ON THE ANTHROPOMORPHISM OF "SALAFIS"

Ibn Taymiyya Compares Allah to the Moon In his infamous `Aqida wasitiyya.

Ibn Taymiyya establishes a clear-cut case of tamthil or similitude for Allah and His attributes by comparing Him to the moon in his interpretation of the verse 57:4: "He is with you wherever you are":The phrase "and He is with you" does not mean that He blends into creation... Nay the moon... one of the smallest of Allah's creations, is both placed in the heaven (mawdu`un fi al-samaa') and present with the traveler and the non-traveler wherever they may be. And the Exalted is above (fawq) the Throne, as a watchful guardian of His creatures and their protector Who is cognizant of them.1

Ibn Taymiyya's admirers may claim that he represents the doctrine of Ahl al-Sunna, but we all know that none of the Ahl al-Sunna ever compared Allah to the moon, or Allah's knowledge to the moon's rays. Exalted is Allah high above the fancies of those who give such examples for Him. Yet we find today the same type of aberration still passing for Islamic education, in books such as Ibn al-`Uthaymin's Sharh al`aqida al-wasitiyya, which we will address in a few pages, and where the author, dissatisfied with Ibn Taymiyya's moon, turns to comparing Allah to the sun instead.

In consequence of such strange positions, Ibn Taymiyya was imprisoned by agreement of the Muslim scholars of Egypt and Syria who wished to prevent the dissemination of his ideas. His imprisonment, it should be stressed, came as a result of the consensus of the scholars of his time and not, as it is falsely claimed by his admirers, a massive conspiracy against him. Nor was he put in jail by a tyrannical ruler, nor due to the jealousy of his contemporaries, as is postulated today by some of those who claim to follow his teachings. One fears the authorities made him something of a martyr instead, and thus stimulated interest in his otherwise pedestrian observations touching on Divine attributes. We will mention his deviations concerning other topics later, insha Allah. We close this section with the recapitulation of Ibn Taymiyya's deviations and his unmitigated condemnation by al-Haytami. Ibn Hajar al-Haytami's Scathing Condemnation of Ibn Taymiyya Shaykh al-Islam Ahmad ibn Muhammad Abu al-`Abbas Shihab al-Din al-Haytami, known as Ibn Hajar al-Haytami (909-974/ 1504-1567) was the Shafi`i Imam of his time, a brilliant scholar of in-depth applications of Shari`a, and with Imam Ahmad al-Ramli, represents the foremost resource for legal opinion (fatwa) for the entire late Shafi`i school. He was educated at al-Azhar, but later moved to Mecca, where he authored major works in Shafi`i jurisprudence, hadith, tenets of faith, education, hadith commentary, and formal legal opinion. His most famous works include Tuhfat al-muhtaj bi sharh al-minhaj (The gift of him in need: an explanation of "The Road"), a commentary on Nawawi's Minhaj al-Talibin (The seeker's road) whose ten volumes represent a high point in Shafi`i scholarship; the four-volume al-Fatawa al-kubra al-fiqhiyya (The major collection of legal opinions); and al-Zawajir `an iqtiraf al-kaba'ir (Deterrents from committing enormities) which with its detailed presentation of Qur'an and hadith evidence and masterful legal inferences, remains unique among Muslim works dealing with godfearingness (taqwa) and is even recognized by Hanafi scholars like Ibn `Abidin as a source of authoritative legal texts (nusus) valid in their own school.2

He writes in his Fatawa hadithiyya:
Ibn Taymiyya is a slave which Allah has forsaken and misguided and blinded and deafened and debased. That is the declaration of the imams who have exposed the corruption of his positions and the mendacity of his sayings. Whoever wishes to pursue this must read the words of the mujtahid imam Abu al-Hasan (Taqi al-Din) al-Subki, of his son Taj al-Din Subki, of the Imam al-`Izz ibn Jama`a and others of the Shafi`i, Maliki, and Hanafi shaykhs...In short, his words are not given any importance whatsoever; rather they are thrown aside into every wasteland and rocky ground, and it must be considered that he is a misguided and misguiding innovator (mubtadi` dall mudill) and an ignorant who brought evil (jahilun ghalun) whom Allah treated with His justice, and may He protect us from the likes of his path, doctrine, and actions, Amin...Know that he has differed from people on questions about which Taj al-Din al-Subki and others warned us. Among the things Ibn Taymiyya said which violate the scholarly consensus are:

1. that he who violates the consensus commits neither disbelief (kufr) nor transgression (fisq)

2. that our Lord is subject to created events (mahallun li al-hawadith) -- glorified, exalted, and sanctified is He far above what the wrong-doers and rejecters ascribe to Him!

3. that He is complex or made of parts (murakkab), His Essence standing in need similarly to the way the whole stands in need of the parts (taftaqiru dhatuhu iftiqara al-kulli li al-juz'), elevated is He and sanctified above that!

4. that the Qur'an is created in Allah's Essence (muhdath fi dhatillah),3 elevated is He above that!

5. that the world (al-`alam) is of a pre-eternal nature (qadim bi al-naw`) and that it existed with Allah from pre-eternity (wa lam yazal ma` Allah) as an everlasting created object (makhluqan da'iman), thus making it necessarily existent in His Essence (fa ja`alahu mujaban bi al-dhat) and not acting deliberately (la fa`ilan bi al-ikhtyar), elevated is He above that!4

6. his sayings about Allah's "corporeality," "direction," "displacement," (al-jismiyya wa al-jiha wa al-intiqal), and that He fits the size of the Throne, being neither bigger nor smaller, exalted is He from such a hideous invention and wide-open disbelief (kufr), and may He forsake all his followers, and may all his beliefs be scattered and lost!

7. his saying that the fire shall go out (al-nar tafni),5

8. and that the prophets are not free from sin (al-anbiya'a ghayru ma`sumin),6

9. and that the Prophet has no particular status before Allah (la jaha lahu)7 and must not be used as a means (la yutawassalu bihi),8

10. and that the undertaking of travel (al-safar) to him in order to perform his visit (al-ziyara) is a disobedience (ma`siya) in which it is unlawful to shorten the prayers,9 and that it is forbidden to ask for his intercession in view of the Day of Need

11. and that the words (alfaz) of the Torah and the Gospel were not substituted, but their meanings (ma`ani) were

Some said: "Whoever looks at his books does not attribute to him most of these positions, except that whereby he holds the view that Allah has a direction, and that he authored a book to establish this, and forces the proof upon the people who follow this school of thought that they are believers in Allah's corporeality (jismiyya), dimensionality (muhadhat), and settledness (istiqrar)." That is, it may be that at times he used to assert these proofs and that they were consequently attributed to him in particular. But whoever attributed this to him from among the imams of Islam upon whose greatness, leadership, religion, trustworthiness, fairness, acceptance, insight, and meticulousness there is agreement -- then they do not say anything except what has been duly established with added precautions and repeated inquiry. This is especially true when a Muslim is attributed a view which necessitates his disbelief, apostasy, misguidance, and execution. Therefore if it is true of him that he is a disbeliever and an innovator, then Allah will deal with him with His justice, and other than that He will forgive us and him.10

1 Ibn Taymiyya, al-`Aqida al-wasitiyya (Salafiyya ed. 1346 / 1927) p. 20.

2 Very slightly adapted from Nuh Keller's biographical notice on Haythami in his Reliance of the Traveller p. 1054.

3 The Jahmis believed that the Qur'an was created.

4 These are of the crassest expressions of kalam and speculation in which one could possibly indulge.

5 This was refuted by San`ani in Raf` al-astar.

6 This is a logical corollary of his belief that contradicting the ijma` on matters of belief and law is neither kufr nor fisq.

7 A reference to Ibn Taymiyya's manner of answering questions specific to the Prophet with generalities about all human beings.

8 The scholars' refutation of this heresy innovated by Ibn Taymiyya is detailed in the second volume of the present work.

9 Ibn Hajar says in Fath al-Bari (1993 ed. 3:66) about Ibn Taymiyya's prohibition to travel in order to visit the Prophet: "This is one of the ugliest matters ever reported from Ibn Taymiyya." Yet even today the Saudi scholar Bin Baz persists in saying that it is forbidden to travel with the intention of visiting the Prophet and comments that this was not an ugly but a correct thing for Ibn Taymiyya to say!

10 Ibn Hajar al-Haythami al-Makki's Fatawa hadithiyya (Cairo: Halabi, 1390/1970) p. 114-117.

Reproduced with permission from Shaykh M. Hisham Kabbani's "The Repudiation of "Salafi" Innovations" (Kazi, 1996) p. 98-103. Blessings and Peace on the Prophet, his Family, and his Companions

THE BEGINNING AND SPREADING OF WAHHABISM[*]

From http://www.hizmetbooks.org/Advice_for_the_Muslim/wah-36.htm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A WOMAN'S SILENCING IBN 'ABD AL-WAHHAB:

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE FIRST WAHHABI MISSION

From http://www.hizmetbooks.org/Advice_for_the_Muslim/wah-37.htm

37 - 'Abd al-'Aziz ibn Muhammad, who ruthlessly massacred Muslims in order to disseminate Wahhabism, sent three Wahhabis to Mecca in 1210 A.H. (1795). The 'ulama' of Ahl as-Sunnat responded to them with ayats and hadiths and the Wahhabite representatives could not make any rejoinder. They could not find any way out but to admit the truth. They wrote and signed a long declaration which stated that Ahl as-Sunnat was right and that they themselves were on a wrong, aberrant path. But 'Abd al-'Aziz did not even lend an ear to the advice of the men of religious authority, for he was running after political ambitions and had set his heart on increasing the taste of his chieftain. He increased his torture of the Muslims day by day behind the curtain of religiousness.

The three Wahhabis put forward twenty points to convince Meccan Muslims. These twenty points are summarized in the three main groups in the above. Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab said that it was Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal's (rahmat-Allahi 'alaih) ijtihad that 'ibadat formed a part of iman. However, all of Imam Ahmad's ijtihads were recorded in books and the Meccan 'ulama' knew all of them in detail, so they easily proved and convinced the three Wahhabis that this allegation of Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab was false.

The three Wahhabis were extremely sure that they were right in their second belief. They said, "Muslims in Mecca visit the graves of Rasulullah (sall-Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam), 'Abdullah ibn 'Abbas and Mahjub and say, 'Oh Rasul-Allah!' or 'Oh Ibn 'Abbas!' or 'Oh Mahjub!' [Mahjub Sayyid Abd ar-Rahman. the most profound alim of his time, passed away in 1204 A.H. (1790) and was buried in the Mu'alla Cemetery.] However, according to our imam Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab's ijtihad, those who say, 'La ilaha illa'llah Muhammadun Rasulullah,' but pray to a person other than Allah become disbelievers. It is halal to kill them and confiscate their possessions." The 'ulama' of Ahl as-Sunnat said in reply: "Visiting the graves of Allahu ta'ala's beloved servants to make tawassul of them or to ask them to pray does not mean worshiping them. They are visited not with the intention of worshiping them but with the purpose of asking Allahu ta'ala by making them wasila, that is, holding on to them as causes and intermediaries." And they proved with documents that it was permissible and even necessary to hold on to the causes.

There are many documents in proof of the lawfulness of visiting the graves of awliya' to make them wasilas or to beg them to be wasilas while asking something from Allahu ta'ala: the 38th ayat al-karima of Surat al-Ma'ida declares, "Oh believers! Fear Allahu ta'ala and look for a wasila to approach Him!" All books of tafsir write that whatever or whomever Allahu ta'ala loves or approves of is a wasila. The 79th ayat al-karima of Surat an-Nisa' declares, "Whoever obeys the Rasul has obeyed Allah." This is the reason why the 'wasila' in the former ayat is Rasulullah according to the majority of the Muslim 'ulama'. Therefore, it is permissible to make wasilas of prophets and their inheritors -awliya' and pious Muslims- and to try to approach Allahu ta'ala with their help. If it were disbelief or polytheism to address or to beg the Prophet, those who perform salat would all be disbelievers; the Wahhabis, too, would be disbelievers according to the above-quoted fatwa of Muhammad ibn Sulaiman (rahmat-Allahi 'alaih), for every Muslim says salam on Rasulullah and prays for that exalted Prophet in every salat by reciting the prayer, "As-salamu 'alaika ayyuha 'n-Nabiyyu wa rahmat-Allah."

There are benefits in visiting graves and praying to Allahu ta'ala by making wasilas of awliya'. Because, the hadith ash-Sharif related by Ibn 'Asakir and quoted in Kunuz ad-daqaiq declares, "The Muslim is the mirror of his Muslim brother." The hadith ash-Sharif related by ad-Daraqutni declares, "The Muslim is the mirror of [another] Muslim." It is understood from these hadiths that souls are like mirrors for one another. They are seen in one another. Faid emanates from the soul of a wali to the heart of a person who thinks of him and makes a wasila of him while visiting the grave of that wali. The weaker of the two souls gains strength. This is similar to two liquid containers connected with a tube. The soul with a higher degree or level suffers a loss. If the soul of the one in the grave is at a lower degree the soul of the visitor feels distressed. This is the reason why visiting graves was forbidden in the beginning of Islam, since the dead in the graves belonged to the Jahiliyya Ages at that time. It was permitted later when there were dead Muslims who could be visited. One will be thinking about the Prophet (all-Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam) or the wali when visiting his grave. A hadith ash-Sharif declares, "Allahu ta'ala shows Mercy when pious persons are thought of." It is understood from this hadith ash-Sharif too, that Allahu ta'ala shows Mercy upon him who visits graves, and He accepts the prayer of His servant upon whom He shows Mercy. It is obvious that the saying, "Graves should not be visited. Awliya' cannot be taken as wasilas," is a baseless dissent of opinion. The hadith ash-Sharif, "He who visits my grave after carrying out the hajj will be as if he has visited me when I am alive," refutes this belief at the very foundation and shows that it is necessary to visit graves. This hadith ash-Sharif is quoted along with its documents in the book Kunuz ad-daqaiq.

The Wahhabis put forward the hadith ash-Sharif, "Curse be upon those women who visit graves and those who perform ritual prayers over graves and those who light candles on graves," as a pretext for demolishing shrines. They said that there had been no such things in the Prophet's time and quoted the hadith ash-Sharif, "The things which do not exist in our time but will be introduced later do not stem from us." The Wahhabite representatives agreed with the 'ulama' of Ahl as-Sunnat because the answer to their second claim refuted these statements of theirs, too.

THE MASSACRE AND LOOTING OF THE MUSLIMS OF TA'IF

From http://www.hizmetbooks.org/Advice_for_the_Muslim/wah-38.htm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE WAHHABITE PERSECUTION IN MECCA

From http://www.hizmetbooks.org/Advice_for_the_Muslim/wah-39.htm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE WAHHABIS IN MADINA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE OTTOMANS CLEAR THE BLESSED CITIES OF THE WAHHABITE BANDITS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"You have struggled very hard!" the Pasha said.

"War is an affair of fate and luck," Ibn Sa'ud answered.

"How do you find my son Ibrahim Pasha?"

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

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

"What was fated will happen."

"Why do you carry that casket with you?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

INVALUABLE WORKS DONE IN MECCA AND MEDINA AFTER THE CLEARANCE

From http://www.hizmetbooks.org/Advice_for_the_Muslim/wah-42.htm

42 - After Muhammad 'Ali Pasha, the Governor of Egypt, cleared the district of the Hijaz by order of the Caliph of the Muslims, Sultan Mahmud 'Adli Khan the Second (rahmat-Allahi 'alaih), the tombs of the Sahabat al-kiram, the wives of Rasulullah and martyrs (radi-Allahu ta'ala 'anhum) were built up again, and Masjid as-Saada and the Hujrat an-Nabawi were restored. Sultan 'Abd al-Majid Khan spent hundreds of thousands of gold coins for their construction, ornamentation and maintenance. His endeavors in this respect were amazingly grand. [See article 15.] Sultan 'Abd al-'Aziz Khan (rahmat-Allahi 'alaih) restored the walls around Medina in 1285 A.H. Also a big arsenal, a government office, a jail and two store-houses, one for arms and one for ammunition, were built through his efforts. Sultan 'Abd al-Hamid Khan the Second (rahmat-Allahi 'alaih) constructed the railway from Damascus to Medina. The first train to Medina arrived at the blessed city on August 19th, 1326 (1908). The sixteenth division was in Mecca at the time.

There were six mosques with minarets, sixty-seven small mosques without minarets, six madrasas, two public libraries, one secondary and forty-three primary schools, two covered bazars, nine inns, nineteen tekkes, two public baths, twenty-five large stores, three thousand shops, one hospital and forty fountains in Mecca when 'Abd al-Hamid Khan the Second was the Sultan. Large and comfortable guesthouses were built for the pilgrims as well. A water-supply had been constructed from a distance of three days' way to 'Arafat in Harun ar-Rashid's time; Mihr-u Mah Sultan, the daughter of Sultan Sulaiman Khan, extended this water-supply to Mecca. The population of Mecca was about eighty thousand at that time.

Medina is surrounded with a wall which is thirty meters high and has forty turrets and four gates. The length and width of the Haram ash-Sharif are 165 and 130 paces, respectively. There is the gate Bab as-Salam ornamented with marble and gold writings on the south west corner of the Haram ash-Sharif. The Hujrat an-nabawi is in the southeast corner of the Haram ash-Sharif. Bab as-Salam is on the right and the Hujrat as-Saada is on the left when one stands in front of the qibla wall facing the qibla. The Hujrat an-Nabawi is designed with very precious ornaments all over it. Most of the houses in Medina are built of stone and four -or five- storied like those in Mecca. Sultan Sulaiman Khan (rahmat-Allahi 'alaih) constructed the water-supply from Quba to Medina. The Mount Uhud is to the north of the city at a distance of two hours' way. There were ten mosques, seventeen madrasas, one secondary and eleven primary schools, twelve public libraries, eight tekkes, nine hundred and thirty-two shops and stores, four inns, two public baths, one hundred and eight guesthouses in the city. The population was twenty thousand. [According to the atlas titled Mamlakat al-Arabiyyat as-Su'udiyya, which was published in England in 1398 A.H. (1978), the distance through recently-constructed roads from Medina to Riyadh is 1011, to Taif is 535, to Jidda is 424, to Mecca is 442 and to Tebuk is 686 kilometers; from Mecca, it is 989 kilometers to Riyadh, 88 to Taif, 72 to Jidda, 1133 to Tebuk, 898 to Nejran and 1879 to Kuwait. The road from Mecca to Taif runs through Mina, Muzdalifa and Arafat squares.]

The Wahhabis have been demolishing and annihilating the invaluable historical and artistic works in the cities of Mecca and Medina.

As written in the book Mirat al-Madina, the Masjid ash-Sharif in Medina was built by Rasulullah (sall-Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam) and as-Sahabat al-kiram in the first year of the Hegira. When it was commanded that the qibla should be changed from Quds (Jerusalem) to the Kaba in the month of Rajab in the next year, the gate of the masjid on the Meccan side was closed and a new gate on the opposite, that is, the Damascene side, was opened. This gate is called 'Bab at-tawassul' now. In Medina, salat was performed towards Quds for about 16 months. In Mecca, salat had been performed formerly towards the Kaba, and it had been commanded to perform it towards Quds a little before the Hegira. While the qibla of the masjid was changed, the direction of the qibla was determined by Rasulullah's seeing the Kaba with his blessed eyes. The place where Rasulullah performed salat is between the minbar and the Hujrat as-Saada, and it is closer to the former. The copy of the Qur'an al-karim sent in a big wooden box by Hajjaj to al-Madinat al-Munawwara was placed with this box on the right side of the pillar which is in front of this place. The first mihrab was placed here by 'Umar ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz. After the second fire, Masjid as-Saada was repaired and the present marble mihrab was constructed in the year 888 A.H. But this marble mihrab was placed somewhat closer to the Hujrat as-Saada. Formerly, there was not a minbar in Masjid an-Nabi, and Rasulullah delivered the khutba standing, where a branch of a date tree was erected later. And still later a minbar of four stairs was made, and Rasulullah stood on the third stair. A curtain was hung at the door of the minbar during the time of Hadrat Muawiya. During the time of the Prophet, there were eight pillars in Masjid an-Nabi. At the times when the religious necessity for the enlargement of the masjid was concluded, the number of pillars added up to 327. At the Rawdat al-mutahhara, there are three lines of pillars and in each line there are four pillars. Some of these pillars are in the walls. The number of pillars in sight is 229. The southern wall of the masjid faces the qibla. The bower where the Ashab as-suffa used to reside is outside the northern wall. In order not to lose this blessed place by time, its base was raised half a meter from the level, and a wooden fence of half a meter high was put around it.

While Masjid ash-Sharif was being constructed, a room for each of the two pure wives of the Prophet was constructed (next to the masjid). The number of rooms became nine later on. Their ceiling was one and a half meters high. They were on the east, north or south of the masjid. Every room, including those of some Sahabis, had two doors, one opening to the masjid and the other to the street. Rasulullah (sall-Allahu 'Alaihi wa sallam) stayed mostly at 'Aisha's (radi-Allahu 'anha) room, whose door to the masjid was made of teak. During the time of the Four Caliphs, as-Sahabat al-kiram competed with one another for a place in one of the eight rooms for the Juma salat. Hadrat Fatima's (radi-Allahu 'anha) room was next to and on the north of Hadrat 'Aisha's room. This room was later included in the Shabakat as-Saada. Except the one belonging to Abu Bakr, all the doors opening to the masjid were closed on the order of Rasulullah five days before he passed away.

Abu Bakr, the first Caliph (radi-Allahu 'anh), endeavored against the murtads on the Arabian Peninsula as his first job, and could not find time to enlarge Masjid as-Saada.

In the seventeenth year of he Hegira, Hadrat 'Umar (radi-Allahu 'anh) gathered as-Sahabat al-kiram and reported to them the hadith ash-Sharif, "Masjid ash-Sharif should be enlarged." As-Sahabat al-kiram unanimously accepted it and, demolishing the Damascene and west walls of the masjid, enlarged it by fifteen meters. Many houses were bought and their plots were added to the masjid. In the year 35, Hadrat 'Uthman (radi-Allahu 'anh), consulting with the Ashab ash-shura and getting the unanimity of as-Sahabat al-kiram demolished the southern, northern and western walls and enlarged the masjid ten meters in width and twenty meters in length. Meanwhile, the rooms of Hadrat Hafsa, Talha ibn 'Abdullah and 'Abbas were added to the masjid. On the written order of Caliph Walid to his cousin 'Umar ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz, the Governor of Medina, the houses of the pure wives of the Prophet and that of Fatima az-Zahra, which were on the north, were demolished and their plots were added to the masjid in the year 87. Thus, Rasulullah's (sall-Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam) blessed tomb was included in the masjid. As-Sahabat al-kiram, the four aimmat al-madhahib and the Muslim 'ulama' of fourteen centuries did not say anything against this. It is written in the Shaban 1397 A.H. (1977) copy of the weekly periodical Ad-da'wa, which was prepared by a madrasa named Jamiat al-Islamiyya in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, "In the coming enlargement of Masjid an-Nabi, only the west side should be widened and the great bidat should be ended. The great bidat is the inclusion of the three graves in the masjid. The eastern wall should be brought back to its former place, and the graves should be left outside the masjid." This assertion of the periodical is a disrespect against ijma' al-Umma and dissention from the Muslim community. That this is disbelief has been unanimously reported by the 'ulama' of the four madhhabs (rahimahum-Allahu ta'ala).

We wish that the Saudi Arabian government should not get involved in such an ugly act and should not break the hearts of Muslims all over the world. Disrespect to the Hujrat as-Saada has been witnessed many times, but those who committed it have been punished by Allahu ta'ala even in this world, the examples of which are very many. It is written at the end of Mirat al-Madina, "When the Governor of the Hijaz, Halat Pasha, visited Medina in 1296 A.H. (1879), the head of the servants at the Hujrat as-Saada, Tahsin Agha, with a view of winning the favor of the Pasha, said, 'Let's have the women of your house visit the Hujrat as-saada. This chance would not be met at other times.' The Pasha, though refrained from it at first, took the women of close and distant relations of his house into the Shabakat as-Saada at midnight upon the urging of the Agha. Since there were unclean women without an ablution among them and because of this disrespect towards Rasulullah (sall-Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam), a violent earthquake occurred three times in Medina the next morning. People ran to and fro in panic. When its cause was understood, the Pasha was disgraced and was let out of Medina. A little later, he died and his family melted away. Similarly, all those who have committed acts of disrespect to Rasulullah's tomb have been doomed and troubled."

