Wahhab instigated a movement and created an army, that roamed around Arabia indiscriminately murdering thousands of moslem men, women and children
You have a reference for that? I can't wait to see where you are getting this stuff.
Further Wahhabs legacy has huge influence on the geo-political situation in modern Arabia. Do you dispute that?
Yes agreed he was
influential, but it is a bogus label when you point to Muslims of the area who are practising Islam more carefully because they were influenced by a reformer and call them all Wahhabis. Lots of kids are influenced to play better football by watching Ronaldo, should we call them Ronaldoists or just footballers who were inspired to play better football? Sorry if the analogy seems simple but that's the level of it.
Has he influenced the geo-political situation in modern Arabia? Yes probably because they hold perhaps more strongly to Islam which in the eyes of western powers is an inconvenience. But critically, and the point you seem to be studiously missing, they are not following Wahhabism,
they are following Islam.
The Alistair Cook piece that you refer to is an excellent piece of non-subjective journalism, written by a calm and same man who knows his subject matter. What is your problem with it?
Alistair Cook? World famous author and batsman? It's Crooke but yes you are right i should have spelled out each problem for you:
The American author and journalist, Steven Coll, [Why is he taking his history from this source? Coll is just a journalist not an academic historian of the region, a bit lazy to quote a novel as though it's a textbook. Really it's classic "pal reviewing", in Coll's next book he'll probably cite Crooke's fiction as fact and so on.] has written how this austere and censorious disciple of the 14th century scholar Ibn Taymiyyah, Abd al-Wahhab, despised "the decorous, arty, tobacco smoking, hashish imbibing, drum pounding Egyptian and Ottoman nobility who travelled across Arabia to pray at Mecca." [So the charge against Abdul Wahhab is that he judged using the yardstick of the rules of Islam, that these people were not model Muslims, that we should do better, especially the 'nobility' no less, the leaders of the caliphate turning up in Makkah smoking hash and playing drums. What Muslim wouldn't be offended by that? There is nothing radical about using the Quran to judge between people: "Indeed, We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth so you may judge between the people by that which Allah has shown you. And do not be for the deceitful an advocate." Quran 4:105 Translation of meaning by Sahih International]
In Abd al-Wahhab's view, these were not Muslims; they were imposters masquerading as Muslims. [The suggestion that Abdul Wahhab made takfir on Muslims (declared them non-Muslim) for sins (non-shirk) has been soundly refuted by Muslim historians. Why would this American journalist ignore that in favour of a Washington author, other than it suits his agenda better?] Nor, indeed, did he find the behavior of local Bedouin Arabs much better. They aggravated Abd al-Wahhab by their honoring of saints, [There is no concept of saint-hood in the religion of Islam as revealed so is a clear heresy which any Muslim would be rightly aggravated by] by their erecting of tombstones, and their "superstition" (e.g. revering graves or places that were deemed particularly imbued with the divine). [There is nothing in the creation which has any share of the divinity which belongs only to the one creator. This is a clear fundamental of Islam, to think otherwise is shirk, the most major sin and one that could put a Muslim out of his faith]
All this behavior, Abd al-Wahhab denounced as bida -- forbidden by God. [Naturally this is bidah and shirk and completely forbidden by the creator as made utterly clear in the religion of Islam. Why is this said here in a tone that suggests Abdul Wahhab was something radical to remind people of this? The aim is clearly to state bland facts in such a way as to imply some evil oppression]
Like Taymiyyah before him, Abd al-Wahhab believed that the period of the Prophet Muhammad's stay in Medina was the ideal of Muslim society (the "best of times"), to which all Muslims should aspire to emulate (this, essentially, is Salafism). [No, this essentially is Islam: to follow the teachings in the Quran, the example of the prophet and lessons from the stories surrounding his companions]
His whole piece was just jammed full of ignorance and bias. Sure if you don't like Islam then Abdul Wahhab is a bad guy for you. The western imperialists didn't like him awakening this powerful thing for the people and are still upset about it to this day. Logically I am not going to take my history from the western viewpoint and be misled, and i refuse to have a made up derogatory term hung around my neck. I'm a Muslim, I follow Islam, end of the story.
Some evidenced (by more reliable sources than a 21st Century Washington author) Muslim myth busting on Abdul Wahhab, you claim to be educated so won't find it hard to read this.
