Muhammad ibn `Abdul Wahhab

[faqir]

"Some of the people whom I met have related from some of the people of knowledge narrations from the contemporaries of Shaykh ‘Abdul Wahhāb that describe his anger with his son Muhammad. This is because he had not agreed to study the religious knowledge of his ancestors and the people of his area. His father had a presentiment that something would happen because of him, and so he frequently said to the people, "How much evil you are going to see from Muhammad." Subsequently, what Allāh destined to happen came to pass."

Muhammad Ibn `Abdul Wahhāb (http://www.************/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=83&Itemid=46)
By al-Imām al-`Allāmah Shaykh Muhammad Ibn `Abdullāh Ibn Humayd al-Najdī al-Hanbalī

[biscuitcrumbs]

Salams,

Thanks for this.

[abdul_karim]

The great sufi Shaykh, Sidi Ahmad ibn Idris (may Allaah sanctify his secret) praised Shaykh Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab (http://riyada.blogspot.com/2006/09/glimpses-into-early-wahhabi-thought.html), although admitting he had some mistakes. Much of what has been written against him is lies and propaganda.

[loveProphet]

The great sufi Shaykh, Sidi Ahmad ibn Idris (may Allaah sanctify his secret) praised Shaykh Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab (http://riyada.blogspot.com/2006/09/glimpses-into-early-wahhabi-thought.html), although admitting he had some mistakes. Much of what has been written against him is lies and propaganda.
Wasn't Sheikh Ahmad Ibn Idris(RH) criticised for abandoning madhabs??

So, why would anyone support M Ibn Abdul Wahhab who joined the british/kuffar vs the Muslims?? Which sane person would follow or support such a murderer especially one who committed murders in the Haramayn!
AstaghfirUllah...

[Ansari_UK]

Brothers

Why dont you read it from the horses mouth? See what his own father recollected. This information is pricesless treasures for the Ummah. If it is good it is good if it is bad it is bad.

I for one am just glad it is now avaialble Alhamdulilah

[Shamli 1857]

The great sufi Shaykh, Sidi Ahmad ibn Idris (may Allaah sanctify his secret) praised Shaykh Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab (http://riyada.blogspot.com/2006/09/glimpses-into-early-wahhabi-thought.html), although admitting he had some mistakes. Much of what has been written against him is lies and propaganda.
Pretty interesting stuff. Shows that the issue isn't exactly as black and white as people make it out to be...

[loveProphet]

Pretty interesting stuff. Shows that the issue isn't exactly as black and white as people make it out to be...
http://www.amazon.com/Exoteric-Ahmad-Ibn-Idris-Civilization/dp/9004113754

It is reported from Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Ali as-Sanusi—may Allah bless his soul—that he said:

“I studied the exoteric sciences, devoting thirty years to their study until I had mastered them and was proficient in them. Then I set out on the pilgrimage to the noble house of God and to visit (the tomb of) the Prophet (S). Then I saw sayyid Ahmad Ibn Idris—may God be pleased with him—and listened to his lectures on the exoteric and esoteric sciences—his discernment was unparalleled and was confirmed for every science. But I felt unable in my innermost self to accept him because he was not in conformity with the Schools (wa-ankartu ‘alayhi bi-batini fi ‘adam ittiba’ihi li ‘l-madhahib); I said, ‘This is foreign (strange, hadha khariji)’. Then I saw the Prophet (S), one night, ‘O Lord, O Messenger of God, I request of you the illumination (al-fath)’. He (S) said, ‘Your illumination will be at the hands of Ahmad Ibn Idris’. But when I awoke, I was doubtful and concealed my vision, telling no one about it. Then I saw the Prophet (S) a second time and again I sought the illumination from him, but he answered as he had the first time. Then I saw him (S) a third time and he said to me, ‘Your illumination will be at the hands of Ahmad Ibn Idris’. But I was doubtful and said to myself, ‘Should I not seek from him the knowledge of the Way since this is something different from (huwa kharij ‘an) the Schools’? Then I went to him in order to listen carefully to the lessons in the exoteric sciences. I had sat down in front of him when he said to me, ‘O Muhammad, Is not the vision that you saw once, twice and a third time sufficient for you’? He then laid bare to me my innermost heart before I had said a word to him. On that day I submitted to him and received from his hands the Way of the people (the Sufis, tariq al-qawm).”

