before the eyes of the Grand Vizier, Shaikh al-Islam and all viziers and senators, is not ashamed of insulting our Prophet with unbecoming writings and, in addition, taking advantage of not being criticized, presumptuously tries to change the ayats of the Qur’an al-karim and dares to ridicule the ayat about inheritance. [See our book The religion Reformers in Islam for these insolent writings by Ziya Gokalp.]

Besides, they have attempted to abolish one of the five fundamentals of Islam as follows: they ordered the soldiers in al-Makkat al-Mukarrama, al-Madinat al-Munawwara and Damascus not to fast in the honorable month of Ramadan to make them feel as if they were like the soldiers fighting against the Russian army. They have not held back from removing many such Islamic fundamentals and committing and making others commit the things Allahu ta’ala forbids.

They have deprived our Majestic, Exalted Sultan (rahmat-Allahi ‘alaih) even of the right of appointing a general secretary to the Palace as they have taken away all rights from His Majesty. They themselves have ignored the constitution they themselves wrote [and announced to the world by depriving the Ottoman Sultan of the right of serving Muslims’ affairs.] They have left the Ottoman Sultan deprived of his constitutional rights. All Muslims and foreigners see this vile behavior and feel disgusted. The reason why we have kept silence about and attributed to [their possible] good [intention] such behavior [of theirs, which, in fact, was] meant to abolish Islam up to now, was because it was feared that it would be an act of sowing seeds of mischief and discord among Muslims.

[We see now that] the wide-spread hearsay that the government of the Supreme Ottoman Empire has left in the hands of Anwar, Jamal and Tal’at pashas was not without foundation. The meaning of this hearsay is getting clearer day by day; as everybody understands openly, they do whatever they wish, and they make others do whatever they say, and their orders are more powerful than the constitution and the laws. An order sent to the Qadi (judge) of the mahkamat ash-Shariyya (canonical court) of Mecca states that the witnesses should be listened to in the presence of the judge and that the tazkiya [(Pronouncement of the) investigation of the antecedents of a witness in order to assess whether his testimony is acceptable.] not recorded in the presence of the judge should not be accepted. This order is an abrogation of the explicit order of the Qur’an al-karim that tazkiya should be practiced among Muslims.

Moreover, the famous ‘ulama’ of Islam and the notable Arab citizens such as Amir ‘Umar al-Jazayri, Amir ‘Arif ash-Shahabi, Shafiq Beg, al-Muayyad Shukru Beg, al-Asani, ‘Abd al-Wahhab, Tawfiq Beg, al-Basat, ‘Abd al-Hamid az-Zarawi and ‘Abd al-Ghani al-Arisi and many other virtuous, useful people like them have been hanged or shot illegally, without any trial. Many families have been ruined by their orders given when they were in a drunken stupor. Perhaps I could find an excuse for those murders which would not be committed even by hard -and stony-hearted dictators, but what excuse could be found acceptable for banishing their remaining sinless, innocent families, wives and children, from their homes and countries, thus loading them with sorrow over sorrow and calamity over calamity?

It is obvious that it is never compatible with logic, justice and humanity in any case to banish and tyrannize women and children while it has already been a sufficient penalty [upon women and children] to see their husbands and fathers killed or decay in dungeons for whatever reason it was. The 164th ayat al-karima of Surat al-Anam declares, “No one should be punished for another’s guilt!” To what rule could these brutal actions of the Unionists be conformable, while this [Qur’anic] commandment enlightening upon justice is explicitly obvious? Even if we could find a political reason, a law, supporting this second murder [of banishing], what excuse could be made for the unjust seizure of the possession and property of those women and children who have lost their husbands and fathers? Let us be silent about this very vile action of theirs for a moment; let us neglect our duty of protecting the innocent and oppressed people for the peace of the nation and the country. But, what reason can ever be shown as an excuse for insulting, playing with the dignity and personified chastity of the chaste, honest and honorable daughter of the famous mujahid, heroic amir ‘Abd al-Qadir al-Jaza’iree? Was there no common woman left to be played and amused with? Is there anyone who cannot understand the ideas and the aim of those who attack the historically certified nobility and honor of the blessed ladies who are the apples of Muslims’ eyes?

We have mentioned above some of the scandals, which everybody knows of among the illegal, immoral, unfair, excessive and stupid actions of the Unionists. I reveal these for all of humanity and our faithful brethren. Those who read and understand will make their conscientious decision. I cannot help writing another heart-breaking, very mean and insolent action of these militant partisans [Unionists] against Muslims, in order to clearly expose their understanding of Islam and their final aim:

During the demonstration arranged by the people of al-Makkat al-Mukarrama to end the attacks directed towards their lives and honesty, two of the shells fired from the guns at Qal’at al-Jiyad to Bait-Allah (the Holy Mosque), the qibla of Muslims and the Kaba of the believers, by the order of a Unionist commander, hit one at a point one meter and the other three meters from the sacred Stone, the Hajar al-aswad. The Sutrat ash-Sharifa, the cover of the Kabat al-Muazzama, caught fire from these shells and the people, to extinguish the fire, had to open the door and climb on the Kabat al-Muazzama. Although they [the soldiers] saw the fire, they kept Maqam al-Ibrahim and the mosque Haram ash-Sharif under cannonade and martyred some Muslims. The people could not enter the masjid, and salat could not be performed in the masjid for days. I leave it to all the Muslims all over the world to see the beliefs and ideas of those who attempt to insult and harm the Kabat al-Muazzama, despite the necessity that Muslims should respect and revere mosques and the Kabat al-Muazzama. We cannot leave the future of the Islamic religion and that of all my compatriots as a plaything in the hands of the Unionists with such mentalities and beliefs. Allahu ta’ala protected our people from being caught unaware. The Muslims of the Hijaz have now taken independence by their own endeavor and have decided to protect this country of heroes from the Unionist partisans who have been annoying this country. They have attained a perfect and absolute independence by the power of their own faith and heroism, which has added golden pages to the history, without going into any agreement with a foreign country or accepting foreign aid of any kind.

We are making progress towards our sacred aim of protecting the Religion of Islam and glorifying the kalimat at-tawhid by departing from the countries groaning under the tyranny and torture of the Unionist partisans who have pestered the people of Islam. We shall learn every branch of science which is conformable to and fit for Islam. We shall found advanced industry. We shall try with all our hearts and souls to advance on the way of civilization. We expect that all our brothers-in-Islam in the Muslim world will brotherly support this action of ours, which is intended to execute the wajib, the duty, and that they will help us in our sacred jihad.

We hold out our hands to our glorious Allah, who is the Lord of lords, and pray and beg Him to lead us to and make us attain success on the right path for the love of His exalted Prophet. His help reaches to and is sufficient for everyone who begs Him. He is the Best Helper.

25 Shaban, year 1334 [1916]
Amir of al-Makkat al-Mukarrama
Sharif Husain ibn Ali

SHARIF HUSAIN PASHA’S SECOND DECLARATION:
I thought it proper to publish this second declaration for the enlightened compatriots and learned Muslims, thinking that there might be some doubt about the endeavors and ideas of ours, the people of he Hijaz, who have started an action for the reasons stated in the first declaration. I am warning our brothers in the light of the latest apparent proofs and evidences.

The foresighted Muslims and the learned, experienced personages of the Ottoman community and the wise and intelligent ones of the whole world do not approve of the Ottoman Empire having entered into the General War. [The First World War.] There are two reasons for this [disapproval]:

The first reason is domestic: the Supreme Ottoman State had recently come out from the wars of Trablusgharb [Tripoli] and Balkan, and her military and economic powers had suffered great fatigue, even ruination, and the people who were her source of power had become exhausted. The soldiers in the Ottoman nation had been called under arms for wars one after another just after they had returned home and started earning the livelihood for their household, and this situation had become a tragedy for the people. Because the General War to which the Unionists have recently forced the State is extremely terrible and destructive compared to the previous wars, it has been very unwise to have led the people to such a dangerous war by loading the people with heavy taxes and torturous duties.

The second reason is foreign: the Unionist government has made a big mistake in choosing the side on which to take part. The Ottoman Empire is an Islamic State. The geographical situation of her lands is of great importance and extends widely. The length of her coastlines is greater than the length of her borderlines. Therefore, the Ottoman dynasty, those exalted sultans, have almost always cooperated with those states which have had a Muslim majority and a dominant naval power. This policy of theirs has nearly always been successful. The inexperienced, ignorant leaders of the Unionists, being taken in by the appearance and deceived by baseless, false words, have changed this policy of the Ottoman sultans (rahmat-Allahi ‘alaihim ajmain). Those who are able to distinguish right from wrong and who are well versed in history have foreseen the bad and very bitter results of this stupid decision and avoided cooperating with the Unionists. Even I explained my view in detail and tried to warn them by giving historical examples when my opinion was asked for by telegram about entering into this last war, this disaster. The answer I then telegraphed is a sound document showing my ideas, goodwill and loyalty towards the Empire and my struggle for the protection of the honor of Islam.

The bitter, destructive consequences we had feared and piteously told of at the beginning of the war are coming about now: the border of the Ottoman Empire in Europe is almost drawn back down to the city walls of Istanbul today; the vanguards of the Russian army are torturing the Ottoman people in the provinces of Sivas and Musul; the British army captured the provinces of Basra and Baghdad; thousands of Ottoman children have been captured in the desert of al-Arish as the result of Jamal Pasha’s stupid guidance. There is no doubt that the faithful compatriots, who see this grievous course and the disaster the Empire will suffer as a consequence of this course directed by the Unionists, are to choose between two things:

The first is [to accept] the eradication of the Ottoman Empire from the [world] map – her annihilation.

The second is to find the means of protection against this disastrous annihilation. I leave it to the whole Muslim world to investigate, to think, to consult one another, and to make the necessary proposals on this matter.