During the time of Shams ad-din Effendi, the head of the servants at the Hujrat as-Saada and several vagabonds from Aleppo entered Masjid an-Nabi one night with the view of taking away the blessed corpses of Hadrat Abu Bakr and Hadrat 'Umar (radi-Allahu 'anhuma). But all of them sank into the earth and vanished. This event is written in detail at the end of Mirat al-Madina and in Riyad an-nadara.

The brigand named Artat, who was the ruler of the Karak castle and the villages on the outskirts of Nabulus town near Damascus, wanted to take the Prophet's corpse and had small ships be constructed for the transportation in 578 A.H. (1183). He had the ships come together in the Red Sea and sent them to Yanbu', the seaport of Medina, with 350 bandits. The Sharifs of Medina heard of this and reported it to Salah ad-din al-Ayyubi (rahmat-Allahi 'alaih), who was in Harran. Salah ad-din was grieved much by this news, and he sent an order to the Governor of Egypt, Husam ad-din Saif ad-dawla (rahimah-Allahu ta'ala). Husam ad-din sent soldiers under the command of Lulu', who killed some of the bandits near Medina and captured others, who were taken to Egypt. This event is written in detail in Rawdat al-abrar. Those who have attempted to commit impudence towards Rasulullah during his life or after his death have been severely punished by Allahu ta'ala. And, one day, if the Saudis, following their heretical beliefs and evil thoughts, dare to stage such a vile attempt, they should know it well that that day will be the end of both their State and madhhab, and that they will be remembered with damnation until the Last Day.

TRANSLATION OF A LETTER
182nd LETTER

Muhammad Mathum as-Sirhindi (rahmat-Allahi 'alaih), one of the great Islamic scholars of India, wrote in the 182nd letter of the first volume of his work Maktubat:

"Holding fast to causes is not inconsistent with tawakkul since the power of affecting, too, is given to causes by Allahu ta'ala. While holding fast to causes, one should know that the affectivity of causes originates from Allahu ta'ala and should confide in Him. Holding fast to those causes whose affectivity has been experienced is a form of performing tawakkul. It is not conformable to tawakkul if one holds fast to those causes whose affectivity is not established or is not even hoped for. It is necessary, even a duty, to hold fast to the causes whose affectivity is absolute. Fire has the effect of burning; Allahu ta'ala is the One who gives the property of burning to fire. When we are hungry, we will eat food; we are to believe that Allahu ta'ala has given to food the effect of satiating. If we do not use such causes with absolute effects and are harmed, we will have disobeyed and opposed Allahu ta'ala. Causes are of three categories: those whose effects have not been seen or heard of, so not permitted to use; those that have been experienced and seen to be effective, so it is necassary (wajib) to use and is sinful to ignore; and those with doubtful affectivity, so using them is not necessary but permitted (jaiz). Allahu ta'ala orders us to consult with experienced, learned persons before doing our important affairs, to do them after consulting and, while doing, to have tawakkul towards Allahu ta'ala and to expect the outcome from Him. Consulting, too, is a way of holding fast to causes. This order explains that holding fast to causes is wajib and that it is necessary to expect their effect from Allahu ta'ala. Tawakkul is not employed in affairs pertaining to the next worldly, that is, in 'ibadas and ta'as. We have been ordered to perform 'ibadas, to endeavor to carry on 'ibadas. In affairs pertaining to the next world, we have to fear and hope instead of having tawakkul. It is necessary to perform these orders and to have confidence in Allahu ta'ala's Mercy and Benevolence for His accepting and rewarding them. It is a human duty to carry out [His] orders and to abstain from [His] prohibitions.

"[You ask,] 'Is there such a high status in our religion so that one who attains to it will have forgotten about himself and about everything?' In response to your question, we say that there is the status called fana' in tasawwuf. One who endeavors on the way of tasawwuf forgets about himself and about everything when he attains to that status. Nevertheless, his batin (heart, soul) is the one who reaches the status of fana' or baqa'. This hal (state) occurs in one's heart and soul. The zahir (body, intellect) of a human being has to supply his own needs. Even if he has advanced much further, he cannot rescue himself from this duty.

"You ask whether discovering others' thoughts, getting information about lost things and the acceptance of the prayers said are the signs of advancing on the way of tasawwuf, of attaining to Allahu ta'ala's love. Dear brother! These are the extraordinary things Allahu ta'ala creates outside His usual custom ('adat). Their occurrence to somebody does not show his advancement and acceptance. They may occur also to the people of istidraj who are devoid of felicity. They may also be observed in disbelievers who polishes their nafses through undergoing riyada. In some, they happen without riyada, too. Since undergoing riyada is not a condition for becoming a wali, that is, for attaining to the degrees of wilaya, so it is not a condition for the people of istidraj to display khariqas and for awliya' (rahimahum-Allahu ta'ala) to display karamas. Undertaking riyada facilitates their frequent occurrence.

"Most awliya' are protected from the sin called 'ujb (self-admiration). 'Ujb and riya' (hypocrisy) are not left in the one who has reached the status of fana'. It is true that he may be mistaken out of being human, because awliya' are not protected against erring. However, they immediately awaken from ghafla (unawareness) and get rid of its harm by asking for Allahu ta'ala's Forgiveness (istighfar) and by doing charitable deeds.

"Eating little and sleeping little are beneficial for advancing on the way of tasawwuf, but one should not be as excessive as to harm the body and intellect. These and riyadat should be done in consistency with the Sunnat. If they are done excessively, it will be ruhbaniyya (monastic life), which does not exist in Islam. The kashfs of awliya' are not imaginative things; they are the things inspired (ilham) to the heart. Imaginative kashfs should not be trusted in. Wahm and imagination (hayal) help in understanding the information coming to the heart. Fifty thousand years' distance between the Creator and the created is passed in a short time with the help of wahm. And the imagination is beneficial to understand ladunni knowledge easily. Both help much on the way of tasawwuf. It has been reported that some prayers are helpful in worldly affairs. Saying Allahu ta'ala's names are much more helpful.

"It is very good not to remember one's own body while performing salat. Things that occur while performing salat are more valuable than those occurring outside salat. The importance of salat should be understood well. We should perform salats in their mustahab times and with attention to their conditions and to tadil al-arkan. [It is condition that one, while beginning a salat, knows that it is the time for that salat.] It is stated in a hadith ash-Sharif that the curtains between the one who performs salat and Allahu ta'ala are removed.

"You write that you see awliya's copies or figures in 'alam al-mithal and talk with them. These are good things, but they are not our aim. Since they do not harm our aim, they are not regrettable things, either.

"You ask whether it is necessary to believe that Khidir ('alaihi 's-salam) is alive. Our 'ulama' have not reported it in unanimity. Though some awliya' have said that they saw and spoke to him, such reports does not show that he is alive; his soul might have been seen in human figure, and his soul might have done things that are done by human beings. If he were alive during that time, this does not mean he is alive now. Many of the things done by Khidir ('alaihi 's-salam) are written in the book Al-isaba fi marifati 's-Sahaba. Most 'ulama' reported that he had passed away. If he had been alive, he would have gone to our master, the Prophet, performed the prayer of Juma together and attended his sohbat and jihads.

"The souls of the awliya' who have died are sometimes seen in their [human figures or] copies in 'alam al-mithal. Because, everything in the world has a copy in 'alam al-mithal. Even more, spiritual, non-material things, too, have copies there. 'Alam al-mithal does not consist of imaginary things. It is an 'alam that exists as this visible, material 'alam does. The souls of awliya' sometimes are seen in the figures of their own bodies and sometimes, without bodies or figures, meet and talk with people's souls.

The teachings about souls and the life in the grave are very subtle. We should not speak on them out of supposition or surmise. We should believe briefly what has been reported openly in the nasses (ayats and hadiths) and should not speak more. It should be believed that there are blessings and tortures in the grave. It has also been reported that the dead talk with one another and because of the tortures, they cry and lament. Except human beings and genies, all creatures hear their cries. Souls cry not only alone but also through their bodies.

"However much a person advances in tasawwuf, reaches perfection or attains to qurb al-ilahi, neither his body nor his soul can escape being creatures. Everything other than Allahu ta'ala is hadith (created), and all creatures had been non-existent before becoming existent. They will become non-existent again. For being a Muslim, believing as such is a must. It is the same for the souls of prophets ('alaihimu 's-salawatu wa 't-taslimat) and awliya'. To escape the tortures of the next world, we have to follow what the 'ulama' of Ahl as-Sunnat have reported. Those kashfs and karamat that do not conform to their books are worthless. The aim on the way of tasawwuf consists of seeing the faults and defects of one's own nafs, making the adaptation to the rules of Islam easy and tasteful and escaping from secret polytheism and disbelief.

"You write about the good hals of your students, for which you shall be much thankful to Allahu ta'ala. Try hard for your students to be perfect Muslims and to attain to Allahu ta'ala's Consent! Tell them about the adab in the rules of Islam, the adab of the scholars of Ahl as-Sunnat and the hals and morals of Salaf as-salihin. Do not refrain from preaching and advising them! Allahu ta'ala does not love those without adab. Recite the Qur'an al-karim much! Perform your salat in khushu' (reverence) and in accord with the books of fiqh [written by the 'ulama' of Ahl as-Sunnat] and always say the beautiful word la ilaha illa'llah! May Allahu ta'ala show Mercy upon all of us! May He bestow upon all of us the good deeds through which His Consent is attained! I express my salam and say my prayers for you and for those who follow the true path, the footsteps of Muhammad ('alaihi 's-salam)! Since much time has past since the time of Rasulullah (sall-Allahu ta'ala 'alaihi wa sallam) and the Doomsday is nearing, bidat' are widespread everywhere now. Darkness and the harms of bidat' have disseminated throughout the world; the sunnas have been forgotten. Their lights have been covered. Now the most valuable deed that will make one attain to Allahu ta'ala's Consent is the endeavor to uncover the forgotten sunnas, that is, to disseminate Islamic sciences. Those who want to be near Muhammad ('alaihi 's-salam) on the Day of Judgement should work for this purpose. A hadith ash-Sharif says, 'There is the thawab of a hundred martyrs for the one who uncovers a forsaken sunnat of mine.' [That is, it is very meritorious to uncover, preach and promulgate an Islamic teaching.] The first thing to do for uncovering a sunnat is one's performance of that sunnat personally. Next comes the endeavor to make others perform it.

"You write about the fear of the last breath. There has been nobody who has escaped this fear. The last breath of everyone other than prophets ('alaihimu 's-salawatu wa 't-taslimat) is uncertain. The good news of being rescued in the last breath can be known only through wahi. Though good signs, works and tidings indicate the safety of the last breath, they only make up a strong supposition. However strong the supposition is, it cannot rescue one from this suffering, this fear.

"You say, 'I see that my 'ibadas and ta'as do not deserve being acceptable. Therefore, there sometimes appear some slackness in performing 'ibada.' We are ordered to perform 'ibadas in this world. We have to perform them even if we do not know whether they will be accepted or not. We will not only perform them but also, asking forgiveness of our defects in them, entreat by crying and moaning for their acceptance. Repenting and entreating may cause their acceptance. We are human servants. We are obliged to do our human duties. The Devil, the accursed, tries to deceive us so that we may not undertake our human duties.

"You ask about our tawajjuh and love towards you. Is there any need to express it? Your love towards us is the work, the result, of our love towards you. All the flowers and fruits on the tree stem from the trunk. This rule has always worked as such. Surat al-Ma'ida states, 'I love them. And they love Me,' in the 54th ayat and, 'Allah is pleased with them. And they are pleased with Allah,' in the 109th ayat. Allahu ta'ala expressed His love and consent before those [of His lovers]."

Kadizada Ahmad Effendi (rahimah-Allahu ta'ala) wrote in his Turkish work Fara'id al-fawa'id, which is a commentary of Amantu: "When one does a charitable deed and presents its thawab to any dead person, it reaches him. As written in the book Wasat by al-Imam at-Tabarani (rahimah-Allahu ta'ala), Anas ibn Malik (radi-Allahu 'anh) reported that Rasulullah (sall-Allahu ta'ala 'alaihi wa sallam) had said, 'When one gives alms for a dead person of his acquaintance, Jabrail ('alaihi 's-salam) takes the thawab of the alms to him in a dish of lights (nur) and says, "Oh the owner of the grave! This present is sent by your friend, take it!" The dead person rejoices to receive that present. Upon seeing this, those dead people to whom no present is sent feel sorrow.'

"As said by 'Amr ibn Jarir (rahimah-Allahu ta'ala), if a person prays or does a charitable deed for a religious brother of his who has passed to the next world and if he gifts its thawab to him, an angel takes the thawab to that dead person and says, 'Such person among your friends sent this to you.' The hadith ash-Sharif reported by Imam Muslim (rahimah-Allahu ta'ala) on the authority of Abu Huraira (radi-Allahu ta'ala 'anh) says: 'When a believer dies, all his deeds end; only three of his deeds do not end, and their thawabs go on being written in this deed-book. These three deeds are his sadaqa al-jariyya (continuing good works), his useful books and his pious children who pray for his blessedness.' The prayers and thawabs presented to all Muslims reach all of them. When one goes to a believer's grave and greets him, the dead one in the grave hears him, replies to his greeting and, if they were acquainted, recognized him. Rasulullah (sall-Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam) ordered us to visit graves and to greet those in them. The hadith ash-Sharif related by 'Abdullah ibn 'Abbas (radi-Allahu 'anhuma) says, 'When one visits the grave of a believer of his acquaintance and greets him, the latter recognizes him and responds to the greeting.' Another hadith ash-Sharif says, 'When one visits the grave of a religious brother of his and sits by grave, the dead one rejoices.'

"When a believer recites a salawat Sharifa for our Prophet (sall-Allahu ta'ala 'alaihi wa sallam), angels convey the salawat to our master, who is Fakhr al-'alam (Glory of the world). The Hadith ash-Sharif says, 'Allahu ta'ala has angels that move on the earth. They convey to me the salawat recited by my umma,' and, 'When one recites salat for me, his salat is immediately conveyed to me.' These two hadiths mean 'Angels convey some of them, and I [directly] hear the others.' There are many hadiths that report that he personally will hear and reply to the salat and salam that will be said by the Rawdat al-muqaddasa.

"The blessed bodies of prophets ('allahimu 's-salatu wa 's-salam) do not rot. This is stated in many hadiths, one of which says, 'Prophets are alive in their graves.' Some 'ulama' said that martyrs do not rot, either. Al-Imam al-Qurtubi said that the bodies of believers who were patient during troubles and sufferings and those of the pious who followed Islamic rules did not rot. The body that has not sinned does not rot. The bodies of the 'ulama' who practice their knowledge, those of hafizes and muazzins [who do not commit sins or bidat] and those of awliya' (qaddas-Allahu ta'ala asrarahumu 'l-'aziz) do not rot. Even more, the earth does not affect their shrouds. Others' bodies rot. A hadith ash-Sharif says, 'Earth rots the body of every dead person. Only the bone called coccyx does not rot.'

"Our religion does not openly describe how the soul is. The soul is neither a substance nor an attribute but, unlike substances, it exists without needing any matter. After man dies, his soul does not become non-existent. It exists needing no matter. It possesses perception and comprehension. It is not openly reported where the soul goes. In the commentary to Jawhara, Ibrahim al-Laqani wrote various narrations. Al-Imam as-Suyuti, in his work Sharh as-sudur, and Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyya said that the souls of rebels (shaqi), that is, unbelievers and sinners, are in torture while the souls of the happy (Said), that is, believers and the pious, are in blessings and pleasures. The Jews' souls come together with other Jewish souls. [The souls of Christians, the la-madhhabi and unbelievers without a holy book reside with one another's.] The place where the souls are tortured is called Sijjin. The place of blessings and pleasures is called 'Illiyyin. The highest rank at 'Illiyyin is called Mala al-'ala. Our master Rasulullah said as his last statement, 'Oh my Rabb! Forgive me! Show mercy to me! Make me attain to Rafiq al-ala,' which is the place of prophets. Their ranks, too, are different. On the night of Miraj, our Prophet (sall-Allahu ta'ala 'alaihi wa sallam) saw 'Adam ('alaihi 's-salam) in the first sky, 'Isa and Yahya ('alaihima 's-salam) in the second sky, Yusuf ('alaihi 's-salam) in the third sky, Idris ('alaihi 's-salam) in the fourth sky, Harun ('alaihi 's-salam) in the fifth sky, Musa ('alaihi 's-salam) in the sixth sky and Ibrahim ('alaihi 's-salam) in the seventh sky. The souls of the 'ulama' of Ahl as-Sunnat are near those of prophets ('alaihimu 's-salawatu wa 't-taslimat). A hadith ash-Sharif says, 'Martyrs' souls are at the 'Arsh al-ilahi. Whenever they want, they go to the places they wish in Paradise, and then they return to their dwellings.' Morning and evening, or day and night, do not exist in the life of the next world. Paradise is nurani (glorious; formed of the Glory of Allahu ta'ala). Some martyrs do not enter Paradise but remain under the green domes along the river called Bariq near Paradise. The blessings of Paradise are brought to them in the morning and evening; here, 'morning and evening' are used as metaphors to liken to the time in this world. According to a narration, all believers' souls are under these domes. Martyrs say, 'If our brothers-in-Islam in the world saw the blessings and happiness we have attained to, they would rush out to perform jihad.' The 170th ayat al-karima of Surat Al 'Imran says, 'Do not say "dead" for those who became martyrs in the way of Allah. They are alive. Nutrition is always given to them. The fear of being tortured does not exist in them. They do not worry about being deprived of blessings, either.' In the world, their bodies decay and putrefy under soil, and animals eat their flesh; those who see this condition of theirs think that they suffer pains and are under torture. They cannot comprehend the blessings and happiness martyrs attain to. While martyrs are alive as such, prophets, too, are certainly alive since every prophet possesses the rank of martyrdom. A hadith ash-Sharif says, 'The one whose death comes while he is learning knowledge is met by Allahu ta'ala in the rank of prophets.' 'Uthman ibn 'Affan (radi-Allahu 'anh) reported that Rasulullah (sall-Allahu ta'ala 'alaihi wa sallam) had said, 'On the Day of Judgement, prophets will intercede firstly and the 'ulama' next.' A hadith ash-Sharif says, 'Those who die of ta'un attain to the rank of martyrs.' Ta'un means any epidemic disease like plague.

"During the life in the grave, one will be in the company of those with whom he will be together with on the Day of Judgement. He will be assembled for Judgement among those whom he loves and lives with in this world. Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (rahimah-Allahu ta'ala) said, 'believers' souls are in Paradise. Unbelievers' souls are in Hell.' To some 'ulama', the former are in Jannat al-mawa, the Paradise under the 'Arsh. The souls of those who habitually commit fornication or who dwell on interest or orphans' property are under torture in Hell. The souls of those on whom others have rights do not enter Paradise. Such are the souls of those who commit sins and cruelty. The souls of awliya' (rahimahum-Allahu ta'ala) and pious believers come to their graves and visit their bodies. believers' souls visit one another. They talk with one another especially on Friday nights. When a believer dies and his or her soul ascends to the sky, the souls of [dead] believers come and ask about their acquaintances in this world. The souls of those who die without making a testament are not permitted to talk."

TO DISBELIEVERS OF TASAWWUF AND KARAMAT

From http://www.hizmetbooks.org/Advice_for_the_Muslim/wah-34.htm
34 - 'Abd al-Ghani an-Nabulusi wrote:

"One should be neither lax nor excessive but moderate in performing 'ibadat. The 185th ayat al-karima of Surat al-Baqara says, 'Allahu ta'ala wills ease for you. He wills not hardship for you.' This is why He has permitted the sick and the traveler not to fast. He did not order us to do heavy, distressing duties. If a person is to make a choice between doing two things, it is right for him to do the lighter and the easier. The Prophet (sall-Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam) heard that a man kept performing salat in the mosque for hours. He went to the mosque and, holding the man's shoulders, said, 'Allahu ta'ala wants this umma to do easy things and He does not approve of hardship.' Allahu ta'ala has ordered easy things for this umma. It is very easy to follow the rules of Islam.

"The 90th ayat al-karima of Surat al-Ma'ida declares, 'Oh believers! Do not forbid (make "haram" or "unlawful") the beautiful things that Allahu ta'ala has made lawful (halal) for you, and do not say "haram" for what is "halal"! Allahu ta'ala does not love those who say "haram" for which He said "halal"!' [Ibn Abd al-Wahhab said 'haram' for many things which are halal, even for ibadat. Even more, he said 'polytheism' for some of them. This ayat karima shows that Allahu ta'ala does not love him. He has shown the way to get saved from punishment when a believer commits a sin. He declares that the one who commits a sin will be forgiven if he repents of it and gives the kaffara (attonement). Ibn Abd al-Wahhab attacked against dawr (performance in a circle of poor Muslims) of isqat and said that such things were fabricated practices that caused evil people to sin. Would he charge against Allah's forgiving sins of those who repent and atone? Would he dare slander the ease and mercy shown by Allahu ta'ala by claiming that this would cause ill-willed people to commit sins?]

"The Hadith ash-Sharif says, 'Allahu ta'ala likes you to do what He has permitted as He likes you to do what He has ordered you to do.' He has given permission (rukhsa) to commit a haram and omit a fard in case of darura (compulsion or emergency necessity); that is, there will not be any punishment for it. Carrying out the orders of Islam even in case of darura is called 'azima. It is sometimes better to do the 'azima, for example, not to conceal one's iman when threatened with death; one becomes a martyr if he is killed. And sometimes, it is better to do the rukhsa, for example, for a traveler not to fast when traveling. The traveler will have committed a sin if he dies of an illness as a result of fasting.

"It is not permissible to search for the rukhsas and easy ways of the four madhahib and do one's affairs according to them to avoid practicing the rules of Islam. Such an attempt is called talfiq. In case of necessity it is permissible to change one's madhhab or to do a few things according to another madhhab. It is haram to cheat in order to omit a fard or commit a haram. This is called hilat batila. However, it is permissible to prevent something from becoming fard or haram before it becomes fard or haram. This preventions is called hilat Shariyya.

"In the book Ikhtiyar, the annotation of the book Mukhtar, it is written: 'Riyada, or eating very little, if it weakens one to the degree of preventing one from performing the fard, is not permissible. It is fard to work and earn enough money to afford the livelihood of oneself and one's wife and children and to pay one's debt. If a person who works with this intention dies, he will not be punished [for it in the next world]. A hadith ash-Sharif declares, "It is fard for every man to earn his livelihood." It is permissible not to work for more than this. Adam ('alaihi 's-salam) grew wheat and baked bread; Nuh [Noah ('alaihi 's-salam) was a carpenter; Ibrahim ('alaihi 's-salam) was a cloth merchant; Dawud ('alaihi 's-salam) was a smith; Sulaiman ('alaihi 's-salam) wove baskets, and Muhammad ('alaihi 's-salam) was first a shepherd, later he became a merchant, and later he was engaged in jihad and became a soldier. Abu Bakr as-Siddiq was a cloth-merchant; 'Umar al-Faruq was a shoe-repairer and shoemaker; 'Uthman Dhi 'n-Nurain was a food-importer, and 'Ali (radi-Allahu ta'ala 'anhum ajmain) was a workman. It is mubah to work so as to earn the amount of one year's livelihood of one's household. It is mustahab to work hard and earn more to help Muslims and to perform jihad. A hadith ash-Sharif declares, "The best of mankind is the one who is beneficial to human beings." ' It is makruh tahrima to earn for ostentation and boasting. The book Multaqa writes that this is haram. Working does not increase the sustenance (rizq). Allahu ta'ala is the One who grants sustenance. By working, one holds fast to the causes, which is a sunnat.

