Wahhabism

[Darqawi]

Wahhabism

 

By Sidi Abdassamad Clarke

 

To see things clearly, with focus and in perspective one needs two eyes. Then things appear in three dimensions. We have been looking at the matter of terrorism with one eye. That is why our actions are ineffective. The first eye must look on the history of Islam, and in this case the history of wahhabism. The second eye must look on something in Europe, because we have been here before. In the nineteenth century and early twentieth we had an almost identical phenomenon. That was clearly identified by European intellectuals, Dostoyevsky and others, as nihilism, but the nihilism of the parents' generation acted out by the young people who in effect say to them, "If you don't believe in anything, why not?"

 

First, before we approach the story of wahhabism, we must locate it within Islam itself. As it has reached us, Islam comprises three distinct dimensions.

 

First, outward practice such as both the acts of worship and ordinary transactions, i.e. law, covering all aspects, commercial, civil and criminal, etc. This is the Shari’ah which has been transmitted by the four accepted legal schools.

 

Second, a rational science which encompasses what is necessarily true about the Divine, what is inconceivable for Him and what conceivable, and similarly for the prophets, the angels, etc. This is transmitted by two acceptable schools.

 

Third, the spiritual path which is generally known as Sufism, which is transmitted by a number of different tariqas. All three of these dimensions with their different schools were universally agreed upon. All of this exists under the umbrella of governance by a known contract. That contract has clauses for muslim subjects and non-muslim subjects. All of this is sustained by a very necessary scholarship involving deep knowledge of Arabic, Qur’anic commentary and exposition of legal cases.

 

Wahhabism was originally an eighteenth century movement among desert Arabs who rose in insurrection against the Ottomans. Their teaching was characterised by being:

 

simplistic and literalist, i.e. it rejected all the above three dimensions and their schools in favour of directly deriving theology and law from a literalist understanding of the Qur’an and books of traditions,

 

insurrectionary; they overthrew legitimate governance and began an insurgency movement against the Ottomans who were forced to stamp them out,

 

fanatical; I use this word advisedly, but intend by it their declaration of Muslims who disagreed with them beyond the pale of Islam. In our time, this is evidenced by the fact that huge numbers of the victims of suicide bombers are Muslims.

 

The first phase of wahhabism ended with their containment as a movement to the eastern area of the Najd.

 

We pick up the thread again, when in the early twentieth century, an inheritor of the ruling wahhabi clan, ‘Abd al-Aziz ibn Sa’ud, a remarkably talented and adventurous man, embarked on the exploit of restoring his family’s fortunes. Along the way to that he met the remnants of the wahhabi sect, and saw the advantage their steely ruthless fanaticism gave him in his fight. He set in process the conversion of the desert tribes to their creed. None of that might have made any enduring impact on history if it had not happened when it did, when the eyes of European foreign policy makers were glued on the fortunes of the Ottomans. I pass no judgement on this, but simply want to tell it as factually as possible.

 

Thus, Ibn Sa’ud, who was a wily and worldly-aware man, understood what none of his rather simple followers did, that on the international stage he would have to be under the patronage of one of the great world powers. It was initially the British. They fostered him. Although undecided for some period between him and Sharif Hussain of Mecca, in the end his undoubted intrepidness won the day and he became the undisputed ruler of the Arabian peninsula. Saudi oil came to prominence. British influence wained. The patronage of the now Saudi Arabia passed to the USA, at the time of Roosevelt who personally met Ibn Sa’ud. Built into the new state, however, was Ibn Sa’ud’s courtship of the wahhabis and the manner in which he transformed the desert Arabs into wahhabis and then used them as the force to underpin his kingdom, as he and his family and their doctrine were not widely liked in Arabia.

 

Given the centrality to Muslims of Mecca and Medina, and the astonishing oil wealth after the price hikes of the seventies, Muslims from all over the world went to Saudi Arabia to find donations for all the worthy projects they had, most importantly the building of mosques. The donations they received had an implicit price: sing the wahhabi tune in your countries and in your mosques, which many did. The great majority of British mosques, however, are from small Pakistani communities often hostile to wahhabism and funding their mosques from their own hard-earned cash.

 

The second matter that affected us here in Britain were the graduates of Medina university who returned as propagandists for wahhabism.

