Wahhabism

[IbnSohan]

WAHHABISM:  UNDERSTANDING THE ROOTS AND ROLE MODELS OF ISLAMIC EXTREMISM

by Zubair Qamar

*

condensed and edited by ASFA staff

 

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.

Wahhabi

-

Salafis

 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 rolemodels  – 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

.   

Salafi

s

 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`ud

‎

i 

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 t

awassul

 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 t

awassul

 as sinful. 

Wahhabis 

today forbid Muslims from doing 

t

awassul

 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 t

awassul 

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. 

 

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: www.alinaam.org.za/library/hist_bio/ibnwahhaab.htm.

[12]

 

Ibid.,

 Zahawi. pp. 7-15.

 

 

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

 

[IbnSohan]

One could add many more things, for example, the use of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as a source on matters Jewish. But what is going on here is much more than a variety of hateful sentiments. The consistent pattern is this: the document I just quoted from has on the cover “Greetings from the Cultural Attaché of the Saudi Embassy” here in Washington, D.C. That is who distributed this material, or at least that is who has their stamp on it. The number of Muslims who may be affected by these views would be comparably small because that particular document was in Arabic, which of course most American Muslims don’t speak.

But it is an ideology that divides the world into the realm of Islam and the realm of the infidel, or the realm of war. So it trains the readers that they live behind enemy lines – they must be passing through, they cannot take abode here. You only have two reasons for being in the land of the infidel. One is to convert people to Islam. The second is to acquire either money or skill which you can bring back with you to help you and others engage in jihad, and in this context, it is quite clear that they mean that in a military sense, because they go on to talk about tanks and bullets, and things of this kind. One of the things you certainly cannot do is become an American citizen, because no Muslim can be ruled an infidel.

That is the particular ideology which is being taught. You must not have any good contacts, warm relations with anybody – not only with unbelievers, but with any Muslim who is not of the Wahhabi type; they are also often denounced as apostates. That is the major theme of concern in that report.

http://www.pewforum.org/2005/05/03/the-global-spread-of-wahhabi-islam-how-great-a-threat/

 

 

I think there’s another aspect to this that is difficult; Saudi Arabia made $160 billion last year [2005] exporting oil; they give several billion per year to the Wahhabis, an Islamist sect that controls religion and education in Saudi Arabia, and other Wahhabi institutions in other parts of the world such as Pakistan. Those madrassas, for instance in Pakistan, teach Pakistani children to hate Shiites, Jews, Christians, anyone who can be counted as an infidel. Depending on the Imam, some of the things they say, particularly about [Edited Out]es, Jews, and homosexuals and apostates are essentially genocidal. That is really al Qaeda’s ideology as well. The Wahhabis and al Qaeda disagree about the legitimacy of the Saudi regime so they’re bitter enemies. But the underlying beliefs that are being taught around the world in those Wahhabi institutions are essentially al Qaeda beliefs. The result of is that the war on terror is the only war the United States has fought, with the obvious exception of the civil war, in which we pay for both sides. This is not a good plan. This current year we will borrow something on the order of $320 billion dollars, nearly a billion dollars a day, to import oil. Because a share of that does go to Wahhabi institutions around the world, I think it’s fair to say we are in a situation similar to the stated in the old comic strip Pogo, "I’ve met the enemy, and he is us."

http://www.wfs.org/futintervja07.htm

 

 

For further reading:

http://www.islamdaily.org/en/wahabism/page=9/

[S.M.H.A.]

(bismillah)

 

(salam)

 

If you look at history, the clan of  raiders and thieves sought legitimacy  for their actions through the creed of a devient, to justify their  plundering life, women and wealth in the name of the religion.

 

The enemies of Islam embraced this clan, raised its status in the world, protected it - in order to corrupt Islam from within, and destroy its image in the world.

These, heinous crimes that are committed by the followers of this creed, do they invite people to Islam ?

 

(wasalam)

[IbnSohan]

(bismillah)

 

(salam)

 

If you look at history, the clan of  raiders and thieves sought legitimacy  for their actions through the creed of a devient, to justify their  plundering life, women and wealth in the name of the religion.

 

The enemies of Islam embraced this clan, raised its status in the world, protected it - in order to corrupt Islam from within, and destroy its image in the world.

These, heinous crimes that are committed by the followers of this creed, do they invite people to Islam ?

 

(wasalam)

True.

If you are a close observer to this clan attitude, you shall notice that their beliefs are not constant. They call for fighting infidels then they go about killing Muslims. They cry against have allegiance with infidels in one country and produce fatwas for Sultans in another country to make such allegiance a part of Imaan.

They change their color so often. They may look brutal in their mercenary group but they are also showing great peaceful attitude in their Zakat and charities group.

The only constant belief in their decree is their worship of money and power. Their politicians, their Muslim brotherhood followers, their moderate Islam followers (Tariq Sawidan etc), their Gov officials, their simple clerics in small local mosques, their academics and their women. All of them despite their disagreement between each other are money and power seeker.

[gotmuffins!]

MashaAllah, this is a great article. Many of my friends are Sunni's who claim to be Salafi, and they really have no idea as to what the origin of their ideology stems from. I try to explain, but they don't really listen to me about it.

 

It is very refreshing to see that there are Sunni's out there that don't subscribe to this Wahabbi garbage. It is also interesting that it was written from a Sunni point of view.  All of the Sunnis I have met here in the USA have seemed to be Salafis.

 

JazzakAllah khair for the post, worth the read everyone!

[IbnSohan]

[IbnSohan]

[IbnSohan]

[IbnSohan]

Eid Mubarak everyone, May Allah keep you safe from the Fitnah of Khawarij

 

[Sky Walker]

Wahhabis were created by a british agent known as Hempher

[IbnSohan]

Wahhabis were created by a british agent known as Hempher

I am aware of that theory but I wanted to bring to light their ideology and epistemology. Khawarij were a very critical point in Islamic history, they were warned against by prophet as a sign of the End of Days. Their defeat was not on anyones hands but on Imam's Ali hands which makes us think of how dangerous their ideology is. Remember that Quran teaches us that religion should be revealed and explained to people over an extended period of time. The fitnah of khawarij was very important mile stone in Quranic revelation to people in practical way. 

Many thought that by memorizing Quran, being strict in laws and being a very practicing Muslim shall make one self righteous.

This misunderstanding of how religion works is important for the newly growing Muslim community in the west. Many of them are very skeptical about the sects that are existing in the Islamic world due to the nature of Middle east political conflict. They go back to Quran and hadith and try to understand things themselves. They start to criticize Muslims around the world for not being strongly adherent to the Sunnah. They memorize Quran, stick to Islamic laws and perform the rituals. Then you find them joining ISIS.

 

The blurry scene of ME political conflict is no worse than the blurred scene of the Quraish conflict. The wife of the prophet was fighting the cousin of the prophet. For some people who don't like politics and think that religion should be pure from these conflicts, both camps (Imam Ali and Ayisha camp) were wrong.

 

The trials - divine trials- are often repeated and often people will repeat the mistakes. In Surat Kahf we read

Indeed, We have made that which is on the earth adornment for it that We may test them [as to] which of them is best in deed.

 

Then Quran asks the prophet :

Or have you thought that the companions of the cave and the inscription were, among Our signs, a wonder?

 One of the commentators said that the answer to this Question is :No. The story of Ahlul Kahf is not more wondrous than the often repeated trials of nations through out history, yet, through out history many people failed in the test.

 

Some circumstances might be changed a little bit, just reflect on this verse :

He said, "Disguise for her her throne; we will see whether she will be guided [to truth] or will be of those who is not guided."

 

 

Prophet Musa disguised  Balqis throne to test her mindfulness and readiness to be guided. This is similar to the divine tests on earth to many nations. Although we read the history of previous nations but we keep falling in the same mistakes over and over again because of our inability to distinguish the essential from the circumstantial.

[blu115]

Lawrence of Arabia?

[Hasan0404]

I seek refuge in Allah from this fitnah.

[IbnSohan]

It's enough.

 

[IbnSohan]

anthromorphism in Wahhabism

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lj6ZJp72NNg

Edited August 3, 2014 by IbnSohan

[IbnSohan]

Other than the neo khawarij title that the Wahhabis have earned, they are also called Mujasimmah due to them ascribing body parts to Allah (Body = Jism, Mujassimmah= ascribing body parts)

 

They are also called Hashawyyiah

 

 

 

 

THE HASHWIYYA, MUJASSIMA, AND MUSHABBIHA

 

http://www.sunnah.org/aqida/alashaira5.htm

Ibn `Asakir states in Tabyin Kadhib al-Muftari (p. 150-151): "The Hashwiyya and Mujassima said that Allah is materialized (hallun) over the Throne, that the Throne is His place, and that He sits on it.. . . The Mushabbiha and Hashwiyya said: Descent is the descent of His person (dhat) together with movement (haraka) and displacement (intiqal), and istiwa' is [His] sitting on the Throne and indwelling on top of it."