We took action rightfully before the dangers encircled the country and annihilated Muslims. If we could know, or even hope, that we would he helpful to the country and the nation by being loyal to this unconscious, stupid administration of the Ottoman Empire, which is a plaything in the hands of a dictatorial minority, we would not say anything or move in any way, but be patient and endure every hardship, even die. But it is very obvious that this [silence] will do not good but make the situation worse. How could it not be obvious while there is a hundred-percent probability that if we follow the way were are forced to follow [by the Unionists], we will suffer the disaster which the nations who followed such ways have suffered. Is there anyone who does not see that the Unionists have broken the huge empire into pieces and put the people into utter trouble? The huge empire is being sacrificed for the pleasure of Anwar, Jamal, Tal’at and their friends.

The foreign policy of the Ottoman Empire has been the established policy accepted by the Ottoman sultans over the centuries of experience and consultations with the notables of the Empire. This policy is the policy of co-operation with the British and French governments. This policy has always been beneficial to our State and nation throughout history. Those who made us neglect this policy are the said Unionist dictators.

Now we oppose the ignorant, foolish policy and brutal, torturous administration of the Unionists. We see that the Empire is being led to destruction and we never approved of it. It should be known by everyone that our opposition is against Anwar, Jamal, Tal’at and their accomplices. Every Muslim approves this just action. Every compatriot supports and is with us on this right cause. Even the Head of the Empire, the Caliph of the Faithful, is on our side with his heart and conscience. The most sound evidence supporting this is that the Wali-‘ahd (Heir to the Throne) Yusuf ‘Izz ad-din Effendi has been attacked and martyred by the Unionists.

I say again: the great Ottoman Empire is being sacrificed for the evil intentions and by the destructive actions of these dictators. We seek refuge in Allahu ta’ala from their wickedness.

I can’t help exposing another evil deed of the Unionists, which warned and made us take action, for the noble Turkish nation:

Jamal Pasha, one of the excessive chiefs of the Unionist society, hangs or shoots to death whomever he wishes in Damascus. He has founded a night-club in Damascus, and the daughters of the notable families of the city have been used as servants in this scandal-house of prostitution and drink during the orgies he arranged with the officers he ordered to accompany him. Speeches insulting our national and religious feelings have been yelled out. Is not this vile behavior of his a trampling on the chastity and dignity of Turkish Muslim women as well as a disregard for the commands in Surat an-Nur of the Qur’an al-karim? Does not this behavior of Jamal Pasha show that the Unionists do not at all respect the religion of Islam or Turkish and Arabic customs?

I have mentioned some of the grievous, destructive behavior of the Unionist partisans, who lead the people and the Empire to ruination. I write all these in order to awaken my Muslim brothers living on Ottoman lands and in Muslim countries, thus to serve my milla [Muslim world] and country. I want to communicate to my fellow-countrymen that the Unionists are acting out of caprice without thinking of the safety of the Empire and the nation. Let alone believing and respecting the Divine Orders and Prohibitions, they are even striving to change and spoil these sacred rules. Therefore, I ask my Muslim brothers not to support this destructive, discordant, stupid and vile course of theirs. It is not proper to obey those who disobey Allahu ta’ala and who oppress men! He who has the power to reverse their actions should try to do so with his hand, tongue and heart! If there are those who cannot see the harm of the Unionists and who approve of their actions, I am ready to hear them out. Our salam be upon those who are on the right path and who do useful work!

11 Dhu’l-Qada, year 1334 [1916]
Amir of al-Makkat al-Mukarrama
Sharif Husain ibn ‘Ali

These two declarations reveal Sharif Husain Pasha’s sincere intention and whole faith, as well as his wrong ideas and harmful conclusions. His greatest mistake was that he could not understand the aggressiveness of the British against Islam throughout history. [It was certainly wrong to fight against the British who would dominate the seas and had big power of army and arms. But, to cooperate with this fierce enemy of Islam is a bigger mistake.] It is seen that he had not heard about the raid made by the British forces upon Istanbul to annihilate the Ottomans during the time of Sultan Salim Khan the Third. The British even barbarously attacked Muslim countries in Asia and Africa and colonized and exploited them during that same period. They annihilated the Muslim ‘ulama’, Islamic books, Islamic culture and morals in those countries. The British deceived the Ottoman Sultan ‘Abd al-Majid Khan (rahmat-Allahi ‘alaih) and placed freemasons in important posts of the State and started spoiling the faith and morals of Muslims through them. These freemasons brought up those who acted as spies for the British during the First World War. They annihilated the Great Empire demolishing it both from within and from without. In his book Inhitat-i Islam, Grand Vizier Said Halim Pasha wrote in detail how the State was annihilated. Sharif Husain Pasha supposed that the most perilous enemy of Islam would help Islam, very probably because he had not studied the historical evidences.

An influential person like Sharif Husain Pasha, who understood the evilness of the Unionists, could have done away with Jamal Pasha and the degenerates hired by the British in Damascus and could have prevented the treachery committed on the Palestinian front by those who fought to win better posts. He could have done this easily. If he had done so, the Ottomans would not have suffered defeat, and a great Hashimi Muslim state would have been founded on the Arabian Peninsula, and the blessed cities of Mecca, Medina and Jerusalem would have remained in his hands.

The Wahabis in Medina

June 27, 2007

THE WAHHABIS IN MADINA

From http://www.hizmetbooks.org/Advice_for_the_Muslim/wah-40.htm

40 – Sulaiman Khan I, the seventy-fifth Khalifa of Islam and the tenth Ottoman Sultan (rahmat-Allahi ‘alaih) had restored the walls around the blessed city of Medina; the city had not suffered any assault of bandits for 274 years owing to its strong walls, and Muslims had lived in comfort and peace in the city till early 1222 A.H. (1807), when they fell prey to the hands of Sa’ud.

Sa’ud sent the looters he raised from the villages to Medina after capturing al-Makkat al-Mukarrama and the villages around it. He appointed two brothers named Baday and Nadi as commanders of the looters. They plundered the Muslim villages on their way and killed many Muslims. Most of the villages around Medina were set to fire and demolished. The Muslims who were on the right path shown by the ‘ulama’ of Ahl as-Sunnat were looted and put to the sword. There were so many villages burnt and Muslims killed that nobody could make an approximate estimate. The villages around Medina accepted the Wahhabite beliefs for fear of plunder, torture and death. They became servants and slaves to Sa’ud. Sa’ud sent a letter addressing the Medinan Muslims with Salih ibn Salih:

“I begin with the name of He who is the Owner of the Day of Judgement. May it be known by the ‘ulama’, officials and merchants of Medina that comfort and peace in the world is only for those who attain guidance. Oh the people of Medina! I invite you to the true religion. The 19th and 85th ayats of Surat Al ‘Imran says, ‘The correct religion in Allah’s esteem is Islam. The religion of those who adopt any religion other than Islam will not be accepted. They will suffer loss on the Day of Judgement!’ I want you to know about my feelings about you. I bear love and faith towards the people of Medina. I want to come and live in Rasulullah’s city with you. I will not distress or torture you if you listen to me and obey my orders. The people of Mecca have been enjoying favor and kindness from me since the day I entered Mecca. I want you to become Muslims anew. You will be safe against plunder, death and torture if you obey my orders. Allah will protect you and I shall be your protector. I send this letter by my trustworthy man Salih ibn Salih. Read it carefully and make a decision with him! What he says is what I say.”

This letter frightened the Medinans very much. They had heard about the tortures and massacre inflicted upon the Ta’ifian women and children (rahmat-Allahi ta’ala ‘alaihim ajmain) a few days ago and had shuddered with fear. They could say neither ‘yes’ nor ‘no’ to Sa’ud ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz’s letter. They could surrender neither their lives nor their religion.

Seeing no answer to the letter, the head of the bandits, Baday the treacherous, attacked Yanbu’, the seaport of Medina. After capturing Yanbu’, he laid siege to Medina and severely attacked the ‘Anbariyya gate of the walls. Just on that day, the Damascene pilgrims came with their leader ‘Abdullah Pasha. Upon seeing the city under siege, the pilgrims and the accompanying soldiers started fighting against the bandits. About two hundred bandits were killed in two hours of bloody battle while the remainder ran away.

The Muslims enjoyed peace in Medina until ‘Abdullah Pasha completed his duties of pilgrimage, but the traitorous Baday besieged the city again after the Damascene pilgrims left. He captured Quba, Awali and Qurban and built two bastions in the district. He barred the roads to the city and demolished the aqueducts called the ‘Ain az-zarqa.’ Thus, the Muslims were left without food and water.

a mujiza: The water of the well at the Baghchat ar-Rasul in Masjid an-Nabi increased and its hardness decreased and brackish taste disappeared after the ‘Ain az-zarqa’ was demolished and the water-supply in the city was exhausted. No Muslim suffered thirst. Formerly, this well was known for its brackish water.

The siege continued for months. The Muslims endured heavy distress in the hope that the Damascene pilgrims would come and rescue them again. At last, the pilgrims arrived, but the head of the caravan, Ibrahim Pasha, said, “Surrender the city to them,” because he did not have sufficient armed forces to fight against them. The Muslims thought that Ibrahim Pasha had talked and agreed with Baday and obtained promise that the Muslims would not be tortured or harmed. They wrote the following letter to Sa’ud and sent it by a council of four representatives, namely Muhammad Tayyar, Hasan Chawush, ‘Abd al-Qadir Ilyas and ‘Ali:

“We offer the respect to be paid to you and say salams. May Allahu ta’ala make you successful in your deeds which are compatible with His approval! Oh Shaikh Sa’ud! Ibrahim Pasha, the amir of the Damascene pilgrims, arrived and saw that the city was besieged, the roads barred, and the water cut off by Baday. He asked the reason and learnt that it was an order of yours. As we hope you bear no evil intention towards the people of Medina, we think that you have no information about these unbecoming and evil events. We, the notables of Medina, assembled and decided to inform you of what has been happening to us. We unanimously elected the four best, purest persons and sent them to you as messengers. We pray to Allahu ta’ala that they will come back to us with good news to make us happy.”