 

The result was that both a strong and a dilute form of wahhabism spread, based on a primitive fundamentalist idea, in a christian sense, that anyone could take the divinely revealed book and make judgements from it and from traditions by reading them literally, although now with non-Arabs this interpretation was dependent on translations, which were often atrociously bad.

 

Within this new form, the dissatisfactions of some of the youth were vented by their fighting in Afghanistan, and later Chechnya and Bosnia, or by their going to Medina to get a programming in a more erudite kind of wahhabism.

 

The Afghanistan fighting entered into the arena of modern geopolitics. The Mujahidun leaders went to Washington and then the CIA reciprocated and trained fighters, like Bin Laden, who would later turn out to be the core of the new threat. It did not stop in Afghanistan. There was Chechnya, another land on the frontier between different geo-political interests. When the Bosnian crisis erupted, brigades of these young fighters were recruited by the Americans for Bosnia, thus cementing their sense of identity as an international movement.

 

When the geopolitical winds changed, they of course, found themselves on the outside. In many cases they either went on as lone volunteers to new conflicts or returned disgruntled to their own countries or to other lands.

 

An international culture had been created, whose fruits we see today. However, that movement ought better to be seen as an expression of the natural idealism of young people and their frustration with the political processes of the age. Every society and every generation is confronted with that, and it is a measure of the wisdom of a society how it deals with it.

 

To return to our other theme.

 

In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries young Europeans tied dynamite to themselves and blew themselves up in crowded public places. Our greatest intellectuals looked closely at this phenomenon, and diagnosed it clearly as nihilism. They saw nihilism as the result of a high idealism, so high as to be unattainable. The idealist despises other people for not having and striving for ideals, and in the end comes to despise himself for not attaining his own. Thus, the suicide bomber can blow up men, women and children, and he can also blow himself up. Wahhabi idealism is marked theologically by the elevation of God literally high above the seven heavens, a creed which, if believed literally and physically, removes them from the community of Islam.

 

However, it is important for us to recognise that this phenomenon is as much and perhaps more a product of our late capitalist society as it is of a particular sect. Understood within the context of societal breakdown in terms of our mounting criminal statistics – wife-beatings, rapes, murders, child abuse and more – then it is a part of a complete symptom picture of the nihilism of our age.

 

As a sect it has to be seen that a rather weak signal from an extremely peripheral movement was greatly amplified first by oil wealth, and then later by its usefulness to geo-political considerations of other powers. Otherwise, we might have seen it die away of its own accord long ago. This strange seed found some soil in which to sprout in our society.

 

Thus seen, it is for the Muslims to deal with by restoring that picture of Islam which I outlined at the beginning. That deprives this sect of its oxygen. The process is both a restoration of Islamic learning and of Islamic social mores and key aspects of shari'ah such as zakat, the charitable tax.

 

Undoubtedly police activities to find and prevent terrorist activities must proceed. These people are merely criminals and Muslims must help the authorities to detain them and prevent them. In that the terrorist is no different from a murderer, rapist or robber.

 

But possibly the gravest danger of the terrorist threat is that it distract us from the genuinely deep crisis of the chronic nihilism of modern society, which extends a great deal further than the activities of a few madmen. It is the nihilism of our age at all levels of our society that is the matter facing us, and it has disturbing consequences. In that we rely on Dostoyevsky's key insight: that the destructiveness of the anarchists of his time was their expression of the nihilism of the previous generation. In that, the suicide bomber is also a symptom of a deeper malaise of British society. In these circumstances, perhaps the Muslim community might render a deeper service to Britain, and certainly stand ready to do so.

[Blessed]

Assalamu Alaikum,

 

SubxanAllah, walaal ‘wahhabism’ doesn't exist. This article doesn't make sense and is full of misconceptions (which were ironically started by the British). Who is it directed at?