In his Sharh Mukhtasar Ibn al-Hajib al-Subki describes them thus:

The Hashwiyya are a group who deviated from the right path in their blindness. They take Allah's verses purely in their literal sense (yujrun ayat Allah `ala zahiriha), believing that is their intended meaning (murad). They were named thus because Hasan al-Basri found some of them in his circle (halqa) holding unseemly speech, so he ordered for them to be moved to the bowels or belly (hasha) of the circle. In that sense they are the hashawiyya or 'Visceralists.' It was also said that they were named thus because they are among, or actually are, the mujassima -- those who ascribe a body to Allah. In that sense they are associated to 'stuffing' (hashw) and are called the Hashwiyya or 'Crammers.'[22]

Of note in relation to the above literal elucidations of the name Hashwiyya is the explanation of the divine Attribute al-Samad, "The Everlasting Sovereign" given by several imams of tafsir and major Tabi`in as al-ladhi la jawfa lahu or "He who does not possess an inside."[23] This meaning is mentioned by Bayhaqi.[24]

Al-Zabidi (d. 1205) in Taj al-`Arus identifies the Hashwiyya merely as "a group of innovators." Al-Munawi in his commentary on the hadith: "The angels do not enter a house in which there is a dog" in Fayd al-Qadir said: "One who takes externals exclusively is a Hashwi, and one who takes secret meanings exclusively is a Batini (esotericist)." While Ibn Qutayba (d. 276) in his Mukhtalif al-Hadith (1326H ed. p. 96) states of the scholars of hadith who collect narrations without pausing to understand what they write: "Some have called them the Hashwiyya." He avers that there is no mention of that term in the hadith, however, it is narrated from Sahl ibn Sa`d al-Sa`idi by al-Tabarani in al-Awsat that the Prophet said: "Every Community has its Zoroastrians, and every Community has its Jews, and every Community has its Christians. The Zoroastrians of my Community are the Qadariyya, its Christians are the Hashwiyya, and its Jews are the Murji'a."[25]

Taj al-Din al-Subki assimilates them to those who declare dialectic theology (kalam) an innovation and base belief on imitation (taqlEEd).[26] He quotes Ibn Jahbal's (d. 733) observation: "That party does not deem sufficient the belief (uEEman) of people except if they believe that Allah lies in a specific direction (jiha)."[27]

Al-Subki also relates that the Hashwiyya, unable to answer Imam Fakhr al-Din al-Razi's (d. 606) arguments against them, resorted to writing ugly remarks and insinuations on s[Edited Out]s of paper and attaching them to the pulpit from which he gave the Friday sermon. He arrived one day and read one of these, and then spoke to those present in an impassioned voice, saying:

This piece of paper says that my son does such and such. If it is true, he is but a youth and I hope he will repent. It also says that my wife does such and such. If it is true, she is a faithless woman. And it says that my servant does such and such. Servants are wont to commit every wrong, except for those Allah protects. But on none of these s[Edited Out]s of paper -- and may Allah be praised! -- is it written that my son says Allah is a corporeal body, or that he likens Him to created things, or that my wife believes that, or my servant -- So which of the two groups is closer to guidance?"[28]

The following two doctrines are also related from the Hashwiyya:

Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã According to some of the Hashwiyya, the Prophet was a disbeliever (kafir) before his prophethood on the basis of the verses: "Did He not find you wandering and direct you?" (93:7), "Before this, you were among the heedless" (12:3), and "You knew not what the Scripture was, nor what was the Faith" (42:52). This is stated in Fakhr al-Din al-Razi's al-Tafsir al-Kabir under the verses cited. Their claim was rejected by the scholars as there is consensus, apart from the Hashwiyya, whereby the Prophet was made immune to sin (ma`sum) both before and after prophethood in the light of the verse "Your companion errs not, nor is deceived" (53:2).[29] Note that this belief of the Hashwiyya remains a staple of diehard Orientalist historians to the present day.[30]

( B) The Hashwiyya hold, like Jews and Christians, that it is possible for Prophets to intentionally commit all sorts of major and minor sins after prophethood. Some of them specified "openly," others, "secretly."[31] This claim was also rejected by the vast majority of the scholars (al-jumhur) on the basis of the consensus of the Predecessors (ijma` al-salaf) whereby it is impossible for Prophets to deliberately commit major sins or contemptible minor ones (al-saghuEEra al-khasuEEsa).[32]

NOTES

[22] As quoted in Hujjiyyat al-Sunna (p. 110). 
[23] This is related with fair (hasan) or sound (sahuEEh) chains by Ibn Abi `Asim in his Kitab al-Sunna from `Ikrima (p. 299 #667), Mujahid (p. 300 #673-675), al-Hasan al-Basri (p. 301 #680), al-Sha`bi (p. 302 #682-683), Sa`id ibn Jubayr (p. 302 #685-686), al-Dahhak ibn Muzahim (p. 303 #688-689), and with weak chains from Ibn `Abbas (p. 299 # 665) and from the Prophet through Burayda in Tabarani. 
[24] See the section entitled "Allah's Speech" of al-Bayhaqi's al-Asma' wa al-Sifat, translation forthcoming. 
[25] Al-Haythami in Majma` al-Zawa'id said: "Its chain contains Yahya ibn Sabiq who is weak." 
[26] In Tabaqat al-Shafi`iyya al-Kubra (3:421-422). 
[27] Op. cit. (9:39). 
[28] Op. cit. (8:89) as translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller in Reliance of the Traveller (p. 1046). 
[29] Consensus is reported in Razi's Muhsal Afkar al-Mutaqaddimin wa al-Muta'akhkhirin (p. 160-161) and al-Tafsir al-Kabir (7:506, 8:451-452), Abu Muhammad al-Bataliusi's (d. 521) al-Insaf fi al-Tanbih `ala al-Asbab al-Lati Awjabat al-Ikhtilaf ("Equity in Signalling the Causes Which Necessitate Disagreement") p. 71-74, Muhammad `Abduh's Tafsir Juz' `Amma (p. 110-112), and others such as al-Qadi `Iyad (d. 544) in al-Shifa', al-Qastallani (d. 923) in al-Mawahib al-Laduniyya, and Shaykh Muhammad ibn `Alawi al-Maliki in Muhammad al-Insan al-Kamil ("Muhammad the Perfect Human Being"). 
[30] Cf. F.E. Peters' book on the Prophet and what he named "The Quest for the Historical Muhammad." 
[31] This is reported in al-Razi's `Isma al-Anbiya' ("The Immunity of Prophets" p. 27), al-Sharif al-Murtada's Tanzih al-Anbiya' ("The Sanctification of Prophets" p. 2-3) and in Sharh al-Maqasid (2:142). 
[32] See al-Qadi `Iyad's al-Shifa' (2:137-139), al-Razi's al-Muhassal (p. 161) and `Isma al-Anbiya', al-Iji's (d. 756) al-Mawaqif (p. 359), and Sharh al-Mawaqif (3:205).

 

 

 

 

 

Taqi al-Din al-Subki – ibn Taymiyya and his Followers were from the Deviant Hashwiyya Sect, and they were a Minority Fringe Group who would Teach their Beliefs in Secret

Shaykh al-Islam Taqi al-Din al-Subki (D. 756AH) on ibn Taymiyya and his followers being from the deviant Hashwiyya sect, and that they were a minority fringe group who would teach their beliefs in secret

“As for the Hashwiyya, they are a despicable and ignorant lot who claim to belong to the school of (Imam) Ahmad (ibn Hanbal)… They have corrupted the creed of a few isolated Shafi’is, especially some of the Hadith scholars among them who are lacking in reason… They were held in utmost contempt, and then towards the end of the seventh century (AH) a man appeared who was diligent, intelligent and well-read and did not find a Shaykh to guide him, and he is of their creed and is brazen and dedicated to teaching his ideas… He said that non-eternal attributes can subsist in Allah, and that Allah is ever-acting, and that an infinite chain of events is not impossible either in the past or the future. He split the ranks and cast doubts on the creed of the Muslims and incited dissension amongst them. He did not confine himself to creedal matters of theology, but transgressed the bounds and said that travelling to visit the tomb of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) is a sin… The scholars agreed to imprison him for a long time, and the Sultan imprisoned him… and he died in prison. Then some of his followers started to promulgate his ideas and teach them to people in secret while keeping quiet in public, and great harm came from this.”

[al-Zabidi, Ithaf al-Sada al-Muttaqin, 2:11. al-Zabidi is quoting from al-Subki's al-Sayf al-Saqil fi al-Radd 'ala ibn Zafil, see al-Rasa-il al-Subkiyya, 84-85]

https://taymiyyun.wordpress.com/2013/02/23/shaykh-al-islam-taqi-al-din-al-subki-on-ibn-taymiyya-and-his-followers-being-from-the-deviant-hashwiyya-sect-and-that-they-were-a-minority-fringe-group-who-would-teach-their-beliefs-in-secret/

 

 

Imam Muhammad al-Shahrastani (D. 548AH) on the Anthropomorphic Creed of ibn Taymiyya and his Likes

QUOTE Article -

Changing Views of ibn Taymiyya by Khaled el-Rouayheb:

For post-classical Sunni theologians, tafwid and ta’wil were the two ways of warding off the literalist interpretations that they attributed to heretical corporealist (mujassima) groups such as the Karramiyya and Hashwiyya. Ibn Taymiyya rejected both options, and it is thus not surprising that a scholar such as Ibn Hajar al-Haytami should have castigated him for having the same heretical views. Already the theologian and heresiographer al-Shahrastani (d.1153) had expressed the view that the origin of all shades of heretical anthropomorphism (tashbih) lay in the insistence on going beyond the tafwid of the salaf:

A group of later people added to what the 

salaf

 have said. They said: It is imperative to keep to the literal sense and to understand it as it appears, without presuming to reinterpret or suspend judgement as regards the literal meaning (

la budda min ijra’iha ‘ala dhahiriha wa-al-qawl bi-tafsiriha kama waradat min ghayr ta’arrud li-al-ta’wil wa la tawaqquf fi al-zahir

). Hence they fell into pure anthropomorphism (

tashbih

). This is contrary to what the 

salaf

 believed.

Muhammad al-Shahrastani, Kitab al-milal wa-al-nihal, ed. by W. Cureton (Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz, 1923 [reprint of 1846 edition], 64.

https://taymiyyun.wordpress.com/2013/02/09/muhammad-al-shahrastani-on-the-anthropomorphic-creed-of-ibn-taymiyya-and-his-likes/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Refuting the Anthropomorphic Neo Hanabilah

 

INTRODUCTION

by Imam Abd al-Rahman ibnal-Jawzi

Taken from the work Daf ush-Shubah al-Tashbeeh

 

 

—————————————————-

——————————————————-

——————————————————————————

 

 

————————————————————–

KNOW —MAY Allah, the Exalted, help you— that when I pursued the madh-habof Imam Ahmad, may Allah the Exalted have mercy on him, I found him to be of great stature with respect to the sciences. He excelled in the study of the juridical sciences and the views of the predecessors (Salaf ) to the point that not a single matter arises that he does not have a scriptural reference for or some form of remark to make. However, because he adheres to the approach of the Salaf, he only wrote what they transmitted.Therefore [it was only natural that] I found his madh-hab void of the literary compositions whose kind was numerous amongst those [scholars] who follow a different approach [than him]. So, I wrote some detailed exegeses. Amongst them are: al-Mughni [that exists] in [several] volumes, Zad al-Masir, Tadhkirat al-Arib and others.