Sa’ud treated the messengers very violently upon reading the letter and was not ashamed of saying that he was very angry with and hostile towards the people of Medina. The messengers begged him much to forgive them and imploringly cast themselves at his filthy feet. But, he said, “I conclude from your letter that you will not obey my orders, that you will not accept my true religion, that you are trying to deceive me with soft words for you are overwhelmed by thirst, hunger and distress, and that you are begging just to get rid of this distress. There is no other way out but to do whatever I wish. I will make you groan and vanish as I did with the people of Ta’if, if you pretend to be accepting my orders but speak or act unfavorably.” He forced the Muslims to renounce their madhhabs.

The fallacious, heretical terms dictated to the Medinan messengers by Sa’ud are written in detail in the book Tareekh-i Wahhabiyyan.

The Medinan messengers went back to Medina after accepting Sa’ud’s orders under compulsion. The Medinans, stupefied by these events, showed acceptance unwillingly, as the one who falls into the sea grasps the serpent. They surrendered the Medina fortress to seventy men of Baday as required by the seventh clause of the agreement. One of the terms of the agreement was that the shrines in Medina should be demolished. They unwillingly fulfilled the terms in order not to be tortured. Although they did so unwillingly, these deeds of theirs gave way to very bad consequences.

No answer came from the letters written to Istanbul for help. The Medinans lived under torture and oppression for three years. When they lost hope of help from Istanbul, they wrote a letter to Sa’ud asking for forgiveness and mercy and sent it to Dar’iyya with Husain Shakir and Muhammad Saghayee. But Sa’ud did not receive the messengers for he had heard that the people of Medina had asked Istanbul for help before. He set out for Medina with a large flock of brigands to increase the oppression and torture on the Medinans.

All the savages and villagers of the deserts of Arabia recognized Sa’ud as the ruler of the Najd, who signed the letters he wrote to here and there with the title “al-Imam ad-Dar’iyyat al-majdiyya wal-ahkami ‘d-da’wati ‘n-Najdiyya.”

As soon as he entered Medina, Sa’ud ordered the servants of shrines themselves to demolish the shrines. Although the Muslims had demolished many noble shrines as required by the third clause of the terms accepted three years before, they had not dared to touch a few shrines which they knew to be great and blessed. The servants of these shrines started demolishing them while weeping and lamenting. The servant of Hadrat Hamza’s (radi-‘Allahu ‘anh) shrine said he was very old and could not do anything, and Sa’ud ordered a treacherous slave of his to demolish the shrine. That person climbed up the dome to start demolishing it but fell down and died, and Sa’ud, the filthy, gave up demolishing Hadrat Hamza’s shrine, yet he had its door removed. After supervising the operation of this base order of his, he made a speech on the dais constructed in Manaha Place. He said that the Medinans did not want to obey him, but became munafiqs out of fear and wanted to go on being polytheists as before. He added, in a very ugly and impertinent voice, that those who took refuge in the fortress should come and show humility, and that those who did not come would suffer the “Wahhabite justice” performed in Ta’if.

Everybody was frightened when the fortress gates were closed and it was announced in every street that all the people should assemble in Manaha Place. They supposed they, too, like the Ta’ifians, would be tortured to death. They went to Manaha Place after kissing away, the children’s tears and saying good-bye to and mutually asking forgiveness from their wives. Men and women assembled in two separate groups and bowed their neck towards the bright dome of Rasulullah’s (sall-Allahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) blessed shrine. The blessed city of Medina had not suffered such a sad day ever before. Sa’ud was mad and enraged with a blind grudge towards the Muslims. But, Allahu ta’ala protected the city of Medina from being painted with blood, with the blessing of Rasulullah. After insulting the Muslims with unbecoming and mean words incompatible with modesty, Sa’ud ordered his bandits to settle in the Medina fortress. He appointed Hasan Chawush, one of the rascals he trusted the most, to be the governor of Medina and went back to Dar’iyya. He came to Medina again after performing hajj in Mecca during the pilgrimage season. Sa’ud came out from his den to the courthouse when the Damascene caravan went two or three days’ way away from Medina. Without even a tremble of his dark, stony heart, he let his bandits plunder the precious gifts; the works of art of great historical value; invaluable pieces of art gilded with gold and inlaid with jewels and with precious stones; and select copies of the Qur’an al-karim and rare books, which had been kept in Rasulullah’s blessed shrine and in the treasure of Masjid an-Nabawi that had been sent as choice, elaborate gifts by Muslim sultans, commanders, artists and ‘ulama’ from the whole Muslim world over a millennium. The fire of hatred in him against the Muslims did not calm down even after this shameful vileness of his, and he went on demolishing the remaining graves belonging to the Sahabis and martyrs. Although he attempted to demolish the dome of Rasulullah’s blessed shrine, the Muslims’ cries and entreaties made him give up; yet he ruined the Shabakat as-Saada, fortunately not touching the walls. He ordered that the walls around Medina should be repaired. He assembled the Medinans in Masjid an-Nabi. He closed the gates of the Masjid and delivered the following speech on the dais:

“Oh congregation! I have summoned you here to advise you and to warn you to obey my orders. Oh people of Medina! Your religion has now been completed. You became Muslims. You pleased Allah. Do not ever admire the false religion of your fathers and grandfathers any more! Do not pray to Allah to show mercy upon them! They all died as polytheists. They all were polytheists. I have explained how you should worship and pray to Allah in the books which I gave to your men of religious authority. It should be known that your possessions, children, wives and blood are mubah for my soldiers if you do not obey my men of religious authority! They will chain and torture all of you to death. It is forbidden in the religion of Wahhabism to stand in front of the Prophet’s shrine with an attitude of respect to say salat and salam as your grandfathers used to do. You must not stand in front of the shrine, but walk away and say only, ‘As-salamu ‘ala Muhammad,’ while passing by. According to the ijtihad of our imam Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab, this much respect is sufficient for the Prophet.”

Sa’ud, after making many similar unbecoming and vulgar slanders, which we dare not to quote, let the gates of Masjid as-Saada be opened. He appointed his son ‘Abdullah the governor of Medina and went to Dar’iyya. Thereafter, ‘Abdullah ibn Sa’ud left no harm undone to the Medinan Muslims.

Persecution in Mecca

June 27, 2007

Persecution in Mecca

39 – Although the rascals also attacked Mecca after shedding much Muslim blood in Ta’if, they did not dare to go into the city because it was the time for pilgrimage. Sharif Ghalib Effendi was in Jidda to raise an army to resist the Wahhabis, and the people of Mecca, frightened by the Ta’if calamity, sent a committee to the Wahhabite commander and begged him not to torture them. The Wahhabis entered Mecca in Muharram 1218 A.H. (1803) and disseminated their beliefs. They announced that they would kill those who would visit graves or go to Medina to entreat in front of Rasulullah’s shrine. Fourteen days later, they assaulted upon Jidda to capture Sharif Ghalib Effendi, who straightforwardly attacked the Wahhabite bandits from the Jidda fortress and killed most of them. The remainder fled to Mecca. Upon the Meccans begging, they appointed Sharif Ghalib Effendi’s brother Sharif ‘Abd al-Muin Effendi as the amir of Mecca and went back to Dar’iyya. Sharif ‘Abd al-Muin Effendi accepted being the amir in order to protect the Meccans from being tortured by the Wahhabis.

Sharif Ghalib Effendi returned to Mecca with the Jiddan soldiers and the governor of Jidda, Sharif Pasha, thirty-eight days after the bandits were defeated in Jidda. They drove away the bandits left in Mecca, and he became the amir again. The bandits attacked the villages around Ta’if and killed many people to take revenge on the Meccans. They appointed the bandit ‘Uthman al-Mudayiqi as the governor of Ta’if. ‘Uthman called together all the bandits around Mecca and laid siege to the city with a big gang of looters in 1220 (1805). The Meccan Muslims suffered distress and hunger for months, and there was not even left a dog to eat on the last days of the siege. Sharif Ghalib Effendi understood that there was no other way out but to enter into a treaty with the enemy in order to save citizens’ lives. He surrendered the city under the condition that he should be left as the amir of the city and that the Muslims’ lives and possessions should be safe.


The bandits captured Medina after Mecca and plundered the most valuable historical treasures of the world, which had been collected in the Khazinat an-Nabawiyya (the Prophetic Treasure) for over a millennium. They treated the Muslims in so rude a manner that it is impossible to put into words. Then, they went back to Dar’iyya after appointing somebody named Mubarak ibn Maghyan as the governor of the city. They stayed in Mecca and Medina and did not let the pilgrims of Ahl as-Sunnat into Mecca for seven years. They covered the Kaba with two sheets of black cloth called Qailan. They forbade smoking the hookah and badly cudgeled those who smoked it. Meccans and Medinans disliked and kept away from them.

Ayyub Sabree Pasha (rahimah-Allahu ta’ala) reported in the first volume of his book Mirat al-Haramain, which was published in 1301 A.H. (1883), the tortures inflicted upon the Meccan Muslims as follows:

“The tortures done to the Muslims in the blessed city of Mecca and to the pilgrims every year were so heavy that it is very difficult to describe in detail.