 

I think you should read this:

 

The movement of Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab

 

Correcting some mistaken notions about the movement of Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab in some non-Arabic sources

 

The movement of Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab (1115-1206 AH/ 1730-1793 CE) in the Arabian Peninsula was destined to abide and be well-accepted. It was the starting-point of a rightly-guided government which took it upon itself to apply the Islamic sharee’ah in totality and to seek the guidance of the Qur’aan and Sunnah in all its dealings, so Allaah granted it support and victory. From its first founding two centuries ago this government continued to remain strong in the face of opposing trends at both the sectarian and political levels. The call of the Shaykh went beyond the borders of the Arabian Peninsula and bore fruit in a number of Muslim lands, at the hands of rightly-guided callers and sincere shaykhs who were guided by its light. The movement was blessed, like a good tree whose roods are firm and whose branches reach the sky. Like any other reform movement, the shaykh’s movement was not spared attacks made against the personality, ‘aqeedah (beliefs) and books of the founder of this movement, starting with the label of “Wahhabism†– which soon became known far and wide and became a label by which the movement was known, even though it was not acceptable to its founder and followers – and ending with attacks against the state itself, with criticism which indicates hatred and the wish for evil on the part of the critics.

 

The number of books produced by the lovers of bid’ah and myths increased, and were confronted by scholars in all Muslim lands who refuted every lie with definitive proof and clear evidence so that the doubts of the stubborn became like dust in the air (were reduced to naught).

 

Because most of these books – for or against the movement – were written in Arabic, there is no need to quote them here. The author of this article is interested in looking at what has been written in English or Urdu, in order to quote relevant material whilst refuting all the doubts that are mentioned therein, in the light of what has been written by Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab himself or by shaykhs in the Kingdom [saudi Arabia] and people of virtue and knowledge in other Muslim lands who wrote in his defence.

 

It is not possible in this short article to discuss the topic from all aspects. I hope that readers will accept my apologies if they find any unintentional mistakes in this effort, and that they will pray for me to be granted strength and steadfastness if they gain any benefits from reading it. And Allaah is the Guide to the Straight Path.

 

Firstly: what was written in the Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, which is counted as one of the oldest and most comprehensive encyclopaedias of religion and sects in the English language, under the heading of “Wahhabismâ€: that their differences with Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah (the Sunnis) are limited to ten things. The author of this article was the famous Orientals Margoliouth, who said:

 

1- They affirm that Allaah has physical attributes, such as His Face, two Hands, etc.

 

2- Reason plays no role in religious matters, which must be resolved in the light of the ahaadeeth.

 

3- They do not accept ijmaa’ (scholarly consensus).

 

4- They reject qiyaas (analogy).

 

5- They believe that the opinions of the madhhabs are not evidence, and that those who follow them are not Muslims.

 

6- They think that everyone who does not join their group is a kaafir.

 

7- They think that it is not permissible to seek the intercession of the Prophet or of a wali (“saintâ€).

 

8- Visiting tombs and shrines is haraam in their view.

 

9- Swearing by anything other than Allaah is haraam.

 

10-Making vows to anything other than Allaah and offering sacrifices to the awliyaa’ (“saintsâ€) at their tombs is haraam.

 

He was not sure about attributing the fifth point to them, because the Wahhabis are followers of Imaam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, one of the four Imaams. At the end of his article he mentions that al-Sayyid Ahmad ibn ‘Irfaan al-Shaheed (d. 1831 CE) brought the idea of Wahhabism back [to India] when he went to Hajj in 1824 CE and brought it from Makkah al-Mukarramah. (James Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, ed. by Hastings, Edinburgh, 12:660-661)

 

Margoliouth, the author of this article, is held in high esteem by the orientalists. It is very strange indeed that he lists the views of the opponents of Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab (may Allaah have mercy on him) and of the Wahhabis in general, but he does not find any of them to be false apart from the fifth point!

 

Let us look at these doubts one by one and comment briefly on each of them.

 

1 – The belief of Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab (may Allaah have mercy on him) concerning the Attributes of Allaah is like the belief of the salaf in all respects. They affirmed that Allaah had all the attributes with which He described Himself, whether they were attributes which referred to His Essence, such as His Face, Hand or Eye, or attributes which referred to His actions, such as His pleasure, anger, coming down [to the first heaven] or rising above [the Throne], without asking how, denying any attributes or likening them to human attributes. Their evidence with regard to this matter was the aayah (interpretation of the meaning):

 

“There is nothing like Him, and He is the All‑Hearer, the All‑Seerâ€

 

[al-Shoora 42:11]

 

Their view concerning the attributes of Allaah is like their view concerning the Essence of Allaah, which does not resemble the essence of His created beings.