[Shamli 1857]

Wow, heavy stuff. Very interesting.

[Shamli 1857]

I find that sentiment interesting. I can to some extent agree. It should however be remembered that individuals like Sharif Hussain of Makkah also revolted against the Ottomans at the behest of the British Government. Nowadays, we see some who criticise the Saudi Wahhabis but associate themselves closely to the Jordanian government, which is descended from Sharif Hussain.

[abdul_karim]

Wasn't Sheikh Ahmad Ibn Idris(RH) criticised for abandoning madhabs??

So, why would anyone support M Ibn Abdul Wahhab who joined the british/kuffar vs the Muslims?? Which sane person would follow or support such a murderer especially one who committed murders in the Haramayn!
AstaghfirUllah...

Actually, the British were allied with the Ottomans at the time, not the Wahhabis. The British were supporting the Ottomans to keep the French from conquering more land (this was around the same time Napoleon conquered Egypt). Ibn Abdul-Wahhab was never allied with the British. This situation reversed during WWI when the British supported all Arabs who wanted to rebel aginst the Ottomans (the Arab Nationalists, the Hashimites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherif_Hussein_ibn_Ali), and to a lesser extent the Wahhabis).

[Shamli 1857]

Actually, the British were allied with the Ottomans at the time, not the Wahhabis. The British were supporting the Ottomans to keep the French from conquering more land (this was around the same time Napoleon conquered Egypt). Ibn Abdul-Wahhab was never allied with the British. This situation reversed during WWI when the British supported all Arabs who wanted to rebel aginst the Ottomans (the Arab Nationalists, the Hashimites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherif_Hussein_ibn_Ali), and to a lesser extent the Wahhabis).
Yes, and not only the French. But the Russians as well. That was why the famous Crimean War took place, which was a war against the Russians by a coalition of Ottoman, British and French troops.

[Ansari]

Some quotes regarding the aqaaid of Sh. Abdul Wahhab are mentioned here:

http://www.jamiaashrafia.org/pdf/3-2007/masla-i-taqleed.pdf [in urdu]

[abdul_karim]

Despite what non-Hanbalis have said, Shaykh Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab's aqeedah was not that different from the standard Hanbali Aqeedah. Also, alot of untruths about what he believed has been perpetrated by his opponents. Now, I'm not a Wahhabi, but people should be honest about others, even if they disagree with them.

[loveProphet]

Nice:

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3119&highlight=Ibn+Abdul+Wahhab

Enough is the quote of Sheikh ul Islam Ibn Abidin(RA)- who's every word is considered as part of the Hanafi madhab-:

Ibn ‘Abidin) : His words and who consider the Companions of our Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) to be disbelievers are not a condition for someone to be a kharijite, but rather are a mere clarification of what those who revolted against ‘Ali (Allah Most High be well pleased with him) in fact did. Otherwise, it is enough to be convinced of the unbelief of those they fight against, as happened in our own times with the followers of [Muhammad ibn] ‘Abd al-Wahhab, who came out of the Najd in revolt, and took over the sanctuaries of Mecca and Medina. They followed the Hanbali madhhab, but believed that they were the Muslims, and that those who believed differently than they did were polytheists (mushrikin). On this basis, they held it lawful to kill Sunni Muslims (Ahl al-Sunna) and their religious scholars, until Allah Most High dispelled their forces, and the armies of the Muslims attacked their strongholds and subdued them in 1233 A.H. [1818]

(Hashiya radd al-muhtar, 4.262).

M Ibn Abdul Wahhab was an innovator, who went to excess in his da`wa. This is clear according to the Ahly Sunnah, including Allama Ibn `Abidin who is the foremost authority of fatawa in the Hanafi school who labels Ibn `Abd al Wahab and his followers as among the Khawarij.

[loveProphet]

Despite what non-Hanbalis have said, Shaykh Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab's aqeedah was not that different from the standard Hanbali Aqeedah. Also, alot of untruths about what he believed has been perpetrated by his opponents. Now, I'm not a Wahhabi, but people should be honest about others, even if they disagree with them.
So didn't you read the ************ article? Was the Sheikh who wrote it non-Hanbali too? (By al-Imām al-`Allāmah Shaykh Muhammad
Ibn `Abdullāh Ibn Humayd al-Najdī al-Hanbalī)

Were M Ibn Abdul Wahhab's brother and father non-Hanbalis too because they refuted him and warned people of his deviancy?