"Those who work are of five categories: in the first group are those who believe that sustenance is earned only as an exchange for work; disbelievers believe so. The second group of people believe that Allahu ta'ala grants the sustenance, and working is meant to hold fast to the causes, and they do not disobey Allahu ta'ala while working; they do not commit the haram and are sincere, pious Muslims. The third group of people disobey Allahu ta'ala while working, although they believe that Allahu ta'ala grants them the sustenance; sinning believers are of this group. The fourth group of people believe that the sustenance comes both from Allahu ta'ala and from their efforts; polytheists are of this group. The fifth group knows that sustenance is granted only by Allahu ta'ala, but they are not sure whether He will grant it or not; munafiqs are of this group.

"It is written in the fatwa book Tatarkhaniyya that it is makruh tahrima to shut oneself in a mosque or house and worship all the time and to neglect eating, marrying, pleasures like going for a walk, and earning halal sustenance.

"Question: 'The above statements of the 'ulama' of the religion do not agree with those statements of mutasawwifs which praise undertaking riyada and leading an ascetic life. Which one is better of the two?'

Answer: Some mutasawwifs said that he who keeps himself hungry for forty days starts comprehending the Divine Mysteries. Sahl ibn 'Abdullah [at-Tusturi, d. Basra, 283 A.H. (896)] used to eat once in fifteen days. Al-Imam al-Ghazali [d. Tus, 505 A.H. (1111)] wrote: 'Abu Bakr as-Siddiq (radi-Allahu 'anh) ate once in six days. Al-Junaid al-Baghdadi performed four hundred rak'as of salat every day. Sahl ibn 'Abdullah became a hafiz when he was seven years old. He fasted every day and ate solely barley-bread for twelve years." Abd al-Wahhab ash-Sharani [(rahmat-Allahi 'alaih), d. 973 A.H. (1365)] recited the whole Qur'an twice during the time between the evening and night salats. One should not hesitate to believe this; awliya' have spiritual (ruhani) power, and the soul (ruh) can do many things in a moment.

"The 'ulama' have declared that one should not be excessive and distress oneself in performing 'ibadat. This statement is related to the things that are fard, wajib or sunnat for the whole Umma. Every Muslim should do as such. The austerities undertaken by mutasawwifs are the supererogatory (nafila) 'ibadat. Not every Muslim should do them. The 16th ayat al-karima of Surat Taghabun declares, 'Fear Allah as much as you can!' The 70th ayat al-karima of Surat al-Furqan says, 'For those who believe and repent and do pious deeds, I convert their sins into thawabs. Allahu ta'ala is the Forgiver of sins and Merciful.' Upon hearing this ayat, Wahshi said, 'It states conditions to be fulfilled for being forgiven. I fear if I cannot fulfill them. Is there no easier way out?' Then, the ayat, 'Allahu ta'ala forgives everything but polytheism of His human servants whom He wishes,' was revealed. Then, Wahshi worried: 'What shall I do if Allahu ta'ala does not wish to forgive me?' Thereupon, the ayat al-karima, 'Oh My servants who tyrannize themselves! Do not be hopeless of Allah's Grace! Allahu ta'ala forgives all sins. He is ghafur [and] rahim!' was revealed. 'This good news is sufficient for me,' said Wahshi, and he became a believer. This ayat karima is good news for everyone on the earth until the Resurrection. For those who cannot find water and are to perform tayammum for ablution, Allahu ta'ala first declared, 'Rub your hands and face with clean soil!' but later declared, 'Rub your hands and face with your hands dusted with clean soil!' He ordered men not to rub with soil and made the order easier. When Allahu ta'ala told His Prophet that He would turn the hills around Mecca into gold if he wanted, Rasulullah (sall-Allahu ta'ala 'alaihi wa sallam) did not think of spending that much gold for Allah's sake to perform jihad against the enemies and did not want it, but he wished to experience difficulties. However, he asked his companions' help before the Battle of Tabuk, saying, 'I give him the good news of becoming destined for Paradise who supplies the needs of this army.' It is noted in books that Rasulullah did not break his fast for days and tied stones on his blessed abdomen [not to feel hunger]. It is also reported that he performed salat late at nights until his blessed feet were swollen. His blessed wives (radi-Allahu ta'ala 'anhunna), too, performed that much 'ibada. But, because he was very merciful to his umma, he did not want them to undertake that much difficulty. He ordered them in rukhsa, but he himself performed 'ibada in 'azima. Islam is not a religion of mere orders; it is composed of both rukhsas and 'azimas. The ayat al-karima of Surat at-Tahrim, 'Do not make haram the beautiful things which Allahu ta'ala has made halal for you!' means 'Do not deny those rukhsas which are permitted! It is zuhd and good for you if you give up the rukhsas and abstain from them without regarding them as haram. It is not a sin to do or use them.' The hadith ash-Sharif, 'He who does not accept my sunnat has no relation with me,' means 'He who does not accept the things I permit but undertakes difficulties does not belong to my umma.'

"The superiors of tasawwuf have preferred 'azimas, yet they have not denied the right of practicing ('Amal) with rukhsas. As Rasulullah (sall-Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam) did, they have ordered everyone to practice with rukhsas. Tasawwuf means obeying the Qur'an al-karim and the Sunnat, abstaining from bidat', being respectful towards the superiors of tasawwuf and being merciful towards everyone and omitting the practices that are rukhsas. The 'ulama' of the Ahl as-Sunnat would give up about seventy halals lest they should commit a haram, for they acted with 'azima and wara'. Abu Bakr as-Siddiq (radi-Allahu 'anh) declared, 'We would abstain from seventy halals lest we should commit a haram.'

"Rasulullah (sall-Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam) ordered Abu Huraira (radi-Allahu ta'ala 'anh) 'Do with wara' so that you will become the best of the 'abids.' It is understood from this hadith ash-Sharif that Islam is not a system of rukhsas or being moderate in every affair; 'azima, zuhd and wara' are Islamic, too. It is for those who cannot endure and whose body and mind may suffer harm that undertaking riyada or hunger is makruh tahrima, because it is haram to expose oneself to danger. Undertaking riyada is permissible and useful for those whose spiritual powers prevent this danger.

"The necessity of a rehber can be appreciated from this point, too: the perfect rehber perceives the condition of the health, character and spiritual power of the disciple and orders him to undertake riyada appropriate for his capacity and protects him against dangers. The perfect rehber is an expert in both the knowledge of the body and that of the soul and religion. He is an inheritor, a deputy, of our master Rasulullah. No one among those trained by perfect rehbers have been seen to suffer any harm or danger. They all have made progress and attained to perfection. None of them have shown any slackness in obeying Islam during their progress on the way of tasawwuf. It is haram to do something that causes the omission of a fard. A rehber protects one against such harams. It is for this reason that it is necessary to perform supererogatory 'ibadat with his permission.

"Rasulullah (sall-Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam) was very merciful to his umma. On the Miraj Night, he asked that salat of fifty times a day be reduced to only five times a day. He did not permit his companions to undertake severe riyada so that heavy orders would not be conveyed to his umma. It cannot be thought that he did not inform his umma of the 'ibadat which would be very helpful, or that he prevented those who performed them. He taught, performed and made others perform the best and most useful of everything. Since the practice of rukhsas, that is, being a human servant without excessiveness or laxity would be useful for all his umma, he openly practiced them and ordered their practice. However, he also taught secret knowledge and 'ibadat to the superior ones among as-Sahabat al-kiram. The 282nd ayat al-karima of Surat al-Baqara declares, 'Fear Allah! Thus, He will teach you many things,' which are Divine Marifa and secret [esoteric] knowledge. A hadith ash-Sharif declares, 'Knowledge has subtle and secret constituents. Only the men of Allah know them. The ignorant will not believe if they disclose what they know.'

"The hadith about the Miraj, written in Al-mawahib by al-Imam al-Qastalani, declares, 'My Rabb revealed to me three different sciences. He told me not to reveal the first one to anyone, because no one but I can understand this science. He said, "You may communicate the second science to those whom you wish. Teach the third science to all of your umma!" ' It is seen that Rasulullah (sall-Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam) did not declare, 'The science revealed to me by Allahu ta'ala is solely the science ordered to be taught to all the umma.' He told that there were two other true sciences, too. The second science which Rasulullah had been permitted to teach to whomever he wished was wilaya, that is, the science of tasawwuf. This science deals with the batin and reality of Islam, and it can only be obtained through taqwa. Referring to Khidir ('alaihi 's-salam), Surat al-kahf declares, 'Knowledge from Us was given to him.' This ayat karima indicates the science of wilaya. As the knowledge of fiqh, which was ordered to be revealed to everybody, is the collection of the blessed sayings and deeds of Rasulullah, so the marifas of wilaya have been flowing from his blessed heart into other hearts. This is why Abu Huraira (radi-Allahu 'anh) said, 'I learnt two sciences from Rasulullah. I have conveyed to you the first one. You cannot comprehend the second one and you would kill me if I disclosed the second one.' The first science is 'ilm az-zahir, and the second one is 'ilm al-batin. Only awliya' and Siddiqs know the latter.

"Mutasawwifs undertake riyadat and perform mujahada to attain 'ilm al-batin. As there are false 'alims in 'ilm az-zahir, so there are false, ill-willed people who pass themselves off as mutasawwifs and make this blessed way a means for their worldly interests. It is necessary to identify such liars and to know them in order not to be trapped by them. Therefore, one should learn Islam very well, because it is the only touchstone to distinguish the true from the false. It is very good and useful if someone who practices fiqh also tries to make progress in tasawwuf. However, the supervision of a perfect rehber is necessary to make progress on this way, who is a specialist of the heart and soul. He diagnoses the illness in the heart of the talib (aspirant), chooses the proper riyada and dhikr for him and orders him to do it. The tenth ayat al-karima of Surat al-Baqara says, 'Their hearts are ill.' Rasulullah's sohbat cured that illness, and there was no need for any riyada for as-Sahabat al-kiram because they all received faid from his blessed heart through the blessings of his sohbat and reached the highest degrees of tasawwuf, thus being superior to all awliya' who came after them. The successors of as-Sahabat al-kiram have tried hard to get saved from the heart diseases by undertaking riyadat, because they have not had the chance of attending Rasulullah's sohbat. 'Ilm al-batin does not occur separately from 'ilm az-zahir; those who gain both of them are called 'ulama' ar-rasikhin. Only those are the 'ulama' who are Rasulullah's inheritors. Those who cure their hearts by undertaking riyadat give up riyadat after they attain to 'ilm al-batin. They do only what are fard and sunnat. They perform 'ibada also through their batins, their hearts, like the as-Sahabat al-kiram (radi-Allahu ta'ala 'anhum) did. Even their buying or selling does not harm their batins' 'ibada. They do not forget Allahu ta'ala even for a moment. They are praised in the Qur'an al- Karim: the 37th ayat al-karima of Surat an-Nur says, 'Buying or selling does not make them forget Allah.' The as-Sahabat al-kiram reached this high degree very easily and quickly without undertaking riyada. Hadrat 'Umar (radi-Allahu 'anh) attained to this degree just in the first sohbat. If as-Sahabat al-kiram had been permitted to undertake riyada, the 'ulama' of Islam, the imams of madhhabs, would have recorded their riyada in their books and all Muslims would have to do as they did.

"The hadith ash-Sharif related in the book Mustadrak by Muhammad ibn 'Abdullah Hakim an-Nishapuri, a scholar of hadith [(rahimah-Allahu ta'ala), d. Nishapur, 405 A.H. (1014)], declares, 'The food of the believers in ad-Dajjal's time will be their praising and sanctifying [Allahu ta'ala], as it is the food of angels. Allahu ta'ala will satisfy the hunger of those who praise and sanctify in that time.' This shows that Allahu ta'ala may put His servants whom He wishes into such a state that they do not need eating and drinking, and He will grant this state to every believer in the time of ad-Dajjal. One of the mischievous acts of ad-Dajjal will be his saying, 'Worship me and obey me!' wherever he goes. If people obey him, he will order the sky and the earth, and it will rain and crops will grow. If people do not obey him, he will order it not to rain and crops not to grow and they will suffer hunger. The above hadith ash-Sharif reveals that his mischief will not do any harm to the believers; they will not suffer hunger by praising and sanctifying Allahu ta'ala.

"One should not get the feeling that undertaking austerities such as zuhd, patience, riyada and hunger are incompatible with Islam, because Islam forbids the things that are painful and harmful to the body. These austerities are not harmful to mutasawwifs. They, like every rule of Islam, make up a part of the Islamic religion inherited from Rasulullah (sall-Allahu ta'ala 'alaihi wa sallam). Denial of these austerities and of the awliya' who undertake them is the denial of a part of Islam.

"One should not think that mutasawwifs were superior to prophets ('alaihimu 's-salawatu wa 't-taslimat) or even to as-Sahabat al-kiram (ridwan-Allahi 'alaihim ajmain) because they undertook riyadat. Nor should one slander any wali. One should recognize that he himself is defective by being unable to understand the greatness of awliya'. A hadith ash-Sharif declares, 'good news to him who thinks about his own faults and defects so much that he cannot find time to look for others' faults.' Sahl ibn 'Abdullah at-Tusturi said, 'The worst sin is to eye a Muslim with suspicion. Most people do not regard this as a sin and never repent of it.' A person's respect and praise for all awliya' are of no avail if he speaks ill of only one of them without any reason based on Islam. He who does not accept and approve of all awliya' cannot become a wali. If one hurts a wali of Allahu ta'ala by eyeing him with suspicion, he will have slandered a part of Islam. Abul-Mawahib ash-Shadhili (rahimah-Allahu ta'ala) said, 'He who does not respect the awliya' of his time is immediately dismissed from the circle of awliya'.' Muhyiddin Ibn al-'Arabi (rahmat-Allahi 'alaih) declared, 'Most of our great scholars said that it caused disbelief to bear hostility towards awliya' and towards those 'ulama' who practice their 'ilm.' 'Ali al-Khawwas, who was 'Abd al-Wahhab ash-Sharani's master, said that one must stay away from the person who bore hostility to a wali or an alim. Opposing a wali or an alim is a heresy, which leads one to destruction.

"Allahu ta'ala's awliya' are those 'ulama' who are 'amil of (living up to, practicing) their 'ilm. Denying with heart or tongue any dead or living wali is an obvious kufr (disbelief). Anyone who denies a wali becomes a kafir (disbeliever) according to the unanimity of all Muslims, of all the madhhabs of Muslims, because this is a denial of the Islamic religion. An ignorant and stupid person may not be aware of his denial and may think that he denies a superstition or a bidat or something unbecoming in his opinion, but he ruins himself by saying 'fasiq', 'kafir' or 'zindiq' for awliya' and by misjudging their deeds and words. In reality, however, Allahu ta'ala's awliya' are very far from his defamatory deferences. Their words and deeds are taat and qurba and are compatible with Islam. But the ignoramus insists in obstinacy and does not understand the knowledge of awliya' and the marifa of Siddiqs. His heart is dead, and he cannot see the truth. He has sunk into the abyss of disbelief, deviation, heresy and hypocrisy. He thinks he is a man of tawhid and ta'a who enlightens mankind. In the next world, he will be punished because of his kufr and suffer torture for his oppressions and slanders. He does not say 'kafir' for himself and for the people who believe like him, because they all participate in this denial and consider themselves Muslims. On the contrary, to Muslims, they are kafirs. Muslims believe Allahu ta'ala's awliya' and their true hals. Not knowing or misunderstanding is not an excuse for those who deny, since it is not an excuse not to know the religion. Their misunderstanding awliya' is like the denial of Muhammad's ('alaihi 's-salam) true religion by Jews, Christians, Magians and idolaters. It is not an excuse for them to be ignorant of wilaya, just as it is not an excuse for non-Muslims to be ignorant of Islam.

"The denial of Allahu ta'ala's awliya' implies disbelief like the denial of a rule of Islam. The punishment inflicted upon the renegade who denies Islam should also be inflicted upon the kafir who denies awliya'. But he is first allowed to give up his denial and to repent.

"Awliya' and prophets cannot go beyond being Allah's human servants, no matter how high their degrees are. As human beings have no influence on the occurrence of marvelous events or miracles, so they have no influence on those happenings that are created within the scope of [His] usual custom [or natural laws]. Allahu ta'ala alone creates everything. Awliya' and prophets have no influence on the creation of anything. But, Allahu ta'ala has regarded His awliya' and prophets as higher than other human beings and has bestowed upon them favors that He has not given to others. He creates the optional actions of every human being if He wills after he wishes. He does not create what men want if He does not will. He, too, always wills and creates some certain wishes of human beings. For example, when one wishes to raise his arm or blink his eyes, He instantaneously wills it and raises his arm and blinks his eyes; very rarely He does not will to create such wishes. There are some other wishes of human beings which He seldom wills to create and usually does not will and create. Most of our wishes in this world are of this kind. But, as it is witnessed every day, this condition is not the same for every human being. Hence, Allahu ta'ala wills and creates most of the wishes of His awliya' and prophets immediately, as if they were wishes like the raising of an arm or blinking of an eye. This is a favor of Allahu ta'ala for them. Awliya' differ from one another in this respect, and no wali can ever reach the degree of a prophet. Awliya' do not wish anything worldly because none of them regards the world as valuable. And whatever they want of the world is for the other world and for Allah." [Abd al-Ghani an-Nabulusi, Al-hadiqat an-Nadiyya, v. I, p. 190, Istanbul, 1920.]

Allahu ta'ala's awliya' (rahimahum-Allahu ta'ala) centuries ago foresaw as a karama that there would be the la-madhhabi who would deny awliya' and become heretics and even apostates. They wrote everything necessary to protect Muslims against being deceived by them. Is not this apparent karama sufficient to make one believe awliya'?

THE WAHHABIS' IJTIHADS ARE FALSE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FATWA ON THE HERESY OF THE WAHHABISM

From http://www.hizmetbooks.org/Advice_for_the_Muslim/wah-31.htm
31 - The following is again a translation from the book Ashadd al-jihad:

Muhammad ibn Sulaiman al-Madani ash-Shafi'i (rahmat-Allahi 'alaih), [who passed away in Medina in 1194 A.H. (1780),] was questioned about Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab an-Najdi. He said, "This man is leading the ignoramuses of the present age to a heretical path. He is extinguishing Allahu ta'ala's light. But Allahu ta'ala will not let His light be extinguished in spite of the opposition of polytheists, and He will enlighten everywhere with the light of the 'ulama' of Ahl as-Sunnat." The [collection of the] questions and his answers at the end of Muhammad ibn Sulaiman's fatwas are as follows:

"Question: Oh great 'ulama', the stars who lead to the path of the Best of Creatures (the Prophet)! I ask you: Is a person to be permitted to disseminate his ideas if he says that this umma has wholly dissented from the essence of Islam and from the path of Rasulullah (sall-Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam), just by measuring with his short sight and narrow mind the knowledge he has gathered from various religious books, and if he says that he is mujtahid and, therefore, is able to derive knowledge on Islam from Allah's Word and Rasulullah's hadiths, although he does not have any of the qualifications stated as necessary by the 'ulama' of Islam for being a mujtahid? Should he not give up this claim of his and follow the 'ulama' of Islam? He says that he is an imam, that it is necessary for every Muslim to follow him and that his madhhab is necessary. He forces Muslims to accept his madhhab. He says that those who do not obey him are unbelievers, that they should be killed and that their possessions should be confiscated. Does this man tell the truth? Or, is he wrong? Even if a person fulfilled all the requirements necessary for making ijtihad and founded a madhhab, would it be jaiz for him to force everyone to adopt this madhhab? Is it necessary to adopt a certain madhhab? Or, is everyone free to choose any madhhab he like? Does a Muslim go out of Islam if he visits the grave of a Sahabi or a pious servant of Allahu ta'ala, vows something for him, cuts an animal near a grave, prays making a mediator of a dead person, takes some soil from such a grave to receive blessings or asks help from Rasulullah or a Sahabi to get redeemed from danger? Is it permitted to kill such a Muslim even though he says, 'I do not worship the dead person and do not believe that he has the power to do anything. I make an intercessor, mediator, of that person with Allahu ta'ala to make me attain my wish, because, I believe that he is a beloved servant of Allahu ta'ala.' Does a person go out of Islam if he swears by something [or somebody] other than Allah?

"Answer: It should be well understood that knowledge is to be learned from a master. Those who learn knowledge, one's religion, from books by themselves make many mistakes. Their mistakes are more than their correct conclusions. There is no one who can employ ijtihad today. Al-Imam ar-Rafii, al-Imam an-Nawawi and Fakhr ad-din ar-Razi said, 'The 'ulama' have come to a unanimous conclusion that there is no one left capable of employing ijtihad today.' No alim argued with al-Imam as-Suyuti, who was like an ocean in every science and a profound alim, when he declared that he was a relative (nisbee) mujtahid, that is, a mujtahid belonging to a formerly established madhhab, though he did not say that he was an absolute (mutlaq) mujtahid or that he had his own madhhab. He wrote more than five hundred books. Every book of his shows that he was at a very high level in the sciences of tafsir and hadith and in every branch of Islamic knowledge. Is it apt to believe similar words of those who are very far from the high level of an alim such as al-Imam as-Suyuti while he was not accepted as a relative mujtahid? They should not even be listened to. And if one of them goes so far as to say that the books by the 'ulama' of Islam were wrong, we shall doubt his reason and faith. Because, we may ask: From whom has he acquired his knowledge? Since he has seen neither Rasulullah (sall-Allahu ta'ala 'alaihi wa sallam) nor any Sahabi, he should have learned by reading the books by the 'ulama' of Islam if he knows anything. If he says that the books of those 'ulama' are distorted, then how has he himself found the right path? He should explain this point to us! The imams of the four madhhabs and the great 'ulama' who came up in these madhhabs derived all their knowledge from ayats and hadiths. From which source has he acquired his knowledge which disagrees with theirs? It is obvious that he has not attained the degree of employing ijtihad. The thing this man should do when he encounters a hadith ash-Sharif which he cannot comprehend is to search for the interpretations of that hadith ash-Sharif by mujtahids. He should adopt the interpretation he likes. Al-Imam an-Nawawi (rahimah-Allahu ta'ala), a profound alim, wrote in his book Rawda that his was the way to be followed. Only those profound 'ulama' who had attained the degree of ijtihad could comprehend ayats and hadiths. Non-mujtahids are not permitted to attempt to understand ayats and hadiths. So, Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab had better return to the right path and give up his heresies.

"As for his calling Muslims 'unbelievers,' a hadith ash-Sharif declares, 'If a person calls a Muslim an "unbeliever," one of the two becomes an unbeliever. If the accused is a Muslim, the one who accuses becomes an unbeliever.' Al-Imam ar-Rafii (rahmat-Allahi 'alaih), with reference to Tuhfa, wrote in his book Ash-sharh al-kabir, 'The one who calls a Muslim a disbeliever but is unable to explain it away becomes a disbeliever himself, for he will have called Islam disbelief.' Al-Imam an-Nawawi, too, wrote the same in his book Rawda. Abu Ishaq al-Isfaraini, al-Halimi, an-Nasr Al-Muqaddasi, al-Ghazali, Ibn Daqiqi 'l-Id and many other 'ulama' said that he becomes a disbeliever whether he is able to explain it away or not.

"As to his permitting killing Muslims and confiscating their properties, a hadith ash-Sharif declares, 'I have been commanded to fight against disbelievers until they say La ilaha illa'llah.' This hadith ash-Sharif shows that it is not permissible to kill Muslims. This hadith ash-Sharif was said in the light of the sixth ayat al-karima of Surat at-Tawba which declares, 'Free them who make tawba and perform salat and give zakat.' The twelfth ayat al-karima of Surat at-Tawba declares, 'They are your brothers in Islam.' It is declared, 'We judge according to the appearance we see. Allahu ta'ala knows the secret,' [That author opposes this hadith sharif too, and says, "We do not care about the words. We look for the intentions and meanings," on the 146th page of his book. There are many such statements, incompatible with ayats and hadiths, in his book.] in a hadith ash-Sharif. Another hadith ash-Sharif declares, 'I am not ordered to dissect the hearts of men and see their secrets.' Hadrat Usama killed a man who had been heard to have said, 'La ilaha illa'llah'; when Usama claimed that the man had not had iman in his heart, Rasulullah declared, 'Did you dissect his heart?'