 

2 – Their notion that the followers of Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab lend no weight to reason is not correct. They say that reason should operate in the light of the Revelation, just as the eye needs light to work; for the eye cannot do its job unless there is also light from outside, whether it is the light of the sun, moon or stars, or artificial light. Similarly, reason needs and depends upon the light of Divine Revelation; if Revelation is not there, then it becomes confused in the darkness. For this reason, the mind of the thinker is different from the mind of the philosopher, and the mind of the historian is different from the mind of the mathematician.

 

3 – Attributing rejection of ijmaa’ (scholarly consensus) to them is not correct either. Imaam Ahmad considered the ijmaa’ of the Sahaabah to be true ijmaa’, because their time is known from beginning to end; they witnessed the Revelation and learned the guidance of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) directly from him.

 

As Imaam Muhammad Abu Zahrah mentioned, ijmaa’ is of two types: consensus on the basic obligatory duties, which is accepted by all, and consensus on other rulings, such as their consensus that apostates should be fought, etc. In the second case, there are different reports narrated from Ahmad, hence some of the scholars narrated that he said, “Whoever claims that there is consensus is a liar.â€

 

Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: The one who claims that there is consensus is lying, and it is not right to give ijmaa’ priority over proven hadeeth. ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Ahmad ibn Hanbal said: I heard my father say: “Whoever claims that there is consensus is a liar. The people may have differed. How does he know that there was no one who expressed an opposing view? Let him say, we do not know of any opposing view.†From this we may conclude that Imaam Ahmad did not deny the principle of ijmaa’, but he denied the certainty of ijmaa’ taking place after the time of the Sahaabah. (Taareekh al-Madhaahib al-Islamiyyah by Muhammad Abu Zahrah, p. 532)

 

4 – His comment that they reject qiyaas (analogy) is also not correct. Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab (may Allaah have mercy on him) held the same view as the Hanbalis with regard to qiyaas.

 

Abu Zahrah said: “It was narrated that Ahmad said that we cannot do without qiyaas, and that the Sahaabah used it. Because Ahmad had stated the principle of accepting qiyaas, the Hanbalis paid a great deal of attention to it and used it a great deal whenever they came across issues concerning which there was no report narrated of any ruling from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) or his Companions.†(Taareekh al-Madhaahib al-Islamiyyah by Muhammad Abu Zahrah, p. 532)

 

5 – With regard to his notion that the opinions of the madhhabs are not evidence and that those who follow them are not Muslims …

 

6 – … and his view that those who do not join them (the Wahhabis) are kaafirs. This is also an obvious lie. Shaykh ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab said, in a letter that he wrote when he joined al-Ameer Sa’ood ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azeez, when he took over Makkah on Saturday 8 Muharram 1218 AH: “Our madhhab with regard to the basic principles of religion is the madhhab of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah. Our way is the way of the salaf, and with regard to minor issues our madhhab is that of Imaam Ahmad ibn Hanbal. We do not denounce those who follow any of the four imaams in exclusion to others, because the madhhabs of the others have not been codified.â€

 

Then he said: “Lies are told about us to conceal the truth and confuse the people, so that they will think that we want to undermine the status of our Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and (that we say) that he has no power of intercession and that it is not recommended to visit him (his grave), and that we do not lend any weight to the views of the scholars, and that we denounce all people as kaafirs in, and that we forbid sending blessings on the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and that we do not respect the rights of Ahl al-Bayt (the members of the Prophet’s houshold). Our response to all of that is: Glory be to You, this is a grave lie! Whoever attributes anything of this sort to us is telling lies and uttering fabrications against us.â€

 

(‘Ulamaa’ al-Najd Khilaal Sittat Quroon by ‘Abd-Allaah ibn ‘Abd al-Rahmaan ibn Saalih al-Bassaam, 1/51)

 

7 – His comment that they believe it is not permitted to seek the intercession of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) or of a wali (“saintâ€) shows that he did not know the difference between the kind of intercession which the Shaykh rejected, which contains elements of shirk, and that which he acknowledged, which is the kind of intercession which will only happen with permission from Allaah on the Day of Resurrection, where no intercession will be accepted except intercession made for those with whom He is pleased. (Kitaab al-Tawheed by Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab, Baab al-Shafaa’ah).