Come on, one of the foremost to refute the wahabi sect were the Hanbalis, just read the book that Sheikh Sulayman Ibn Abdul Wahhab(RA) wrote in refutation of his brother.

This is also illustrated by The Chief Mufti, Sayyid Ahmad Zayni Dahlan as-Shafi'i, in al-Futuhatu-al-Islamiyyah:
"To deceive the ulemas in Mecca and Medina, those people sent emissaries in al-Haramayn, but these missionaries were not able to answer questions asked by Sunni scholars. It became evident that they were ignorant bid'ah (innovation) holders. Muftis of the four madhhabs (schools of thought) wrote a fatwa that declared them kuffars, and this document was distributed in the whole Jazirah. The Amir of Mecca, Sharif Mas'ud Ibn Sa'id, ordered that the followers of Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab should be imprisoned. Some of them fled to Dariyyah and informed their leader of what was happening."

As for the accusation that these wahabis represent the true/standard doctrine of the Hanbalis, this is baseless and is only held by the wahabis who pretend to be Hanbalis.

Just see Imâm Ahmad's `Aqîda and Pseudo-Hanbali `Aqîda (http://www.livingislam.org/n/hpha_e.html). Just see what the Hanbali Imam Ibn Balban(RA) said about the Hanbali Aqida.

It is also known that Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal(RA) never believed that Allah literally descends or moves or sits on the Arsh!

And do we forget about the tafwid of the real Hanbalis compared to the anthropomorphism of the wahabis?

Heed the advice of the Hanbali Imam Ibn Jawzi(RA):

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 -- what does not belong in it. You have clothed this madhhab with an ugly deed, so that it is no longer said "Hanbali" except in the sense of "anthropomorphist"....

Read his book "Daf` Shubah al-Tashbih " too see the difference between the wahabis and the real Hanbalis.

Just see Ibn Qudama al-Hanbali the Mufawwid and todays Pseudo-Salafiyya (http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5916&highlight=Hanbali)

And see The REAL Hanbali Creed - not the pseudo-Salafi Creed (http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3075&highlight=Hanbali)

The dependable Hanbali works in creed are:

Lum`at ul-I`tiqaad by Imaam Muwaffaq ud-Din

al-I`tiqaad by Imaam Muwaffaq ud-Din

ad-Durar al-Bahiyyah by Imaam as-Saffaarini

Kitaab ush-Shari`a by Imaam Abu Bakr al-Aajuri

Said ul-Khaatir by Imaam Ibn al-Jawzi

al-Iqtisaad fil-I`tiqaad by Imaam al-Maqdisi

[loveProphet]

Yes, and not only the French. But the Russians as well. That was why the famous Crimean War took place, which was a war against the Russians by a coalition of Ottoman, British and French troops.
Yes that war happened for a few years, however it doesn't negate the possibility of enmity between the Ottomons and the British. A simple look at history books such as "The Middle East" will tell us that in the early 19th century, the British "established themselves in Arabia" and this must mean that they were trying to weaken the hold of the Ottomons in Arabia.

Plus it is known that after the short stay of the French in Egypt, the British conquered Egypt too.

It is also known that the Ottomons helped the Mughals against the British in India, not only financially, but also by armed forces. This again shows that the relationship between the British and Ottomons wasn't neat and all good but was constantly changing just like the British joined the French against the Russians, it doesn't mean that the French and British were allies all the time.

So do you expect that the British did nothing against the Ottomons? Ever heard of Laurence of Arabia? We know well that he aided the Arabs in their revolt against the Ottomons in the early 20th century.

It is well known that the British helped the Wahabis in the early 20th century and it is highly probable that they helped them in the first revolt too. You can't trust Britain against other nations.

If one were to look at the Ottomon archives in Turkey, it is easy to see how the wahabis in the first revolt had help from the British, albeit it wasn't clear then due to the secretive nature of the help.