"It is not permissible for a mujtahid to compel people to accept his madhhab. If he is a Qadi at the court, he may give a ruling according to his ijtihad and may order that his decree be executed.

"As for making nadhr for awliya', the Shafi'i 'ulama' explained this subject in detail. It is noted in the book Hiba with reference to the book Tuhfa: 'If someone makes a vow for a dead wali with the intention that the goods he vowed be for the wali, this nadhr is not sahih. If he vows without this intention his nadhr is sahih, and the goods vowed are to be given to the servants of the wali's tomb, the students and teachers of the madrasa near the tomb and to the poor who live near the tomb. If the people who are used to receiving the vowed goods assemble near the tomb, and if it is a custom of that country that the goods vowed should be given to them, the goods are given to them. If there is no such custom, then the nadhr is invalid. This is reported from as-Samlawi and ar-Ramli, too. Everyone knows that no one amongst those who make nadhr for a dead wali would ever think the goods vowed should be given to the dead wali. Because, everyone knows that the dead do not take or use anything and that the goods are to be given to the poor or to the people who serve at the tomb. This is why it is an 'ibada. In fact, according to the Shafi'i madhhab it is not permissible to vow to do mubah, makruh or haram things. The 'ibadas and sunnas which are neither fard nor wajib can be vowed as nadhr.'

"Some 'ulama' said 'permissible' and some said 'not permissible' for kissing and rubbing one's face on graves. Those who said 'not permissible' said that it was makruh. Nobody said it was haram.

"As declared in the hadiths quoted at the beginning of our book, to have recourse to prophets and pious Muslims, that is, to put them as intermediaries, or to entreat Allahu ta'ala through them is permissible. There are many hadiths which show that it is permissible to have tawassul (recommendation of oneself to Allahu ta'ala) through pious deeds. It is certainly permissible to have recourse to the mediation of pious men while it is permissible to make so of good deeds.

"As to swearing by some being other than Allahu ta'ala, it is disbelief only if that being is highly esteemed and attributed as a partner to Allahu ta'ala. The hadith ash-Sharif, 'He who swears by someone other than Allah become a disbeliever,' which was related by Hakim and Imam Ahmad and quoted in al-Munawi's book, explains this fact. But al-Imam an-Nawawi, depending on the majority of the 'ulama', wrote that it was makruh and added that the ijma' of Muslims was a document.

"The 114th ayat al-karima of Surat an-Nisa' declares, 'We put into Hell in the hereafter together with unbelievers the person who, after tawhid and guidance have been taught to him, dissents from the right path of Rasulullah and departs from the believers in belief and deeds.' It is understood from this ayat karima also that it is necessary for every believer to follow the path of Ahl as-Sunnat wal-Jamaat. It should not be forgotten that the wolf will devour the lamb out of the flock. Likewise, he who remains outside Ahl as-Sunnat wal-Jamaat will go to Hell."

After the above passage, Hadrat Dawud ibn Sulaiman goes on:

"This is the end of our short quotation from the profound scholar Muhammad ibn Sulaiman al-Madani's long fatwa on this subject. This will be sufficient for those whom Allahu ta'ala has decreed guidance. Muhammad ibn Sulaiman died in 1195 A.H. (1780). The heretic Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab was born in the Najd desert in 1111 A.H. (1699) and died in 1206 (1792). Muhammad ibn Sulaiman unmasked the ignorance of this man and refuted his opinions and claim that he employed ijtihad. He proved and disseminated in Muslim countries the fact that Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab had not learned anything or received faid from any scholar of Islam and that he had fallen into heresy on account of calling Muslims polytheists.

"Hanafi scholar Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-'Azim al-Makki [(rahmat-Allahi 'alaih) d. 1052 A.H. (1643)] listed and confuted the heretical statements of Ibn Hazm Muhammad 'Ali [az-Zahiri, d. 456 A.H. (1064)] in his book Al-qawl as-Sadid. Ibn Hazm ordered everybody to employ ijtihad and said that it was haram to follow other people. He presents the 58th ayat al-karima of Surat an-Nisa', 'If you cannot agree on a matter, do it the way Allahu ta'ala and His Prophet said,' as a support for these words of his. 'Abd al-'Azim said in answer: 'Thanks to Allahu ta'ala, we are not outside the state of following the great Islamic scholar al-Imam al-azam Abu Hanifa. We are honored by following that exalted imam and his great students and the profound 'ulama' who poured light into the world such as Shams al-aimma and other real 'ulama' who came throughout a millennium (rahimahum-Allahu ta'ala).'

"Ibn Hazm was an Andalusian. He was in the Zahiriyya madhhab, which was founded by Dawud al-Isfhani [az-Zahiri, d. Baghdad, 270 A.H. (883)], whose madhhab was forgotten in a short time. Ibn al-Ahad, az-Zahabi and Ibn Ahmad ibn Khallikan [d. Damascus, 681 A.H. (1281)] said, 'Even those who greeted Ibn Hazm hated him. They disliked his ideas. They all agreed that he was a heretic. They could not speak good of him. They warned the sultans to beware of him. They told Muslims to keep away from him.' Ibn al-'Arif said, 'Ibn Hazm's tongue and al-Hajjaj's sword did the same thing.' Ibn Hazm had many wicked, heretical ideas incompatible with the Hadith. Al-Hajjaj [Al Hajjaj az-zalim as-Saqafi, who died in 95 A.H. (714), was the Governor of Medina and Iraq during the caliphate of Abd al-Malik and his son Walid.] killed one hundred and twenty thousand innocent people without any reason. And Ibn Hazm's tongue led astray hundreds of thousands of Muslims who came after the 'good time' defined in the Hadith ash-Sharif. He died in 456 A.H. (1064).

"May Allahu ta'ala protect all my Muslim brothers against heretical and corrupt paths! May He bestow upon us the belief and deeds compatible with the correct ijtihads of the 'ulama' of the four madhhabs! May He assemble us as the followers of their madhhabs beside the prophets, Siddiqs, martyrs and the pious on the Day of Judgement! Amin." [Dawud ibn Sulaiman, Ashadd al-jihad, written in 1293 A.H., published in Bombay, 1305 A.H. Arabic reprint and Turkish version in 1390 (1970).]

Wahhabism & Islam in the U.S.

Two-faced policy fosters danger.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-schwartz063003.asp

By Stephen Schwartz

EDITOR’S NOTE: This is the text of testimony before the Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security on Thursday, June 26, 2003.

Chairman Kyl, other distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for your invitation to appear here today.

I come before this body to describe how adherents of Wahhabism, the most extreme, separatist, and violent form of Islam, and the official sect in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, have come to dominate Islam in the U.S.

Islam is a fairly new participant at the "big table" of American religions. The Muslim community only became a significant element in our country's life in the 1980s. Most "born Muslims," as opposed to those who "converted" — a term Muslims avoid, preferring "new Muslims" — had historically been immigrants from Pakistan and India who followed traditional, peaceful, mainstream Islam.

With the growth of the Islamic community in America, there was no "Islamic establishment" in the U.S. — in contrast with Britain, France, and Germany, the main Western countries with significant Islamic minorities. Historically, traditional scholars have been a buffer against extremism in Islam, and for various sociological and demographic reasons, American Islam lacked a stratum of such scholars. The Wahhabi ideological structure in Saudi Arabia perceived this as an opportunity to fill a gap — to gain dominance over an Islamic community in the West with immense potential for political and social influence.

But the goals of this operation, which was largely successful, were multiple.

First, to control a significant group of Muslim believers.

Second, to use the Muslim community in the U.S. to pressure U.S. government and media, in the formulation of policy and in perceptions about Islam. This has included liaison meetings, "sensitivity" sessions and other public activities with high-level administration officials, including the FBI director, that we have seen since September 11.

Third, to advance the overall Wahhabi agenda of "jihad against the world" — an extremist campaign to impose the Wahhabi dispensation on the global Islamic community, as well as to confront the other religions. This effort has included the establishment in the U.S. of a base for funding, recruitment, and strategic/tactical support of terror operations in the U.S. and abroad.

Wahhabi-Saudi policy has always been two-faced: that is, at the same time as the Wahhabis preach hostility and violence against non-Wahhabi Muslims, they maintain a policy of alliance with Western military powers — first Britain, then the U.S. and France — to assure their control over the Arabian Peninsula.

At the present time, Shia and other non-Wahhabi Muslim community leaders estimate that 80 percent of American mosques are under Wahhabi control. This does not mean 80 percent of American Muslims support Wahhabism, although the main Wahhabi ideological agency in America, the so-called Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) has claimed that some 70 percent of American Muslims want Wahhabi teaching in their mosques.1This is a claim we consider unfounded.

Rather, Wahhabi control over mosques means control of property, buildings, appointment of imams, training of imams, content of preaching — including faxing of Friday sermons from Riyadh, Saudi Arabia — and of literature distributed in mosques and mosque bookstores, notices on bulletin boards, and organizational solicitation. Similar influence extends to prison and military chaplaincies, Islamic elementary and secondary schools (academies), college campus activity, endowment of academic chairs and programs in Middle East studies, and most notoriously, charities ostensibly helping Muslims abroad, many of which have been linked to or designated as sponsors of terrorism.

The main organizations that have carried out this campaign are the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), which originated in the Muslim Students' Association of the U.S. and Canada (MSA), and CAIR. Support activities have been provided by the American Muslim Council (AMC), the American Muslim Alliance (AMA), the Muslim American Society (MAS), the Graduate School of Islamic and Social Sciences, its sister body the International Institute of Islamic Thought, and a number of related groups that I have called "the Wahhabi lobby." ISNA operates at least 324 mosques in the U.S. through the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT). These groups operate as an interlocking directorate.

Both ISNA and CAIR, in particular, maintain open and close relations with the Saudi government — a unique situation, in that no other foreign government directly uses religion as a cover for its political activities in the U.S. For example, notwithstanding support by the American Jewish community for the state of Israel, the government of Israel does not intervene in synagogue life or the activities of rabbinical or related religious bodies in America.

According to saudiembassy.net, the official website of the Saudi government, CAIR received $250,000 from the Jeddah-based Islamic Development Bank, an official Saudi financial institution, in 1999, for the purchase of land in Washington, D.C., to construct a headquarters facility.2

In a particularly disturbing case, the Islamic Development Bank also granted US$295,000 to the Masjid Bilal Islamic Center, for the construction of the Bilal Islamic Primary and Secondary School in California, in 1999.3 Hassan Akbar, an American Muslim presently charged with a fatal attack on his fellow soldiers in Kuwait during the Iraq intervention, was affiliated with this institution.

In addition, the previously mentioned official website of the Saudi government reported a donation in 1995 of $4 million for the construction of a mosque complex in Los Angeles, named for Ibn Taymiyyah, a historic Islamic figure considered the forerunner of Wahhabism.4 (It should be noted that Ibn Taymiyyah is viewed as a marginal, extremist, ideological personality by many traditional Muslims. In the wake of the Riyadh bombings of 2003, the figure of Ibn Taymiyyah symbolized, in Saudi public discourse, the inner rot of the regime. An article in the reformist daily al-Watan was headlined, "Who is More Important? The Nation or Ibn Taymiyyah"? Soon after it appeared, Jamal Khashoggi, editor of al-Watan and former deputy editor of Arab News, was dismissed from his post.)

The same official Saudi website reported a donation of $6 million, also in 1995, for a mosque in Cincinnati, Ohio.5 The website further stated, in 2000, "In the United States, the Kingdom has contributed to the establishment of the Islamic Center in Washington DC; the Omer Bin Al-Khattab Mosque in western Los Angeles, the Los Angeles Islamic Center, and the Fresno Mosque in California; the Islamic Center in Denver, Colorado; the Islamic center in Harrison, New York City; and the Islamic Center in Northern Virginia."6

How much money, in total, is involved in this effort? If we accept a low figure of control, i.e. NAIT ownership of 27 percent of 1,200 mosques, stated by CAIR and cited by Mary Jacoby and Graham Brink in the St. Petersburg Times,7 we have some 324 mosques.

If we assume a relatively low average of expenditures, e.g. $.5 million per mosque, we arrive at $162 million.
But given that Saudi official sources show $6 million in Cincinnati and $4 million in Los Angeles, we should probably raise the average to $1 million per mosque, resulting in $324 million as a minimum.

Our view is that the number of mosques under Wahhabi control actually totals at least 600 out of the official total of 1,200, while, as noted, Shia community leaders endorse the figure of 80 percent Wahhabi control. But we also offer a number of 4-6,000 mosques overall, including small and diverse congregations of many kinds.

A radical critic of Wahhabism stated some years ago that $25m had been spent on Islamic Centers in the U.S. by the Saudi authorities. This now seems a low figure. Another anti-extremist Islamic figure has estimated Saudi expenses in the U.S., over 30 years, and including schools and free books as well as mosques, near a billion dollars.

It should also be noted that Wahhabi mosques in the U.S. work in close coordination with the Muslim World League (MWL) and the World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY), Saudi state entities identified as participants in the funding of al Qaeda.

Wahhabi ideological control within Saudi Arabia is based on the historic compact of intermarriage between the family of the sect's originator, Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, and the family of the founding ruler, Ibn Saud. To this day, these families divide governance of the kingdom, with the descendants of Ibn al-Wahhab, known as ahl al-Shaykh, responsible for religious life, and the Saudi royal family, or ahl al-Saud, running the state. The two families also continue to marry their descendants to one another. The supreme religious leader of Saudi Arabia is a member of the family of Ibn al-Wahhab. The state appoints a minister of religious affairs who controls such bodies as MWL and WAMY, and upon leaving his ministerial post he becomes head of MWL.

The official Saudi-embassy website reported exactly one year ago, on June 26, 2002, "The delegation of the Muslim World League (MWL) that is on a world tour promoting goodwill arrived in New York yesterday, and visited the Islamic Center there." The same website later reported, on July 8, 2002, "During a visit on Friday evening to the headquarters of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) [Secretary-General of the MWL Dr. Abdullah bin Abdulmohsin Al-Turki] advocated coordination among Muslim organizations in the United States. Expressing MWL's readiness to offer assistance in the promotion and coordination of Islamic works, he announced plans to set up a commission for this purpose. The MWL delegation also visited the Islamic Center in Washington DC and was briefed on its activities by its director Dr. Abdullah bin Mohammad Fowaj."8

In a related matter, on June 22, 2003, in a letter to the New York Post, James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute, a civic lobbying organization, stated that his attendance at a press conference of WAMY in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, had been organized by the U.S. embassy in the kingdom. If this is true, it is extremely alarming. The U.S. embassy should not act as a supporter of WAMY, which, as documented by FDD and the Saudi Institute,9 teaches that Shia Muslims, including even the followers of Ayatollah Khomeini, are Jewish agents.

This is comparable to Nazi claims that Jewish business owners were Communists, or Slobodan Miloševic's charge, in the media of ex-Yugoslavia, that Tito was an agent of the Vatican. The aim is to derange people, to separate them from reality completely, in preparation for massacres. We fear that official Saudi anxiety their large and restive Shia minority, aggravated by Saudi resentment over the emergence of a protodemocratic regime in Iraq led by Shias, and consolidation of popular sovereignty in Shia Iran, may lead the Saudi regime to treat Shias as a convenient scapegoat, making them victims of a wholesale atrocity. The history of Wahhabism is filled with mass murder of Shia Muslims.

There is clearly a problem of Wahhabi/Saudi extremist influence in American Islam. The time is now to face the problem squarely and find ways to enable and support traditional, mainstream American Muslims in taking their community back from these extremists, while employing law enforcement to interdict the growth of Wahhabism and its financial support by the Saudis. If we fail to do this, Wahhabi extremism continues to endanger the whole world — Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

Thank you for your attention.

NOTES
1 Council on American Islamic Relations, The Mosque in America: A National Portrait, A Report from the Mosque Study Project, April 26, 2001.
2 Saudi Embassy Press Archive, August 15, 1999.
3 Islamic Development Bank; also, "IDB Allocates $202 Mln to Finance Islamic Development Ventures," Arabic News, 1/25/2000.
4 Saudi Embassy Press Archive, July 8, 1995.
5 Saudi Embassy Press Archive, November 10, 1995.
6 Saudi Embassy Press Archive, March 5, 2000.
7 "Saudi Form of Islam Wars With Moderates," St. Petersburg Times, March 11, 2003.
8 Saudi Embassy Press Archive.
9 Ali al-Ahmed and Stephen Schwartz, "Saudis Spread Hate Speech in U.S," Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, Washington, copublished with Saudi Institute.

— Stephen Schwartz is director, Islam and Democracy Program at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.

Moderate Senior Saudi Cleric Sheikh Al-'Abikan in Lectures and Writings: Jihad in Iraq is Illegitimate; The Muslim Brotherhood's Ideology is the Cause

Sheikh Abd Al-Muhsin Al-'Abikan, advisor to the Saudi Justice Ministry and member of the Saudi Shura Council, recently made several statements about the illegitimacy of the jihad in Iraq and about the need to establish a high committee to fight the phenomenon of accusing other Muslims of apostasy (takfir) – a phenomenon which he deems one of the causes of terrorism. Al-'Abikan also stated that the Muslim Brotherhood ideology is the cause of terrorism.

The following are statements made by Al-'Abikan, in his writings and television appearances:

No Religious Legitimacy for Jihad in Iraq; the Occupation Must Be Removed by Peaceful Means

Recently, Al-'Abikan stated that the Jihad in Iraq is not legitimate according to Shari'a (Islamic religious law). In a May 27, 2005 interview, he told the Saudi daily Al-Riyadh that there was "no Jihad" in Iraq and that nothing was to be gained by the fighting there that was being called "Jihad."

According to Al-'Abikan, the fighters blowing themselves up with explosive belts or car bombs are carrying out suicide operations, not martyrdom operations. He also clarified that killing during these operations was not an act of war, but an act of treachery – because for the most part, the target was peaceful people, which is forbidden by Shari'a.

Al-'Abikan further said that in a time of occupation, an attempt must be made to remove the occupier by peaceful means, without bloodshed. [1]

In response to the interviewer's question about whether or not the war in Iraq constituted resistance to an occupier, Al-'Abikan explained: "There is a difference between Jihad for the sake of defense which is conditional upon the permission of the ruler, and Jihad for the sake of defense which is not. Jihad for the sake of defense which does not require the ruler's permission is waged when a man is attacked in his home with the aim of killing him, taking his property, or harming his honor. However, in the case of an overall occupation, which is aimed at seizing overall control, the Shari'a does not say that the occupier is to be fought; it says that there must be an attempt to remove the [occupying] ruler by peaceful means which do not entail bloodshed."

In response to another question, about whether Iraqis' defense of their besieged cities constituted legitimate Jihad, Al-'Abikan added: "Whoever says that the Americans are killing everyone or besieging every house – it isn't so, because the siege is in specific neighborhoods in which the people who carry out explosions and kill Americans and those who help them have barricaded themselves. When Allah instructed us to kill the attacker, the meaning was [in the context of] a defensive war by those who are attacked; [the meaning was not people] who attack and then barricade themselves – for someone like this is not considered to be defending his life, nor is he considered a warrior of Jihad for the sake of defense." [2]

Al-'Abikan made similar comments during a May 17, 2005, symposium in Riyadh: "I am not saying that Jihad should be abolished. But there are rules for Jihad, and only expert religious scholars are permitted to issue fatwa s on this issue. [The decision to wage] Jihad is in the hands of the rulers, and none [other]. What is happening in Iraq does not strengthen [the claim] that it is resistance. Everyone there engages in corruption and harms women's honor, under the guise of Jihad." [3]

Al-'Abikan has also expressed criticism of religious scholars who issued fatwa s calling for waging Jihad in Iraq. In an interview, he told the Saudi daily Al-Riyadh that these scholars were dissenters and sinners, who should stand trial for the damage they had caused to Iraq because of such fatwa s. This damage, he said, has taken the form of civil war, damage to the security of Iraq's residents, and the destruction of public and private buildings. Even Iraq's residents, he said, are against the presence of foreign resistance elements who have come to wage Jihad: "Several Iraqis have called us [i.e. the Saudis] to say: 'We do not want Saudis, Jordanians, Egyptians, and others coming to us. Get them away from us. They have aroused problems here and undermined security – and all we want is security.'" [4]

On another occasion, he said that these scholars who issue these fatwa s would not be exonerated of the crimes they have caused, which include killing, destruction, devastation, and civil war. [5]

In a July 6, 2005, interview to the Saudi daily Al-Watan, Al-'Abikan was asked whether his courageous position on Iraq created prompted a negative attitude towards him on the part of Islamist parties, and to what harassment he has been subjected as a result. Al-'Abikan responded that he has been subjected to verbal and internet harassment, and that this stems from ignorance, lack of awareness, and impiety. "However," he said, "many scholars within and outside the Saudi kingdom, and scholars from Iraq itself, strongly supported my [religious] opinion." [6]

"I Am Willing to Publicly Confront Bin Laden and Others"

Al-'Abikan has expressed a willingness to publicly confront Osama bin Laden and his supporters, saying: "Those who believe in the ideology of Al-Qaeda have little knowledge of Islam. So I have challenged them, several times, to a confrontation, in the media and outside it. Some of them have sat with me in my home, or in a mosque, or in other places, but none has ever managed to produce a convincing argument... Yes, I will publicly confront bin Laden and others, such as Abu Muhammad Al-Maqdisi, publicly [7]... I am willing to confront anyone who defends the ideas of Al-Qaeda, at any time." [8]

Terrorism is Completely Opposed to the Islamic Religion, and Blackens its Image

On July 22, 2005, Saudi TV's Channel 1 aired a lesson on religion delivered by Al-Abikan, in which he said: [9] "...Unfortunately, some have abandoned the truth of the Koran, the proper Sunna, and the Sira, and have adopted a fanatic, extremist and rigid line, which runs counter to the Koran and the Sunna... Our religion is a religion of kindness and of compassion, not a religion of violence...

"The Prophet treated people with moderation and compromise, not extremism... He treated infidels and enemies in a proper and good way, without an iota of extremism.

"When the Prophet conquered Mecca... he did not exploit his enemies' weakness and the strength of Allah to impose Islam on them, because 'there is no coercion in the religion' [Koran]... This is [an approach of] compassion towards people... The Prophet lived among his most extreme enemies from among the Jews and treated them properly. He accepted the invitation of [whoever] invited him, and even ate the poisoned food of the Jewess... yet despite this, the Prophet did not treat her the same way she treated him. The Prophet also visited a sick Jew, and called upon him to join Islam... All this proves that our religion is a religion of compassion, and not a religion of violence, as the terrorists do today.

"Terrorism as defined today in the world is prohibited by the Shari'a. This terrorism seeks to cast fear upon peaceful people, Muslim and non-Muslim, whom it is forbidden to kill according to the Shari'a. This terrorism is forbidden, and these people [the terrorists] have nothing but violence. The distressing pictures and stories we see and hear... of beheading... arouse disgust...

"Attacking the Twin Towers on 9/11 harmed all Muslims. This operation was forbidden from many aspects... It placed us in a position of defending Islam and the Muslims, after we had held our heads high and spread our religion as a religion of moderation and generosity, and doors had opened to us throughout the world. We established [Islamic] centers, we built mosques, and Islamic propagators had opportunities everywhere, and we were not restricted at all. This was a [period of] great comfort which should have been used to spread Islam, and to present its beautiful face to people, so that they would join Islam and strengthen the Muslims... When Islam spreads in these countries, and the number of Muslims grows – they will have a majority, their opinion will carry weight, and they will have an influence on the politics of these countries... That way we could have at least attained security, or could have turned these countries into Islamic countries. This is not inconceivable...

"[The terrorists] have brought this to a halt with their evil deeds, their ignorance in the politics required by Islam, and [their lack of discrimination between] good and corrupt... Now we suffer from the accusation that our religion is a religion of violence and terrorism, and that our curricula preach violence, hatred, aggression, and oppression...

"... Extremism has led [the terrorists] to takfir, or, in other words, to accusing [other Muslims] of apostasy... The authority to declare takfir is Allah's alone, and no man has that authority."