Concerning the sciences of hadith [i wrote a number of ] books, among them are: Jami‘ al-Masanid, al-Hada‘iq, Naqi al-Naql and many books regarding al-Jarh wa al-Ta‘dil (the science of weighing positive and negative factors for evaluating the reliability of hadith narrators). I have not found the Hanbalis to have a single commentary in the topic of comparative fiqh except that al-Qadi AbuYa‘la said:“I used to say, ‘what is it with the advocates of the madhhabs that they mention the variance of those who have opposing views but they do not bother to mention the views of Ahmad.’ Then, I forgave them, since we [Hanbalis] do not have a single commentary on fiqh,so, I wrote a commentary for them.”

[in spite of Abu Ya‘la’s attempts] in his commentary, he neither clarified what was  sahih (rigorously authenticated) nor did he express contention with the rejected [sayings]. He also mentioned some irregular analogies, and I witnessed one of our companions delivering a lesson while taking recourse to the commentaries of Istilam, As‘ad, ‘Amili, and Sharif while borrowing things from them [in spite of being unreliable sources].So, I composed some commentaries for them such as: Kitab al-Insaf fi masa‘il alKhilaf (“Impartiality About Matters of Disagreement”); Jannat al-Nazar wa Junnat al-Fatr (“Garden of Contemplation and Armor Against Fissure”) and ‘Umda al-Dala‘il fi Mashhur al-Masa‘il (“Reliance of All Proofs Regardingthe Popular View of All Issues”).Then I deemed it appropriate to gather the hadiths of the commentary (of Qadi Abu Ya‘la) by which the advocates of the different madhhabs present as proof, and I clarified the basis for that which is sound and the point of contention in that which has been contested. I then composed a book about the [H anbali]  madh-hab that incorporated these  hadiths, calling it  al-Baz al-Ashhab al-Munqadd ‘ala Mukhalifi al-Madhhab (“The Flaming Falcon Swooping Down on the Dissenters of the [Hanbali] School”).

 

In the science of the branches of fiqh, I wrote  Kitab al-Mudhhib fi al-Madhhab (“The Gilder Regarding the Madhhab”), Masbuk al-Dhahab (“Moulded Gold”) and  al-Bulgha (“The Means of Subsistence”). In the fundamentals of the religion, I wrote Minhaj al-Wusul ila ‘ilm al-Usul (“The Way of Reaching Knowledge of the Religious Fundamentals”). In total, so far I have written some 250 works.I have observed that some of our companions have written about matters of creed in a way that is not proper.There are three in particular:Abu ‘Abd Allahibn Hamid,  his disciple, Qadi AbuYa‘la, 4 and Ibn al-Zaghuni  who composed books by which they have disgraced the madhhab.They held the attributes ofGod to be subject to human understanding and perception.

They heard that God, Glorified and Exalted be He, created Adam on his image, upon him be blessing and peace.On that basis, they acknowledged for Him an image and a physical form, a face attributable to His essence, two eyes, a mouth, uvulas,molar teeth, and lights for His face which represent His majestic splendor, two hands, fingers, a palm, a little [pinky] finger, a thumb, a chest, a thigh, two shins, and two feet.

[They even went so far as saying]:

“We have not heard any mention of the head.” They [then] said:“It is possible for Him to touch and to be touched, and to bring the slave close to His being.” One of them said: “[...] He breathes.”Then they calm the common people by saying:“[These attributes] are not taken as commonly understood.”

They adopted the literal meanings of the names and ascriptions and called them  attributes—an invented designation, of which they have no evidence, neither from transmitted knowledge of the text, nor reason.They did not carefully consider those texts that divert one’s attention from adopting the literal meanings [of such expressions] to adopting those meanings that must necessarily apply to God, just as [they did not carefully consider] to negate the meanings implied by those literal expressions that are characteristics of finite beings.

They were not satisfied with saying,“[it is] an attribute of action” until they said,“[it is] an attribute of the [Divine] essence [ofGod].” Once they determined those [words] to be attributes, they said,“We do not understand them according to the usages they imply according to language” like hand for ‘blessing’ and ‘power’ and coming/arriving to mean ‘goodness’ and ‘kindness,’ nor shin to mean ‘severity.’” “Rather,” they said, “We hold and understand them according to their well-acknowledged literal meanings,”while the apparent and literal meaning is what is familiar of human characteristics.
But any text [of the Qur’an and Sunna] is only held according to its literal meaning when it is possible and feasible. If something would redirect or negate this being done, it is understood and held according to its figurative understanding. They then become offended when they are accused of likening God to His creation and show harshness towards anyone who says this to them, while in the same breath, insisting,“We are Ahl al-Sunna,” (Upholders of the Prophetic Tradition) although in their statements they are clearly likening God to His creation.

There are some common people that have begun to follow them and I have advised them by saying,“Companions! Brothers! You are the People who adhere to the texts and follow them.This was the example of your Imam, the Greatest Imam,Ahmad ibnHanbal, may God, Exalted be He, have mercy on him, who under pain of torture, proclaimed, ‘How can I say what has not been said before?’” So, take care not to introduce into

his madhhab what does not belong in it.Then, you [three] said about the hadiths [of attributes] “We hold them and understand them according to their apparent meanings,” while the apparent meaning of [this word] ‘the foot’ would be the human limb. This is the same thing as what is said and believed by the Christians,may God, Exalted be He, distance them from His mercy [for saying such], about Jesus, upon him be blessing and peace.

They understand that he is “God’s spirit” and that God, Sanctified and Exalted in Highness, has an attribute known as a spirit that entered into Mary. Whoever says, “He became established with His Divine essence” has made Him, Sanctified and Exalted is He, subject to reality, as we under-stand it.

It should not be neglected by anyone that the principle by which the faith is established is reason,  and it is by way of this [reason] that we came to know and hold God to be Eternal without beginning. If only you had said,“We read the hadiths, and [then] keep silent,” then no one would have objected to [what] you [do]! [but you refuse to abstain from holding the texts and understanding them according to the apparent meaning]  and this behavior is absolutely disgusting and repugnant.

So, do not introduce in the madh-hab of this rightoeus Salafi man what does not belong to it. You have made the madh-hab such a shameful disgrace that when it is said “Hanbali”, it is understood that he is someone who likens Allah to His creation. You have then made your way to be that of bigotry and intolerance, showing fanitical support for Yazid ibn Mu’awiyyah, when you know very well the founder of this madh-hab permitted cursing him. And Abu Muhammad Tamimi used to say about one of your Imaams that “[He] disgraced the madh-hab in a terrible way and it will not be cleansed until the Day of Resurrection”.

http://thewahhabithreat.com/itiqaad/belief-in-Allah/imaam-abdur-rahmaan-ibn-jawzi-al-hanbali-refuting-the-anthropomorphic-neo-hanabilah/

Edited August 3, 2014 by IbnSohan

[Alamgir]

I don't think Wahabis are extremists. You can visit Saudi Arabia they are not extremists, they are monotheists. They don't blow themselves up killing their own people. Now the allegation that they are funding the extremists, so are shias. Iran is also funding and supporting shia terrorists in Iraq, Syria and elsewhere. Extremists are everywhere among all sects, and religions. Even the Buddhists are terrorists, the way they treat Muslims in Myanmar.

I understand your hatred for Wahabis because they are in the way of your ambitions and plans to hijack the Muslim world.  

 

I hear a lot from shias that Wahabis demolished the shrines of imams and auliya. Well, they did the right thing. They followed the sunnah of Ibrahim a.s.w.s and sunnah of Muhammad a.s.w.s. Both of them broke idols. Both of them were harsh and extremists to the polytheists. If people worship the dead other than Allah in those shrines then this is the duty of believers to eliminate them. And those who find excuses are those who promote polytheism.

 

Extremism is what you guys do in the love of your imams, you exaggerate and cross the limits. Love turns to adore and then worship. Almost half of the sunnis also do the same, they also cross the limits and become polytheists.

 

Actually this is the age of fitnah, almost all the sects are wrong, because they don't call themselves Muslims, they call themselves with different names other than Muslims. They don't follow Quran. Money is the fitnah that has got them astray from the right path. Religion has turned into business, shia, sunni, wahabi scholars are making money using religion and religious personalities. Your zakirs and ayatullas and marjas are becoming richer day by day because they are fooling the masses using the names of Ali and Husain. Same is done by sunni or wahabi mullas, their majority. Modernist mullas are on the pay roll of western countries and pagans. So called Jihadists have become fascists and extremists. True mujahideen are rare, the way true Muslims are rare.

 

People like us fight on our sects when we don't ourselves obey our Lord, when we don't treat other humans well, when we don't ourselves perform our duties and responsibilities. I think if all the mullas who talk about sectarianism and disagreements, who talk about hadith and history but don't don't talk about Quran, die, the Muslim world will become peaceful and then it will be easy for everyone to be guided. 

Edited August 4, 2014 by Alamgir

[Wisdom007]

I don't think Wahabis are extremists. You can visit Saudi Arabia they are not extremists, they are monotheists. They don't blow themselves up killing their own people. Now the allegation that they are funding the extremists, so are shias. Iran is also funding and supporting shia terrorists in Iraq, Syria and elsewhere. Extremists are everywhere among all sects, and religions. Even the Buddhists are terrorists, the way they treat Muslims in Myanmar.

I understand your hatred for Wahabis because they are in the way of your ambitions and plans to hijack the Muslim world.

I hear a lot from shias that Wahabis demolished the shrines of imams and auliya. Well, they did the right thing. They followed the sunnah of Ibrahim a.s.w.s and sunnah of Muhammad a.s.w.s. Both of them broke idols. Both of them were harsh and extremists to the polytheists. If people worship the dead other than Allah in those shrines then this is the duty of believers to eliminate them. And those who find excuses are those who promote polytheism.