“The chief of the bandits, Sa’ud, frequently sent letters of threat to the amir of the Meccans, Sharif Ghalib Effendi. Although Sa’ud had laid siege to Mecca several times, he had not been able to penetrate into the city until 1218 (1802). Sharif Ghalib Effendi, with the governor of Jidda, assembled the leaders of the pilgrim caravans from Damascus and Egypt in 1217 and told them that the bandits intended to attack the blessed city of Mecca, and that if they would help him they altogether could capture Sa’ud, their chief. But his proposal was not accepted. Then, Sharif Ghalib Effendi appointed his brother Sharif ‘Abd al-Muin Effendi as his deputy and went to Jidda. Sharif’ Abd al-Muin Effendi, as the amir of Mecca, sent five scholars of Ahl as-Sunnat, namely Muhammad Tahir, Sayyid Muhammad Abu Bakr, Mir Ghani, Sayyid Muhammad ‘Akkas and ‘Abd al-Hafiz al-‘AJami, as a committee of goodwill and forgiveness to Sa’ud ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz in 1218.

“Sa’ud responded and went to Mecca with his soldiers. He appointed ‘Abd al-Muin as the head official of the district and ordered that all shrines and graves should be demolished, because, in view of the Wahhabis, the people of Mecca and Medina were not worshiping Allahu ta’ala, but shrines. They said that they would be worshiping Allah in its true form if shrines and graves were demolished. According to Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab, all the Muslims had died as disbelievers or polytheists since 500 A.H. (1106); the true Islam was revealed to him, and it was not permissible to bury those who became Wahhabis near the graves of polytheists, by which he referred to the real Muslims.

“Sa’ud attacked Jidda to seize Sharif Ghalib Effendi (rahmat-Allahu ‘alaih) and capture Jidda. But, the people of Jidda, hand in hand with the Ottoman soldiers, bravely defeated the enemies and put Sa’ud’s soldiers to flight. Sa’ud, gathering those fleeing, returned to Mecca.

“Although Sharif ‘Abd al-Muin Effendi (rahmat-Allahi ‘alaih) tried to be friendly with the Wahhabis in order to protect the Meccan Muslims against massacre and torture, the ferocious Wahhabis increased the severity of torture and pillage day by day. Seeing it was impossible to get along with them in peace, he sent a message to Sharif Ghalib Effendi saying that Sa’ud was in Mecca with his soldiers encamped at the Mu’alla Square and that it would be possible to capture Sa’ud if he assaulted them with a small number of soldiers.

“Upon the message, Sharif Ghalib Effendi took some distinguished soldiers with the governor of Jidda, Sharif Pasha, and attacked the Wahhabis in Mecca at nighttime. He encircled their tents, but Sa’ud fled alive. His soldiers said that they would surrender their arms if they would be forgiven, and their wish was accepted. Thus the blessed city of Mecca was saved from those cruel people. This success frightened the Wahhabis in Ta’if, who also surrendered without any bloodshed. The cruel ‘Uthman al-Mudayiqi fled to the mountains in Yaman with his men. Seeing that those who were driven out of Mecca had started robbing villagers and tribesmen in the countryside, Sharif Ghalib Effendi sent messengers to the Bani Saqif tribe and ordered, ‘Go to Ta’if and raid the Wahhabis! Take for yourself whatever you capture!’ The Bani Saqif tribe attacked Ta’if to take revenge on the looters, and thus Ta’if was saved, too.

” ‘Uthman al-Mudayiqi gathered the ignorant, savage villagers of the Yaman Mountains and, with the Wahhabis he met on his way, laid siege to Mecca. Meccans suffered severely in the city for three months. Sharif Ghalib Effendi failed in his attempts to sally out against the besiegers, although he tried ten times. The food stocks vanished. The price of bread went up to five rials and butter to six rials per oke (2.8 lb), but later no one sold anything. Muslims had to eat cats and dogs, which later could not be found. They had to eat grass and leaves. When there was nothing left to eat, the city of Mecca was surrendered to Sa’ud on the condition that he should not torture or kill the people. Sharif Ghalib Effendi was not faulty in this event, but he would not have fallen into this situation if he had called for aid from the allying tribes before. In fact, Meccans had begged Sharif Ghalib Effendi, ‘We can go on resisting till the time of pilgrimage if you obtain help from the tribes who love us, and we can defeat them when the Egyptian and Damascene pilgrims come.’ Sharif Ghalib Effendi had said, ‘I could have done it before, but it is impossible now,’ confessing his former mistake. He did not want to surrender, either, but the Meccans said, ‘Oh Amir! Your blessed ancestor Rasulullah (sall-Allahu ta’ala ‘alaihi wa sallam), too, made agreement with his enemies. You, too, please agree with the enemy and relieve us of this trouble. You will be following our master Rasulullah’s sunnat by doing so. Because, Rasulullah had sent Hadrat ‘Uthman [from Khudaibiya] to the Quraish tribe in Mecca to make an agreement.’ Sharif Ghalib Effendi distracted people from this idea of surrender until the last moment and did not go into an agreement. He yielded to the constraint of a man of religious duty named ‘Abd ar-Rahman when the people could not endure the difficulty any longer. It was very intelligent of Sharif Ghalib Effendi to have listened to ‘Abd ar-Rahman and to use him as a mediator in preventing Sa’ud from torturing the Muslims. He also won the favor of Meccans and soldiers by saying, ‘I yielded to make an agreement unwillingly; I was planning to wait till the time for pilgrimage.’

“After the capitulation, Sa’ud ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz entered Mecca. He covered the Magnificent Kaba with coarse felt. He dismissed Sharif Ghalib Effendi (rahmat-Allahi ‘alaih). He attacked here and there like a pharaoh and tortured the people in an inconceivable way. Because no help had come from the Ottomans, Sharif Ghalib Effendi was offended. He disseminated the hearsay that the reason for the surrender of Mecca was due to the slackness of the Ottoman government, and he incited Sa’ud not to let the Egyptian and Damascene pilgrims into Mecca in order to provoke the Ottomans to start action against the Wahhabis.

“This behavior of Sharif Ghalib Effendi made Sa’ud get more ferocious, and he increased the torture. He tortured and killed most of the ‘ulama’ of Ahl as-Sunnat and prominent and rich people of Mecca. He threatened those who did not announce that they were Wahhabis. His men shouted, ‘Accept Sa’ud’s religion! Shelter under his vast shadow!’ in markets, bazars and streets. He forced Muslims to accept Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab’s religion. The number of the faithful people who could protect their true faith and correct madhhab decreased greatly, as it was in the deserts.

“Sharif Ghalib Effendi, seeing the dismal situation and apprehending that Islam would be annihilated also in the Hijaz and the blessed cities as it had in the Arabian deserts, sent a message to Sa’ud, saying, ‘You cannot resist the Ottoman army that will be sent from Istanbul if you stay in Mecca after the season of the pilgrimage. You will be captured and killed. Do not stay in Mecca after the pilgrimage, go away!’ This message was of no avail but only increased Sa’ud’s ferocity and cruelty in torturing Muslims.

“During this period of tyranny and torture, Sa’ud ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz asked an alim of Ahl as-Sunnat, ‘Is Hadrat Muhammad (‘alaihi ‘s-salam) alive in his grave? Or is he dead like every dead person as we believe he is?’ The alim said, ‘He is alive with a life which we cannot comprehend.’ Sa’ud asked him this question because he expected such an answer on account of which he would easily torture him to death. ‘Then, show us that the Prophet is alive in his grave so that we may believe you. It will be understood that you are obstinate in refusing my religion if you answer incongruously, and I will kill you,’ said Sa’ud. ‘I shall not try to convince you by showing something unrelated to the subject. Let’s go to al-Madinat al-Munawwara together and stand in front of the Muwajahat as-Saada. I shall greet him. If he returns my greeting, you will see that our master Rasulullah is alive in his blessed grave and that he hears and answers those who greet him. If we get no answer to my greeting, it will be understood that I am a liar. Then you may punish me in any way you wish,’ answered the alim of Ahl as-Sunnat. Sa’ud got very angry at this answer but let him go, for he would have become a disbeliever or polytheist according to his own beliefs if he had done as the alim proposed. He was stupefied for he was not learned enough to make any rejoinder to this answer. He set the alim free so that he might not be disreputed. However, he ordered one soldier to kill him and to immediately let him know when he was killed. But the Wahhabi soldier, by the Grace of Allah, could not find an opportunity to attain his goal. This terrible news reached the ear of that mujahid scholar, who then migrated away from Mecca thinking that it would not be good for him to stay in Mecca any longer.

“Sa’ud sent an assassin after the mujahid when he heard of his departure. The assassin traveled day and night, thinking that he would kill one belonging to Ahl as-sunnat and win much thawab. He caught up with the mujahid but saw that he had died a normal death shortly before he reached him. He tethered the mujahid’s camel to a tree and went to a well for water. When he returned, he found that the corpse was gone and only the camel was there. He went back to Sa’ud and told him what had happened. ‘Oh, yes!’ Sa’ud said, ‘I dreamt of that person ascending to the heavens among voices of dhikr and tasbih. People with shining faces said that the corpse was his (the mujahid’s) and was being raised up to the heavens because of his correct belief in the Last Prophet (sall-Allahu ta’ala ‘alaihi wa sallam).’ Thereupon, the Wahhabi said, ‘You sent me to murder such a blessed person! And now you do not correct your corrupt belief although you see Allahu ta’ala’s favor on him!’ and swore at Sa’ud. He repented. Sa’ud did not even listen to the man. He appointed ‘Uthman al-Mudayiqi to be the governor of Mecca and went back do Dar’iyya.