Common Myths/lies against Shaikh Abdul Wahhab (RH) and the "Wahhabis"
Myth 1. Calling Muslims kaffir based on ignorance and fighting with themOne more charge on the Shaikh is that he considered all men of the Qibla Kafirs and he regarded it permissible to engage in wars with the Muslims.
Shaikh Abdul Wahhab (RH) said: "And we do not declare them infidels who on account of ignorance and lack of guidance worship those idols which are built on the graves of (Shaikh) Abdul Qadir, Ahmad Badwi, and other elders like them, then how can we call them infidels who are not guilty of committing the sin of polytheism or did not come to us by migration and have not been guilty of committing any kufr."
On the issue of those who have abandoned worship and the issue of grave worshippers:
Ahmad bin Nasir bin Usman Muammari Najdi (disciple of Abdul Wahhab) said before the ulema of the Haram Sharif in 1211: "The Shaikh did takfir of only those idolators who asked for boons from the saints and the virtuous, those who committed shirk and polytheism even after receiving full proof and clarification about the way of God. And moreover they were the first to initiate the war. It was then that the Shaikh battled with them and shed their blood. Under such circumstances the Quran, the sunnah and the ijma are all in his support."
Myth 2: Demolition of the dome of the Prophet's grave by Saud bin Abdul Aziz"The opponents forged one more baseless charge that the Saud bin Abdul Aziz bin Mohammad bin Saud got the Prophet's dome also demolished. This has been supported by the authors Stoddard (Hazir: I, 264) , Hughes (Dictionary of Islam: pg. 660), Zewemer (p. 195), Blunt (Future of Islam, pg. 45) , Margoliouth (Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics: XII, 661). Whatever be his opinion about its construction, he never dared to even look at the Prophet's dome with an evil eye. But the charge about the Prophet's dome is really slander and the story about desecrating the Prophet's dome is entirely baseless and a fabrication."
Myth 3: Shaikh Abdul Wahhab (RH) died as a captive in Istanbul (beheaded I may add).Shaikh Abdul Wahhab actually died in Ziqad in Najd (Arabia) not as a captive after 50 years of preaching and missionary work in 1206 AH (about 1791 C.E.). He was born in 1115 AH (around 1703 C.E) in Oyaina, Najd. The second son of Abdul Wahhab, Abdullah bin Mohammad bin Abdul Wahhab was present when Ibrahim Pasha invaded Dariya, Najd in 1233 AH (around 1817 CE) and he was perhaps captured and sent to Istanbul where he was beheaded/killed.
Myth 4: The Shaikh took part in the capture of Makkah by Saud bin Abdul Aziz and ordered the destruction of the Prophet's tombMohammad bin Saud died in 1179 AH and was succeeded by Abdul Aziz bin Mohammad bin Saud. Abdul Aziz bin Mohammad bin Saud was succeeded by his son Saud bin Abdul Aziz in 1218 AH. Saud bin Abdul Aziz entered Makkah on Sunday, 8 Mohharam, 1218 AH (around 1803 C.E.) with no resistance of the inhabitants. So to say that Shaikh Abdul Wahhab was present during these times is absurd since he died in 1206.
And I have already shown that he did not order the destruction of the Prophet's tomb nor did Saud bin Abdul Aziz bin Mohammad bin Saud get it demolished or order for it.
Myth 5: Saud bin Abdul Aziz ordered the killing of inhabitants in Makkah in 1218 AHSaud gave security to the inhabitants and distributed gifts and charities generously. He however did not kill any of the priests and this is verified by Ibn Bishr [2] (one of the Primary sources I will cite in the references).
Also, Thomas P. Huges wrote in his book "Dictionary of Islam" in 1885 CE: "Due to the sacredness of the Haram, the inhabitants were not harmed in the least.....And after the people of Najd became the rulers the mosques used to be so crowded that such an example of obedience and piety had not been seen in the city of security after the days of the Prophet."
Also Burckhardt who wrote "Notes on the bediouns and the Wahhabys" himself admitted when he entered Makkah: "On entering the holy city, the army did not resort to any undesirable action. The people of Makkah remember the name of Saud with a sense of gratitude.