Extremism is what you guys do in the love of your imams, you exaggerate and cross the limits. Love turns to adore and then worship. Almost half of the sunnis also do the same, they also cross the limits and become polytheists.

Actually this is the age of fitnah, almost all the sects are wrong, because they don't call themselves Muslims, they call themselves with different names other than Muslims. They don't follow Quran. Money is the fitnah that has got them astray from the right path. Religion has turned into business, shia, sunni, wahabi scholars are making money using religion and religious personalities. Your zakirs and ayatullas and marjas are becoming richer day by day because they are fooling the masses using the names of Ali and Husain. Same is done by sunni or wahabi mullas, their majority. Modernist mullas are on the pay roll of western countries and pagans. So called Jihadists have become fascists and extremists. True mujahideen are rare, the way true Muslims are rare.

People like us fight on our sects when we don't ourselves obey our Lord, when we don't treat other humans well, when we don't ourselves perform our duties and responsibilities. I think if all the mullas who talk about sectarianism and disagreements, who talk about hadith and history but don't don't talk about Quran, die, the Muslim world will become peaceful and then it will be easy for everyone to be guided.

Could you explain how we worship the graves. (Btw I'm a Sunni)

[IbnSohan]

I don't think Wahabis are extremists. You can visit Saudi Arabia they are not extremists, they are monotheists. They don't blow themselves up killing their own people. Now the allegation that they are funding the extremists, so are shias. Iran is also funding and supporting shia terrorists in Iraq, Syria and elsewhere. Extremists are everywhere among all sects, and religions. Even the Buddhists are terrorists, the way they treat Muslims in Myanmar.

I understand your hatred for Wahabis because they are in the way of your ambitions and plans to hijack the Muslim world.  

 

I hear a lot from shias that Wahabis demolished the shrines of imams and auliya. Well, they did the right thing. They followed the sunnah of Ibrahim a.s.w.s and sunnah of Muhammad a.s.w.s. Both of them broke idols. Both of them were harsh and extremists to the polytheists. If people worship the dead other than Allah in those shrines then this is the duty of believers to eliminate them. And those who find excuses are those who promote polytheism.

 

Extremism is what you guys do in the love of your imams, you exaggerate and cross the limits. Love turns to adore and then worship. Almost half of the sunnis also do the same, they also cross the limits and become polytheists.

 

Actually this is the age of fitnah, almost all the sects are wrong, because they don't call themselves Muslims, they call themselves with different names other than Muslims. They don't follow Quran. Money is the fitnah that has got them astray from the right path. Religion has turned into business, shia, sunni, wahabi scholars are making money using religion and religious personalities. Your zakirs and ayatullas and marjas are becoming richer day by day because they are fooling the masses using the names of Ali and Husain. Same is done by sunni or wahabi mullas, their majority. Modernist mullas are on the pay roll of western countries and pagans. So called Jihadists have become fascists and extremists. True mujahideen are rare, the way true Muslims are rare.

 

People like us fight on our sects when we don't ourselves obey our Lord, when we don't treat other humans well, when we don't ourselves perform our duties and responsibilities. I think if all the mullas who talk about sectarianism and disagreements, who talk about hadith and history but don't don't talk about Quran, die, the Muslim world will become peaceful and then it will be easy for everyone to be guided. 

Priceless as usual. Thank you for demonstrating for us how your mentality functions.

 

 

I don't think Wahabis are extremists. You can visit Saudi Arabia they are not extremists, they are monotheists. They don't blow themselves up killing their own people.

But of course. It is only halal to kill other people and spare your own.

 

 

I think if all the mullas who talk about sectarianism and disagreements, who talk about hadith and history but don't don't talk about Quran, die, the Muslim world will become peaceful and then it will be easy for everyone to be guided.

So although you are peaceful and do not kill your own people but you wish to eliminate all other scholars from the other sects. Death wishes can translate to death sentences in advanced stages.

 

 

Your zakirs and ayatullas and marjas are becoming richer day by day because they are fooling the masses using the names of Ali and Husain. Same is done by sunni or wahabi mullas, their majority. Modernist mullas are on the pay roll of western countries and pagans.

This is beautiful demonstration of yet another malady of Wahhabi mentality. We have established that they are Khwarij who like to see death eliminating other sects, who believe that only them deserve to live and they are Mujasimmah which is why they have problem with tawassul. Today we shall learn a new world "Rowaibidhah"

This word is used very often by Wahhabis. It is used with projection. They project their own faults on others, there is an arabic proverb that says "each man is seeing others through the eye of his own nature"

 

 

 

Al-Albani Unveiled

Some Observations about the Salafi/Wahhabi sect

Many of us who are practising Muslims or otherwise, are familiar with the epithet  'Wahhabi'.  The founder of this sect was  Muhammad  ibn Abdal Wahhab (d.  1206 AH), from the Najd area of 'Saudi' Arabia.  He is also known as Shaykh  an-Najdi by his opponents and his  followers have been  labelled as either  'Najdi's'  or  'Wahhabi's'  by the Ahl al-Sunnah.  He  claimed  to be a Hanbali  in Fiqh.  It is well  known that he fully  digested  the aqeedah and ideas of Ibn  Taymiyya.  The scholars  of his time  warned the  Muslims to be on their  guard from accepting his  'reformatory'  ideas; and this work is still  existent among  the  scholars  of the  Ahl  al-Sunnah  even  today.  The  neo- 'Salafi's'  of  today  respect  Ibn  Abdal  Wahhab  quite  highly  by bestowing  upon him such great  titles like 'Shaykh  al-Islam'.  I do not want to say much about his  movement  and  activities,  but a few quotes from three well known scholars should suffice for now. 

 (1) The foremost  Hanafi  scholar of his time, Imam Muhammad Amin ibn Abidin  (d.  1252/1836  Rahimahullah)  said  in his  celebrated  work Hashiyya radd al-Mukhtar (vol.  3, pg.  309):  "In our time Ibn Abdal Wahhab  (Najdi)  appeared,  and  attacked  the two noble  sanctuaries (Makkah and  Madinah).  He claimed to be a Hanbali, but his  thinking was such  that only he alone was a Muslim,  and  everyone  else was a polytheist!  Under this guise, he said that killing the Ahl as-Sunnah was  permissible,  until Allah destroyed them (Wahhabi's) in the year 1233 AH by way of the Muslim army." 

 (2) Shaykh Zayni Dahlan  (Rahimahullah)  said in his book Futuhat al-Islamiyya  (vol.  2, pg.  268):  "The sign of the Khawarij (the first deviant sect that appeared in the time of the Companions)  concerning the  shaving of the head, was not found in the  Khawarij of the past, but only in the Najdi's of our time!" 

 (3) Shaykh al-Islam  Hussain Ahmad al-Madani  (Rahimahullah)  said in his book  ash-Shihab  as-saqib (pg.  42):  "Ibn Abdal Wahhab arose in the  beginning of the  thirteenth  Islamic  century in the Najd.  His thinking  was  false, and his  beliefs  were  corruptional;  on these grounds he opened the way for killing the Ahl as-Sunnah." 

 (4) A more contemporary view on the Wahhabite sect has been expressed by  Abdal-Hakim  Murad in the journal  Islamica (pg.  9):  "Ibn Abdal Wahhab, however, went far beyond this (i.e; of Ibn Taymiyya).  Raised in the wastelands of Najd in Central  Arabia, he had little access to mainstream  Muslim  scholarship  (I say:  This may be disputed by his supporters).  In fact, when his da'wah appeared and became notorious, the scholars and muftis of the day applied to it the famous hadith of Najd:  Ibn Umar  (Allah be pleased  with him)  reported  the  Prophet (Peace  be upon him) as  saying:  "Oh God,  bless us in our  Syria; O God, bless us in our Yemen."  Those  present said:  "And in our Najd, O  Messenger  of God!"  But he said, "O God, bless us in our Syria; O God, bless us in our Yemen."  Those present said, "And in our Najd, O Messenger of God!"  Ibn Umar said that he thought that he said on the third occasion:  "Earthquakes and dissensions (fitnah) are there, and there  shall arise the horn of the devil."  (Sahih  al-Bukhari).  And it is significant that almost uniquely among the lands of Islam, Najd has never produced scholars of any repute. 

 The Najd-based  da'wah of the  Wahhabi's,  however, began to be heard more loudly  following the explosion of Saudi oil wealth.  Many, even most,  Islamic publishing  houses  in  Cairo  and  Beirut  are  now subsidised  by  Wahhabi organisations, which  prevent  them  from publishing  traditional works on Sufism, and remove passages in other works considered unnacceptable to Wahhabist doctrine. 

 The  neo-Kharijite  nature of Wahhabism  makes it  intolerant  of all other  forms  of  Islamic  expression.  However,  because  it  has no coherent fiqh of its own - it rejects the orthodox madhhabs - and has only the most basic and primitively anthropomorphic 'aqidah, it has a fluid,  amoebalike  tendency to produce  divisions  and  subdivisions among  those  who  profess  it.  No  longer  are the  Islamic  groups essentially  united by a consistent  madhhab and the Ash'ari  'aqidah (see later).  Instead, they are all trying to derive the Shari'ah and the 'aqidah from the Qur'an and the Sunnah by themselves.  The result is the appaling state of division and conflict which  disfigures  the modern salafi condition." 

 Another  person who is a reference  for  today's  neo-"Salafi's",  is Muhammad  ibn  Ali  al-Shawkani  (d.  1250/1834).  He  was a  leading scholar of the Zaydi  (Shi'ah)  sect found  mainly in the  Yemen.  He claimed to have departed from his old Shi'ite ways and joined the Ahl al-Sunnah.  He was  attacked  by the  scholars  of his day for saying Taqleed  was  completely  haram, as well as other  important  issues. Some  scholars  had accused  him of still  holding on to his  deviant Zaydiyyah-Mu'tazilite  (rationalistic thinking that was propounded by one of the first deviant sects of Islam)  thinking, while  pretending to be within the fold of orthodox  Sunni Islam; but Allah knows best! It is a  well  known  fact  that  he  denied  the  consensus  of  the Companions (Ijma as-Sahaba), as well as rejecting the validity of the Fatwa of a  Companion!  One may  refer to Anwar  Ahmad  Qadri's  book Islamic Jurisprudence in the Modern World (pg.  142) for a lenghthier discussion. 