 

If what the critic meant was tawassul (seeking to draw closer to Allaah) by means of the Prophets and awliyaa’, the fact is that many people are unaware of the view of Imaam Ahmad ibn Hanbal on this matter, and they attribute to him and to Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab things that they did not say.

 

Imaam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: “There was narrated from Ahmad ibn Hanbal in Mansik al-Marwadhi a report which indicated tawassul by means of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) in his du’aa’, but other scholars forbade that. If what is meant is tawassul (drawing close to Allaah) by believing in him, loving him, being loyal to him and obeying him, then there is no dispute between the two sides on this point. But if what is meant is tawassul by means of the person of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), then there is a dispute here, and what they dispute about should be referred to Allaah and His Messenger.†(Majmoo’ Fataawa Shaykh al-Islam, 1/264)

 

8 – With regard to visiting tombs and shrines, we will discuss this matter below when we comment on the writings of Goldziher.

 

9 – With regard to their saying that swearing by anything other than Allaah is haraam, the Shaykh also believes that, as stated in the saheeh hadeeth narrated by ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab, according to which the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Whoever swears by anything other than Allaah has committed an act of kufr or shirk.†(Narrated and classed as hasan by al-Tirmidhi; classed as saheeh by al-Haakim). Ibn Mas’ood said: “Swearing falsely by Allaah is more liked by me than swearing sincerely by anything other than Allaah.†(Kitaab al-Tawheed, Baab Qawl Allaah ta’aal ‘Fa laa taj’alu Lillaahi andaadan wa antum ta’lamoon’)

 

10 – They attribute to the Shaykh the view that it is haraam to make vows to anyone other than Allaah or to offer sacrifices to the awliyaa’ (“saints) at their tombs. Undoubtedly this view is the religion of Allaah which is followed by every Muslim who believes in Allaah and His Messenger. Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab (may Allaah have mercy on him) included in his great book Kitaab al-Tawheed a chapter entitled Laa yudhbah Lillaahi fi makaan yudhbaah li ghayr Allaah (Sacrifices should not be offered to Allaah in places where sacrifices are offered to anyone other than Allaah). The following chapter is entitled, Min al-Shirk al-nadhr li ghayr Allaah (It is shirk to make vows to anyone other than Allaah). In these two chapters he quotes the evidence from the Qur’aan and Sunnah to prove that these two actions are invalid.

 

This book was published in two volumes, in German, in 1889/1890 CE, then it was translated into Arabic in 1967 CE. The author wrote an entire chapter, 96 pages long, entitled “Veneration of the ‘saints’ in Islamâ€, in which he discussed in detail the extremes to which the Muslims had gone in attributing miracles to the ‘saints’, both living and dead. He also quoted examples, from Islamic books and the actions of the masses, of the veneration of tombs and shrines, intending to show that there was no difference between Muslims and Christians in the matter of venerating saints. He also quoted ayaat and ahaadeeth which denounced and opposed this action.

 

The author said: after this, there is no need to provide further proof that there is no room in the true Islamic religion for venerating ‘saints’, because this is a matter which was innovated and introduced later on. The Qur’aan denounces the veneration of saints and glorifying them to the extent of believing in rabbis and monks as lords besides Allaah.

 

Then he quotes the comment of Carl Heis about the idea of awliyaa’ being an attempt to fulfil the need for shirk within the religion of Tawheed, in order to fill the huge gap between the people and their God. (Ignaz Goldziher, Muslim Studies, p. 259)

 

After giving dozens of examples of how the masses venerated the saints and visited their tombs and shrines in order to fulfil their needs, the author lists examples of people who denounced any manifestation of shirk in the Muslims’ actions. Then he mentions the strict stance which Ibn Taymiyah took concerning the matter of tawassul and journeying to visit any mosques apart from the three mosques [in Makkah, Madeenah and al-Quds].