"A High Committee to Fight Takfir Must Be Established"

Al-'Abikan has been extremely critical of the phenomenon of accusing other Muslims of takfir. During the Riyadh symposium he said: "Thought in the spirit of the Khawarij, [10] and accusing the other of apostasy, are the causes of terror. So is some preachers' adherence to mistaken positions, as well as [certain] well-known movies and books, which are behind the incitement to terrorist operations." [11]

In an interview with the Arabic-language London daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, Al-'Abikan called for establishing a high committee to fight the phenomenon of takfir: "I maintain that we must establish a high committee to fight the concept of takfir. [This committee] would study the subject thoroughly... Some preachers agree when asked to give a lecture on terrorism, but then, when they come, they talk only about honoring parents... The idea of takfir exists in several of our schools and universities." [12]

Al-'Abikan told Al-Riyadh that takfir was "an idea of the Khawarij, but graver still, for even the early Khawarij, about whom the Prophet Muhammad warned and whom he ordered killed, did not do everything that those who accuse governments and people of apostasy are doing today. [Those who accuse others of apostasy are using this] takfir as a tool for persuading people to rise up against the regime. Only in this way … will they be able to realize their ambition to gain power and to attain their political goals. And only people who are persuaded to believe that the regime is heretical will aid them..." [13]

In his Al-Sharq Al-Awsat interview, Al-'Abikan attributed the phenomenon of takfir and the terrorist attacks to the recent tendency among Saudi religious circles to prefer the Hadith and the Sunna as religious sources over fiqh, or Islamic jurisprudence. He stated: "There is no doubt that the Saudi religious circles' interest in the science of Hadith comes at the expense of Muslim jurisprudence.

"This is evident in the young generation, which is influenced by the statements of sheikhs who have condemned the adherence to the legacy of jurisprudence (taklid), and have called for endorse only the [actual historical] conduct of the Prophet (Sunna)…

"In these Islamic circles [who use takfir] there is hardly a single real scholar; most of them are interested in the tradition [Hadith] only, and their knowledge of Shari'a is minimal. This is one of the reasons why the takfir catastrophes and bombings have befallen us."

Al-'Abikan accused those who distribute religious cassettes of exploiting people's interest in religion in order to convey extremist messages: "The damage began when some people began to head [gatherings], to give lectures, and to produce cassettes. They encountered people's willingness to listen to religious cassettes, to preaching, and to lectures, and took advantage of this willingness to direct them religiously and politically…

"Had they used the people's good feelings in a positive way, and directed them towards constructive channels, we would have had a wise and temperate society."

Al-'Abikan continued by saying that these preachers had been influenced by foreign political ideas and by Khawarij-influenced ideas. These ideas, he explained, are the essence of the ideas of the Muslim Brotherhood. He also stated that some of these preachers only preached these ideas for the money, and for jobs..." [14]

A Call to Reject Extremism

In a July 6, 2005 interview with the Saudi daily Al-Watan, Al-'Abikan was asked about a reformist intellectual movement that is emerging in the kingdom that is calling to reject violence, fanaticism, and partisanship; struggling against takfir, excessive strictness, and extremism; and calling to accept all Saudis, of all schools and beliefs, under the umbrella of the state.

Al-'Abikan responded: "It is undoubtedly obligatory to fight takfir, excessive strictness, fanaticism, and the imposing of restrictions without [sufficient] basis [in Islamic law]... The public should follow the instructions of those who are firmly grounded in Islamic law and who know what is damaging and what is beneficial.

"They should not follow the words of someone who has a narrow view of religion, maintaining that he is the only one who understands Islam. All this requires cautioning the people and explaining the danger of unfounded takfir..." [15]

Al-'Abikan further said: "The principle of dialogue is found in the Koran, and also in the tradition of the Prophet. The dialogue conducted by the Prophet Muhammad with the unbelievers is recorded in the books of the Sira [Muhammad's life], and none can deny it. Religious scholars still act according to it. It is necessary to maintain dialogue.

"However, it should be [conducted] wisely and quietly... Allah says in the Koran [16:125]: 'Call [the people] to the path of Allah with wisdom and gentle exhortation, and debate with them with superior arguments.' However, it is forbidden to allow people to spread poison and misleading ideas, which result in damage to the country [Saudi Arabia], to the citizens and to all Muslims [worldwide]..." [16]

The Muslim Brotherhood Ideology is the Reason for Terrorism

In a lecture titled "The Gap Between the Saudi Youth and the Religious Scholars," delivered during a meeting organized by the King Abd Al-Aziz Public Library in Riyadh, Al-'Abikan said that the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood movement was the reason for the emergence of some of the armed terrorist groups in several Arab countries, among them Saudi Arabia. According to him, "the aim of most of the Islamist groups is political, not religious… One of them is the Muslim Brotherhood movement. Their ideology was the reason for many of the explosions and civil wars, since [the movement's leaders] amuse themselves with the religious aspect while, in truth, they are interested in the political aspect." [17]

Al-Arabiya TV, December 8, 2004

The following are excerpts from an interview with Sheikh 'Abd Al-Muhsen Al-'Abikan. (To view this clip, please visit http://memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=410.)

Interviewer: "Sheik 'Abd Al-Muhsen Al-'Abikan, should the Iraqi people sit, wait, and hand out flowers to the Americans?"

Al-'Abikan: "When they didn't sit [doing nothing], did they do anything worthwhile? I advised them. The truth is that anyone who advises the Iraqis and commiserates with them… I commiserate with the Iraqis and consider myself to be one of their most sincere advisors, because my advice was beneficial to them.

"Those who advised them to fight are the ones who caused their deaths and brought them to the destruction we witness today.

"All they got from this resistance was death and destruction. Did they drive out the occupier through their actions? We have seen what happened in Najaf. In Najaf they were told: 'Become a political party and hand over your weapons,' but they refused. Only after the destruction, the killings, and so on did they accept the demands. Why didn't this happen before the destruction, killings, and death? This is true for the residents of Falluja as well."

MBC TV, September 11, 2004

The following are excerpts from Sheikh Al-'Abikan's weekly religious ruling program. (To view this clip, please visit http://memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=260.)

"At first, some Palestinians sold their homes and lands to Jews, a long time ago, and then the Jews had a place of their own, and later a very small state, before the West Bank and the Gaza Strip [were occupied]. Matters became complicated, and UN soldiers from a few countries were stationed there. These forces separated between the Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and between the Jews in the Israeli State.

"Who made them start their expansionism? History is very clear about this. President Jamal 'Abd Al-Nasser is the one who started it by telling [the UN forces]: 'Get out and we will throw them into the sea. We will throw the Jews into the sea.' I tell you the problem is that those who caused the destruction were Muslims. I heard him when I was small. He said in his speeches, 'Let's throw them into the sea.' Afterwards… the forces left. He told those forces to leave. He is the one who began fighting the Jews, and then there was defeat.

"When some Arabs began fighting the Jews, they took over the West Bank and Gaza. We know that after the Jews took the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, things stabilized: There was no killing and we didn't hear a thing. Later, there was… Some people with interests brought troubles upon them. It started with all [the talk about] 'the children of the stones'… We would always hear about 'the children of the stones.' As if adults weren't even involved. Only the children: 'the children of the stones… the children of the stones…'

"Things developed. At first it was merely stones and such, and then it developed into destroying houses, killing people, and using weapons. Later, things got worse. This is what caused [former Saudi mufti] Sheikh 'Abd Al-'Aziz ibn Baz to say, 'You must make peace.' But they did not respond."

MBC TV, April 30, 2004

On his weekly religious ruling program, Sheikh Al-'Abikan was asked about Osama bin Laden. He replied as follows. (To view this clip, please visit http://memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=51.)

"I advise brother Osama bin Laden and brother Sa'd Al-Faqih, with whom I have a friendly relationship and with whom I held meetings before they left Saudi Arabia and by Allah, I wish them all the best... My advice to these honorable brothers is that whoever committed sins should return to Allah, because the gates of repentance are open.

"They must first turn to Allah in repentance for what they have engaged the Muslims in and for the civil strife, the disasters, and tragedies caused by the instructions we hear from them through the media. There are messages that come from brother Osama bin Laden and brother Sa'd Al-Faqih. I hope Allah directs them to the righteous path.

"I say that they are our brothers even though they wronged us. Just like 'Ali said when he was asked if the Khawarij were infidels. He replied, 'They escaped unbelief. They are our brothers even though they wronged us.' We say they are our brothers even though they wronged us."

MBC TV, July 31, 2004

On his weekly religious rulings program, Sheikh Al-'Abikan spoke against terrorism; following are excerpts: (To view this clip, please visit http://memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=178.)

Al-'Abikan: "Not everyone who belongs to another religion is your enemy. No. Moreover, some Muslims are an enemy."

Host: "Isn't religion about mutual relations?"

Al-'Abikan: "Religion is about mutual relations. The enemy can be Muslims or non-Muslims. Sometimes your greatest and worst enemy is a Muslim. This has actually happened.

"As we know, the disasters and tragedies, which befell us were caused by some Muslims who attacked their neighbors, shed their blood, violated women's honor, and destroyed buildings, even though they were Muslims. The enemy is an enemy, whether Muslim or not.

"What is happening in Iraq now is not Jihad at all. Why is that? Because true Jihad, as set by Allah and established by the Prophet Muhammad has rules: what the Prophet and his companions would do. Jihad does not mean harming Muslims who cooperated with non-Muslims, as claimed. Not just anyone can raise the banner of Jihad, because Jihad is the prerogative of the Muslim ruler as decided by the Islamic religious scholars.

Host: "Who said it is Jihad when the number of Iraqi casualties is so high?"

Al-'Abikan: "That's just it. The problem with people is that they hear some muftis who quote from the jurisprudents things that are not relevant. The rulings of Sheikh Al-Islam ibn Taymiyya, and of all other jurisprudents, do not apply to the current situation in Iraq. Other religious rulings apply to Iraq.

"They take the words of jurisprudents on other circumstances, not the current circumstances, and implement it here. Adjusting to reality is important, brothers!

"A jurisprudent is not someone who memorizes the religious law by heart, 'Thus said so-and-so and thus said such-and-such'… He reads or memorizes a religious legal book, and then he comes and acts as if he were a cassette, 'Thus said so-and-so and thus said such-and-such'."

Saudi TV Ch. 1, June 19, 2005

The following are excerpts from an interview with Saudi cleric Sheik Abd Al-Muhsen Al-Abikan, which aired on Saudi TV's Channel 1 of on June 19, 2005. (To view this clip, please visit http://memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=724.)

Abikan: "[We should] expose the false slogans spread by the West, claiming that they are the people of democracy, of justice, and of freedom, and that their regimes bring about good for all mankind. If we compare these societies to Muslim society, Muslim society would be superior in all aspects. In fact, they are more advance than us only in modern technology and material development, but at the expense of social behavior. These societies lack many things. The woman… They say there most be equality between men and women? Equality in what way? For example, they talk about equality in how they are treated, but, in fact, they have no equality. The woman is more advanced than the man. The husband, opens the car door for his wife, and lets her speak before him. Is this equality? No, it's the opposite. This is advancing the woman before the man. Western men should object to this."

Host: "She has the same rights as others."

Abikan: "Western men should say: 'You've given women preference instead of equality.' Equality should mean, for example, that the woman has to walk next to the man. If they enter a place, they should enter together, or whoever gets there first. Why should he open the door for her? Why is he carry the bags, while she walks ahead? You see such things. The woman walks ahead, and the man lags behind with the bags. Is this equality? They are spreading empty and false slogans. This is not equality but rather the opposite. They have turned upside down what religious law has decreed with regard to men and women in Islam. If we compare the status of women in our society and in the West, we find that our women enjoy a status of respect. The woman is honored, protected, and respected, and she enjoys the full rights accorded to her in Islam, whereas in other societies she is persecuted. She goes out to public places like men, and serves the men, and works twice. At home, she has an important task –raising her children. She's burdened by hardship of working outside, as well as the hardship of working at home. Who is supposed to prepare the meals and make the home suitable for living and for a happy marital life? Who will carry out this task? The woman, of course. Is she a servant? In this case, she won't be able to do this work. This is a woman's basic work, and if she goes out it is more work. In other words, they have burdened her with more work, on top of her basic work, and they have oppressed and exploited her. On the other hand, in our society, she is honored and respected, thank God."

MBC TV, August 28, 2004

The following are excerpts from Sheikh Al-'Abikan's weekly religious ruling show. (To view this clip, please visit http://memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=256.)

"Can we implement in Iraq what the clerics have said? Certainly not. According to the clerics, people should adhere to their imam and wage Jihad against an enemy who wants to take their property and kill them. Iraq, on the other hand, is under the control of Iraqis, no matter who they are. Today, I've shown you a book proving that an imam is considered an imam even if he was appointed by an infidel, as the clerics decreed.

"The honorable Sheikh Dr. Abu Al-Manar Al-'Alami, an Iraqi Sunni cleric, and several [other] Iraqi clerics called me two or three days ago and said that he and the clerics with him support what I say, and say: 'We want stability so the situation will stabilize and then the occupier will leave.'

"What was the result of the actions of Muqtada Al-Sader and his supporters in Najaf? What was the result of their actions? We have warned against this. In the beginning, they resisted, revolted, and fought. But after hundreds were killed and injured, and houses and buildings were destroyed, only then did they surrender. Why didn't they surrender from the outset? This way bloodshed would have been prevented and homes and buildings would have been protected. They even damage the oil from time to time. People need stability and a sense of security."

Former Saudi Minister: "Why Don't Other Sheikhs Have the Courage to Speak Out Like Al-'Abikan?"

On June 7, 2005, former Saudi communications minister Ali Bin Talal Al-Jihni published an article in the London Al-Hayat daily, in which he wrote: "The Saudi religious scholar Abd Al-Muhsin Al-'Abikan is practically the only one amongst the Muslim scholars who raises his voice, time and again, to say that suicide and the killing of others in Iraq must not be defined as martyrdom. Al-'Abikan is not the only one who knows that [such] suicide is a crime, the responsibility for which is borne not only by the young people who were led astray and purposely committed suicide, but also by those who use them as fuel to accomplish their goals.

"What prevents the scholars from raising their voices to support the honorable sheikh [Al-'Abikan]? Perhaps one reason is their desire to win the sympathy of those who call suicide martyrdom. Or it may be for purely political reasons, or out of fear of the wrath of young Saudis, or for personal reasons. Perhaps they fear the religious scholars themselves, who know full well what Al-'Abikan knows, but who lack his courage...

"Worse than those who support the suicide bombers are those who are silent. They are ipso facto supporters who for various reasons do not raise their voices to condemn and accuse Al-Zarqawi and his supporters throughout the world. Every Arab, Muslim and non-Muslim, who is following events, knows that the argument that Iraq is 'occupied' has become a pretext to take over the regime." [18]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Al-Riyadh (Saudi Arabia), May 27, 2005, as summarized by the paper.
[2] Al-Riyadh (Saudi Arabia), May 27, 2005.
[3] Al-Watan (Saudi Arabia), May 18, 2005.
[4] Al-Riyadh (Saudi Arabia), May 27, 2005.
[5] Al-Watan (Saudi Arabia), May 18, 2005.
[6] Al-Watan (Saudi Arabia), July 6, 2005.
[7] Abu Muhammad Al-Maqdisi (whose real name is 'Issam Muhammad Taher Al-Burqawi), a Palestinian currently incarcerated in Jordan, is considered Abu Mus'ab Al-Zarqawi's spiritual mentor.
[8] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), May 15, 2005.
[9] Channel 1 (Saudi TV), July 22, 2005.
[10] The Khawarij was a group that broke away from the forces of Caliph 'Ali bin Abu Taleb and formed Islam's first religious opposition group.
[11] Al-Watan (Saudi Arabia), May 18, 2005.
[12] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), May 15, 2005.
[13] Al-Riyadh (Saudi Arabia), May 27, 2005.
[14] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), May 15, 2005.
[15] Al-Watan (Saudi Arabia), July 6, 2005.
[16] Al-Watan (Saudi Arabia), July 6, 2005.
[17] Al-Watan (Saudi Arabia), May 4, 2005.
[18] Al-Hayat (London), June 7, 2005.

http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=countries&Area=saudiarabia&ID=SP95605

Saudi Columnist: Jihadist Salafist Ideology is Like Nazism

Saudi columnist Muhammad bin 'Abd Al-Latif Aal Al-Sheikh published two articles in the Saudi daily Al-Jazirah, in which he attacked the ideology of the Al-Salafiyya Al-Jihadiyya movement. [1] He said that the ideology of this movement was similar to, or even worse than, the Nazi ideology, and that it should be dealt accordingly.

The following are excerpts:

"Both Jihadist Salafism and Nazism Are Based on Hatred and Physical Elimination of the Other"

Aal Al-Sheikh published the first article on July 10, 2005, following the release from prison of Abu Muhammad Al-Maqdisi, the spiritual leader of the Jihadist Salafist movement in Jordan and mentor of Abu Mus'ab Al-Zarqawi: "The release of Abu Muhammad Al-Maqdisi and his subsequent re-arrest by the Jordanian authorities raises many questions. [2] The man is one of the founders of terrorism and the one who, through his books and extremist interpretations, gave rise to many of those who belong to the group now called Al-Salafiyya Al-Jihadiyya, which leads terrorism worldwide. Although he supposedly bases his methodological justifications on the sayings of people faithful to the Sunna and to the Muslim community [Ahl al-sunna wa'l-jama'a], he [in fact] reaches the [same] conclusion reached by the Khawarij regarding the political outlook of Islam. [3]

"The Jordanian court is said to have cleared him of the charges against hims –first and foremost [the charge of] planning to blow up American military facilities in Jordan– but this dangerous human-terrorist creature was in fact doing something far more dangerous, namely, booby-trapping minds and exploiting the state of frustration suffered by the Muslim youth so as to perpetuate violence, killing, and destruction, and to implant the idea of suicide and to incite to it. Is the charge of booby-trapping minds less severe than the booby-trapping of property[?]... This is the root of the problem…

"Putting an end to terrorism is only possible by putting an end to the ideology that plants it in our society. A security solution is not sufficient, though it is certainly required… He [Al-Maqdisi] preaches takfir [accusing other Muslims of apostasy] and terrorism out of purely political motives – out of an understanding, an inner conviction, premeditation and planning… Al-Salafiyya Al-Jihadiyya... should be dealt with exactly as the Europeans dealt with the Nazis, and as our forefathers dealt with the ideology of the Khawarij.

"In my opinion, the ideology of Al-Salafiyya Al-Jihadiyya is very similar to Nazism in terms of its causes and reasons. If the economic depression and the state of frustration that befell the world in 1930 were a cause for the spread of murderous Nazism, it may be said that the economic and cultural setback that has befallen the Arab and Muslim countries and the frustration suffered by Muslims today are also the primary cause for this murderous ideology [i.e., that of Al-Salafiyya Al-Jihadiyya].These [circumstances] allow it to surface and to find followers and supporters among the Muslims. In addition, both ideologies share hatred of the other and [the goal of] eliminating through his physical extermination – and they have many other common denominators as well."

"Why Aren't We Fighting the Religious Scholars, Theoreticians, and Preachers of Terrorism like Criminals, Murderers, and Robbers?"

"After the ruin, destruction, and bloodshed that Nazism brought upon mankind, [and since] the number of its victims reached tens of millions, the world arose to fight against this murderous ideology, and all steps were taken – on the ideological, cultural, and political levels – to prevent this ideology from spreading anew. The question arises of why, in light of the similarity between these two ideologies, we haven't learned a lesson from this human experience, and why we are not fighting against the foundations of [Al-Salafiyya Al-Jihadiyya] – its religious scholars, its theoreticians, and its preachers – just as we deal with criminals, murderers, and robbers?

"Abu Muhammad Al-Maqdisi, for instance, claims in his well-known book Millat Ibrahim [The Religion of Abraham, i.e. Islam] – a book that is a kind of manifesto for Al-Salafiyya Al-Jihadiyya – that the concept of jihad in Islam should be directed against internal [enemies] before [it is directed] externally, 'since the danger from the immediate vicinity, from its influence, its corruption, and from the internal strife that it engenders, is greater and more severe than the danger of that which is distant and not imminent... Thus, internal jihad and jihad [against] Satan take priority over jihad against enemies in general. The Prophet Muhammad did not start off [by fighting] the Persians, Byzantines, and Jews while ignoring [the Arab infidels] in whose midst he lived, [but rather began with jihad against the Arab infidels].'

"Thus, the concept of jihad has become a destructive terrorist concept… This idea is a formative and decisive idea in the platform of the modern Al-Salafiyya Al-Jihadiyya. In his call to murder – which they consider jihad – Abu Muhammad Al-Maqdisi is a criminal and a murderer. How can we find him innocent?..." [4]

Muslim Clerics Are Not Fulfilling Their Duty in Fighting Terrorism

In a July 24, 2005 article titled "On the Contrary, They Are Worse than the Nazis and Stray More from the Right Path," Aal Al-Sheikh wrote: "...I received many readers' responses to the previous article. Some said that to compare these people to Nazis is to slander a group of Muslims who strayed from the right path, and that I should have related to them in a genteel manner and should have preached to them gently, and not harshly and blatantly – which, as one of [the readers] said, 'will only add fuel to the fire and will deepen the chasm between us and them.'…

"I am one of those who believe strongly that our clerics, students, and preachers shoulder most of the responsibility for the war against terrorism, especially since terrorism today exploits religion under the pretext of 'Allah said' and 'The Prophet said.' Thus, after these [terrorists] have sullied [Islam] with blood and tarnished its name through violence, killing, explosions, and destruction, it is the obligation of clerics and everyone involved in da'wa [propagating for Islam], before anyone else, first to defend the religion, and after that to defend peaceful people, from among the Muslims and others.

"The question that must be asked courageously is: Have the clerics of our times fulfilled their duty, as our forefathers did when they [fought] against the Khawarij? The most direct answer is: Sadly, no! Let's assume that the government decides to allow women to drive without obligating them, for instance, to wear a veil; what would be the reaction of these clerics and students? How many protest delegations would come to Riyadh from all the provinces? How many fatwas would be signed? How many accusations would be leveled? How many noisy sermons would be delivered by many imams in the mosques?... Is a woman driving a car, or even not wearing a veil, a more serious prohibition in Allah's eyes... than the acts of murder, slaughter, destruction, and violation of women's honor [committed] by these 'sick people?' Why in the name of God [do we show] all this gentleness, forgiveness, and a tendency to 'speak gently' when it comes to terrorists, while [we show] extreme blatancy and harshness when it comes to women, for instance?..."

"Al-Jazeera Has the Greatest Media Impact on Shaping, Spreading, and Strengthening This Dangerous Trend"

"In 1945, a short time after Nazi Germany's surrender, a conference was held in Potsdam, Germany, in which one of the important articles [adopted] was 'denazification.' This conference is credited with uprooting the culture of Nazism from Europe. [The conference] aroused the world's conscience against Nazism with the end of World War II, firmed up the revulsion towards it, and made it into something similar to a crime, not just in judicial and political terms, but also in terms of culture, ideology, and especially, the media. Thus, it suffices in Europe nowadays to accuse a politician of having Nazi tendencies, or of inciting to Nazism, for him to turn into something of a bandit. The [Potsdam] Agreement was signed by Britain, the U.S.S.R., the U.S., and China – the important world superpowers at that time.

"Why shouldn't we learn a lesson [of the Potsdam] experience, which had the greatest impact on the uprooting of Nazism from the world?... Imagine that the way of dealing with statements by Al-Salafiyya Al-Jihadiyya… was comparable to the West's way of dealing with Nazism. Would a [TV] channel, like Al-Jazeera, for example, dare to spread this ideology and to relate to statements by its leaders and preachers in the spirit of 'point/counterpoint' [5] and 'freedom of speech'? Everybody knows that this channel in particular has had the greatest media impact on the shaping, spreading, and strengthening of this dangerous trend, and that it provides it with wide space to express its 'acts of heroism', its statements, and its videotaped operations, to the point where it [Al-Jazeera] has become the primary platform of [Al-Salafiyya Al-Jihadiyya], as is happening today in Iraq.