 Many  scholars  have  noticed  the  extreme tendencies  within  the "Salafiyya"  sect  around the world, for its lack of respect  for the scholars  of the  four  Madhhabs,  its  Aqeedah  and  some  untenable juristic  positions it has  produced  over a short  period of Islam's history.  The  scholars  have not been afraid of  declaring  the neo- "Salafi's" to be  neo-Kharijites  in their  behaviour and attitude to other Muslims.  Note,  the scholars are  not  saying  that  the neo-"Salafi's"  are  Kharijites, but rather they seem to have certain traits which were only found amongst the Kharijites of the past.  One of  the  most striking things  I  have  noticed amongst these 'neo-Kharijites',  is their  direction  of Qur'anic  verses that were revealed  specifically  for  the  unbelievers,  as  referring  to the believers  who do not seem to have their way of thinking!  This was a well known practise of the Kharijites of old; as we shall see below. 

 A well known scholar of the "Salafiyya",  Dr.  Yusuf  al-Qardawi (who has  himself  been  attacked  by other  members  of the  "Salafiyya", especially for holding some untenable  positions in his book al-Halal wal  Haram fil  Islam)  said in his book  Islamic  awakening  between Rejection and Extremism (pg.  41-3):  "Imam al-Shatibi (Rahimahullah) wrote (in his book  al-I'tisam,  2.  182-4):  'Ibn  Abbas  (Allah  be pleased with him) was right.  When a person knows the reason behind a certain  verse or surah, he knows  how to  interpret  it and what its objectives are.  However, ignorance  of  that  leads people  to misinterpret  it and to have different  opinions,  without an insight and  knowledge  which could lead them to the truth, and prevent  them from indulging ignorantly in such matters with no support or evidence from al Shari'ah,  and  therefore  go astray and lead people  astray. This can be  demonstrated by what is reported by Ibn Wahab from Bakir who asked  Nafi':  What does Ibn Umar  (Allah  be  pleased  with him) think  of  al-Haruriyyah  (i.e;  al-Khawarij  who  were  also  called al-Haruriyyah  after the place -Harawra- where they gathered and were found by Ali ibn Abu Talib and the  Companions  of the  Prophet  [may Allah be pleased with them all] who supported him)?  Nafi'  answered: He thinks they are the most evil of people.  They  applied the verses which pertain to the kuffar on the believers.'  (NB- Imam  al-Bukhari has recorded Ibn Umar as saying in his Sahih [vol.9,  pg.50;  English edn]:  These  people (the  Khawarij  and  heretics ) took some verses that had been revealed  concerning the  disbelievers  and interpreted them as describing the believers ). 

 Al-Qardawi also  said  (pg.  42):  One  of  the causes of  such shallowness  is that  extremists  never  listen  to  people  who hold different views (and I can personally  testify to that), never accept any  dialogue  with them or  imagine  that  their own views  could be tested in the light of others, and may thereby be either  accepted or rejected.  Most of them have not been taught by reliable Muslim ulama who  are  specialised  in  the  field.  Rather,  they  have  received semi-knowledge directly  from  books  and  newspapers  without  any opportunity for revision or discussion which could test the learner's understanding  and analyze the depth of his  knowledge.  They  simply read,  'understand',  then  deduce  what they  wish.  However,  their reading, understanding, and deduction may well be wrong or deficient. There  might be someone  somewhere  who  opposes  their  opinions  on stronger and more valid bases, but they are not aware of that because nobody has drawn their attention to such a possibility.  These devout young  people  have  ignored  the facts that if they want to study al Shari'ah, they must seek the help of reliable Muslim  scholars.  They cannot venture into this extensive and entangled  discipline  without the  guidance of  reliable  Muslim  scholars  who can  interpret  and explain  obscurities,  define terms, and point out the  relationships between the parts and the whole and also equate  similarities.  Those who  venture  into it alone  will  meet  with  the same  catastrophic results  which  could  certainly  befall the  unskilled  swimmer  who ventures  into  dangerous  waters.  Proper  knowledge  of al Shari'ah cannot be  perfected  without  practice  and close  contact  with the experts,  especially in those areas where opinions diverge, evidences seem to contradict  each other, and certain  matters seem to be under suspicion.  This is why our  venerable  'ulama' have warned us not to seek to study and  understand al Qur'an al Karim through a person who has only  memorized it without any knowledge of its contents,  nor to seek knowledge  through a person who has acquired his own "knowledge" from reading  newspapers  and journals  only, without being  properly instructed by reputable and qualified scholars." 

 This topic began with a brief  discussion on Taqleed and I would like to finish with the  following  two  questions for you to ponder over. Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã Would it not be classified as being Taqleed if one were to accept the  classifications  of Hadiths,  exegesis  of the Qur'an  etc; by a renowned  Islamic  scholar, if one was not to go back to the original sources  which are used to  authenticate  the Hadith and so on?  (For example,  if a scholar  claimed  that a Hadith  found in the Sunan of Imam Abu Dawood was Sahih and you  accepted it as being Sahih - since you trust him, then are you not practising  Taqleed; if you, yourself do not go back to the original sources used to classify the Hadith in question,  since  sometimes  a Hadith  classified  to be Sahih by one scholar can be  classified  as being Da'eef by  another!).  ( B) Is it not true that those who are calling for the  abandonment  of Taqleed, are calling for the Taqleed of their own books and  speeches;  hence creating their own little 'Madhhabs

http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/misc/alobs.htm

Edited August 4, 2014 by IbnSohan

[Alamgir]

Could you explain how we worship the graves. (Btw I'm a Sunni)

 

Bro, honestly speaking, so many sunnis worship the graves in shrines of auliya and prophets. Thanks to the Saudi regime they slap in the face of those who try to worship the Prophet Muhammad a.s.w.s at his grave. 

The reason why Saudis didn't demolish the structure over the grave of the Prophet a.s.w.s is because there's hardly any chance of polytheistic activities over there which were / are common at the shrines of shia imams and other Muslim saints. 

[Haydar Husayn]

The reason why Saudis didn't demolish the structure over the grave of the Prophet a.s.w.s is because there's hardly any chance of polytheistic activities over there which were / are common at the shrines of shia imams and other Muslim saints.

False. The reason they don't do it is because they are afraid of the backlash from the Muslim ummah.

 

The reason why it has not been demolished:

The scholars have explained the shar’i rulings concerning the building of this dome and its obvious effects on the followers of bid’ah’ who have developed an attachment to this structure and its colour, and they praise and venerate it a great deal in their poetry and writings. Now it is up to the authorities to implement these fatwas, and this is nothing to do with the scholars.

The reason why it is not demolished is so as to ward off fitnah and for fear that it may lead to chaos among the ordinary people and the ignorant. Unfortunately the ordinary people have only reached this level of veneration towards this dome because of the leadership of misguided scholars and imams of innovation. They are the ones who incite the ordinary people against the land of the Two Holy Sanctuaries and its ‘aqeedah and its manhaj. They are very upset about many actions that are in accordance with sharee’ah in our view and contrary to innovation in their view.

Whatever the case, the shar’i ruling is quite clear, and the fact that this dome has not been demolished does not mean that it is permissible to build it or any dome over any grave, no matter what grave it is.

Shaykh Saalih al-‘Usaymi (may Allaah preserve him) said:

The fact that this dome has remained for eight centuries does not mean that it has become permissible, and being silent about it does not indicate approval of it or that it is permissible. Rather the Muslim authorities should remove it and put it back as it was at the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). They should remove the dome and the adornments and engravings that are found in the mosques, above all the Prophet’s Mosque, so long as that will not lead to an even greater fitnah. If it would lead to an even greater fitnah, then the ruler should postpone the matter until he finds an opportunity for that. End quote.

Bida’ al-Quboor, Anwaa’uha wa ahkaamuha (p. 253).

http://islamqa.info/en/110061

[Alamgir]

False. The reason they don't do it is because they are afraid of the backlash from the Muslim ummah.

 

http://islamqa.info/en/110061

 

Well, it's better not to have any structure over the grave of the Prophet a.s.w.s but if there's no act of polytheism over there, then it's alright. And the reason why they didn't demolish the structure is not important, what's important is there shouldn't be any act of shirk over there.

 

Prophet Muhammad a.s.w.s is the blessing for mankind, an ordinary structure over his grave is not what he deserves. He deserves that his Ummah doesn't fall into shirk. 

 

 

And to prove that we do not worship the prophet, lets turn his house in Makkah to public toilet.

 

I bet if the house of Ali in Makkah is turned into public toilet, Lovers will go in there to worship the toilet bowls.

Edited August 4, 2014 by Alamgir

[IbnSohan]

Well, it's better not to have any structure over the grave of the Prophet a.s.w.s but if there's no act of polytheism over there, then it's alright. And the reason why they didn't demolish the structure is not important, what's important is there shouldn't be any act of shirk over there.

 

Prophet Muhammad a.s.w.s is the blessing for mankind, an ordinary structure over his grave is not what he deserves. He deserves that his Ummah doesn't fall into shirk. 

And to prove that we do not worship the prophet, lets turn his house in Makkah to public toilet.

[Haydar Husayn]

Well, it's better not to have any structure over the grave of the Prophet a.s.w.s but if there's no act of polytheism over there, then it's alright. And the reason why they didn't demolish the structure is not important, what's important is there shouldn't be any act of shirk over there.

 

Prophet Muhammad a.s.w.s is the blessing for mankind, an ordinary structure over his grave is not what he deserves. He deserves that his Ummah doesn't fall into shirk. 

 

You might think it's ok, but the Saudi scholars don't, and they would say that the only reason there is no shirk going on is because there are guards put there to stop it.

[S.M.H.A.]

Jealously and envy is the real cause here.

 

When you follow the Truth, you will find the right leader.

 

When you follow the political/power graber/usurpers you will lose the Truth.