Myth 6: Shaikh Abdul Wahhab claimed he was a prophet and denied hadithThis one is really stupid and is repeated by Ahmad Zaini Dahlan and Nie Buhr. Abdul Wahhab help the view that at no time anyone got direct revelation from God, and no sacred book has ever come into existence which could be called divine.
As for denial of hadith, his whole life was steeped in the sunnah of the Prophet. The accuser was Ahmad Abdullah Al-haddad ba Alwi.
Hughes says in his book "Dictionary of Islam: "Wahhabism is often called the protestant sect of Islam, althought there is a great difference. Christian Protestantism while accepting the high status of the sacred revealed scriptures considers it necessary to reject the convention teachings. On the contrary, Wahabism gives emphasis on the Hadith as well as on the Quran.
Myth 7: Shaikh Abdul Wahhab propagated the killing of women and children who were innocentAhmad bin Nasir bin Usman Muammari Najdi, the disciple of Shaikh Abdul Wahhab said before the ulema of the Haram Sharif in 1211:
"One of these fabrications is that the Sheikhul Islam sheds blood and plunders goods and has the audacity of killing people and calls all the Muslims of the world kafir..All this is a white lie" [4]
This is supported by the numerous ahadith against the killing of women and children and this was the position of Abdul Wahhab (RH).
Also Abdullah bin Mohammad bin Abdul Wahab said: "And we do not view it permissible to kill women and children."
Myth 8: Shaikh Abdul Wahhab called his movement WahhabisThe extent to which "Wahabism" was sought to be described as a seperate religion and a misguided group shows that this name is highly objectionable. There are sources of this name, but it is not Shaikh Abdul Wahhab.
1. Burckhardt came to Hejaz in 1816 CE and prepared a memorandum in connection with the "Wahhabis". This was later published in two volumes in 1831 as "Notes on the Bediouns and the Wahabys". He has used the term Wahabi repeatedly.
2. Abdur Rahman Jabrati - He also used the term Wahabi frequently around the same time.
The message of Shaikh Abdul Wahhab (RH) is not a new thing. He does not present anything more than the teaching of the Quran and the Sunnah. But the opponents, under political motivations, nicknamed the Shaikh's mission as Wahabism and presented it in such a manner as if the invitation was being extended for a religion other than Islam.
Myth 9: Shaikh Abdul Wahhab was against the Four Imaams and their madhabsShaikh Muhammad bin Abdul-Wahhaab states, "We are followers (muqallidoon) of the Book and the Sunnah and Righteous Salaf of the Ummah, Abu Haneefah an-Nu'maan bin Thaabit, Malik bin Anas, Muhammad bin Idrees ash-Shaafi'ee and Ahmad bin Hanbal, may Allaah have mercy upon them all." ("ar-Rasaa'il ash-Shakhsiyyah", al-Qism al-Khaamis, in his "Mu'allifaat").
And he also said, "As for our madhhab, then it is that of Imaam Ahmad bin Hanbal,the Imaam of Ahl us-Sunnah, and we do not show rejection against the people of the four madhabs when there is no opposition to the Book, the Sunnah and the Ijmaa of the Ummah, and the majority-saying of the Ummah". (Ar-Rasaa'il ash-Shakhsiyyah, p.107).