 

Then he said: “All of this indicates that there were precedents to the Wahhabis with regard to this issue, and that the open demonstration of their belief was in fact an echo of the beliefs of Muslims in the past. In this regard it may be useful – in order to write the cultural and religious history of Islam – to compile a list of all phenomena and events which had come down from the times of Jaahiliyyah or had come in from the outside prior to the emergence of Wahhabism, which is considered to be a Tawheedi reaction against the manifestations of idolatry, and connect them to the societies in which they emerged.â€

 

Then he mentioned an incident which occurred in 1711 CE, before the emergence of Wahhabism, in the Mosque of al-Mu’ayyad in Cairo, where a young man stood up one night in Ramadaan and fiercely denounced those who venerated the saints and called for the destruction of the shrines which were build over the graves of the awliyaa’ and for an end to the Mevlevi and Bakhsiyyah traditions. He also called upon the dervishes to learn instead of dancing. This young man made this call for a number of nights, then he disappeared. The author of this report, the poet Hasan al-Hijaazi (d. 1131 AH) said: “The preacher fled, or it was said that he was killed.â€

 

(Ignaz Goldziher, Muslim Studies, p. 334-335)

 

The point is that this German orientalist has saved us the job of refuring the accusations made against the Wahhabis that they destroyed the domes on the shrines and stopped people from visiting graves to call upon the dead for help. Islam as brought by Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) does not allow either of these things.

 

Al-Da’wah magazine, issue #1754, pp. 60-61

 

Source

[Darqawi]

Oh, please, give me a break. I was going to post a massive article, but I am sure you can get them from Google.

 

But anyhow, alhamdulliah, things are changing. Wahhabism thrived and survived only by the sustanence they received from saudi petro-dollar industry and by the back-up of the royal saudi family.

 

Things are changing. The current kind, he is pro traditional Islam and so far from the interviews and the comments he has made, it is very clear that he is not fond of wahhabism. MashAllah.

 

And given the terror the wahhabies have caused among the Muslims and non-Muslims, people are becoming more and more careful and various governments are preventing the money supply to sustain wahhabi activities, so money is drying out as well.

 

Another 10-20 years and wahhabism will be a thing of the past, inshAllah,

[xiinfaniin]

^^^Sounds like you refused to collect the wisdom that our good Blessed sprinkled.

 

Replace this Wahabism word that you’re so fond of with Islam…and you might realize how bad utter generalization really gets. It’s all in your mind saaxiib. Study good sheikh’s history first before you begin throwing Google articles at us.

[Darqawi]

Nah, it's okay. I am in no need to study or even learn anything from Abdal Wahhab, of Najd.

 

Islamic history have produced many many tremendous scholars who have not left any rocks uncovered. They have spoken about Tawhid, shikr, kufr, bidah and you name the rest. And those scholars were brilliant and they did not first call the Muslims kaffir and then killed them.

 

But the people of Abdal Wahhab of Najd, they massed killed Muslims after Muslims cause they claimed that those Muslims were kaffir. They killed so many Hajjis who came to perform Hajj.

 

So give me a break. Enough damage has been done by this obscure tribal ideology that had originated from Najd. As I said, the high-time of wahhabism is over. The beast is on its death bed, about to die.

[Darqawi]

I must also mention the blessed land of Sudan. It was the home of traditional Islam. It had brilliant minds and scholars. It had a glorious traditional past.

 

But recently, with the petro-dollar pumping, the wahhabies have done much propagation and have been sadly successful to an extend in getting the people into wahhabism. But still, there is hope. There is always hope. There are still people of real Islamic knowledge and understanding and it is only a matter of time that they revive - as the petro-pumping dollars from saudi arabia continues to dry out.

[xiinfaniin]

^^carry on then, I say.

[Honesita]

Salaamu Aleeykum

...Ù‚Ùلْ هَاتÙواْ بÙرْهَانَكÙمْ Ø¥ÙÙ† ÙƒÙنتÙمْ صَادÙÙ‚Ùين

 

 

...Say (O Muhammad Peace be upon him ), "Produce your proof if you are truthful." (Al-Baqarah 2:111)

 

It is so sad that some of us take what the others say (Muslims and non-Muslims) and not do any objective research on their own, say things that they have no knowledge, and on top of that be content and arrogant...!!