“Sa’ud ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz lived in Dar’iyya. He captured the blessed city of Medina, too. Later, he set out for Mecca with those who wanted to go on pilgrimage and those who were able to talk well. Men of religious attire who were to praise and disseminate Wahhabism went ahead. They started reading and explaining the book written by Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab in the Masjid al-Haram in Mecca on Friday the 7th of Muharram, 1221 (1806). The ‘ulama’ of Ahl as-Sunnat refuted them. [For details, see Saif al-Jabbar, a collection of the Meccan ulama’s refutations of Wahhabism, later printed in Pakistan; reprint in Istanbul in 1395 (1975).] Sa’ud ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz arrived ten days later. He settled in Sharif Ghalib Effendi’s mansion at Mu’alla Square. He put a part of the cover he wore on Sharif Ghalib Effendi as a demonstration of friendship. And Sharif Ghalib Effendi showed friendship towards him. They went together to Masjid al-Haram and performed tawaf around the Magnificent Kaba together.

“Meanwhile, the news came that a caravan of Damascene pilgrims was coming towards Mecca. Sa’ud sent Masud ibn Mudayiqi to meet the caravan and tell them that they would not be allowed into Mecca. Masud met the caravan and said, ‘You disregarded the previous agreement. Sa’ud ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz had sent you an order with Salih ibn Salih that you should not come with soldiers. But you come with soldiers! You cannot enter Mecca, for you have not obeyed the order.’ The leader of the caravan, ‘Abdullah Pasha, sent Yusuf Pasha to Sa’ud to ask his forgiveness and permission. Sa’ud said, ‘Oh Pasha! I would kill all of you if I did not fear Allah. Bring me the sacks of gold coins which you intend to distribute to the people of the Haramain and Arab villagers, and immediately go back! I forbid you the pilgrimage this year!’ Yusuf Pasha surrendered to him the sacks of gold and turned back.

“The news that the Damascene caravan was prevented from carrying out the pilgrimage spread as a terrible shock among the Muslim world. Meccan Muslims wept and lamented for they thought that they, too, were forbidden to got to ‘Arafat. The following day they were given permission to go to ‘Arafat, but were forbidden to go on mahfas or camel-palanquins. Everybody, even judges and ‘ulama’, went to ‘Arafat on donkey or camel. Instead of the Qadi of Mecca, a Wahhabi delivered the khutba at ‘Arafat. They returned to Mecca after carrying out the acts necessary to the pilgrimage.

“Sa’ud dismissed the Qadi of Mecca, Khatib-zada Muhammad Effendi, from service upon his arrival to Mecca and appointed a Wahhabi named ‘Abd ar-Rahman as the Qadi. ‘Abd ar-Rahman summoned Muhammad Effendi, Su’ada Effendi, the mullah (chief judge) of Medina, and ‘Atai Effendi, the Naqib (representative of the Sharifs in Mecca) of the blessed city of Mecca, and made them sit on the felt on the floor. He told them to pay homage to Sa’ud. These ‘alims clasped hands saying, ‘La ilaha illa’llah wahdahu la Sharika lah,’ in accord with the Wahhabite belief and sat down on the floor again. Sa’ud laughed and said, ‘I command you and the pilgrims of the Damascene caravan to Salih ibn Salih’s care. Salih is one of my good men. I trust him. I permit you to go to Damascus on the condition that you will pay 300 kurushes for each mafha -and load- camel and 150 kurushes for each donkey. It is a great favor for you to be able to go to Damascus at such a low price. You may go comfortably and happily under my protection. All pilgrims will travel under these conditions. And this is a justice of mine. I wrote a letter to the Ottoman Sultan, Hadrat Salim Khan III [rahmat-Allahi ‘alaih]. I asked that it be forbidden to build domes on graves, to make sacrifice for the dead and to pray through them.’

“Sa’ud stayed in Mecca for four years. Muhammad ‘Ali Pasha, the Governor of Egypt, came to Jidda in 1227 A.H. (1812) upon the order of the Ottoman Sultan, Mahmud-i ‘Adli (rahmat-Allahi ‘alaihima). The Egyptian forces he sent from Jidda and Medina jointly drove Sa’ud out from Mecca after a bloody battle.”

Massacre at Taif

June 27, 2007

THE MASSACRE AND LOOTING OF THE MUSLIMS OF TA’IF

38 – When the ‘ulama’ of Ahl as-Sunnat silenced the Wahhabis in 1210 A.H. (1796), the ‘ulama’ of Mecca prepared and signed a declaration containing the ayats and hadiths which showed that Wahhabism was a path different from Islam, a trap insidiously set up by the enemies of Islam to demolish Islam from the inside. The three Wahhabis who repented of their beliefs ratified this document. The copies of the declaration were then sent to all Muslim countries.

Some Meccan Wahhabis went to ‘Abd al-‘Aziz, the ruler in Dar’iyya, and told him that the representatives could not refute the Meccan ‘ulama’ and that a declaration stating that their system of beliefs was hostility against Islam was sent to every country. ‘Abd al-‘Aziz ibn Muhammad ibn Sa’ud and his followers bitterly resented the Ahl as-Sunnat and attacked Mecca in 1215. The Amir of Mecca, Sharif Ghalib ibn Musa’id ibn Said Effendi, resisted them. Much blood was shed on both sides. Sharif Ghalib Effendi did not allow them to enter Mecca, but the Arab tribes around Mecca accepted Wahhabism. Between the two ‘eeds of the same year, Sa’ud sent an army to the town of Ta’if. They oppressed and massacred Ta’ifian Muslim women and children. [For the details of this oppression and massacre which is unbearable to the heart, see Ahmad ibn Zaini Dahlan’s Khulasat al-kalam (reprint, Istanbul, 1395/1975) and Ayyub Sabri Pasha’s Tarikh-i Wahhabiyyan, Istanbul, 1296 A.H. (1879).]

The torture of the inhabitants of Ta’if, including women and children, was committed by the order of an enemy of Islam, a ferocious brigand named ‘Uthman al-Mudayiqi. This man and Muhsin had been sent by Sharif Ghalib Effendi to Dar’iyya. They were supposed to negotiate about the renewal of the earlier treaty in order to prevent the Wahhabis from besieging Medina and oppressing Muslims. But this hypocrite was a spy near Sharif Ghalib Effendi. He deceived his companion, Muhsin, on their way to Dar’iyya by promising him many advantages. The two disclosed their thoughts to Sa’ud ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz in Dar’iyya. Sa’ud, seeing that they were his faithful slaves, put his looters under their command. They went to a place named Abila near Ta’if and sent a letter to Sharif Ghalib Effendi writing that Sa’ud and they, the two traitors, disregarded the validity of the former treaty and that Sa’ud was preparing to besiege Mecca. Sharif Ghalib Effendi wrote answers advising them with soft words, but ‘Uthman the ferocious, who was an enemy of Islam, tore up the letters. He attacked the Muslims sent by the Amir and defeated them. Sharif Ghalib Effendi retreated into the Ta’if fortress and took measures for defense. This ferocious Wahhabi encamped his army at Malis near Ta’if at the end of Shawwal in 1217 A.H. (1802). He also asked help from the vile amir of Beesha, Salim ibn Shakban, who had a much harder, stony heart that was full of enmity towards Islam. There were about twenty desert shaikhs and each shaikh had about five hundred Wahhabite brigands in addition to one thousand under Salim’s own command.

Led by Sharif Ghalib Effendi (rahmat-Allahi ‘alaih), the people of Ta’if bravely attacked the brigands at Malis. He put fifteen hundred looters of Salim ibn Shakban to the sword. Salim and those with him fled Malis. But they rallied together again and raided Malis. They looted the town. Sharif Ghalib Effendi went to Jidda to obtain military help. Most Ta’ifians fled and secretly escaped with their household. Although those Ta’ifians who took refuge in the fortress defeated the packs of Wahhabis coming one after the other, they hoisted the white flag of truce, because the enemy continually received aid. They agreed to surrender under the condition that their lives and chastity would be safe. Though the enemy, too, had become weak for many of them had died or fled, the Ta’ifian messenger, who was a base villain, though he saw the Wahhabis flee, shouted after them, “Sharif Ghalib fled from fear! And the Ta’ifians do not have the power to resist you! They sent me to communicate that they will surrender the fortress, and they ask you to forgive them. I like the Wahhabis. Come back! You have shed much blood! It is not right to go back without capturing Ta’if. I swear that the Ta’ifians will immediately surrender the fortress. They will accept whatever you want.” It was Sharif Ghalib Effendi’s fault that Ta’if was lost in vain. If he had stayed in Ta’if, Muslims would not have suffered that doom. Since “Traitors are cowards,” the Wahhabis did not believe that the Ta’ifians would surrender readily. But, seeing the flag of truce on the fortress, they sent an envoy to the fortress to investigate the situation. The Ta’ifians, pulled the envoy up to the fortress with a rope. “Gather all your goods here and surrender if you want to save your lives,” said the envoy. All their possessions were gathered with the effort of a Muslim named Ibrahim. “This is not enough!” said the envoy, “We cannot forgive you for this much. You should bring more!” He gave them a notebook and said, “List the names of those who do not give! The men are free to go wherever they wish. The women and children will be put in chains.” Although they begged him to be a little bit softer, he increased his aggression and harshness. Ibrahim, unable to be patient any more, hit him on the chest with a stone and killed him. During this confusion, the Wahhabis attacked the fortress, thus they escaped from being hit by cannon balls and bullets. They broke the gates and entered the fortress. They killed every woman, man and child they saw, cutting even the babies in cradles. The streets turned into floods of blood. They raided the houses and plundered everywhere, attacking outrageously and madly till sunset. They could not capture the stone houses in the eastern part of the fortress, so they besieged and put those houses under a shower of bullets. a Wahhabite scoundrel shouted: “We forgive you! You may go wherever you want with your wives and children,” but they did not yield. Meanwhile, the Wahhabis gathered the people, who had set out to migrate, on a hill and encircled those pure Muslim families, who had grown up amid fondling and affection and most of whom were women and children, and held them to die of hunger and thirst for twelve days, and tortured them by slandering, stoning and cudgeling. The Wahhabis called them one by one and beat them and said, “Tell us where you hid your possessions!” and howled, “Your day of death is coming!” to those who begged for mercy.