And he also said: "As regards the peripheral problems we are also on the path of Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal and do not deny the followers of the four imams. Of course, we do not allow taqlid of others in addition to these, for the creeds of others such as rafzis etc. are not clearly systemised. And we are not entitled to claim absolute ijtehad nor does any one of us claim it. But if on some issues we find a test of the Book and the sunnah which is clear and has not been canceled, nor has it been restricted and contradcited by another strong text, and some one from amongst the four imams had adopted it, then we follow it and give up our creed, just as on the question on the bequest of the grandfather and brothers we give priority to the grandfather in opposition to the stand taken by the creed of the Hanbalis." (Al-Hadiatus Saniah, pg. 99)
And there is the testimony of Muhammad Rasheed Ridhaa, "And they - meaning the followers of Shaikh Muhammad bin Abdul-Wahhab - in the Usool (foundations) are upon the madhhab of the Salaf us-Saalih, and in the branches (fiqh) they are upon the madhhab of Imaam Ahmad bin Hanbal, and they respect the four madhhabs and they do not differentiate between any of their followers, and what Ibn 'Aabideen stated and those who followed what he said, in affirmation of the lies of Shaikh Ahmad ad-Dahlaan and his fabrications, despite the fact there is nothing of the sort in the books of the Shaikh or in the books of his offspring, all of which are present, in our hands. And we used to believe in these rumours which were spread by the Turkish politic concerning them, believing in Ibn Aabideen and his likes, and yet their books, and the books of their helpers have been published in this time of ours. Hence, there is no excuse for anyone in believing what the worthless ones, the innovators, and the people of desires amongst them have claimed. And I mentioned these rumours once in the gathering of the great ustaadh (teacher), Shaikh Abu Fadl al-Jeezaawee, the Shaikh of al-Azhar in the Faculty of Religion, and I brought a copy of the book "al-Hadiyah as-Sunniyyah" to him. So the great shaikh checked through it, him and a group from the most famous of the scholars of al-Azhar, and they acknowledged that whatever is found therein is the very madhhab of the majority of Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah". (Siyaanat ul-Insaan 'An Waswasah ash-Shaikh Dahlaan, p.510-511, in the footnote).
On peripheral problems of fiqh he acted on the creed of the Imam Ahle Sunna - Immam Ahmad bin Hambal, but if a hadith was available to him contrary to the creed of the Hambalis then no power on Earth could prevent him from acting according to that Hadith.
In most cases the Sheikh argues from the position of Imam Ibn Taimiya and Imam ibn Qaiyim, but he did not put the strap of their taqlid round his neck. Ibn Taiymiya and Ibn Qaiyim are his leaders only as long as according to him they do not deviate from the Quran and Sunnah.
Myth 10: Shaikh Abdul Wahhab made takfeer of those who made tawassul by the righteousTaken from Sayyid Muhammad bin 'Alawi al-Maliki's excellent book "Mafahim Yajib An Tusahhah (Notions that Must be Corrected)", pg. 141:
Shaykh Muhammad bin 'Abd al-Wahhab said: "Sulayman bin Sahim has fabricated on me statements which I never said, nor have they ever came to my mind. and from amongst it: that I do takfir of those who perform Tawassul by the righteous, and that I do takfir of [al-Imam] al-Busayri because he said: "O most gracious of the creation", and that I burn Dala'il al-Khayrat.
"And my reply to this issue: Glory be to Allah! This is awful slander!"
["Rasa'il al-Shaykh Muhammad bin 'Abd al-Wahhab", the eleventh epistle, pg. 64.]
On the preceding page, he expresses his opinion on Tawassul by saying: "The correct position according to us is the statement of the majority, that is it is makruh. Therefore, we do not detest those who perform it, and there is no detestation with regards to the issues of ijtihad. However, we do detest those who invoke the created objects in a much more serious manner than he who calls upon Allah but really intends by that the grave [of a righteous person], praying near the shrine of Shaykh 'Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani or his likes and requests therein protection from sorrow and assistance in ones yearnings and the giving of sustenances. So where is [the seriousness of] this act in comparison to he who calls upon Allah, bearing their religion to Him in sincerity, not calling upon anyone save Allah, but he says in his Du'a: I ask you by your Prophet or by the Messengers or by your righteous slaves, or he goes to a known grave [of a saint] and prays therein, but does not call upon anyone save Allah, bearing their religion to Him in sincerity..."
[Fatawa al-Shaykh Muhammad bin 'Abd al-Wahhab, the third section pg. 68, printed by The University of Muhammad bin Sa'ud during Shaykh Muhammad bin 'Abd al-Wahhab week]
Sources (All Primary Sources except for last one):
1. Rauzatul Afkar Wal Afham le-Murllude Halelemam wa Ghazwate Zawil Islam by Husain bin Ghannam Ahsai (d. 1225 AH)
2. Unwanul Majd fi Tarikhe Najd by Usman bin Bishr Najdi (d. 1288)
3. Kashfush Shubahat & Ulamaa’ al-Najd Khilaal Sittat Quroon by Abdullah bin Mohammad bin Abdul Wahab (d. 1233) - Son of Abdul Wahhab (RH)
4. Alfawakehul Aezab fir-radde Ala mallam Yohakkim AsSunnata Wal Kitab (p. 55-90) by Sheikh Ahmad bin Nasir bin Usman al-Muammari An-Najdi (d. 1225)
5. Mohammad bin Abdul Wahab by Masood Alam Nadwi
And just a polite tip for you. Your technique of insulting me in the hope that you can discredit me with no evidence for what you say just makes you look childish. Sticking to the discussion is probably the better way to go if you can.
reply
share
dickievale
9 years ago
And a polite reply for you: I haven't insulted you, I said that I think that you are ignorant. That's an observation not an insult unless you take it as one because you are over sensitive.