 

If you do not even know where you're revered leaders are buried, let alone any one desiring to visit their remains, you will be jealous and envious of the ones - millions want to visit and people have given their arms and legs to visit them, look around how many are currently laying down their lives to protect these shrines.

 

When you don’t have anyone who will cry for your leaders, you will be jealous/envious.

 

When you don’t have anyone to hold a gathering for, you will be jealous/envious.

 

When you father was not muslim, you will ensure you fabricate history, regarding father of others so you are on the equal footing.

 

When you did not get the standard ( Alam ) of Islam from the Prophet(pbuhanp) you will be jealous/envious.

Above has  nothing to do with Shirk- its all a smokescreen. Think about all the fatwas, against, graves, Alam, crying for Imam Husain(as), Majlis, etc.. and reasons behind them is jealousy/envy. There mentality is, Others have it we don’t so we will brand it as shirk

[S.M.H.A.]

.

 

Prophet Muhammad a.s.w.s is the blessing for mankind, an ordinary structure over his grave is not what he deserves. He deserves that his Ummah doesn't fall into shirk. 

 

 

Why don't tel the real reason, At least, In-Laws get a visit. If graves were not important, why bury the in-laws next to the Prophet(pbuhahp), did he leave clear instructions, or was it a Shura (ex-Ahlul Bayth(AS)) decision.

[Wisdom007]

Bro, honestly speaking, so many sunnis worship the graves in shrines of auliya and prophets. Thanks to the Saudi regime they slap in the face of those who try to worship the Prophet Muhammad a.s.w.s at his grave.

The reason why Saudis didn't demolish the structure over the grave of the Prophet a.s.w.s is because there's hardly any chance of polytheistic activities over there which were / are common at the shrines of shia imams and other Muslim saints.

Brother you havnt told me how we worship the grave(s), you've just repeated your previous claims of grave worshipping. I'm asking how?

[Abu Nur]

-

Edited August 4, 2014 by Dhulfikar

[Alamgir]

Brother you havnt told me how we worship the grave(s), you've just repeated your previous claims of grave worshipping. I'm asking how?

 

Those of us who go to the shrines and pray to the dead in the name of tawassul. 

[Alamgir]

Jealously and envy is the real cause here.

 

When you follow the Truth, you will find the right leader.

 

Shias didn't find a true leader for 24 years since the Prophet a.s.w.s departed from this world. That true leader didn't fight the bigger Satans because they were more powerful than the Imam. So Imam remained patient. And therefore all the fiction about Khaiber and tales of Dulfiqar are lies, to fool the fools. 

 

When you follow the political/power graber/usurpers you will lose the Truth.

 

Following Imam Khomeni was a mistake, he grabbed power from the Shah.

 

If you do not even know where you're revered leaders are buried, let alone any one desiring to visit their remains, you will be jealous and envious of the ones - millions want to visit and people have given their arms and legs to visit them, look around how many are currently laying down their lives to protect these shrines.

 

Hindus are also lucky, they also know where their holy men are buried or burnt, they also visit their remains for barakah, they get Wahabis jealous of them. Shias are also lucky in the same way.

 

When you don’t have anyone who will cry for your leaders, you will be jealous/envious.

 

Like cats cry for their lost kittens. 

 

When you don’t have anyone to hold a gathering for, you will be jealous/envious.

 

Lots of free food in those gatherings, lets go mate.

 

 

When you father was not muslim, you will ensure you fabricate history, regarding father of others so you are on the equal footing.

 

We know Abu Talib was not Muslim.

 

 

When you did not get the standard ( Alam ) of Islam from the Prophet(pbuhanp) you will be jealous/envious.

 

The real alamdar is Imam Ali not Ghazi Abbas, please correct your record.

 

 

Above has  nothing to do with Shirk- its all a smokescreen. Think about all the fatwas, against, graves, Alam, crying for Imam Husain(as), Majlis, etc.. and reasons behind them is jealousy/envy. There mentality is, Others have it we don’t so we will brand it as shirk

 

Calling upon the Prophet and the imams (also referred to as istighathat al-nabi wal-a’immah) is allegorical, not literal. The Noble Qur’an teaches people to worship and seek help from Allah (“iyyaka na‘budu wa iyyaka nasta‘in”); however, the allegorical seeking of help is permitted in the Noble Qur’an. For example, in the story of Prophet Musa (Moses), “And he found there two men fighting—one from his party (Shi‘a), and the other from his foes. The man of his own party asked him (istighathahu) for help against his foe, so Musa struck him with his fist and killed him.”1

 

http://www.al-islam.org/inquiries-about-shia-islam-sayyid-moustafa-al-qazwini/calling-upon-prophet-and-imams-help

 

 

 

 

Please tell al-islam.org that Musa a.s.w.s was alive, and that guy asked a living man (Musa) for help, he didn't ask a dead man or his grave for help.

 

If people call the shirk, tawassul then they should say

 

Ya Toilet Madad, when they want to use toilet, because it's the toilet that helps them,

 

Ya Slippers Madad, as slippers help them walk,

 

Ya Underwear Madad, as it covers their private parts, and so on.

Edited August 5, 2014 by Alamgir

[.equilibrium.]

 

Shias didn't find a true leader for 24 years since the Prophet a.s.w.s departed from this world. 

Shias were there by their leader from day 1.

 

 

 

That true leader didn't fight the bigger Satans because they were more powerful than the Imam. So Imam remained patient. And therefore all the fiction about Khaiber and tales of Dulfiqar are lies, to fool the fools. 

 The incidents of Khaybar were symbolical feats to establish the superiority of Ali (a.s.)to the rest of sahabas. Allah was making a boast out of him in front of humanity, to cement his preference above others as the sole inheritor of the prophets (s.a.w.s) wilayah.

[Ali Hadi.]

Please tell al-islam.org that Musa a.s.w.s was alive, and that guy asked a living man (Musa) for help, he didn't ask a dead man or his grave for help.

 

I assume you haven't read the verse:

 

 وَلاَ تَحْسَبَنَّ الَّذِينَ قُتِلُواْ فِي سَبِيلِ اللّهِ أَمْوَاتاً بَلْ أَحْيَاء عِندَ رَبِّهِمْ يُرْزَقُونَ

 

Think not of those who are slain in Allah's way as dead. Nay, they live, finding their sustenance in the presence of their Lord.

 

Not to mention the fact that numerous authentic sunni traditions testify to the use of tawassul.

[S.M.H.A.]

And therefore all the fiction about Khaiber and tales of Dulfiqar are lies, to fool the fools. 

 

 

 

 

 Prophet Mohammad (pbuhahp) declared that

 

"Tomorrow I will award the Standard of the Islamic forces to a man who loves Allah  and his Prophet  and Allah  and his Prophet love him. He is the one who attacks forcefully and does not run away from the battlefield and he will not return until Allah grants victory on his hand". Every companion was waiting and wishing to be awarded this honor.

 

 

 

 

The Conquest of Khyber

 

Khyber is a township 90 miles north of Medina, in a harra or volcanic tract, well-watered with many springs issuing forth from its basaltic rocks. It has an excellent irrigation system and produces rich harvests of dates and grain.

 

Long before the time of the Prophet of Islam, the valley of Khyber and other valleys in its north and south, were colonized by the Jews. As noted before, these Jews were not only the best farmers of the country, they were also its leaders in industry and business, and they enjoyed a monopoly of the armaments industry.

 

In the times of the Prophet, the best arsenals of Arabia were all in Khyber. Those Jews who had been banished from Medina, had also resettled in Khyber, and they were noted for their skills in metallurgy.

 

Betty Kelen

 

The Qaynuqa were banished from Medina. Chiefly they were metalworkers, having learned the art of beating out the splendid shining armor, the moon-curved swords and sun-catching helmets that glorified warfare in the desert. They made fine bronze armor, beaten and burnished, with helmets to match and gleaming swords whose swift cut could make the very air whistle. (Muhammad – the Messenger of God)

 

The Jews of Khyber also heard about the Treaty of Hudaybiyya and its terms. Just as the Quraysh in Makkah and Umar bin al-Khattab and some other “hawks” among the Muslims in Medina had interpreted the treaty as the “surrender” of the Muslims, so also did the Jews of Khyber consider it a symptom of the incipient decline of the power of the State of Medina.

 

Banking on this theory of “decline,” they began to instigate the Arab tribes between Khyber and Medina to attack the Muslims. One of these tribes was the Ghatafan, the allies of the Jews of Khyber.

 

They began to send their raiding expeditions into the pastures around Medina. One of these pastures belonged to the Prophet himself. On one occasion, the son of Abu Dharr el-Ghiffari was grazing the camels of the Prophet when the Ghatafan struck. They killed him, and captured his mother who was with him, and they drove with them the herd of camels. The Muslims, however, were able, just in time, to overtake the marauders and to rescue the wife of Abu Dharr el-Ghiffari.

 

Muhammad decided to put an end to these gratuitous provocation. He thought that it would not be prudent to wait until the Jews and their allies laid another siege to Medina, and that it would be better to forestall them. He, therefore, ordered the Muslims to mobilize, and to march on Khyber.

 

In September 628 the Prophet left Medina with 1600 soldiers. Some Muslim women also accompanied the army to work as nurses and to give first aid to the wounded and the sick.

 

Khyber had eight fortresses. The strongest and the most important of them all was the fortress of al-Qamus. The captain of its garrison was a famous champion called Merhab. He had, under his command, the best fighting men of Khyber, and they were the best-equipped soldiers of the time in all Arabia.

 

Muhammad Husayn Haykal

 

The campaign of Khaybar was one of the greatest. The masses of Jews living in Khaybar were the strongest, the richest, and the best equipped for war of all the peoples of Arabia. (The Life of Muhammad, Cairo, 1935)

 

The Muslims, however, were able to capture all the fortresses of Khyber except al-Qamus which proved to be impregnable. Muhammad send Abu Bakr on one occasion, and Umar on another, with hand-picked warriors, to attempt the conquest of al-Qamus. Both made the attempt and both failed. Some other captains also tried to capture the fortress but they also failed. These repeated failures began to undermine the morale of the army.