Ibn Shakban, after pressing the stone houses violently for twelve days and being unable to make them yield, promised that those who would come out of the houses and give up arms would be forgiven. Muslims believed him and came out, but, with their hands tied behind their backs, they were drawn by Ibn Shakban to the hill where the other Muslims were encircled. Three hundred and sixty-seven men, together with women and children, were put to the sword on the hill (rahmat-Allahi ‘alaihim ajmain). They made animals trample on the bodies of the martyrs and left them unburied to be eaten by beasts and birds of prey for sixteen days. They plundered Muslims’ houses and gathered all they took into a big heap in front of the gateway of the fortress and sent one fifth of the goods and the money they collected to Sa’ud, sharing the remainder among themselves. The traitors and torrential rains swept away uncountable money and invaluable goods, and there remained little, only forty thousand gold rials, in the hands of Ahl as-Sunnat; ten thousand rials were distributed to the women and children, and the goods were sold very cheaply.

The Wahhabis tore up the copies of the Qur’an al-karim and books of tafsir, hadith and other Islamic books they took from libraries, masjids and houses, and threw them down on the ground. They made sandals from the gold-gilded leather covers of the Qur’an copies and other books and wore them on their filthy feet. There were ayats and other sacred writings on those leather covers. The leaves of those valuable books thrown around were so numerous that there was no space to step in the streets of Ta’if. Although Ibn Shakban had ordered the looters not to tear up the copies of the Qur’an al-karim, the Wahhabite bandits, who were gathered from the deserts for looting and who did not know the Qur’an al-karim, tore up all the copies they found and stamped on them. Only three copies of the Qur’an al-karim and one copy of the Sahih of al-Bukhari were saved from plunder in the big town of Ta’if.

a mujiza: The weather was calm during the plunder of Ta’if. There was no wind. a storm broke out after the bandits went away, and the wind lifted up all the leaves of the Qur’an al-karim and Islamic books and swept them away. soon there was no piece of paper left on the ground. Nobody knew where they were taken.

Under the hot sun, the corpses of the martyrs decayed on the hill in sixteen days. The atmosphere became fetid. Muslims begged, wept and lamented in front of Ibn Shakban to permit them to bury their dead relatives. At last he agreed, and they dug two big hollows, put all the decayed corpses of their fathers, grandfathers, relatives and children into the hollows and covered them with soil. There was no corpse that could be recognized; some of them were only one half or one fourth of a body, for other parts were scattered around by birds and beasts of prey. They were permitted to collect and bury these pieces of flesh because the bad smell bothered the Wahhabis, too. Muslims searched all around and collected and buried them, too, in the two hollows.

It was also for the purpose of insulting and taking revenge on the dead Muslims that the bandits kept the martyrs unburied until they decayed. But, as said in a couplet.

‘It will bring ascent, do not grieve that you have fallen,
A building is not restored before it turns to a ruin.’

The status of martyrs (rahmat-Allahi ‘alaihim ajmain) in Allah’s esteem increases when their corpses are left unburied to decay and to be prey for birds and beasts.

The bandits completely ruined the shrines of as-Sahabat al-kiram, awliya’ and ‘ulama’ after putting the Muslims of Ta’if to the sword and dividing up the loot and the money. When they attempted to dig a grave with a view to take out and burn the corpse of Hadrat ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas, who was one of our Prophet’s most beloved companions, they were frightened by the pleasant scent that came out when the first pickaxe hit the ground. They said, “There is a great Satan in this grave. We should blow it up with dynamite instead of losing time by digging.” Although they put much powder and tried hard, the powder misfired and they went away in astonishment. The grave was left level with the ground for a few years. Later, Sayyid Yasin Effendi put a very nice sarcophagus on it and protected that blessed grave from being forgotten.

The bandits also tried to dig up the graves of Sayyid ‘Abd al-Hadi Effendi and many other awliya’, but they were prevented by a karama at each grave. Facing extraordinary difficulties in carrying out this vile intention of theirs, they gave it up.

‘Uthman al-Mudayiqi and Ibn Shakban also ordered that the mosques and madrasas should be demolished together with the shrines. Yasin Effendi, a great scholar of Ahl as-Sunnat, said, “Why do you want to demolish mosques, which are built for the purpose of performing salat in congregation? If you want to ruin this mosque because the grave of ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas (radi-Allahu ‘anhuma) is here, I tell you, his grave is in the shrine outside the big mosque. Therefore, it is not necessary to demolish the mosque.” ‘Uthman al-Mudayiqi and Ibn Shakban could not make any rejoinder. But, Matu, a zindiq among them, made a ridiculous statement: “Anything doubtful should be annihilated.” Then, Yasin Effendi asked, “Is there anything doubtful about mosques?” and the demagogue was silent. After a long silence, ‘Uthman al-Budayiqi said, “I do not agree with either of you,” and ordered, “Do not touch the mosque, demolish the shrine!”

The Spread of Wahabism

June 27, 2007

THE BEGINNING AND SPREADING OF WAHHABISM

 

[*]Translated, for the most part, from Ayyub Sabri Pasha’s Turkish work Mir’at al-Haramain: 5 volumes, Matba’a-i Bahriyye, Istanbul, 1301-1306 A.H.

36 – During the time when the Ottoman reign was dominant in the Arabian Peninsula, each state was governed by an official selected from the state. Later on, every region except the Hijaz came into the possession of whomever could usurp it and was governed as sheikhdoms.

The tenets of Wahhabism disseminated by Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab changed into a political form in a short time in 1150 A.H. (1737) and spread all over Arabia. Later, by the order of the Caliph in Istanbul, Muhammad ‘Ali Pasha, the Governor of Egypt, liberated Arabia from them with the armed forces of Egypt.

‘Abd al-‘Aziz ibn Muhammad, who believed in the Wahhabis, declared war for the first time in 1205 A.H. (1791) against the amir of Mecca, Sharif Ghalib Effendi. They had disseminated Wahhabism secretly till then. They had killed and tortured many Muslims, enslaved their women and children and usurped their possessions.

Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab belonged to the Bani Tamim tribe. He was born in Uyayna village near the town of Huraimila in the Najd Desert in 1111 A.H. (1699) and died in 1206 (1792). Formerly, with the idea of trading, he went to Basra, Baghdad, Iran, India and Damascus, where he won the name “Shaikh an-Najdi” due to his clever and aggressive attitude. He saw and learnt a great deal at these places and set his heart on the idea of becoming a chief. In 1125 (1713 A.D.), he met Hempher, a British spy, in Basra, who understood that this unexperienced young person (ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab) has a desire to be a chief by way of revolution, established a long-term friendship with him. He inspired him the trics and lies that he had learned from the British Ministry of the Commonwealth. Seeing that Muhammad enjoys these inspirations, he proposed him to establish a new religion. So, the spy and Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab got what they were looking for. He had thought it proper to found a new Tariqa or reach his goal, and, in preparation for this goal, attended the lectures of the Hanbali ‘ulama’ in the blessed city of Medina and later in Damascus for some time. When he went back to the Najd, he wrote pamphlets on religious subjects for villagers. He wrote what he learned from the British spy and mixed corrupt information from the Mutazila and other groups of bidat. Many ignorant villagers, particularly the inhabitants of Dar’iyya and their ignorant chief, Muhammad ibn Sa’ud, followed him. The Arabs esteemed ancestral distinctions very highly, and because he did not belong to a well-known family, he used Muhammad ibn Sa’ud as a tool to disseminate his Tariqa, which he named Wahhabism. He introduced himself as the Qadi (Head of the Religious Affairs) and Muhammad ibn Sa’ud as the Hakim (Ruler). He had it passed in their constitution that both would be succeeded only by their children.

In 1306 (1888) when the book Mirat al-Haramain was written, the amir of the Najd was ‘Abdullah ibn Faysal, a descendant of Muhammad ibn Sa’ud, and the Qadi was a descendant of Muhammad ibn ‘abd al-Wahhab.
Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab’s father, ‘Abd al-Wahhab, who was a pious, pure alim in Medina, his brother Sulaiman ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab and his teachers had apprehended from his statements, behavior and ideas, which he frequently had put forward as questions to them when he was a student in Medina, that he would become a heretic who would harm Islam from the inside in the future. They advised him to correct his ideas and advised the Muslims to avoid him. But they soon encountered the very thing they were afraid of, and he started disseminating his heretical ideas openly under the name of Wahhabism. To deceive ignorant and stupid people, he came forward with reforms and innovations incompatible with the books of the ‘ulama’ of Islam. He dared to be so impetuous as to deem the true Muslims of Ahl as-Sunnat wal-Jamaat as disbelievers. He regarded it as polytheism to ask Allahu ta’ala for something through the mediation of our Prophet (sall-Allahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) or other prophets or awliya’, or to visit their graves.

According to what Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab learned from the British spy, he who talks to the dead while praying near a grave becomes a polytheist. He asserted that Muslims who said that someone or something beside Allah did something, for example, saying “such-and-such medicine cured” or “I obtained what I asked through our master Rasulullah” or “such-and-such wali” were polytheists. Although the documents Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab made up to support such statements were nothing but lies and slanders, the ignorant people who could not distinguish right from wrong, the unemployed, raiders, ignoramuses, opportunists and the hard-hearted soon assented to his ideas and took their part on his side and regarded the pious Muslims of the right path as disbelievers.

When Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab applied to the rulers of Dar’iyya with the view of disseminating his heresies easily through them, they willingly cooperated with him with the hope of extending their territories and increasing their power. They strove with all their might do disseminate his ideas everywhere. They declared war against those who refused and opposed them. The bestial people and pillagers of the desert competed with one another in joining the army of Muhammad ibn Sa’ud when it was said that it was halal to plunder and kill Muslims. In 1143 (1730), Muhammad ibn Sa’ud and Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab hand in hand arrived at the conclusion that those who would not accept Wahhabism were disbelievers and polytheists, and that it was halal to kill them and confiscate their possessions, and publicly announced their declaration seven years later. Then, Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab started fabricating ijtihad when he was thirty-two years old and announced his false ijtihads at the age of forty.

As-Sayyid Ahmad ibn Zaini Dahlan (rahmat-Allahi ‘alaihi), Mufti of the blessed city of Mecca, described under the topic “Al-fitnat al-Wahhabiyya” the tenets of Wahhabism and the tortures the Wahhabis inflicted upon Muslims? [Al-futuhat al-Islamiyya, second volume, page 228, Cairo, 1387 (1968); photo-offset reproduction of a comparable part, Istanbul, 1395 (1975).] He wrote: “To deceive the ‘ulama’ of Ahl as-Sunnat in Mecca and Medina, they sent their men to these cities, but these men could not answer the questions of the Muslim ‘ulama’. It became evident that they were ignorant heretics. A verdict declaring them disbelievers was written and distributed everywhere. Sharif Masud ibn Said, Amir of Mecca, ordered that the Wahhabis should be imprisoned. Some Wahhabis fled to Dar’iyya and recounted what had happened to them.” [Al-futuhat al-Islamiyya, second volume, page 234, Cairo, 1387 (1968); photo-offset reproduction of a comparable part, Istanbul, 1395 (1975).]

The ‘ulama’ of the Hijaz belonging to all the four madhhabs, including Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab’s brother Sulaiman and also his teachers who had trained him, studied Muhammad’s books, prepared answers to his disunionist writings, which were destructive to Islam, and wrote, to call to the attention of Muslims, well-documented books in refutation to his heretical writings. [See above article 5, for the passage translated from Sulaiman ibn Abd al-Wahhab’s work As-Sawa’iq al-ilahiyya fi’r-raddi ala’l-wahhabiyya; first published in 1306; second edition (reproduced by photo-offset) in Istanbul in 1395 (1975).]

These books did not help much but rather increased the Wahhabis’ resentment against Muslims and excited Muhammad ibn Sa’ud to attack Muslims and augment the bloodshed. He belonged to the Bani Hanifa tribe, so was a descendant of a stupid race that believed in the prophethood of Musailamat al-Kadhdhab. Muhammad ibn Sa’ud died in 1178 (1765), and his son ‘Abd al-‘Aziz succeeded him. ‘Abd al-‘Aziz was assassinated, stabbed in the abdomen by a Shiite, in the Dar’iyya Mosque in 1217 (1830). Then, his son Sa’ud ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz became the chief of the Wahhabis. All three strove very hard, as if competing with one another, to shed Muslim blood in order to deceive the Arabs and to disseminate Wahhabism.

The Wahhabis say that Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab disseminated his thoughts in order to attain sincerity in his belief in the unity of Allah and to rescue Muslims from polytheism. They allege that Muslims had been committing polytheism for six centuries and that he came forth to renew and reform the religion of Muslims. He put forward the 5th, 106th and 14th ayats of the respective Suras al-Ahqaf, Yunus and ar-Rad as documents to make everyone believe his ideas. However, there are many similar ayats, and the ‘ulama’ of tafsir unanimously declared that all these ayats were about idolatrous unbelievers or polytheists.

According to Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab, a Muslim becomes an idolatrous polytheist (mushrik) if he receives istighatha from our-Prophet (sall-Allahu ‘alaihi wa sallam), from another prophet, a wali or a pious person near the Prophet’s grave or far away from it, that is, if he asks for help from him to relieve him of a burden or trouble, or if he asks for his intercession by mentioning his name or if he wants to visit his grave. Allahu ta’ala describes the situation of idolatrous disbelievers in the third ayat al-karima of Surat az-Zumar, but the Wahhabis display this ayat as a document to justify their using the word “mushrik” for a Muslim who prays by putting a prophet or a wali as an intermediary. They say that the idolaters, too, believed that not the idols but Allahu ta’ala created everything. They further say that Allahu ta’ala declared, “They [idolaters] say, ‘Of course, Allah created them,’ when you ask who created them,” in the 61st and 87th ayats of Surat al-‘Ankabut and Surat az-Zuhruf, respectively. They say that the idolaters were polytheistic disbelievers not because they believed as such but because they spoke as quoted in the third ayat of Surat az-Zumar: “Those who make friends with those other than Allah say, ‘They help us approach [Allahu ta’ala] by interceding for us with Allahu ta’ala.’ ” They claim that Muslims who ask at the graves of prophets and awliya’ for intercession and help become polytheists by saying such.

It is very unsound, foolish and ridiculous of Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab to liken Muslims to disbelievers and polytheists in the light of this ayat. Because, disbelievers worship idols so that idols may intercede for them; they leave aside Allahu ta’ala and ask only idols to give them their wishes, whereas we Muslims worship neither prophets nor awliya’ but expect everything only from Allahu ta’ala. We wish awliya’ to be a wasita or wasila for us. Disbelievers believe that idols intercede for whatever they wish and make Allahu ta’ala create everything they want. Whereas, Muslims ask intercession and help of awliya’ whom they know as the beloved servants of Allahu ta’ala, because Allahu ta’ala has revealed in the Qur’an al-karim that He will permit His beloved servants to intercede and will accept their intercession and prayers and because Muslims believe this good news stated in the Qur’an al-karim. There is no analogy between disbelievers’ worshiping idols and Muslims’ asking help of awliya’. Muslims and disbelievers are human beings in appearance; they are similar in being human beings, but Muslims are Allahu ta’ala’s friends and will remain in Paradise eternally, whereas disbelievers are Allahu ta’ala’s enemies and will remain eternally in Hell. Their superficial resemblance does not prove that they will always remain the same. Those who entreat idols who are Allahu ta’ala’s enemies and those who entreat Allahu ta’ala’s beloved servants may look alike in appearance, but entreating idols leads one to Hell and entreating awliya’ causes Allahu ta’ala to forgive and show Mercy. The hadith ash-Sharif, “Allahu ta’ala’s Mercy descends where His beloved servants are mentioned,” too, indicates that Allahu ta’ala will show Mercy and forgive when prophets (‘alaihimu ‘s-salawatu wat-taslimat) and awliya’ are entreated. [See the last paragraph of article 30.]

Muslims believe that prophets and awliya’ are not to be worshiped and are not gods or Allahu ta’ala’s partners. Muslims believe that they are Allah’s powerless servants who do not deserve to be worshiped or performed ‘ibada or prayed towards. Muslims believe that they are Allah’s beloved servants whose prayers He accepts. The 35th ayat al-karima of Surat al-Ma’ida says, “look for a wasila to approach Me.” Allahu ta’ala means that He will accept the prayers of His pious servants and endow them with what they wish. A hadith ash-Sharif quoted by al-Bukhari, Muslim and in Kunuz ad-daqaiq declares, “Verily, there are such human servants of Allahu ta’ala that He creates it if they swear for something; He does not belie them.” Muslims take awliya’ as wasilas and expect prayers and help from them because they believe the above ayats and hadiths.

Although some disbelievers state that idol-statues are not creators and that Allahu ta’ala creates everything, they claim that idols deserve to be worshiped and are able to do and make Allah to do whatever they wish. They attribute idols as partners to Allahu ta’ala. If someone asks help of a person beside Allah and says that he will certainly help him and that whatever he wishes will happen in any case, this person becomes a disbeliever. But, he who says, “My wish will not be granted for sure through his will. He is only a cause. Allahu ta’ala likes those who hold fast to the causes. It is His Custom to create as consequences of causes. I ask this person for help so as to be holding fast to the cause, but expect my wish to be granted from Allah. Rasulullah, too, held fast to the causes, and I am following the Sunnat of that exalted Prophet by holding fast to the causes,” he gains thawab. If he obtains his wish, he thanks Allahu ta’ala; if not, he resigns himself to Allahu ta’ala’s qada’ and qadar. The idolatry of disbelievers is not like Muslims’ asking awliya’ for prayers, intercession and help. A wise, reasonable person cannot liken these two to each other but fully comprehends that they are different. Allahu ta’ala alone creates both what is useful and what is harmful. No one but He deserves to be worshiped. No prophet, wali or creature can ever create anything. There is no creator besides Allah. Only, Allahu ta’ala shows Mercy to those who mention the names of His prophets, awliya’ and pious, beloved servants and who regard them as mediators, and He grants them their wish. He and His Prophet revealed this, and Muslims, therefore, believe as they revealed.

Polytheists and disbelievers, however, regard idols as ilahs (gods) or mabuds (one to be worshiped) and worship them though they know that idols do not create anything. Some of them become polytheists by regarding idols as ilahs while some others by worshiping or regarding them as mabuds. They are polytheists not because they say their idols would intercede for them and make them closer to Allah, but because they regard them as mabuds and because they worship them.

Rasulullah (sall-Allahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) declared, “A time will come when the ayats revealed about disbelievers will be used as documents to slander Muslims,” and “What I fear most is that some people will come to use the ayats for purposes which Allahu ta’ala does not approve of.” These two hadiths, which were related by ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar (radi-Allahu ‘anhuma), foretold that the la-madhhabi people would appear and ascribe the ayats revealed about disbelievers to Muslims and calumniate the Qur’an al-karim.

Muslims visit the graves of those whom, they believe, Allahu ta’ala loves. They beg Allahu ta’ala through the means of His beloved servants. Rasulullah and as-Sahabat al-kiram did so, too. Rasulullah said in his prayers, “Oh my Rabb! I ask You for the right (love) of Your servants to whom You grant their wishes.” He taught this prayer to his companions and ordered them to say it, and, therefore, Muslims pray as such.