There is no point in this discussion if you are going to tell me that your literary sources are kosher and mine aren't. Seriously - What's the point? You talk of evidence. Where is yours? And you have selectively ignored the parts of my posts that you have no response to.
Some of what you write is the Muslim equivalent of a Christian JW, you are talking like your book is a set of instructions for an assembly kit. I have no response to that, I cannot begin to get inside the head of an adult human being with a need to think such things. You may as well have landed from Mars.
reply
share
ThomsonAAA
9 years ago
You called me insane twice. I wonder who i am talking to when you can't see that's an insult and a bogus attempt to discredit me.
Anyway this is more interesting:
Some of what you write is the Muslim equivalent of a Christian JW, you are talking like your book is a set of instructions for an assembly kit. I have no response to that, I cannot begin to get inside the head of an adult human being with a need to think such things. You may as well have landed from Mars.
It really could be the crux of the matter. Christian scripture is very open to interpretation on how to lead your life day to day and even how to worship so if someone takes the hard view then it is probably reasonable to call them hardliners, because it's their choice to make.
A Christian who has not read the Quran and Hadeeth most likely assumes Islam is equally open to interpretation so again someone who looks to be taking the equivalent of a hard firm way (in their opinion) will look like a stubborn hardliner. While someone doing mostly what he pleases will look more like a reasonable sort of guy, the type we might prefer, someone you can talk to about things and who is flexible.
The thing is the one who is firm on it is following instructions that are clear and written down with the clarity of instructions for an assembly kit as you say, more clear in fact than most assembly instructions.
"This is the Book; in it is guidance sure, without doubt, to those who fear Allah;" (Quran 2:2 Translation of meaning by Yusuf Ali
Especially on matters of worship there is no room for doubt which is why you can go to any mosque in the world and find the same thing happening at the same times. So it is very clear when someone goes against this and it is not unreasonable to call something "wrong" when it goes against black and white instructions.
If you have some flat-pack furniture and it says on your instructions "Use a tool to attach part X to part Y." You might use a spanner or you might use some pliers and no one could say which of them were right or wrong. If it says in black and white "Use a spanner to attach part X to part Y" then it would be entirely reasonable for someone to say that using pliers is wrong.
Abdul Wahhab was no hardliner to consider people worshipping at graves of "saints" as being outside Islam because it is crystal clear in the religion that worshipping other than Allah is not Islam.
This issue of Muslims having clear instructions in the religion for day to day matters (the bits of the day other than worship) has been and always will be an issue for non-Muslims trying to change Muslim ways. This from the British Raj in India 1876:
From some reason they [Muslims] hold aloof from our system, and the changes in which the more flexible Hindus have cheerfully acquiesced, are regarded by them as deep personal wrongs. https://archive.org/details/indianmusalmans02huntgoog
What this author failed to realise is that they regarded the suggested changes as "deep personal wrongs" because essentially they were asking them to abandon parts of their religion. If the Hindus have no clear instruction on it then sure why not change to the British way.
It's not that we necessarily despise different ways or are needlessly stubborn, its just that we have already been given clear instructions from a higher authority than a temporarily elected government of fallible men and women or the whim of the people.
Try not to have a panic attack about that though. The best way i can think to equate fully practising Muslims is if you consider them like Christian monks and nuns. They try to live their life primarily in devotion to god, the main difference is we are instructed to work for a living while we do it. They even dress the same as practising Muslims so it should be easy to see the similarities. The ones to worry about are the deviants like ISIS who twist the religion. Conflating them with what you call wahhabis/salafis which in fact smears "any practising Muslim" is very unhelpful and these days potentially deadly with Islamophobic attacks on the rise.
reply
share