 

Muhammad realized that something dramatic had to be done to restore the wilting morale of the Muslims, and immediately. And when one more attempt to capture al-Qamus had also aborted, his mind was made up, and he declared: “Tomorrow I shall give the banner of Islam to a hero who loves God and His Apostle, and God and His Apostle love him. He is one who attacks the enemy but does not run, and he will conquer Khyber.”

 

The companions knew that the prediction of the Messenger of God would come true, and that Khyber would be conquered on the following day. Everyone of them, therefore, became a candidate for the glory and honor of conquering it. Many of them were kept awake all night by the ambition to become “the beloved of God and His Apostle,” and to become the hero who would capture Khyber.

 

On the following morning, the companions gathered in front of the tent of the Prophet. Each of them was decked out in martial array, and was vying with others in looking the most impressive figure.

 

Presently, the Messenger of God came out of his tent, and the vast throng began to show signs of restlessness. Each of the companions tried to make himself more conspicuous than others in the hope of catching the eye of the master. But the latter didn't appear to notice any of them and only posed one question: “Where is Ali?”

 

Ali at this time was in his tent. He knew that if he was the “beloved of God and His Apostle,” then he, and no one else would capture the fortress of al-Qamus. The Prophet sent for him.

 

When Ali came, the Prophet solemnly placed the banner of Islam in his hand. He invoked God's blessings upon him, prayed for his victory, and bade him farewell. The young hero then advanced toward the most formidable fortress in all Arabia where the bravest of the Hebrew warriors were awaiting him. He fought against them all, overcame them, and planted the banner of Islam on its main tower.

When the conqueror returned to the camp, the Messenger of God greeted him with smiles, kisses and embraces, and prayed to God to bestow His best rewards upon His lion.

 

Ibn Ishaq

Burayda b. Sufyan b. Farwa al-Aslami told me from his father Sufyan b. Amr b. Al-Akwa: the Apostle sent Abu Bakr with his banner against one of the forts of Khyber. He fought but returned having suffered losses and not taken it. On the morrow he sent Umar and the same thing happened. The Apostle said: “Tomorrow I will give the flag to a man who loves Allah and His Apostle. Allah will conquer it by his means. He is no runaway.” Next day he gave the flag to Ali. (The Life of the Messenger of God)

 

 

Edward Gibbon

North-east of Medina, the ancient and wealthy town of Khyber was the seat of the Jewish power in Arabia: the territory, a fertile spot in the desert, was covered with plantations and cattle, and protected by eight castles, some of which were esteemed of impregnable strength. The forces of Mohammed consisted of 200 horse and 1400 foot: in the succession of eight regular and painful sieges, they were exposed to danger and fatigue, and hunger; and the most undaunted chiefs despaired of the event.

 

The Apostle revived their faith and courage by the example of Ali, on whom he bestowed the surname of theLion of God, perhaps we may believe that a Hebrew champion of gigantic stature was cloven to the chest by his irresistible scimitar; but we cannot praise the modesty of romance, which represents him as tearing from its hinges the gate of a fortress and wielding the ponderous buckler in his left hand (sic). (The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire)

 

Washington Irving

The city of Khyber was strongly defended by outworks, and its citadel, Al-Kamus, built on a steep rock, was deemed impregnable. The siege of this city was the most important enterprise the Moslems had yet undertaken. When Mohammed came in sight of its strong and frowning walls, and its rock-built citadel, he is said to have prayed for Lord's succor in capturing it.

 

The siege of the citadel lasted for some time, and tasked the skill and patience of Mohammed and his troops, as yet little practiced in the attack of fortified places. Mohammed directed the attacks in person; the besiegers protected themselves by trenches, and brought battering-rams to play upon the walls; a breach was at length effected, but for several days every attempt to enter was vigorously repelled.

Abu Bakr at one time led the assault, bearing the standard of the Prophet; but, after fighting with great bravery, was compelled to retreat. The next attack was headed by Omar ibn Khattab, who fought until the close of day with no better success.

 

A third attack was led by Ali, whom Mohammed armed with his own scimitar, called Dhu'l-Fiqar, or the Trenchant. On confiding to his hands the sacred banner, he pronounced him “a man who loved God and His Prophet; and whom God and His Prophet loved; a man who knew not fear, nor ever turned his back upon a foe.”

 

And here it may be well to give a traditional account of the person and character of Ali. He was of the middle height, but robust and square, and of prodigious strength. He had a smiling countenance, exceedingly florid, with a bushy beard. He was distinguished for an amiable disposition, sagacious intellect, and religious zeal, and, from his undaunted courage, was surnamed the Lion of God.

 

Arabian writers dwell with fond exaggeration on the exploits of Khyber, of this their favorite hero. He was clad, they say, in a scarlet vest, over which was buckled a cuirass of steel. Scrambling with his followers up the great heap of stones in front of the breach, he planted the standard on the top, determined never to recede until the citadel was taken. The Jews sallied forth to drive down the assailants.

 

In the conflict which ensued, Ali fought hand to hand with the Jewish commander, Al-Hareth, whom he slew. The brother of the slain advanced to revenge his death. He was of gigantic stature; with a double cuirass, a double turban, wound round a helmet of proof, in front of which sparked an immense diamond.

 

He had a sword girt to each side, and brandished a three-pronged spear, like a trident. The warriors measured each other with the eye, and accosted each other in boasting oriental style. “I,” said the Jew, “am Merhab, armed at all points, and terrible in battle.” “And I am Ali, whom his mother, at his birth, surnamed Al-Haider (the rugged lion).

 

The Moslem writers make short work of the Jewish champion. He made a thrust at Ali with his three pronged lance, but it was dexterously parried; and before he could recover himself, a blow from the scimitar, Dhu'l-Fiqar divided his buckler, passed through the helm of proof, through double turban, and stubborn skull, cleaving his head even to his teeth. His gigantic form fell lifeless to the earth.

 

The Jews now retreated into the citadel, and a general assault took place. In the heat of the action the shield of Ali was severed from his arm, leaving his body exposed; wrenching a gate, however, from its hinges, he used it as a buckler through the remainder of the fight.

Abu Rafe, a servant of Mohammed, testified to the fact: “I afterwards,” says he, “examined this gate in company with seven men and all eight of us attempted in vain to wield it.”

 

(This stupendous feat is recorded by the historian Abul Fida. “Abu Rafe,” observes Gibbon, “was an eye-witness; but who will be witness for Abu Rafe?” We join with the distinguished historian in his doubt yet if we scrupulously question the testimony of an eye-witness, what will become of history?) (The Life of Mohammed)

 

Sir William Muir

The Jews rallied round their chief Kinana and posted themselves in front of the citadel Camuss, resolved on a desperate struggle. After some vain attempts to dislodge them, Mohammed planned a general attack. “I will give the eagle,” he said – the great black eagle – “into the hands of one that loveth the Lord, and His Apostle, even as he is beloved of them; he shall gain the victory. Next morning the flag was placed in Ali's hands, and troops advanced.

 

At this moment, a soldier stepped forth from the Jewish line, and challenged his adversaries to single combat: “I am Merhab,” he cried, “as all Khyber knows, a warrior bristling with arms, when the war fiercely burns.” Then Ali advanced saying: “I am he whom my mother named the Lion; like a lion of the howling wilderness. I weigh my foes in a giant's balance.”

 

The combatants closed, and Ali cleft the head of Merhab in two. The Moslem line now made a general advance, and, after a sharp conflict, drove back the enemy. In this battle, Ali performed great feats of prowess. Having lost his shield, he seized the lintel of a door, which he wielded effectually in its stead. Tradition, in its expansive process, has transformed this extemporized shield into a gigantic beam, and magnified the hero into a second Samson. The victory was decisive, for the Jews lost 93 men; while of the Moslems only 19 were killed throughout the whole campaign. (The Life of Mohammed, London, 1877)

 

R.V.C. Bodley

 

He (Mohammed) began the campaign (of Khyber) by reducing individually the minor strongholds. When this was done, he marched against Al-Kamus, the main fortress of Khaibar. It was a formidable looking place with frowning walls built out of the living rock. All accesses were strongly fortified, and within the ramparts was a well-equipped and well-provisioned garrison.

 

Siege warfare was unfamiliar to these nomads accustomed to desert raiding. However, Mohammed had a number of improvised siege engines put together on the spot. The most effective of these were palm-trunk battering rams which, eventually, made a small breach in the walls.

Into this Abu Bakr led a heroic attack, but he was driven back. Then Omar tried, but while he reached the mouth of the breach, he had to retire, losing most of his men. Finally, Ali went up against the wall, bearing the black standard. As he charged, he chanted: “I am Ali the Lion; and like a lion howling in the wilderness, I weigh my foes in the giant's balance.”

 

Ali was no giant, but he made up for his lack of height by his great breadth and prodigious strength. Today he was formidable in a scarlet tunic over which he wore his shining breastplate and backplate. On his head gleamed a spiked helmet encrusted with silver. In his right hand he brandished Mohammed's own scimitar, Dhu'l-Fiqar, which had been entrusted to him with the black banner.

 

Again and again Jewish veterans rushed at Ali. Again and again they staggered away with limbs or heads severed. Finally, the champion of all the Hebrews, a man called Merhab, who towered above the other warriors, planted himself before Ali. He wore a double cuirass, and round his helmet was a thick turban held in place by an enormous diamond. He was girt with a golden belt from which swung two swords. He did not use these, however, and killed right and left with a long three-pronged spear. For a moment the battle paused and the combatants rested on their arms to watch the duel

 

Marhab, like Goliath of Gath, had never been defeated. His size alone frightened opponents before they came close to him. His barbed fork disheartened the most skilled swordsman.

 

Marhab attacked first, driving at Ali with his trident. For a moment, Ali, unaccustomed to this form of weapon gave ground. Then he steadied himself and fenced with the Hebrew. A feint and a parry sent the spear flying. Before Merhab could draw one of his swords, Ali's scimitar had cloven his head through his helmet and turban so that it fell on either side of his shoulders. The Jews, seeing their champion dead, retreated into the city.