Rasulullah (sall-Allahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) put Hadrat ‘Ali’s mother Fatima bint Asad’s corpse into the grave and prayed, “Oh my Rabb! Forgive Mother Fatima bint Asad! Show much mercy unto her for the love of Your Prophet and the prophets who came before me!” He ordered a blind man, who wanted to gain his sight, to perform a salat of two rak’as and to pray, “Oh my Rabb! I ask You for the love of Your Prophet Muhammad (‘alaihi ‘s-salam) whom You, out of Mercy, sent to Your human servants, and I make him a wasila. I entreat You. Oh the beloved Prophet, Muhammad (‘alaihi ‘s-salam)! I entreat my Rabb through you so that He may accept my prayer and grant me my wish. Oh my Rabb! Let that exalted Prophet be an intercessor for me so that my prayer may be accepted!”

Adam (‘alaihi ‘s-salam) prayed, “Oh my Rabb! Forgive me for the love of my son Muhammad (‘alaihi ‘s-salam)!” When he had descended onto the Serandib Island (Ceylon) after he had eaten the fruit from the tree which Allahu ta’ala had forbidden. And Allahu ta’ala declared, “Oh Adam! I would have accepted your intercession if you had asked for intercession through Muhammad for all beings on the earth and in the skies.”

Hadrat ‘Umar took Hadrat ‘Abbas (radi-Allahu ‘anhuma) with him to pray for rain with the intention of making him a wasila, and his prayer was accepted.

The words “Oh… Muhammad!.. You…” in the above prayer, which Rasulullah ordered a blind man to say, prove that it is permissible to mention the names of awliya’ when praying through them.

Biographies of the as-Sahabat al-kiram and the Tabiin (radi-Allahu ‘anhum) are full or documents which show that it is lawful and permissible to visit graves, to ask for intercession by mentioning the name of the dead person and to make the dead wasilas.

Muhammad ibn Sulaiman Effendi (rahmat-Allahi ‘alaih), who is well known for his annotation to Ibn Hajar al-Haitami’s Tukhfa, a commentary of Minhaj, proved well with documents that Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab was on a corrupt and heretical path and that he ascribed wrong meanings to ayats and hadiths. He wrote: “Oh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab! Do not slander Muslims! I advise you for Allah’s sake. Tell him the truth if there is anyone who says that there is a creator besides Allah! Lead him to the right path by proving through documents! Muslims cannot be said to be disbelievers! You are a Muslim, too. It is more correct to call one person a ‘disbeliever’ than calling millions. It is certain that one who departs from the community is in danger. The 114th ayat al-karima of Surat an-Nisa’ declares, ‘We will leave in disbelief and apostasy the person who, after learning the way to guidance, opposes the Prophet (‘alaihi ‘s-salam) and deviates from the believers’ path in iman and ‘amal, and then We will throw him into Hell, which is a very terrible place.’ This ayat karima points to the situation of those who have departed from Ahl as-Sunnat wal-Jamaat.”

There are a great number of hadiths which explain that it is permissible and useful to visit graves. As-Sahabat al-kiram and the Tabiin (radi-Allahu ‘anhum) frequently visited Rasulullah’s (sall-Allahu ta’ala ‘alaihi wa sallam) blessed shrine, and many books have been written on the way and uses of this visiting.

It is never harmful to pray by holding a wali as a mediator (wasila), to ask for his help by mentioning his name. It is disbelief to believe that the person who is mentioned would be influential and certainly do what he is asked for and would know the ghaib. Muslims should not be accused of having such a tenet since they do not believe so. Muslims ask a beloved servant of Allahu ta’ala only to be a mediator, to intercede and to pray for them. He who creates what is asked for is only Allahu ta’ala. His beloved servants are asked for prayers because He has declared in the 27th ayat al-karima of Surat al-Ma’ida, “I accept the prayers of those whom I love.” The dead are not asked to grant the wish asked for but to be an intermediary (wasita) for Allahu ta’ala’s granting the wish. It is not permissible to ask the dead to grant anything, and Muslims do not do so. It is permissible to ask for their mediation for that wish to be granted. The words istighatha, istishfa’ and tawassul all mean ‘asking for wasita or wasila.’

Allahu ta’ala alone is the One who creates everything. It is His Custom that He makes a creature of His an intermediary or a cause in creating another thing. He who wishes Allahu ta’ala to create something should hang on to the intermediary which is the cause for the creation of that thing. Prophets (‘alaihimu ‘s-salatu wa ‘s-salam) all hang on to the causes.

Allahu ta’ala commends the act of holding on to the causes, and prophets (‘alaihimu ‘s-salatu wa ‘s-salam) ordered it. Daily events also indicates its necessity. One should cling to the causes in order to obtain the things one wishes for. It is necessary to believe that Allahu ta’ala alone makes those causes be the causes of certain things, makes man hang on to those causes and creates them after man holds on to the causes. The one who believes so may say, “I obtained this thing by holding on to that cause.” This statement does not mean that the cause created the thing; it means that Allahu ta’ala created the thing through that cause. For example, the statements, “The medicine I took relieved my pain”; “My sick relative recovered when I vowed a nadhr for Hadrat as-Sayyidat Nafisa”; “The soup satiated me,” and “Water slaked my thirst,” all imply that these causes are only wasilas or wasitas. It is necessary to think that the Muslims who make similar statements believe in this manner, too. The one who believes so cannot be called a disbeliever. The Wahhabis, too, say that it is permissible to ask for something from those who are near and alive. They ask one another and the government officers for many things; they even entreat them to obtain their wishes. To them, it is polytheism to ask something from the dead or people far away, but it is not so to ask living people. However, to the ‘ulama’ of Ahl as-Sunnat, the former is not polytheism since the latter is not, and there is no difference between them. Every Muslim believes the fundamentals of iman and Islam and that the fard are fard and the haram are haram. It is also obvious that every Muslim believes that Allah is the only One who creates and makes everything, that no one besides Him can create anything. If a Muslim says, “I won’t perform salat,” it should be understood that he means that he will not perform salat at that moment or in that place, or because he has already performed it. No one should slander him by alleging that he meant he did not want to perform salat any more. Because, his being a Muslim should prevent others from calling him a “disbeliever” or “polytheist.” No one has the right to use the word “disbeliever” or polytheist” for a Muslim who visits graves, asks the dead for help and intercession or says, “May my such-and-such wish be accepted,” or “Oh Rasul-Allah! Please intercede for me!” His being a Muslim indicates that his words and deeds are in accord with the permitted, lawful belief and intention.

Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab’s beliefs and writing will be demolished and refuted at their very foundation by the full comprehension and judgement of the preceding explanations. In addition, many books have been written to prove with documents that he was on a wrong path, that he slandered Muslims and tried to demolish Islam from within. Sayyid ‘Abd ar-Rahman (rahimah-Allahu ta’ala), the Mufti of Zabid, Yaman, wrote that it would suffice to quote nothing but the following hadith ash-Sharif to show that he was on a wrong path: “Some people will appear in eastern Arabia. They will read the Qur’an al-karim. But the Qur’an al-karim will not go down their throats. They will leave Islam as the arrow leaves the bow. They shave their faces.” Their faces’ being shaved clearly indicates that those people reported to be on a wrong path are his followers. There is no need to read other books after seeing this hadith ash-Sharif. It is ordered in Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab’s books that his followers should shave the scalp and sides of the face. There is no such order in any of the seventy-two heretical groups.

A WOMAN’S SILENCING IBN ‘ABD AL-WAHHAB:

Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab also ordered women to shave off their hair. a woman said to him: “Hair is the precious ornament of a female as is the beard for a male. Is it apt to leave human beings deprived of their ornaments bestowed upon them by Allahu ta’ala?” Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab was unable to give any answer to her.

Although many wrong, heretical beliefs exist in the path led by Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab, there are three main beliefs:

1. He taught that rites (‘a’mal) make up a part of iman and that he who omits a fard (for example, does not perform salat once because of laziness or does not give the zakat of one year because of stinginess, though he believes that salat and zakat are fard) becomes a disbeliever, and he must be killed and his possessions must be distributed among the Wahhabis.

2. They believe that it is polytheism to make wasila of the souls of prophets (‘alaihimu ‘s-salawatu wa ‘t-taslimat) and awliya’ (rahimahum-Allahu ta’ala) and to ask them to pray on behalf of one who, thus, may attain his wish or be safe against what he fears. They say that it is forbidden to read the prayer book Dala’il al-khairat.

3. They believe that it is polytheism to build a dome over a grave, to light oil-lamps for those who perform ‘ibada and serve in shrines and to vow alms or nadhr of an animal for the souls of the dead. To them, each of these acts is a form of worshiping a person besides Allahu ta’ala.

All the shrines of as-Sahabat al-kiram, Ahl al-Bait (radi-Allahu ta’ala ‘anhum ajmain), awliya’ and martyrs (ridwan-Allahi ‘alaihim ajmain), except that of our master Rasulullah (sall-allahu ‘alaihi wa sallam), were destroyed when Sa’ud ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz attacked Mecca and Medina. The graves became indistinct. Although they attempted to pull down Rasulullah’s shrine, too, those who took hold of pickaxes either went mad or suffered paralysis, and they were not able to commit that crime. When they captured Medina, Ibn Sa’ud assembled Muslims and, slandering them, said, “Your religion is now completed by Wahhabism, and Allah became pleased with you. Your fathers were disbelievers and polytheists. Do not follow their religion! Tell everybody that they were disbelievers! It is forbidden to stand and beg in front of Rasulullah’s shrine. You may only say ‘As-salamu ‘ala Muhammad’ when passing by the shrine. He is not to be asked for intercession.”