[loveProphet]

Actually, the British were allied with the Ottomans at the time, not the Wahhabis. The British were supporting the Ottomans to keep the French from conquering more land (this was around the same time Napoleon conquered Egypt). Ibn Abdul-Wahhab was never allied with the British. This situation reversed during WWI when the British supported all Arabs who wanted to rebel aginst the Ottomans (the Arab Nationalists, the Hashimites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherif_Hussein_ibn_Ali), and to a lesser extent the Wahhabis).
Even if we were to suppose that he didn't receive help from the British, we are still forced to accept the fact that he and his bandits(with the Saud tribe which was allied with him) attacked cities and murdered people, even in the Haramayn! For the details of this oppression and massacres which are unbearable to the heart, see Ahmad ibn Zaini Dahlan's Khulasat al-kalam (reprint, Istanbul, 1395/1975) and Ayyub Sabri Pasha's Tarikh-i Wahhabiyyan, Istanbul, 1296 A.H. (1879).]


Now please tell us, did Imam Abu Hanifa(RA) kill Muslims unjustly? Or Sheikh ul Islam Abul Hasan ash-Shadhili(RA)? No they didn't.

We don't follow murderers.

Imam Anwar Shah Kashmiri(a Deobandi elder) in his Fayd al Bari:

أما محمد بن عبد الوهاب النَّجْدِي فإنه كان رجلاً بليداً قليلَ العلمِ، فكان يتسارع إلى الحكم بالكفر ولا ينبغي أن يقتحم في هذا الوادي إلا من يكون متيقِّظاً متقِناً عارفاً بوجوه الكفر وأسبابِهِ.
"Muhammad ibn `Abd al Wahab Najdi, and indeed he was a stupid man with little knowledge." (Fayd al bari, Vol: 1)

[Shamli 1857]

Even if we were to suppose that he didn't receive help from the British, we are still forced to accept the fact that he and his bandits(with the Saud tribe which was allied with him) attacked cities and murdered people, even in the Haramayn! For the details of this oppression and massacres which are unbearable to the heart, see Ahmad ibn Zaini Dahlan's Khulasat al-kalam (reprint, Istanbul, 1395/1975) and Ayyub Sabri Pasha's Tarikh-i Wahhabiyyan, Istanbul, 1296 A.H. (1879).]


Now please tell us, did Imam Abu Hanifa(RA) kill Muslims unjustly? Or Sheikh ul Islam Abul Hasan ash-Shadhili(RA)? No they didn't.

We don't follow murderers.

Imam Anwar Shah Kashmiri(a Deobandi elder) in his Fayd al Bari:

أما محمد بن عبد الوهاب النَّجْدِي فإنه كان رجلاً بليداً قليلَ العلمِ، فكان يتسارع إلى الحكم بالكفر ولا ينبغي أن يقتحم في هذا الوادي إلا من يكون متيقِّظاً متقِناً عارفاً بوجوه الكفر وأسبابِهِ.
"Muhammad ibn `Abd al Wahab Najdi, and indeed he was a stupid man with little knowledge." (Fayd al bari, Vol: 1)
Interesting stuff. Without challenging the views of the Ulamah you produce here. I'm interested to know why Traditionalists associate themselves to the Jordanian government. Like the Wahhabis they did some bad stuff. Allied themselves to the British, helped towards ending the Khilafat and even slaughtered Ottoman soldiers in the Haram. Why is the criticism solely directed at the Saudis. What about the Jordanians?

[Shamli 1857]

Yes that war happened for a few years, however it doesn't negate the possibility of enmity between the Ottomons and the British. A simple look at history books such as "The Middle East" will tell us that in the early 19th century, the British "established themselves in Arabia" and this must mean that they were trying to weaken the hold of the Ottomons in Arabia.

Plus it is known that after the short stay of the French in Egypt, the British conquered Egypt too.

It is also known that the Ottomons helped the Mughals against the British in India, not only financially, but also by armed forces. This again shows that the relationship between the British and Ottomons wasn't neat and all good but was constantly changing just like the British joined the French against the Russians, it doesn't mean that the French and British were allies all the time.

So do you expect that the British did nothing against the Ottomons? Ever heard of Laurence of Arabia? We know well that he aided the Arabs in their revolt against the Ottomons in the early 20th century.

It is well known that the British helped the Wahabis in the early 20th century and it is highly probable that they helped them in the first revolt too. You can't trust Britain against other nations.