 

May Allah guide us....but brother Darqaqi......please and please, what is your evidence that Shaikh Muhammad Abdul-Wahab (may Allah have mercy on his soul and admit him into Paradise and make all the knowledge he left behind a sadaqa jariya for him) was a Takfiri (i.e. called other Muslims non-Muslim)?? Provide something from his own books and teachings, or those he taught where he calls a Muslim a Kafir...!! I will send you $250 by Western Union walaahi if you show me that....!!

 

If you dont have that evidence, and you wont have it, then fear Allah and dont propagate lies about a Muslim scholar...!!

 

Fii Amaani'Laah

[Cumar]

As-salaam Alaikuum

 

The only people who hold contempt against the Mujaddid Imaam Wahhab (may Allaah have mercy on him) are the kafiroon, the extreme soofees, the raafidis, the zindeeqs and those who are ignorant and accept every statement that he hears without verifying.

 

If Allaah (Exalted is He) did not sent Imaam Wahhab to revive Islaam, then surely the extremists would continue with their extreme taqleed by creating diversion.

 

Remember that before Ibn Saoud (may Allaah have mercy on him) conquered Makkah, there were different prayer niches for places where more than one maddhab existed. Ibn Saoud abolished this division and united the Muslims under one Imaam.

 

 

Abdassamad Clarke writes:

 

simplistic and literalist, i.e. it rejected all the above three dimensions and their schools in favour of directly deriving theology and law from a literalist understanding of the Qur’an and books of traditions,

This is an blatant lie and has been addressed in the article posted by brother Blessed (Jazaka'Allaahu kharun). It is stated:

 

 

Shaykh ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab said, in a letter that he wrote when he joined al-Ameer Sa’ood ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azeez, when he took over Makkah on Saturday 8 Muharram 1218 AH: “Our madhhab with regard to the basic principles of religion is the madhhab of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah. Our way is the way of the salaf, and with regard to minor issues our madhhab is that of Imaam Ahmad ibn Hanbal. We do not denounce those who follow any of the four imaams in exclusion to others, because the madhhabs of the others have not been codified.â€

 

This is a sample of all the lies riddled in the article of Abdassamad Clarke.

 

Brother Darqawi, I humbly advise you to read the works of this Imaam and do not rely on the works of his enemies who distort and obscure the truth about him.

 

Wasalaam Alaikuum

[Rahima]

Who left the door open again?

[Blessed]

^Jariyadii jacaylku helay, inay shaqeysaba wey diidey

 

Darqawi

 

 

If you don't want touch his books, why don't you refrain from eating his flesh? Ilahay ka baq; it’s xaraam to spread malicious gossip about people and scandalous when that person is a dead scholar.

 

Anyways, you’re making a lot of baseless accusations in your posts, why not add some spice / spine to the discussion and hit us with evidence and stop talking in riddles.

 

Pray and tell, who exactly is they, what Muslims did they kill, where is your evidence and how does that all relate back to the teachings of Muhammad bin AbdalWahaab?

 

 

 

P.s the article I CP'ed addressed the misconceptions in your CP’ed article and all the other misconceptions google will spit back at ya. Book mark it.

[Rahima]

^Jariyadii jacaylku helay, inay shaqeysaba wey diidey

I swear it blessed, I’m sick of it. I put the filter on the door and try so hard (really i do ), yet they seem to be getting through at every turn :confused: .

 

I’m thinking of blaming Nur , his welcome all attitude is causing a headache for us all.

 

And jacayl is a travesty my dear :rolleyes: .

 

Hows the little one doing? Keeping you awake i hope

[Jacpher]

Ladies, why not teach the dude instead of closing the door on him? He might have receptive ears to a Mowcidah Xassanah with Xikmah.

 

Darqawi, looks like you're describing Darqawism, not Mohamed Ibn Cabdilwahaab.

 

How is the Darqawism/Farkhanism movement going??

[Rahima]

Nah, it's okay. I am in no need to study or even learn anything from Abdal Wahhab, of Najd.

Seems clear enough for me I must say.

 

Perhaps its a job for you or Nur

[Sharmarkee]

Salaam,

 

Jazaallahu Khaira Imam Mohamed bin Abdulwahab, for his revival of Tawxiid and tasxiix al caqiidaha, but sadly the present House of SAud has nothing but literally kissing the american asses. :eek:

 

They will be the first port of call for destrtuction of Iran when their money and ports needed by the American demolition forces.