"Therefore, I still believe that one of the primary missions of the international community today is to repeat its experience with Nazism and to deal with this dangerous barbarian culture exactly as it dealt with the Nazi culture. If this does not happen, the near future is liable to bring many [events], the consequences of which will be far more severe for all of humanity than [the consequences] of World War II." [6]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Al-Salafiyya Al-Jihadiyya is a term used by Islamist terror groups to describe themselves as continuing in the footsteps of the early believers of the Prophet Muhammad's generation, and as believing in the duty to wage a modern Jihad war against infidels.
[2] Abu Muhammad Al-Maqdisi is the nickname of 'Issam Muhammad Taher Al-Barqawi, a Palestinian from the Nablus region.
[3] The Khawarij was a group that broke away from the forces of Caliph 'Ali bin Abi Talib and formed Islam's first religious opposition group.
[4] Al-Jazira (Saudi Arabia), July 10, 2005.
[5] "Point/Counterpoint" ["Al-ra'y wa'l-ra'y al-akhar"] is a motto of Al-Jazeera TV.
[6] Al-Jazirah (Saudi Arabia), July 24, 2005.

http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=countries&Area=saudiarabia&ID=SP100705

An Arab Diplomat on the Need to Replace Jihad With Social Development

In an article written by "an Arab diplomat who chose to reveal his real name," - Abu Ahmad Mustafa called upon the Arab world to replace Jihad with social development. The article, titled "When Will the Arabs Learn the Lesson Even Once," appeared recently in the Saudi-owned London daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat. The following are excerpts from the article:

"Now, after the fog has begun to lift above the skies of the Palestinian Authority, and after the second Intifada has ended, at such a terrible price, the Arabs must try - at least once - to grasp the lesson that they have been taught yet again…"

"First, we must admit that the ones who pushed the children into the second Intifada had no defined political goal that they sought to achieve and that would benefit the Palestinian people… It became clear, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the ones who planned it wanted to thwart any initiative that President Arafat sought to promote. They wanted to make him simultaneously their prisoner and Israel's prisoner…"

"Many questions have raced around my mind since the demonstrations began to throng the streets of the Arab capitals, reminiscent of the giant demonstrations to defend the honor of the nation of Comrade Saddam."

"Several Arab countries demonstrated spontaneously. I heard and learned that committees consisting of both government and opposition party members were established to organize the demonstrations. In the first ranks of demonstrators stood some top officials of Arab countries, who sought to neutralize [the nationalist elements] that claimed the governments are lagging behind the street. At this point, I ask: Why don't they demonstrate to protest against the deficient (or nonexistent) basic services in their countries? [These] countries have no health, education, or services, and buckle under the poverty line… but all are preoccupied with the Palestine issue, and no voice rises above the voice of battle there! Do you think these officials would participate in demonstrations of this kind if the citizens decided to hold them?"

"Furthermore, why do they push the citizens to contribute from their own money? Here too stand top officials, contributing as much as they wish… Again I ask: Why don't they instruct their citizens with regard to the importance of contributing to improve education, health, and social services in their countries?!"

"What would happen if every Arab country had, since 1948, turned its attention to building itself from within, without making Palestine its main issue? Wouldn't this be better than wasting money on armies and equipping them so that we can listen to their military marches every so often? What would happen if every Arab country focused on educating its citizens, and on improving their physical and emotional health and cultural level?! Wouldn't this have made the battle with Israel into a cultural battle instead of us sinking into religious or military battles?!"

"Moreover, I am amazed at the clerics who raise a hue and cry about Jihad against Israel, engage in conflict, and compete with each other in issuing religious rulings on suicide [attacks] - but do not encourage the citizens to wage spiritual Jihad. Wouldn't this be more useful to the [Arab] nation, which since the turn of the century has been subject to Nakba [catastrophe] by its own military, and now marches towards a second Nakba by its scientists - I refer, of course, to the scientists of religion, and not the scientists of physics, natural science, health, or engineering…" 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), May 8, 2002.

http://www.islamicsupremecouncil.org/bin/site/wrappers/extremism_diplomatspeaks.html

The fight against terrorism must begin with curricular, educational, and media reform in the Arab world

Abd Al-Hamid Al-Ansari, dean of the Faculty of Islamic Law at the University of Qatar, wrote in the London based Arabic-language daily Al-Hayat:

"[Arab] ideological, political, and religious positions on current events remind us of a crucial incident in Islamic history that is connected to the present. I refer to the Khawarij, the 'first terrorist organization,' that rose up against the imam Ali,(1) claiming that his rule was man-chosen, and that no [Muslim] rule should be obeyed unless it was the rule of Allah. [The Khawarij demanded] that Ali either mend his ways or face war. From this, they moved on to accusing the entire society of heresy. They saw anyone with an opinion different from theirs, and anyone who was silent and refrained from joining them, as a heretic; as a result, they permitted the blood of Muslims..."

"The imam Ali and his friends did not hesitate to meet them head-on. He did not clarify his ideas with false
explanations, and did not invent deceitful formulas, but fought the Khawarij and thoroughly routed them at
Al-Naharwan, in the 37th year of the Hijra [659]."

"But today, we are facing the modern Khawarij, and behold, fortune has smiled on them. They have satellite channels that espouse their ideas, reiterating them tirelessly day and night, and that makes them into popular stars. Host commentators justify and shape their ideas. Religious leaders volunteer to issue religious rulings demanding [that believers] stand by them, and determine that remaining silent or refraining from supporting them is a sin."

"[These religious leaders] call for Jihad against the crusade against Islam, and aspire to incite the Arab public against its governments, who stand by America, the enemy of Islam. Most unfortunately, there are those who believe in this deception, hold demonstrations, and become involved in acts of stupidity against [those] whom they call the enemies of Islam. As a result, they are destroyed, and their families are tragedy-stricken. Afterwards, we allow the imams, who pushed them to the edge of the precipice, to continue to live a life of ease, without being held accountable in any way!!"

"The religious and logical question is: Jihad against whom? For whose sake? Who has the right [to declare a Jihad]? Will we leave the Jihad to the hysterical preachers and politicians, who are declaring a war that will destroy everything, or is this a right reserved for the ruler?"

"Do they have the right to incite the public to become involved in acts of sabotage, that victimize innocents and damage state interests? Or should this right be restricted, so that the public interest is unharmed?"

"Who gave the religious parties the right to declare a Jihad and jeopardize the supreme interests of the nation? The Saudi clerics fulfilled their duty by declaring that no one had the right to issue a religious ruling calling for Jihad except the ruler. This is what they taught us, and thus we teach. The clerics must act accordingly..."

"Do the satellite channels have the right to broadcast terrorist opinions and incitement on the pretext of the
'principle of freedom for all,' disseminating hatred in the [hearts of] the viewers, who then [carry out] harmful acts of stupidity? Or must the regime intervene and set limits on irresponsible freedoms?"

"There is a big difference between granting freedom of speech for people who have opposing political opinions [and express them] peacefully... and between leaving the microphones to [be used by] armed groups that commit murder to advance their ideas... The essential question is: Do they have the right, in the name of freedom, to lead us and their societies over the edge of the precipice?"

"As a result of this false incitement, 83% of the participants in a survey on the Internet site of the Al-Jazeera satellite channel think that bin Laden is a Jihad fighter, not a terrorist, and that his incitement
against Western and American interests constitutes a Jihad..."

"What is the meaning of all this sympathy for, and defense of, our modern-day Khawarij? Is blind anti-American sentiment... enough to account for making terrorists into heroes?"

"Unfortunately for the Khawarij of the past, they had no satellite channels... even though they were more merciful than the Khawarij of our generation, as they permitted the blood of Muslims but not of the 'dhimmis' [Jews and Christians], because they wanted to preserve the protection pact given to them. In contrast to them, (the Khawarij of our time - meaning the militant Islamists) have permitted the blood of everyone..."

"The platforms of the various Jihad organizations, and of Al-Qa'ida, do not include fighting Israel. The ideology of all these organizations establishes a single goal: accusing society and the state of heresy, with the aim of reaching power to set up their false state. When they despaired of their series of criminal acts on Arab land, which have claimed hundreds of victims, Satan told them that the Arab regimes were a product of the West. America, they claimed, was the defender of these regimes. They decided to fight America on its home turf, so America would leave Arab lands, thus enabling them to disseminate their corruption."

"What are the reasons for the phenomenon of terrorism? In my opinion, the human soul, and primarily the Muslim soul, is repelled by terrorism. But terrorist ideas fall on fertile ground when societies are ruled by a fanatic culture that the people absorb in doses. Opponents are blamed of religious heresy; opposition is blamed of political treason. This is a culture of terrorism, which is [easily] absorbed by those who have been exposed to inappropriate education. This culture is rooted in the minds of those who suffered from a closed education that leaves no room for pluralism."

"We must examine our curriculum, and evaluate our educational methods. We must reexamine our education and our media. This will be the right beginning for the fight against the culture of terrorism."(2)

Endnotes:

(1)Ali Ibn Abu Talib was the fourth of the "replacements"
(Khulafaa) who followed the Prophet Muhammad.
(2) Al-Hayat (London), November 29, 2001.

http://www.islamicsupremecouncil.org/bin/site/wrappers/extremism_educationvterror.html

Saudi Intellectual: Extremist Islamist Discourse Has Total Government Support

http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=countries&Area=saudiarabia&ID=SP108006

Khaled Al-Dakhil, Saudi academic and columnist for the UAE daily Al-Itihad, wrote in his column that extremist discourse in Saudi Arabia enjoys significant freedom under the protection of the government, even though it often conflicts with state policy and interests. He also stated that extremist discourse has taken over school curricula, so that pupils are prevented from studying world history out of the fear that their faith might be compromised. [1]

The following are excerpts:

Extremist Discourse Enjoys More Freedom Than the State Allows Itself

"Terrorism initially emerged in the Arab world out of the religious discourse, due to the extremism which has tended to characterize it. But it also stemmed [from the fact that] extremism has gained a tyrannical hold over our society.

"Extremism would never have gained such a hold without the support of the authorities, even if this support was not given intentionally... [Other] types of discourse do not have the legitimacy that is enjoyed by the widespread extremist religious discourse, nor do they [receive] the same support, and the official state institutions do not treat them with the same amount of patience and tolerance. As a result, religious discourse enjoys significant freedom - even more freedom than the state [generally] allows itself...

"Examples of this abound: the call for young people to wage jihad outside the country and the [jurisdiction of] its authorities, contrary to the policy of the state and sometimes [even] contrary to its goals; [and] the espousal and dissemination of theological views that are contrary to the policy of the state and to its basic and permanent interests - views that flagrantly clash with these interests.

"It is astonishing that the religious discourse does [all] this from within the state institutions themselves, using the state's authorities, funds, and platforms. For example, notice how the religious discourse has managed, with surprising ease, to take over the curricula of the [Saudi] Ministry of Education and Culture, so that it [now] has total control over what may and may not be included in them - especially in curricula [dealing with] society and religion. The criteria are set by those who [lead] the [religious] discourse, according to their views [and] without consideration for the state's policy, rules, and interests."

"Everything but Islamic History Has Been Eliminated From History Lessons at All Levels of State Education"

"An example is the study of world history, including European and American history. [Everything] but Islamic history has been eliminated from the history lessons at all levels of state education... even though Saudi Arabia is part of the world and has contacts with [other countries]...

"Why prevent pupils from learning world history, and especially European and American history? What is the educational goal behind this [policy]? After all, the most fundamental principle of education and of formulating curricula is to enrich the pupils' knowledge as much as possible... The decision to avoid the study of world history will only leave the pupil in a state of ignorance regarding the world, and will deprive him of the possibility of becoming familiar with the world and of coping with it....

"In taking this decision, the Ministry of Education and Culture has raised serious doubts as to the educational skills, the knowledge, and the political and ideological orientation of those in charge of formulating and developing the public [education] curricula.

"For example, why remove world history from the high school textbooks? The reason is probably that those who [lead] the religious discourse fear that if teenage pupils are exposed [to world history], and particularly to European and American history, they will be blinded by this history, and by the achievements [of these nations] in the spheres of knowledge, technology and politics. This may undermine and weaken the pupils' faith in Islamic history and in their Islamic identity, and as a result cause them to deviate from the faith - which would in turn lead them to lose touch with their Islamic history.

"But in reality, these fears are pathological and abnormal, and therefore totally unjustified. Moreover, they reveal systematic weakness of thought, lack of self confidence, and lack of total conviction in the power of Islam and in the richness of Islamic history...

"Actually, at its core, this is an approach that lacks faith in Islam and in its ability to coexist with other belief systems without [fear that Islam will be] weakened, undermined and eventually defeated. A defeated person can only have a defeatist outlook, and this is what has happened to the curricula in our country...

"Another [example which] demonstrates that the religious discourse [generates] theological accusations [even] against state policy appears in the 12th-grade textbook Al-Tawhid[Monotheism]. Chapter 15 says: 'Belonging to heretic movements like Communism, secularism, capitalism, etc. constitutes abandonment of Islam [which is punishable by death]. If a person who belongs to these movements purports to be a Muslim, this is great hypocrisy [on his part]...'"

"Do the Authors Mean to Accuse Saudi Arabia of Heresy Because it Belongs to the Global Capitalistic System?"

"Saudi Arabia, like other countries around the world, has a capitalistic regime nowadays. This begs the question: Do the authors [of the textbook] mean to accuse Saudi Arabia of heresy because it belongs to the global capitalistic system?...

"This contradiction shows that the state has failed to find a way, and perhaps does not wish to find a way, to bring reason into the [religious] discourse, and to end its rule, which sometimes seems to be as [powerful] as the rule of the state [itself]. The natural result is that the dominant extremist discourse exerts its tyrannical rule nearly everywhere: in the schools and universities, in the mosques, in the judicial system, and in media and culture institutions..."

[1] Al-Itihad (UAE), November 15, 2005. The article was also posted on a Kuwaiti website dealing with democracy and human rights: http://www.kwtanweer.com/articles/readarticle.php?articleID=576, December 5, 2005.

200 Years of New Kharijism: The ongoing revision of Islam

By Shaykh Muhammad Hisham Kabbani
Chairman, Islamic Supreme Council of America

We live in a time when the enemies of Islam are attempting to destroy it from within. Resourceful and determined, they announce new mode of leadership that pretends to restore the purity of the faith as a guise to gain the confidence of Muslims and non-Muslims alike. The unwary observer is readily misled by their portrayal, which is eagerly disseminated by the media. In fact, it is these proponents of extremism who are themselves outside the realm of true Islam. “The Religion of God,” al-Khatib said, “lies between extremism and the laxity.” [i]

1.0 Prophetic Traditions

The advent of these extremists was foretold by the Prophet of Islam, Muhammad (s). Prophet Muhammad’s authentic traditions [ii] detail for us the characteristics and behavior of the extremists, stating that their existence in our world would be revealed when “…the destitute (al-buhm) camel-herds compete in building tall structures,” [iii] or in another narration “…the barefoot, naked, indigent (al-‘âla) shepherds compete in building tall structures.” [iv] “…The barefoot and the naked are the heads of the people,” [v] or “…the barefoot and naked, the deaf and dumb are the kings of the earth.” [vi]

“Barefoot and naked” and “deaf and dumb” are metaphors to describe in figurative speech just how depraved the new leaders would be. “Barefoot and naked” relates to people of the desert, and implies their utter ignorance in matters pertaining to organized society. [vii] “Deaf and dumb” implies that they would fail to use common sense in anything concerning religion, though they are perfectly sound in mind and limb. [viii] Implied as well is the notion that the extremists’ ultimate goal is world domination, to be “kings of the earth.”

The traditions reveal another of the signs of the extremists’ onset is “the affectation of eloquence by the rabble and their betaking to palaces in big cities.” [ix] Prophet Muhammad predicted a reversal in society whereby these depraved leaders would take over the rule of every region by force. They would become extremely rich and their primary concern would be to erect the tallest buildings, rather than maintain order or care for the common welfare. [x]

2.0 A Reversal of Values

Sadly, we have witnessed the realization of the Prophet’s prediction in the dominance of extremist ideology in the Middle East and its increasing influence in the West. Because of their influence and their reversal of values, we now see doctrinal, political, and physical wars of exclusion being waged everywhere in the name of Islam. In the United States, extremist ideologues have waged a fifty-year long campaign to exclude moderate, traditional Muslims from political arenas as well as the mosque. The effect has been to create the impression that the extremists are the majority whereas they are simply the most vociferous, having made it more comfortable for the majority of Muslims to stay at home, away from their doctrinal wrangling.

These two phenomena, depraved leadership and exclusionism, are the mainstays of New Kharijism in our time. What clearer proof of this than what took place in Makka on November 20, 1979, when hundreds of armed men seized the Holy Mosque under the 36-year old Juhayman al-‘Utaybi and proclaimed him as the new leader of the country? They held the mosque for two weeks during which they practiced lewd sexual behavior with the women they held captive and those they had brought with them.

According to the New York Times, “There were hundreds of casualties on both sides before Saudi forces were able to drag out the last remnant of what by then was a bunch of filthy, bedraggled young men.” Al-‘Utaybi and sixty-three of the captured were later executed by public beheading. According to As Sayyid Yusuf al-Rifa‘i, these wild young people learned their ways from the same teacher as Abdel Aziz Ibn Baz (d. 2000), a famous Wahhabi scholar.

3.0 The Original Khawârij

Before we speak of the modern phenomenon of New Kharijism it is important to define the principal constituents of Khariji doctrines. The name “Khawârij” was applied to those who, in the time of the Successors of the Companions to the Prophet (one generation after Prophet Muhammad’s lifetime), parted ways with other Muslims and declared them disbelievers, just as the followers of Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab, or “Wahhabis” (also known as the “Salafis”), do today. [xi]

The Khawârij or “Kharijites” were tens of thousands of Muslims mostly comprised of Qur’an memorizors and devoted worshippers who prayed and fasted above the norm. Yet, they declared every one of the Companions and all who associated with them to be apostate disbelievers and took up arms against them. The practices of declaring Muslims apostate (takfîr/tashrîk) and taking armed action (baghî) against the central Muslim authority – the Caliphate – became and continues to remain the hallmark of the Khawârij.

In addition, the Khawârij altered the interpretation of the Qur’an and Sunna, and used them to declare it lawful to kill and take the property of Muslims, as do their modern counterparts, the Wahhabis. [xii]

The classification of the Wahhabis as Kharijis has been a leitmotiv of Sunni heresiography for the past 200 years. Only now has it become politically incorrect among the scholars of Islam (ulema).

4.0 Three Principles of the New Kharijis

The chief brand of New Kharijism, or Wahhabism, distinguishes itself from traditional Islam by three main principles:

1. Anthropomorphism of the Deity: Attributing a body to the object of Islamic worship.
2. Disrespect of Prophet: Harming the Prophet through:
- Disrespect of his noble person, mosque, grave, vestiges, Family, or Companions.
- Disrespect of those who visit, love, and praise him.
- Disparaging or holding his status as an intercessor in disdain.
- Disregard for the schools and methods of the Sunni Imams including:
- The Imams of Sunni doctrine (‘aqîda): al-Ash‘ari and al-Maturidi.
- The scholars of traditional Sunni jurisprudence (fiqh): Abu Hanifa, Malik, ash-Shafi‘i, and Ahmad.

- The Imams of Sunni morals (akhlâq) known as the Poles [xiii] of the science of soul-purification (tasawwuf): al-Junayd, al-Gilani, al-Shadhili, al-Rifa‘i, al-Chishti, al-Suhrawardi, Shah Naqshband, and al-Tijani. [xiv]

Since all sincere Muslims believe God is transcendent and love their Prophet, it follows that this third principle, disregard for the Sunni Schools and their jurisprudential authority, is by far the most harmful tenet of New Kharijism and its most devastating achievement. The attack on the schools of thought has resulted in the pollution of pure belief, the arrogant rejection of Islamic authority, and the discrediting of pious Muslims striving to follow the straight path.

The traditional schools were immediately supplanted by extremist ideologues and radical centers of education. Africans tell the story of a young man sent to study Shari‘a at great expense by his Sunni parents. Upon his return a few years later, he refused to eat a chicken slaughtered in his honor by his father stating, “my father is an apostate.” Scenarios like this one quickly caused a great rift between the generations of peace-loving Muslims and the chaos-driven youth who were their children.

More ugly still is the violence wreaked by extremists on the Muslims of Syria, Egypt, Algeria, Afghanistan, Daghestan, Chechnya, and within the Indian Subcontinent. Violence and societal upheaval were instilled at the new schools by radical ideologues like Egyptian ex-Communist Sayyid Qutb. Sayyid Qutb declared a Muslim is either a “revolutionist” or an infidel, [xv] and went so far as to declare all the Islamic societies of his time apostate and fit to be overthrown. He stated, “Islam is a force that runs to gift freedom to all people on the earth with no regard to the variety of their religious beliefs. When this force meets with aberrant forces, it is the duty of his so-called “Islam” to struggle and annihilate them.” [xvi] Invoking the memory of the original Kharijis, he also wrote, “Islam is a whole: its separated parts should be united and the differences removed.” [xvii]

5.0 Prohibitions of the New Kharijis

Today Sayyid Qutb’s spiritual children – such as the followers of Taqi al-Din al-Nabahani, who are outlawed in most Muslim countries – tell Muslims not to:

- Participate in government.
- Sit on jury duty.
- Vote.
- Collaborate with other faith groups.
- Recite the remembrance of God in collective gatherings of dhikr. [xviii]
- Commemorate the birthday of our Prophet (mawlid) nor read poetry in his honor.
- Wear turbans or attempt to revive Prophetic traditions concerning dress.
- Show deference or respect to religious scholars or pious elders.
- Visit the tombs of saints.

5.0 The Ongoing Revision of Islam

The Neo-Kharijis and their sponsors are mounting a worldwide offensive to convince Muslims and the rest of the world that theirs is the only way. To this end, a vast publishing campaign to revise Islam has been under way since the early thirties, an effort that has been redoubled since the eighties. This campaign is waged on five fronts:

5.1 Tampering with the Texts

A wanton, unethical manipulation of the great books of Islam has removed words or entire chapters from classical works by the great Imams such as al-Nawawi, al-Sawi, and Ibn ‘Abidin. Quranic exegeses such as Tafsir al-Jalalayn and the works of ‘Abd Allah Yusuf ‘Ali have all been reprinted with changes. This corrupt tampering of these guiding texts has been documented at length. [xix]

5.2 “Improving” on the Foundational Books of Islam

They have unabashedly published corrective comments on manuals whose contents were long ago established as normative in the scholarly community of Islam. Many such instances have also been documented. [xx]

5.3 Revising Their Own Source Texts

Not content to fiddle with historically accepted books, they also find fault with the minor texts they publish and distribute in order to gainsay their own putative authorities. This is a patent illustration of the principle that each new generation of innovators rejects the previous one as too moderate. [xxi]

5.4 Reprinting Discredited Works

The Neo-Kharijis are supplementing their own works by re-circulating books that have already been condemned by the majority of scholars. Though heretical and un-Islamic, numerous books are now being promoted as the fundamental guides for the practice of Islam. [xxii]

5.5 Promoting the Works of Unqualified, Self-styled Scholars to Attack Sufis and Asharis

Including:
- Muhammad Ahmad ‘Abd al-Salam,
- Muhammad al-Shuqayri,
- Ibn Abi al-‘Izz,
- Muhammad Nasiruddeen al-Albani,
- Abdul Aziz Bin Abdullah Bin Baz,
- Muhammad bin Saleh Al-'Uthaymin,
- Dr. Abu Ameenah Bilal Phillips,
- Dr. Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din al-Hilali,
- Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan,
- And many others. [xxiii]

Their dismissal of the traditional schools of thought, their development of schools as incubators for radical ideology, their attack on the source texts of Islam and generations of recognized scholars, and their financing by ideological counterparts worldwide, have truly enabled the Neo-Kharajite movement to dominate the vision of Islam in the world. Finding roots in the Khawârij of ca. 750 CE, and given new life by Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Wahhab in the 19th century, these extremists have only really succeeded in their efforts to subvert Islam in the past 75 years.