 

Mohammed gave the signal for a general assault. The Moslems surged forward. Ali led the onslaught. He had lost his shield during the duel and, to replace it, had torn a door from its hinges, which he carried before him.(The Messenger – the Life of Mohammed, 1946)

 

Muhammad Husayn Haykal

Realizing that this was their last stand in Arabia, the Jews fought desperately. As the days went by, the Prophet sent Abu Bakr with a contingent and a flag to the fortress of Na'im; but he was not able to conquer it despite heavy fighting. The Prophet then sent Umar bin al-Khattab on the following day, but he fared no better than Abu Bakr.

 

On the third day, the Prophet called Ali ibn Abu Talib, and, blessing him, commanded him to storm the fortress. Ali led his forces and fought valiantly. In the engagement, he lost his armor and, shielding himself with a portal he had seized, he continued to fight until the fortress was stormed by his troops. The same portal was used by Ali as a little bridge to enable the Muslim soldiers to enter the houses within the fortress... (The Life of Muhammad, Cairo, 1935)

Khyber was the first campaign in which non-Muslims were made the subjects of the Islamic State. It was the first time that the principles of government in Islam were defined and applied. Therefore, Khyber is the first successful campaign of Islam.The conquest of Khyber is a landmark in the history of Islam as it is the beginning of the Islamic State and Empire. The Indian historian, M. Shibli, says in his biography of the Prophet:

 

At Khyber, the nascent Islamic State acquired new subjects and new territories. It was the beginning, not only of the Islamic State but also of its expansion. If the conquest of Khyber is the beginning of the Islamic State, then Ali ibn Abi Talib, its conqueror, is its principal architect.

Before the conquest of Khyber, the Muslims were destitutes or semi-destitutes. Khyber suddenly made them rich. Imam Bukhari has quoted Abdullah bin Umar bin al-Khattab as saying: “We were hungry at all times until the conquest of Khyber.” And the same authority has quoted Ayesha, the wife of the Prophet, as saying: “It was not until the conquest of Khyber that I could eat dates to my heart's content.”

The Muhajireen in Medina had no means of making a living and therefore had no steady income. They had barely managed to survive until the conquest of Khyber. Once Khyber was conquered, there was a sudden change in their fortunes.

 

Montgomery Watt

Until the capture of Khyber the finances of the Islamic community were precarious, and the Emigrants lived partly off the charity or hospitality of the Helpers. (Mohammed, Prophet and Statesman)

Khyber spelled the difference for the Muslim community between abject poverty and material abundance.

 

S. Margoliouth

When the Muslims came to apportion their spoils they found that the conquest of Khaibar surpassed every other benefit that God had conferred on their Prophet. (Mohammed and the Rise of Islam, 1931)

The conquest of Khyber conferred unlimited benefits upon the Muslims; some of them were:

1.Immense quantities of gold and silver that the Jews had been accumulating for many generations.

2.The finest arsenals of Arabia containing the newest weapons of the times such as swords, spears, lances, maces, shields, armor, bows and arrows.

3.Vast herds of horses, camels and cattle, and flocks of sheep and goats.

4.Rich arable lands with palm groves.

 

Sir John Glubb

The people of Khyber, like those of Medina, made their living by agriculture, particularly the date palm. Even today, the tribes have a saying, “To take dates to Khaiber,” which means the same as our expression, “To carry coals to Newcastle.” Khyber was said to be the richest oasis in the Hijaz. (The Life and Times of Mohammed)

 

After the surrender of the Jews in Khyber, the Prophet had to make some new arrangements for the administration of the newly-won territories.

S. Margoliouth

 

Presently Mohammed bethought him of the plan which became a prominent institution of Islam. To kill or banish the industrious inhabitants of Khaibar would not be good policy, since it was not desirable that the Moslems, who would constantly be wanted for active service, should be settled so far from Medina. Moreover, their skill as cultivators would not equal that of the former owners of the soil. So he decided to leave the Jews in occupation on payment of half their produce, estimated by Abdullah son of Rawahah at 200,000 wasks of dates. (Mohammed and the Rise of Islam, 1931)

 

One mighty stroke of Ali's sword solved the economic problems of the Muslim community, and put an end to its poverty forever. He also put an end to the dependence of the Muslims upon a fickle and temperamental nature, to feed them, once he delivered the fertile lands of Khyber to them.

 

There is yet another sense in which the campaign of Khyber was of immense importance not only to the Muslims of the time of the Prophet but also to the generations of the future. It was a departure, for the first time, from the classical tradition of Arabian warfare. The Arab mode of fighting was often chivalrous but most often inefficient. The Arabs knew less than nothing about strategy, and all that they knew about tactics was hit-and­run. They placed their hopes of victory in their ability to catch their victims by surprise.

For centuries, they had fought against each other, and had consistently followed the ancient pattern of hit-and-run, with no variation in tactics. We have seen how a trench checked an army of ten thousand warriors, and immobilized it at the siege of Medina in A.D. 627. The greatest captains of the idolaters like Khalid bin Walid and Ikrama bin Abu Jahl were baffled by the moat, and became helpless before it.

All this was to change after Khyber. Ali ibn Abi Talib taught the Muslims the art of laying siege to, and of capturing fortified positions. He taught them how to map out the strategy of a campaign, and how to fight pitched and decisive battles like disciplined armies. At Khyber, Ali placed the key to the conquest of the whole world in the hands of the Muslims.

 

 

The Estate of Fadak

Fadak was another Jewish settlement near Khyber. The people of Fadak voluntarily sent their representatives to the Prophet offering to negotiate the terms of surrender. He accepted their offer of surrender, and gave them the right to stay on their lands as subjects of the Islamic State. Fadak was acquired in this manner without any effort on the part of the army of the Muslims. It was, therefore, considered to be the private property of the Prophet.

 

Muhammad Husayn Haykal

The wealth of Khaybar was to be distributed among the members of the Muslim armed forces according to rule because they had fought to secure it. The wealth of Fadak, on the other hand, fell to Muhammad, as no Muslims and no fighting were involved in its acquisition. (The Life of Muhammad, Cairo, 1935)

 

In the early days of the history of Islam, the Muslims, when they were still in Makkah, were very poor, and had no means of making a living. Khadija, the wife of the Prophet, fed and housed most of them. She spent all her wealth on them so that when she died, there was nothing that she could leave for her daughter, Fatima Zahra.

Now when the estate of Fadak was acquired by the Prophet, he decided to make it a gift to his daughter as a recompense for the great sacrifices her mother had made for Islam. He, therefore, gave the estate of Fadak to his daughter, and it became her property.

The Jews of Wadi-ul-Qura and Tayma, other oases in Hijaz, also agreed to surrender to the Prophet on the same terms as those of Khyber and Fadak, and stayed on their lands.

***********************************

 

 

The battle of Badr

 

 History preserved in its records only fifth of the names out of the 70 pagan loses. Twenty2or twenty two3 of them died at Ali's hand.

 

The Battle of Uhud

 

Ibn Al-Atheer reported that ‘Ali, alone, destroyed all the standard bearers at the Battle of Uhud and said that Abu Rafi reported that. And so did Al-Tabari.2

 

From what we read in Al-Mustadrak by Al-Hakim, we understand that ‘Ali Ibn Abu Talib was the only defender who stayed with the Prophet for the duration of the battle. The other companions who were mentioned to be among those who remained with the Prophet were actually the first ones to come back to the Messenger of God after they left him. Al-Hakim recorded that Ibn Abbas said:

‘Ali has four distinctions no one shares with him: He was the first male who prayed with the Messenger of God. He was the bearer of his banner in every battle and he was the one who stayed with him at the Battle on the day of Al- Mihras (the Battle of Uhud, where there is gathered water called Al-Mihras ), and he is the one who washed his blessed body and laid him in his tomb.4

 

Battle of Khandaq

 

Three times did the Holy Prophet exhort the Muslims to give battle to Amr. Three times it was only 'Ali who stood up. In the third time, the Holy Prophet allowed 'Ali to go. When 'Ali was going to the battlefield, the Holy Prophet said:

 

"The whole faith is going to fight the whole infidelity."

 

'Ali invited 'Amr to accept Islam, or to return to Mecca, or to come down from his horse since 'Ali had no horse and was on foot. 'Amr alighted from his horse and a fierce battle ensued. For a while, so much dust covered both warriors that nobody knew what was going on. Once 'Amr succeeded in inflicting a serious cut on 'Ali's head, yet after some time, 'Ali killed 'Amr. Concerning this battle, the Holy Prophet said:

 

"Verily, one attack of 'Ali in the Battle of Khandaq is better than the worship of all human beings and jinns, up to the Day of Resurrection."

 

 

*******************************************************

 

 

Nishan-e-Haider

  is Pakistan's highest military gallantry award. "Nishan-e-Haider" literally means "Mark of the Lion" i. The word "Haider" is also the epithet of Imam Ali.

 

The highest Military Award of Pakistan has been awarded to Shaheed Soldiers who have shown bravery and courage in Times of War & Border battles(1948,1956,1965,1971,1999)

 Although some consider it equivalent of the British Victoria Cros and theUnited States Medal of Honor, however, it has no equivalent since the Nishan-e-Haider is unique in that it can only be awarded posthumously. Its exclusivity can be gauged by the fact that, since Pakistan's independence in 1947, there have been only ten recipients.

***************************************

Edited August 5, 2014 by S.M.H.A.

[IbnSohan]

This topic is not about Tawssul nor it is about imam Ali superiority nor it is about who can use the most offensive language and get away with it.

This topic purpose is to illustrate the faulty methodology of Salafists who claim to be the most adherent to prophet Sanna in comparison to the rest of all Muslim ummah.

I ask all brothers to keep focus and not fall in the trap of our resident wahhabis who are experts in igniting hatred and mindless shouting .

Edited August 5, 2014 by IbnSohan

[mina]

The wahabi ideology is sponsored by ale saud, but why wants IS now destroy the ka'aba?I guess that ale saud just use wahabism to reach their goals like power and stable petrodollars but are they so stupid not to know that their dogs will bite the helping hand?Or are there saudi rich individuals that sponsor wahabi terrorist?

Sry if it is the wrong thread but i felt that i could get answer here.May Allah t reward u.