If one were to look at the Ottomon archives in Turkey, it is easy to see how the wahabis in the first revolt had help from the British, albeit it wasn't clear then due to the secretive nature of the help.
Masha Allah, this is all so true. The Arabs that revolted in the Hijaz against the Ottoman Empire were led by Sharif Hussain. The Saudis were also affiliated to the British in Najd. But why the sole criticism of the Saudis? What about Sharif Hussain. Historians remember him as the arch-architect behind the revolt. Sharif Hussain being the ancestor of King Abdullah of Jordan and other Jordanian Princes.

[iqadeer]

Masha Allah, this is all so true. The Arabs that revolted in the Hijaz against the Ottoman Empire were led by Sharif Hussain. The Saudis were also affiliated to the British in Najd. But why the sole criticism of the Saudis? What about Sharif Hussain. Historians remember him as the arch-architect behind the revolt. Sharif Hussain being the ancestor of King Abdullah of Jordan and other Jordanian Princes.

It is indeed a sad chapter within Ottoman history that it ended through conspiracies hatched by the very people it provided shelter for centuries. The empire, no doubt, was fractured and dying towards the end of 19th century but it still commanded respect in the hearts of Muslims for it was the symbol of their Islamic pride. It is rather ironic that questions casting doubts about the origins of darul-uloom Deoband are raised from certain quarters when it is recorded history that Shaykh-ul-Hind Maulana Mahmood Hasan ra, Shaykh-ul-Islam Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madni ra, and many others were detained and imprisoned by the British with Sharif Hussain's complicity for partaking in the "silken letters" movement.

[Shamli 1857]

It is indeed a sad chapter within Ottoman history that it ended through conspiracies hatched by the very people it provided shelter for centuries. The empire, no doubt, was fractured and dying towards the end of 19th century but it still commanded respect in the hearts of Muslims for it was the symbol of their Islamic pride. It is rather ironic that questions casting doubts about the origins of darul-uloom Deoband are raised from certain quarters when it is recorded history that Shaykh-ul-Hind Maulana Mahmood Hasan ra, Shaykh-ul-Islam Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madni ra, and many others were detained and imprisoned by the British with Sharif Hussain's complicity for partaking in the "silken letters" movement.
Yes, this is definitely a part of history often neglected by many. What really ticks me off is the singular focus on the Saudis. Some people criticise the Saudis for having ended the Khilafat and for opposing the Ottomans. In fact, while Abdul Aziz Al-Saud was in exile in Kuwait and had little influence over the Hijaz (especially being preoccupied with his own Bedouin wars against the Rasheedi Clan), the British had set out a plan to remove the Ottomans from the Hijaz and ferment trouble to bring an end to the Khilafat. These plans were made with Sharif Hussain. The Royal Family of Jordan are his direct descendants. What do we see? The Traditionalists criticising the Darn Wahhabis (citing their opposition to the Ottomans as a reason), while no words of criticism for the Jordanian Royal Family.

In relation to some of those things that Iqadeer has mentioned. It should be remembered that during the Crimean War, Darul Uloom Deoband udner the patronage of Mawlana Qasim Nanotwi was gathering money from India to help the Ottoman empire fight its war. During the Silk Handkerchief Movement, Shaykh Hind Mawlana Mahmud al-Hasan travelled to the Hijaz with the aim of visiting the holy sites and securing Ottoman support for their anti-colonial movement in India, lastly keep in mind the Khilafat Movement in India, which was a movement by Indian Muslims and also non-Muslims (like Ghandi) to force the British to ensure they safeguarded the Khilafat in Ottoman. The Ottoman Empire (known as the Sick Man of Europe) was truly in a sad state. Even Istanbul had been occupied by Western Allies following the first World War. The Deobandi Ulamah were truly concerned. So were others such as Mawlana Abul Kalam Azad and even non-Muslims like Ghandi Ji. Subhanallah. While the Deobandi Ulama (with their non-Muslim friends) were being baton-charged, imprisoned, tortured and forced to appear at British courts - certain "Sunni" Ulamah not only opted to stay aloof but even voiced their opposition to a movement, which only wished to maintain the Sunni, Sufi, Muqallid, Ashari-Maturidi Khilafat of the Ottomans. In fact these individuals opted to remain with the British - Hail Britania - saying they were Ahl-e-Kitab. See B. Metcalf's book for further details.