Traditional Muslims, the silent majority, remain numerous and confidant enough to repel the Neo-Kharajite movement from within Islam, given the necessary support. However, backed by the oil-wealth of their ideological counterparts overseas, Neo-Kharajites have a definitive advantage over the majority of Muslims, who have only their own humble resources at their disposal. Only with real financial and political support can classical Muslim scholars and moderate, mainstream Muslims reclaim the banner of Islam from these usurpers, retake the podium they have hijacked, repel these extremists and discredit their heretical ideology. Truly, this is a battle worth fighting. And it is a battle which, with the help of Almighty God, we can and must win.

Truly we belong to Allah and to Him is our return, and there is no power nor might except in Allah the Exalted and Almighty Lord.

NOTES:

[i] In al-Dhahabi, Siyar A‘lam al-Nubala’ (1997 ed. 13:598).
[ii] Prophet Muhammad’s sayings and advice communicated through verifiable chains of transmission, known as the ahadith. The body of traditions are called the Sunna, and form the second basis for Islamic law, in addition to the Holy Qur’an.
[iii] The well-known hadith of Gibril in Sahih al-Bukhari.
[iv] Sahih Muslim.
[v] Ibid.
[vi] Ibid
[vii] see Al-Taymi, Sulayman.
[viii] Ibn Hajar, Fath al-Bari.
[ix] Related by Al-Tabarani, through Abu Hamza, on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbas.
[x] Al-Qurtubi.
[xi] Ibn ‘Abidin, Radd al-Muhtar ‘ala al-Durr al-Mukhtar (3:309), “Bab al-Bughat” [Chapter on Rebels].
[xii] Al-Sawi, Hashiya ‘ala Tafsir al-Jalalayn (v. 58:18-19) in the Cairo, 1939 al-Mashhad al-Husayni edition (3:307-8) repr. Dar Ihya’ al-Turath al-‘Arabi in Beirut.
[xiii] Aqtâb, sing. qutb
[xiv] The schools of tasawwuf are known as Paths, turuq, sing. Tarîqa.
[xv] Qutb, Sayyid, World’s Peace and Islam.
[xvi] The Future is Islaam (p. 203).
[xvii] Social Justice in Islam (p. 35).
[xviii] Dhikr is considered by traditional Muslims as the most excellent form of devotion for a servant of God, and is stressed over a hundred times in the Holy Qur’an. For the spiritually-inclined, it is polish for the heart, the essence of the science of faith, and the key to all success. Nor are there any restrictions on the form, frequency, or timing of dhikr whatsoever.
[xix] Cf. Appendix, “Albani and Company,” in Struggle for the Soul of Islam: Exposing the Scholars of Najd and the Wahhabi/Salafi Movement, paragraph on Ibn Baz.
[xx] For example: Ibn Abi al-‘Izz’s commentary on al-Tahawi’s ‘Aqida. Al-Tahawi’s `Aqida is a normative classic of Islam but Ibn Abi al-‘Izz is unknown and unacceptable as a source for Ahl al-Sunna teachings. Examples of his unreliability are his rejection of al-Tahawi’s articles:
35: “The Seeing of Allah by the People of the Garden is true, without their vision being all-encompassing and without the manner of their vision being known” and
38: “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 things are”.
Al-`Izz states, “Can any vision be rationally conceived without face-to-face encounter? And in it there is a proof for His elevation (‘uluw) over His creatures,” and “Whoever claims that Allah is seen without direction, let him verify his reason!” [Ibn Abi al-‘Izz, Sharh al-‘Aqida al-Tahawiyya, p. 195]. He also endorses Ibn Taymiyya’s view of the finality of Hellfire, in flat contradiction of the al-Tahawi’s statement, §83. “The Garden and the Fire are created and shall never be extinguished nor come to an end.” [Ibid. p. 427-430] There is also doubt as to Ibn Abi al-‘Izz’s identity and authorship of this Sharh.
[xxi] Muhammad Hamid al-Fiqqi objects apoplectically to Ibn Taymiyya in his edition of the latter’s Iqtida’ al-Sirat al-Mustaqim in the section entitled “Innovated festivities of time and place.” He criticizes Ibn Taymiyya for saying that “some people innovate a celebration out of love for the Prophet and to exalt him, and Allah may reward them for this love and striving.” Al-Fiqqi writes a two-page footnote exclaiming, “How can they possibly obtain a reward for this?! What striving is in this?!”
[xxii] Including:
o Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab’s Tawhid, which is replete with doctrinal errors such as:
o Calling the Ash‘aris “Nullifiers of the Divine Attributes” (mu‘attila) [chapters 2, 16]
o Declaring the Lesser shirk an integral part of the Greater. [7]
o Misinterpreting the hadith “do not make my grave an idol” to mean: do not even pray near it whereas the agreed-upon meaning is: Do not pray towards or on top of it. [20]
o Stating: “The disbelievers who know their disbelief are better-guided than the believers.” (inna al-kuffâr al-ladhîna ya‘rifûna kufrahum ahdâ sabîlan min al-mu’minîn) [23]
o Stating: “Among the polytheists are those who love Allah with a tremendous love” [31].
o Stating that “the two opposites [belief and disbelief] can be found in a single heart” [41] in violation of the verse [Allah has not assigned unto any man two hearts within his body] (33:4). This and the previous four concepts are fundamental to understand their propagation of mutual suspicion among Muslims.
o Stating that Allah is explicitly said to have two hands: the right holds the heaven and the other holds the earth, and the other is explicitly named the left hand. [67]

- ‘Abd Allah ibn Ahmad ibn Hanbal’s al-Sunna, a foundational book of the Wahhabi creed. According to Shu‘ayb al-Arna’ut, “at least 50 percent of the hadiths are weak or outright forgeries” in this book. Its publication was sponsored by His Highness King ‘Abd al-‘Aziz ibn Sa‘ud and a Jedda businessman named Muhammad Nasif in Cairo in 1349/1930 at al-Matba‘a al-Salafiyya.

The same Muhammad Nasif financed:
- an attack on Imam Muhammad Zahid al-Kawthari and the Hanafi School by ‘Abd al-Rahman al-Mu‘allimi al-Yamani (d. 1386 H) entitled al-Tankil li Ma Warada fi Ta’nib al-Kawthari min al-Abatil.
- the reprinting of al-Qari’s hapless fatwa against the parents of the Prophet.
- the dissemination in India of al-Khatib’s derogatory biography of Imam Abu Hanifa from Tarikh Baghdad.
Also:
- Ibn Taymiyya: Fatwa Hamawiyya; ‘Aqida Wasitiyya; Hadith al-Nuzul; Awliya’ al-Shaytan; Iqtida’ al-Sirat al-Mustaqim; Qa‘ida fi al-Tawassul; Ziyarat al-Qubur, etc.
- Ibn al-Qayyim: al-Qasida al-Nuniyya; Ijtima‘ al-Juyush al-Islamiyya.
- al-Harawi’s Dhamm ‘Ilm al-Kalam wa Ahlih
- al-Biqa‘i’s takfîr of Shaykh Muhyi al-Din Ibn ‘Arabi – may Allah have mercy on him – in his book Masra‘ al-Tasawwuf, Tanbih Al-Ghabi Ila Takfir Ibn ‘Arabi, ed. ‘Abd al-Rahman al-Wakil (Bilbis: Dar al-Taqwa, <1989>)
[xxiii] In Arabic:
§ Muhammad al-Shuqayri who wrote the book al-Sunna wa al-Mubtada‘at
§ Muhammad Khalil Harras wrote a commentary on Ibn Taymiyya’s ‘Aqida Wasitiyya – distributed for free in the Arab world
§ Al-Albani
§ ‘Abd al-Rahman ‘Abd al-Khaliq, al-Albani’s student and deputy in Kuwait, al-Fikr al-Sufi (“Sufi Thought”) and its abridgment Fada’ih al-Sufiyya (“The Disgraces of the Sufis”).
§ ‘Abd al-Rahman Dimashqiyya
§ Mahmud ‘Abd al-Ra’uf al-Qasim al-Madkhali, al-Kashf ‘an Haqiqat al-Sufiyya (“Unveiling the Reality of the Sufis”), 1993. The book was refuted by Dr. ‘Abd al-Qadir ‘Isa in his 700-page Haqa’iq ‘an al-Tasawwuf.
§ Al-Tuwayjiri (Hamd ibn ‘Abd al-Muhsin). With all respect to his person, he demanded that women caught driving in Saudi Arabia be labeled as prostitutes in the courts.
§ Al-Jaza’iri (Abu Bakr)
§ Al-Wadi‘i (Muqbil ibn Hadi), Nashr al-Sahifa fi Dhikr al-Sahih min Aqwal A’immat al-Jarh wa al-Ta‘dil fi Abi Hanifa. Fada’ih (“Disgraces”), 1999.
In English
§ Ibn Baz, Sunnah and Caution against Innovation
§ An anonymous tract entitled A Brief Introduction to the Salafi Da‘wah.
§ Muhammad Ma‘soomee al-Khajnadee (d. 1961 ce), Blind Following of Madhhabs (Birmingham: al-Hidaayah Publishing, 1993).
§ A. A. Tabari, a fictitious name for the author of The Other Side of Sufism, a tract distributed in Wahhabi-funded mosques and posted on the Internet.
§ The Naqshbandi Tariqat Unveiled, al-Hidaayah, Colombo, Sri Lanka.

http://www.islamicsupremecouncil.org/bin/site/wrappers/isca_inside_extremism_newkhawarij.html

ISLAMIC RADICALISM: ITS WAHHABI ROOTS AND CURRENT REPRESENTATION

Radicalism, in various forms, has made significant inroads in several countries of Central Asia and in the Caucasus - in particular the three countries that share the Ferghana Valley, namely Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikstan, Chechnya, and the Russian Republic of Daghestan. Known as fundamentalism or "Wahhabism," it poses a direct challenge to the ideal vision of a state that the newly founded nations of the region have embraced.

In addition, the broader ideology name "Wahhabism" represents a serious challenge to the theology and practice of the mainstream Sunni Islam to which most of these nations' populations adhere. Should this radicalized understanding of Islam continue to spread unchecked, radical interpretations could threaten social stability at the local, national, and regional levels and create serious geopolitical dangers to which neighboring powers, as well as the US and Europe, would have to react.

Today, throughout the world, there has been a wave of radical movements, which sometimes turn militant, whose source can be traced to the Wahhabi movement. What is this movement and how did it spread throughout the Muslim world, and now the Western world? What are its ideological differences with traditional Islam and how are these differences influencing and supporting modern day radical movements? What can be done to diminish the power of these movements in vulnerable states such as those in Central Asia and the Caucasus?

Traditional Islam views religion as a pact between man and God and therefore the domain of spirituality. In this belief, there can be no compulsion or force used in religion. From the time of the Prophet Muhammad (s), peace and tolerance were practiced between different religious groups, with respect to distinctions in belief. Contrary to this, the "Wahhabi" ideology is built on the concept of political enforcement of religious beliefs, thus permitting no differences in faith whatsoever. In "Wahhabi" belief, faith is not necessarily an option; it is sometimes mandated by force.

Origins of the Wahhabi Movement

The origins of nearly all of the 20th century's Islamic extremist movements lie in a new Islamic theology and ideology developed in the 18th and 19th centuries in tribal areas of the eastern Arabian Peninsula. The source of this new stream of thought was a Muslim scholar named Muhammad ibn Abd-al Wahhab, hence the name "Wahhabism."

The premise of this new, narrow ideology was to reject traditional scholars, scholarship and practices under the guise of "reviving the true tenets of Islam" and protecting the concept of monotheism. Ibn Abd al-Wahhab's brand of "purification" of Islam consisted of prohibiting many traditionally accepted acts of worship, reverence of the person of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him and the pious saints, and burning books containing traditional prayers, interpretations of law and commentaries on the Qur'an and Hadith. He encouraged his followers to interpret the holy books for themselves and to act on their interpretations in light of their own understanding, regardless of their understanding of fundamental principles or lack thereof. Anyone who did not profess to this new ideology was considered outside of the realm of Islam - an apostate, disbeliever or idolater, thus making the shedding of their blood and confiscation of their wealth permitted. In this way, he was able to secure a significant following whose legacy continues in one form or another until today.

Over time, Ibn Wahhab's ideas spread far and wide, being debated, called into question and sometimes supported. A struggle ensued between the staunchly orthodox Ottoman Empire and the "Wahhabi" tribes. The Wahhabis were put down until the eventual dismantling of the Ottoman Empire in the 1920s and the dissolution of its influence. Finding a new opportunity among the tribes, Wahhabis were able to reinstate their beliefs and assert their influence on Muslims of the Peninsula.

Gradually from 1920 until today, they were very successful in establishing an "accepted" new ideology in Islam whose essential characteristic is extreme views and interpretations, as contrasted with traditional Sunni Islam. Coming under the guise of reform of the religion, the movement gathered momentum in the last three decades with support from a number of wealthy individuals. As it has grown, the movement mutated and splintered, with the eventual outcome that some groups went to the extreme in radicalization of their beliefs.

Influence of Wahhabism Today

The Wahhabi ideology is antagonistic to non-Muslims and to traditional practices including seeking intercession by means of the pious saints in Islam, accepted by traditional Sunni Islam for over 1400 years. By rejecting any form of hierarchy such as that followed by traditional Sunni schools, the Wahhabis rejected traditional rulings on a wide range of subjects, invalidated the four schools of thought and its accepted interpretations of law, as well as issued declarations of unbelief for those who disagreed.

While this new ideology prohibited many traditional Islamic forms of worship, its followers did not become overtly militant until recently. Now "Wahhabi" followers have taken up an increasingly confrontational standpoint attempting to impose their ideology in many regions around the world. The Wahhabi mentality asserts that Islam may be reformed by means of the sword. Thus the movement has manifested itself as armed insurrections throughout the world, especially where governments are weak and unable to resist aggression effectively.

Unfortunately, this narrow ideology has appeared and flourished in Islam, but not because of Islam. Previously, Islam was always presented in a peaceful, tolerant manner. The Prophet Muhammad (s) used to present his neighbors or friends that were not Muslim with gifts and flowers, never holding a sword against them, or ever instigating a struggle or a fight. There are many events in Muslim history where the Prophet made peace treaties with non-Muslims. Islam, despite its rapid spread in its first three centuries, never imposed its beliefs on anyone, as attested by the scrolls of history.

Under this modern ideological extremism, Islam's essential principle of tolerance has been abolished. The Holy Qur'an mentions repeatedly that there is no compulsion in religion and that all people are free to practice any religion they like. Those of the Wahhabi ideology selectively apply verses of the Holy Qur'an to support their ideology, whose basis is to impose its beliefs upon everyone, Muslim and non-Muslim alike.

Theory in Practice: Declaration of War against Governments

Just as the spread of Wahhabism flourished outside of the Arabian Peninsula after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, it now poses a significant challenge to the region of the former Soviet Union. While these countries were "protected" from all types of religious influence under Soviet rule, the fall of the Soviet Empire and the vacuum of religious teaching made this area fertile ground for the spread of this new ideology.

Wahhabi belief provides the religious and ideological underpinnings to enable militant movements to take up arms against existing governments if they deem the need arises. Though these movements are ideological in nature, they easily resort to armed struggle. While most governments are able to reconcile and reach compromises -- as one may easily compromise with a moderate Muslim -- extremists reject any kind of compromise, insisting on their way and no other. They have tunnel vision, believing in a duty and message to deliver.

The extremists who have turned militant declare war against anyone with viewpoints contrary to theirs; thus, declaration of war against a government is commonplace. In Egypt, they oppose their government. Similarly in Jordan, they oppose their government. In Syria, Pakistan, Algeria, and many other countries "Wahhabi-minded" groups oppose their governments as they have begun to do in the Caucasus and Central Asia. The approach of these movements is to infiltrate mosques, Islamic teaching centers, and charitable organizations from where they indoctrinate religiously oriented people with their ideas and methods. They forcefully impose their views on weak societies, in hopes of conquering one and establishing a base for further control. They justify their militant acts and illegal means of financing their cause by claiming to wage a "jihad" for the preservation of Islam.

Today, we have many examples of this phenomenon, whether it is individuals declaring war on America, or vigilante groups coming against their governments in Central Asia. This contradicts the explicit teaching of the Prophet Muhammad, not to oppose a ruler as long as he does not prevent the performance of prayer, even if he commits injustice. Thus, those of the Wahhabi mentality use Islam when it suits them and likewise, contravene it at their convenience.

Using Islam to Justify Prohibited Actions

The term "Islamic" is grossly abused by extremists who attribute to the religion all kinds of rulings, which in fact contradict the essence of the religion in spirit and in particulars. Among them is the fatwa that justifies the use of terror tactics such as suicide bombings of civilians and attacks against non-combatants in marketplaces, schools, offices, and places of worship. Similarly they have issued a fatwa legitimizing the use of drug money to finance their campaign, despite the fact that narcotics are strictly forbidden in Islam.

Islamic extremists have ruled permissible and recommended the production of drugs and their sale on the streets of Muslim and non-Muslim nations. With such illicit monies, these extremist groups finance the development of their global network, purchase weapons and supplies, and build their front organizations, which represent them under the guise of Islamic activism.

Containing the Spread and Growth of Extremism

It is very well known that certain networks have flourished in many countries throughout the world. Small but well-financed militant movements arise, coming against their government and the common people, instigating conflict. The danger lies when an outside government supports such extremist movements under the false impression that this constitutes preserving religious freedom.

In Uzbekistan, for example, rather than legitimize these vigilante groups as part of the religious fabric of the society, there should be system of checks to insure the government is not fostering the growth and spread of radical movements, whose stated goal is elimination of the legitimate government by any means, including armed struggle. There are known groups who are not permitted in many of the Middle Eastern countries, thus, it is unreasonable to single out Uzbekistan as being required to recognize these same groups as a legitimate religious party. There must be some type of code of ethics devised to differentiate legitimate religious groups from those who use the threat of force to impose their ideology.

The problem of extremism exists not only in far distant countries, but in the US as well. It can be dealt with more effectively if the West better understands Islam and builds bridges with moderate Muslim individuals and nations. To support "religious freedom" abroad without having knowledge of whom one is supporting (i.e., an extremist movement) is an irrational misuse of the laws protecting the religious rights of individuals.

To understand such movements, one must understand the scope of Islam and the psychology of Muslims, since what we are seeing today is an ideological movement turned militant. It is important to note that the Wahhabi ideology itself is extreme in its interpretation and can turn militant over time. Why is this form of thinking attractive to some Muslims? What are the political agendas behind "religious" movements? How are holy books used to justify illegal actions performed in the name of the religion? Education is a key factor in containing and countering the spread of this type of extremism and its associated movements.

It would be highly beneficial if a think tank or research institute were to be formed in order that government officials, researchers, and media understand Islam on a deeper level, rather than making rash generalizations based on superficial understandings. To truly understand the world Islamist extremist movement, one must realize it is not just a social phenomenon as so many theorists mistakenly assume, but is a full-fledged ideological war of words and weapons alike.

from http://www.islamicsupremecouncil.org/bin/site/wrappers/extremism_wahabroots.html

"The Roots of Terror are in Saudi Arabia."

By MEMRI
MEMRI.org | June 20, 2003

Following the bombings in Riyadh on May 12, 2003, the deputy editor of the independent Egyptian weekly Roz Al-Yousef, Wael Al-Abrashi, who is also an expert on Sunni terrorist movements, wrote several articles on Saudi Wahhabism and the development of Islamist terror. The following are excerpts from Al-Abrashi's article:

A Wahhabi World View

In an article published on May 31, 2003 in Roz Al-Yousef, Al-Abrashi wrote: "A Wahhabi Saudi sheikh warned young people not to speak English and not to try to study it. He swallowed his saliva, wet his lips, and screamed: 'This is the language of the infidels, to the point where it has the word 'blease' ['please'], which is derived from iblis [Satan]. This is the language of the devil…'"

"Anyone can come and say that this sheikh does not represent all Wahhabis, but I will reply that most of the Wahhabi sheikhs have in the past forbidden the study of geography, English, philosophy, and drawing; besides that, what is the difference between what this Wahhabi sheikh said and the Fatwa of [Sheikh] Bin Baz – the [late] leader of Wahhabism – which stated that the planet Earth does not rotate?"

Al-Qa'ida – A Saudi Wahhabi Organization

"Wahhabism prohibits the woman from working, forbids her to drive a car, and bans democracy, treating it as a religion in addition to the religion of Allah. Wahhabism attributes great importance to the [outward] forms of Islam – growing a beard, ankle-length garments for men, and the requirement to use toothpicks instead of the satanic Western toothbrush. One Wahhabi leader, Sheikh bin 'Athimein, prohibited smoking, praying behind a smoker, shaving one's beard, praying behind a clean-shaven man, and wearing European clothing because it is polytheists' clothing…"

"I say that this Wahhabism is incapable of establishing a modern state and incapable of spreading the values of tolerance that Islam has set out. On the contrary, this Wahhabism leads, as we have seen, to the birth of extremist, closed, and fanatical streams, that accuse others of heresy, abolish them, and destroy them. The extremist religious groups have moved from the stage of Takfir [1] to the stage of 'annihilation and destruction,' in accordance with the strategy of Al-Qa'ida – which Saudi authorities must admit is a local Saudi organization that drew other organizations into it, and not the other way around. All the organizations emerged from under the robe of Wahhabism."

'Saudi Arabia Helped Perpetrators of Terror Attacks in Egypt, Beginning with Sadat's Assassination'

"I can state with certainly that after a very careful reading of all the documents and texts of the official investigations linked to all acts of terror that have taken place in Egypt, from the assassination of the late president Anwar Sadat in October 1981, up to the Luxor massacre in 1997, Saudi Arabia was the main station through which most of the Egyptian extremists passed, and emerged bearing with them terrorist thought regarding Takfir – thought that they drew from the sheikhs of Wahhabism. They also bore with them funds they received from the Saudi charities."

"Apparently, we had to wait all these years and the September 11 explosions had to happen, and many other explosions that harmed Saudi Arabia's stability, for the Saudi authorities to understand the two dangers: 'The danger of Wahhabi Takfir Fatwas [and] the danger of charities, most of whose money ultimately flows to the treasuries of extremists…"

"…Based on the documents and the investigations in all cases of terror that harmed Egypt [in the 1980s and 1990s], I determined that there was not a single case in which Saudi Arabia was not the main station for the extremists…"

"The ideas of the Wahhabi sheikhs and the funds of the charities turned into rifle bullets in the breasts of the innocent. An official memo by the Egyptian Interior Ministry immediately after the assassination of the late president Anwar Sadat enumerated the reasons for the buildup in extremist religious activity in Egypt. It was written there – and first published here – that the investigations and the confessions of the terror organization members showed that Sheikh Omar Abd Al-Rahman, the mufti of the [Al-Gam'ah Al-Islamiyya] organization, brought a tape-duplicating machine from Saudi Arabia and, from his home in Al-Fayoum, recorded and disseminated numerous cassettes of lectures and sermons expressing the ideology of the organization and serving its strategy and its plans. The cassettes accused the ruler of heresy and said there must be a coup against him…"

'Arab Leaders are Always Infidels – Except in Saudi Arabia'

"The Wahhabi sheikhs used the Fatwas of Ibn Taymiyyah dealing with the Mongols and the conquerors for disseminating the ideology of Takfir and Jihad against the ruler. What is strange is that while the Wahhabis accused the rulers of heresy and called to fight Jihad against them in countries such as Egypt, Algieria, Tunisia, Morocco, and Jordan, they ruled that cooperating with the government in Saudi Arabia was a binding religious commandment and that the ruler is the [only] one authorized to declare Jihad, implement punishments, collect alms, and [enforce] the imperative of promoting virtue and preventing vice, and that it was an obligation to cooperate with it and obey it as long as it applied Islamic law."

"We used to ask the Wahhabi sheikhs and the members of extremist Egyptian religious groups: 'You demand obedience to the Saudi ruler and refraining from rising up against him, while you call for Jihad against the ruler and toppling the regime in Egypt and in other Arab countries. What is the meaning of this contradiction?' Their answer was: 'The difference is that Islamic religious law is implemented in Saudi Arabia, and not implemented in the other Arab countries.' But the day came when Saudi youth accused the Saudi authorities too of heresy, called for [Jihad] against them, and accused them of defiling the places holy to Islam via the American forces. Anyone who adopts the Takfir ideology and uses it for his own interests will be burned in its fire, because no one can control it…"

'Today, Saudi Arabia Has Become the Biggest Arena for Extremist Ideology'

"Today, Saudi Arabia has become the biggest arena for extremist ideology and [provided] the broadest scope for the development of its viruses. As a result, the Saudi authorities have, for the first time, begun to carry out security detention of 'inciters to violence' among the Wahhabi sheikhs."
'Egyptian Workers' Passports Confiscated in Saudi Arabia End Up With Terrorists'

"I call for an attempt to protect Egyptians from the old-new terror coming from Saudi Arabia. Egypt must be fortified ideologically and through security against Wahhabi ideas. In this framework, I call for an investigation of what I call 'the phenomenon of the disappearance and theft of Egyptian passports from Saudi Arabia,' and I use the term 'phenomenon' accurately. According to [Egyptian] Foreign and Interior Ministry sources, Saudi Arabia [is the number one country from] where passports of Egyptian workers are stolen and disappear. This phenomenon has been on the rise from the early 1990s, the period of the large terror operations [in Egypt], until today."

"In accordance with the method of guaranty – a method no less backward than Wahhabism itself and which contains all the seeds of racism, hatred, and repression – the Saudi 'guarantor' holds the passports of the [foreign] workers, and if the Egyptian or other worker wants to travel, [it is easy for] the guarantor not to give him his passport; he can even throw him into jail. If the Egyptian complains, the guarantor can say he already gave him his passport but the Egyptian lost it. The [Egyptian] Foreign and Interior Ministry files hold dozens of complaints connected to the disappearance or theft of the passports of Egyptians working in Saudi Arabia, primarily in the last 15 years."

"It is suspected that the lost and stolen passports find their way to extremist religious organizations. Nine Egyptians complained about a Saudi guarantor named Muhammad Haroun several years ago, because he stole their passports and fled with them to Afghanistan…"

Wahhabi Terror and U.S. Bases in Saudi Arabia

"All that is left to say is that the Saudi leaders sought to gain religious protection, so they took Wahhabism as a shield; they sought to gain military protection, so they opened their land to the American forces. But it is odd that Saudi Arabia was burned by the fire of both Wahhabism and the American bases. Those who fight, sabotage, and destroy do so in accordance with the Wahhabi Fatwas, and justify their deeds by the presence of American bases. The only solution for the Saudi crisis is to trim the claws of Wahhabism, and to purify it and empty it of its content, so that it can become mainstream, moderate Islam. That is, Wahhabism should be gotten rid of, and then the American bases that provide a pretext for the armed violence should be gotten rid of."

"I will be even more frank. The Wahhabis and the Saudi princes hate Muhammad 'Ali, and have a complex because of him, because he sent his forces against them, eliminated them, invaded their capital, and scattered them from the Arabian Peninsula. Some historians and commentators, and even residents of the Arabian Peninsula, think Muhammad 'Ali's attack on the Wahhabis was an attack on terror and terrorism. The British commisioner of Kuwait, Dixon, who was responsible for Saudi matters, wrote at the time: 'Ibrahim Pasha, commander of the army of Muhammad 'Ali, gained the admiration and trust of the public in Najjd. He was received at Mount Shamar, Al-Qassim, and Al-Ahsaa as a deliverer from the Wahhabi fire, not as a foreign conqueror.'"

'An Attack on Wahabbism is Needed'

"Wahhabism needs now an attack of another kind that will be like the attack of Muhammad 'Ali, but will be this time an ideological, cultural, religious, and political attack that will be led by the Saudi authorities themselves, and will not be forced from without. The attack must be Saudi, and not American, it must be more ideological and political than [based on] security. The attack on Wahhabism is an attack on terror, backwardness, and fanaticism. Wahhabism has moved from Takfir to destruction, and we do not want it ultimately destroying Saudi Arabia." [2]

'The Roots of Terror are in Saudi Arabia, Not Egypt'

In another article, Al-Abrashi wrote: "…Following the September 11 attacks, everyone was stunned by the reversal in Saudi Arabia's attitude towards the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, despite the close strategic relations they had maintained since the days of Abd Al-Nasser when dozens of [Muslim Brotherhood members] fled to Saudi Arabia. But we quickly realized, based on special sources, that the Saudi authorities aspired to rescue Wahhabism and exonerate it of charges of terror. The only way to do so, they thought, was to place the blame on one of the branches [of Wahhabism] – the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood."

"But this trick did not succeed, and the Americans continued to claim that the ideology of Al-Qa'ida and bin Laden had been formed in the Saudi atmosphere. So some Saudi princes and top officials used another trick, spreading the claim that Egyptian extremists had taken over bin Laden and changed his ideological thought. According to them, 'Ayman Al-Zawahiri, the leader of the extremist Egyptian Jihad organization, was the brain and the ideologue of the Al-Qa'ida organization, and it is he who leads bin Laden. With this claim, they tried to eradicate the Saudi color from the Al-Qa'ida organization and state that the organization was no more than a continuation of the Egyptian Takfir organization…"

"Saudi Arabia supported the closed Wahhabi religious and ideological extremism and created the Al-Qa'ida organization. It persecuted the Shi'ite minority and permitted the deployment of the American presence on its land, in a way that contradicts its religious position and its national sovereignty. Thus began the catastrophe, and when it will end we do not know."[3]

In another article, Al-Abrashi wrote: "…Although Saudi Arabia has adopted a strategy of exporting Wahhabism to the rest of the world, it has continued in recent years to claim that the ideology of the extremist Takfir was imported from abroad and was brought into Saudi Arabia, primarily from Egypt, and that it has no roots of any kind in Saudi culture. Saudi Arabia created the monster, exported it abroad, and then lost control of it. Then, the monster turned on it…" "Saudi Arabia is in danger. It can neither relinquish Wahhabism nor leave it as it is; it can neither keep the American presence nor get rid of it. I say again, Saudi Arabia is in danger, since the Al-Saud family has placed it between the Wahhabi hammer and the anvil of the American bases." [4]

ENDNOTES:
[1] Accusing Muslims of heresy in Islam
[2] Roz Al-Yousef (Egypt), May 31, 2003.
[3] Roz Al-Yousef (Egypt), May 17, 2003, as cited in Al-Quds Al-Arabi (London), May 19, 2003.
[4] Roz Al-Yousef (Egypt), May 24, 2003, as cited in Al-Quds Al-Arabi (London), May 26, 2003.

A Sufi Muslim takes on Wahhabism

To the controversial US-based Islamic scholar, Wahhabism is like an octopus whose tentacles are reaching everywhere

By Mafoot Simon
Senior Writer
The Straits Times, Singapore

ALMOST from the moment he sits down, Shaykh Muhammad Hisham Kabbani goes on a sustained frontal attack on Wahhabism, the strain of Islamic thought that is currently and widely believed to be the ideological well-spring of Islamic extremism.

If Wahhabism had been an object standing right before him, it would have been reduced to pulp by the end of the hour-long interview.

But Shaykh Kabbani will tell you that it is not because he hates the Wahhabis. The chairman of the Islamic Supreme Council of America, a religious organisation based in Washington DC whose mission, among others, is to 'educate government officials on the religion, culture and history of the Muslim world', says he is worried because Wahhabism is like an an octopus.

'Its tentacles are reaching everywhere'

Concerted efforts must now be made to stop them, he says. 'You have to hit the head; the head is the teachings, the teachings of radical Wahhabism,' says the 59-year-old.

Back in 1990, arriving for his first Friday prayers in an American mosque in Jersey City, he was shocked to hear Wahhabism being preached. 'What I heard there, I had never heard in my native Lebanon. I asked myself: Is Wahhabism active in America? So I started my research.
Whichever mosque I went to, it was Wahhabi, Wahhabi, Wahhabi, Wahhabi.'

The pervasive presence of Wahhabi teachings in American mosques appalled him.

With a long white beard that reaches the chest, a flowing robe and white headgear, Shaykh Kabbani can easily be mistaken for one of those Islamic scholars more at ease with Quranic verses than the chemical properties of oil or the anatomy of the human body.

But the Lebanon-born scholar graduated with a bachelor's degree in chemistry from the American University of Beirut before continuing his medical studies in Belgium. Today, he also has a degree in Islamic law.

Shaykh Kabbani is one of the organisers of the four-day International Conference of Islamic Scholars to be held in Jakarta from Dec 21 which features some world-renowned Muslim scholars.

Among them are Dr Husain Haqqani of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Dr Khaled M. Abou El Fadl of the University of California at Los Angeles School of Law, Dr Abdul Ghani Le Joyeux of the Muslim World League of France, and Dr Rahma Bourqia, president of the Universite Hassan II Mohammedia-Casablanca in Morocco.

The conference is meant to provide a forum for Islamic leaders to discuss strategies, programmes and plans to 'elucidate a modern vision for civil society institutions in Muslim societies everywhere'. One highlight is the publication of 'A Declaration of Universal Human
Rights In Islam'.

Shaykh Kabbani moved to the United States in 1990 as an emissary of his 'guru', Shaykh Muhammad Nazim al-Haqqani, the grand shaykh ('shaykh' is a Sufi mystical leader) of the Naqshbandi Order, a modern Sufi group, to make inroads into the US. Since then, he has opened scores of Sufi centres in the US and Canada.

Sufism is generally believed to have grown out of early Islamic asceticism that began as a counterweight to the worldliness of the expanding Muslim community of the early Umayyad period (AD 661-749). There are different variants of Sufism but core beliefs include spirituality, acts of piety and a strong emphasis on prayer and meditation.

Hostility between Sufis and Wahhabis dates back to the very founding of Wahhabism itself in the 18th century when it emerged as the most famous and militant anti-Sufi movement in the Arabian peninsula. Wahhabis considered Sufism a degenerate form of Islam and urged a return to the 'fundamentals' of Islam, as opposed to the 'traditions' that had accrued over the centuries.

Today, Wahhabism is associated with the Saudi government, which funds many Wahhabi missionary activities overseas, including in the US.

Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden is also believed to be a Wahhabi

Shaykh Kabbani's fame in the US pre-dates the Sept 11, 2001 attacks, however. In 1999, during a forum organised by the US State Department, he charged that '80 per cent' of the mosques in the US were run by extremists. Following that claim, more than 100 Islamic centres and groups issued a statement condemning his remarks.

In 2002, on a visit to Malaysia, he raised an alarm when he revealed that a former Malaysian Cabinet minister had allegedly funded a Muslim organisation in the US which has possible links with extremist groups. He has not changed his view.

More recently, he has been a guest at the White House Iftar (breaking of the Muslim fast) hosted by US President George W. Bush, and has met world leaders such as Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

He travels regularly to this region, Britain and elsewhere.

He has written a number of books, the latest being The Approach Of Armageddon - An Islamic Perspective.

It has been described as an 'unprecedented work' and touted as a 'must read' for religious scholars and lay persons interested in broadening their understanding of centuries-old religious traditions pertaining to the Last Days.

His other books include The Naqshbandi Sufi Way, Angels Unveiled, Encyclopaedia Of Islamic Doctrine (seven volumes), and Women Companions Of The Prophet Muhammad (with Dr L. Bakhtiar).

His garb and forceful views on the Wahhabis notwithstanding, the jet-set Sufi is not without a sense of humour.

When told that I had requested the interview to be brought forward by an hour to 9.30am, he quipped: 'I was told you were coming at 7.30am, so I have been ready since 7.30am.'

Introduced to my colleague, photojournalist Aziz Hussin, as 'the great shaykh from the US', he countered: 'No, no. The small shaykh from the US.'

Whether great or small, the shaykh is quite controversial, something that he unabashedly admitted during the interview.

He has his share of critics. In 2001, Professor John Voll of Georgetown University in Washington DC said that Shaykh Kabbani was overstating his case against Wahhabism.

'Wahhabism itself is subject to moderate and extreme strains,' said Prof Voll, adding: 'The Saudis have given millions to Harvard Law School. Does that make it a Wahhabi institution too?'

But questions like this, however, have not stopped, and are not likely going to stop, the shaykh from slamming the Wahhabis.

Giving moderate Muslim speakers a platform

Q. What is the purpose of the International Conference of Islamic Scholars to be held in Jakarta?

A. It is to establish, once and for all, the proper image of Islam and to empower moderate speakers or scholars to speak up.

Q. The conference flier here says that 'the moderates are struggling for access to the public square'. Why?

A. In my humble opinion, moderate scholars have no access to anything. The dominating voice today is the voice of the Wahhabi sect. They dominate everything: publishing, books, money. Everything is in their hands.

If one moderate scholar speaks up, the Wahhabis will bring hundreds of speakers from their side to speak. That is why there is no public square for the moderates. We are trying to establish a structure for these moderates to stand up and it is a challenge. But we are trying.

Q. You say Wahhabism is the primary source of extremism.

A. Of course, Islam is peaceful in its history. Islam does not allow aggression.

But the Wahhabi sect spreads a radical ideology, financed by oil money. Today Wahhabism is everywhere, not just in Saudi Arabia. You go to any mosque, you will find literature from Saudi Arabia about Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab (the founder of Wahhabism). You will find on the shelves only books by scholars from Saudi Arabia. You cannot find books by other scholars in these mosques.

Q. Are Muslims ready to say that the Saudis are behind this extremism?

A. Ask the 19 hijackers (who flew the planes in the suicide attacks on the United States in 2001, several of whom were Saudi-born), do not ask me. That will give you a clear answer.

Q. Is that one reason why moderates are not speaking up? Because they are not willing to say openly who is behind the extremism?

A. That is true in a sense...(But) they are also being threatened. They are afraid. No one will protect them.

Q. Who are these moderates?

A. I give you one example. Mohd Maliki (Muhammad Ibn Alawi Abbas Ibn Al Aziz Al Maliki, a scholar) from Mecca. He was a moderate and tried to stand up against the Wahhabis in Mecca and Medina. Around 1980, he was exiled because he wanted to debate (a fatwa issued by the Saudi religious authorities). After intervention from many Arab Muslims, he was allowed to return, but his movements were curbed. Recently, he died. But to allow his jenazah (funeral) prayers to be done in the Kaabah, they had to declare publicly that he had repented before he died.

Q. What about the moderates in the United States?

A. Most of the mosques in the US are influenced by Saudi teachings. Check the mosques, you'll find Saudi books, Saudi curriculum for the schools. If you speak against Wahhabism, your mosque will not get more funds. The people in the mosques have been brainwashed.

Q. The conference statement also says that 'the struggle for ideological primacy within Islam is a fight that only Muslims themselves can wage'. Is this the position of the conference organiser?

A. Muslims have to come together and discuss these differences and put an end to what is going on, because if the Muslims cannot do that, no one can do it.

Q. Do you see this as a clash of civilisations instead?

A. I do not see a clash of civilisations. Sept 11 caused a clash of civilisation. But I say the clash of civilisation is among Muslims themselves. Muslims are fighting each other; they are killing each other. There are no human rights in Islamic countries. People are thrown in prisons, beaten to death.

Q. One American Muslim writer said that this talk that only Muslims themselves can solve this problem is actually divisive. It is dividing the ummah (community).

A. The Muslim community is already divided. You are telling me there is unity among the Muslims? The Prophet said: 'My ummah will be divided into 73 different groups.' It already exists. It has existed since the time of the Prophet.

Today, there is one hegemony in the Muslim world, the hegemony of the Wahhabi sect that makes all Muslims look bad. Maybe the writer you mention is getting oil money. Many writers get oil money.

Q. I do not mean to be rude, but the same could also be said of those who espouse a line similar to what comes out of Washington. That they are being paid by the CIA.

A. I am not receiving anything from the US government. I practise the Sufi tradition - the purification of the self; to be peaceful at all times and not to create confusion. Obey God, obey the Prophet, obey the authorities. We do not incite confusion. If we do not like something, we say it in a nice, diplomatic way. We debate. Today, there is no room for debate.

Q. How to stop the Wahhabis?

A. They have been around 40 years, so there is no quick fix. You have to plan for the next 40 years. But the first thing to do is stop sending your students to Saudi Arabia to study. Unfortunately, Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia, America, Arab countries are still doing that.

Send your students to where there are established mainstream Muslim ways that are currently eliminated from Wahhabi books. Bring back the traditions - the (Indian) subcontinental traditions, the South-east Asian traditions.

Teach them Sufism, spirituality. They have to be taught to be peace-loving, to integrate and be part of the bigger community.

Wahhabism tells you, do not be part of a kafir (disbeliever) community. (But) you have to integrate with the system wherever you are; as in Singapore, you have to be part of this unique system that you have. You cannot say I am a Muslim, he is a Chinese. Both of you are subjects, citizens of one system. Your religion is between you and Allah. That is Islam.

I would also suggest humbly that you do not import scholars. They come from the Middle East and Africa and have a Middle Eastern and African mentality. My suggestion is to build in the universities an Islamic studies curriculum approved by modern, moderate scholars. These graduates can later teach others.

Q. Is this not something personal, the antagonism between your Sufism and Wahhabism?

A. This is the message we are sending if you want to change. We do not care much really. We live peacefully, live our own lives. But today, we see things are getting out of hand. Even the government has lost control. So we are giving a suggestion: To solve this problem, you have to go back to cultivating a love for the arts, the sciences, poetry, music - the essence of Sufism.

There is no poetry of love today. Only the poetry of vengeance... against the West, Europe, Muslims, Palestine. They are instilling in small kids the sense of hate; we have to change that hate to love.

If you think this is a problem you can solve through diplomacy, in 70 years, they will conquer you and finish you completely. People think there is one (Osama) bin Laden. Who says there is one bin Laden? Every extremist will become a bin Laden.

Q. The way you put it, they seem like a cancer...

A. They are not a cancer. They are an octopus, reaching everywhere.

"Salafi" Tampering of Riyad al-Salihin

"Salafi" Tampering of Riyad al-Salihin

by Moin Shaheed, President, Ahlus Sunnah Muslim Association of Sri Lanka and GF Haddad ©

Warning: Avoid this English translation of Riyad al-Salihin !

A review of the translation of al-Nawawi's Riyad al-Salihin published in 1999 by Darussalam Publishing House, Riyad: http://www.dar-us-salam.com/h4riyad-us.htm

A team of unprincipled editors and translators out of a Ryad publishing house by the name of Darussalam was commissioned to produce a glossy 2-volume English edition of Imam al-Nawawi's Riyad al-Salihin - being distribued for free to Islamic schools around the world - designed to propagate "Salafi" ideology to the unwary English-speaking Muslim students of Islamic knowledge. This ideology is couched within a thoroughly unscrupulous "commentary" inserted into the book chapters and authored by an unknown or spurious "Hafiz Salahuddin Yusuf of Pakistan," "revised and edited by Mahmud Rida Murad" (1:7). Following are some examples of what is contained in this brand new "Salafi" product:

(a) The work is laced with unabashed eulogy of Nasir Albani whom it calls "the leading authority in the science of hadith" (1:88). The fact is that the only agreed-upon title Albani has been able to earn from the verifying Ulema of the Umma from East to West, is that of erratic innovator.

(b) Declaring that "in case of breach of ablution, the wiping over the socks is sufficient, and there is no need for washing the feet" (1:31). This ruling invalidates one of the conditions of wudû' spelled out in the Qur'an and the Sunna, making salât prayed with such a wiping null and void according to the Four Schools, which prohibit wiping over non-waterproof footwear.

(c) Declaring that "ours should not be the belief that the dead do hear and reply [to our greeting]" (1:515). The Jumhur differs.

(d) Declaring that expressing the intention (niyya) verbally before salât "is a Bid`ah (innovation in religion) because no proof of it is found in Shar'`ah" (1:14). This is not only a wanton attack on the Shafi`i School but an ignorant violation of the criteria of calling something an innovation in the Religion.

(e) "Prohibition [of kissing] is only effective if the kissing of hands is also involved." (2:721). Note that Imam Sufyan al-Thawri called the kissing of the hands of the Ulema a Sunna and that the majority of the scholars concur on its permissibility!

(f) Saying "unapproved hadith" - an invented classification! - for the sahîh hadith of the two Jews who kissed the Prophet's - Allah bless and greet him - hands and feet as narrated by al-Tirmidhi (sahîh) and others.

(g) The weakening of the hasan hadith whereby the Prophet kissed Zayd ibn Haritha as narrated by al-Tirmidhi (hasan).

(h) Declaring "the hadiths about the kissing of hands are weak and deficient from the viewpoint of authenticity," an outright lie.

(i) Declaring after the hadith stating: "I suffer like two men of you": "This Hadith... throws light on the fact that the Prophet was merely a human being." (2:737) This discourse is that of the disbelievers mentioned in many places of the Qur'an: {They said: You are but mortals like us} (14:10), {Shall we put faith in two mortals like ourselves?} (23:47), {They said: You are but mortals like unto us} 36:15, {Shall mere mortals guide us?} (64:6).

(j) Claiming: "We are uncertain that after saying a funeral prayer, the Prophet and his Companions ever stood around the bier and supplicated for the dead body. It is an innovation and must be abolished"! (2:755) This is flatly contradicted by the sound narrations ordering the Companions to make du`â for the deceased directly after burial. The commentar(s) go on to say: "It looks strange that believers should persist in reciting supplications in their own self-styled way after the funeral prayer, but desist from them during the funeral prayer to which they have relevance. It implies that prayer is not the object of their pursuit, otherwise they would have prayed in accordance with the Sunna. In fact, they cherish their self-fabricated line of action and seem determined to pursue it." Yet the commentator(s) a few pages later (2:760) state: "The Prophet has instructed his followers that after a Muslim's burial, they should keep standing beside his grave for some time and pray for his firmness"!

(k) Omitting (2:760) to translate the words of Imam al-Shafi`i related by al-Nawawi in Chapter 161 ("Supplication for the Deceased after his Burial"): ""It is desirable (yustahabb) that they recite something of the Qur'an at the graveside, and if they recite the entire Qur'an it would be fine." Omitting to translate these words which are in the original text of Riyad al-Salihin is deceit and a grave betrayal of the trust (amâna) of the translation of one the motherbooks of knowledge in Islam.

(l) As if the above were not enough, the "commentary" goes on to state: "The reference made to Imam al-Shafi`i about the recitation of Qur'an beside a Muslim's grave is in disagreement with the Prophet's practice... the reference made to Imam al-Shafi`i seems to be of doubtful authenticity"! However, al-Za`farani said: "I asked al-Shafi`i about reciting Qur'an at the graveside and he said: la ba'sa bihi - There is no harm in it." This is narrated by Imam Ahmad's student al-Khallal (d. 311) in his book al-Amr bi al-Ma`ruf (p. 123 #243). Similar fatwas are reported from al-Sha`bi, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Ishaq ibn Rahuyah, and others of the Salaf by no less than Ibn al-Qayyim and al-Shawkani in their books - the putative authorities of the "Salafi" movement.1

(m) Stating (2:761): "Qur'an reading meant to transmit reward to the dead man's soul is against the Prophet's example. All such observances are of no use to the dead." This is the exact same position as the Mu`tazila on the issue, who went so far as to deny the benefit of the Prophet's intercession. It should be noted that the manipulative editors /commentators of Riyad al-Salihin deliberately omit any mention of the Companions' practice, as it is authentically recorded from Ibn `Umar that he ordered that Qur'an be read over his grave, which has the status of the Sunna of the Prophet as this particular Companion was known to be the staunchest of all people in his adherence to the Prophet's example.

(n) Stating (2:761): "For further detail, one can refer to Shaykh al-Albani's Ahkam al-Jana'iz." This is the book in which this man lists among the innovations of misguidance the fact that the Prophet's grave is inside his Mosque in Madina and the fact that it has a dome built over it, and he asks for both of them to be removed.

(o) Stating (2:791-792): "If a woman has no husband or Mahram, Hajj is not obligatory on her. Neither can she go for Hajj with a group of women, whether for Hajj or any other purposes.... Under no circumstances a woman may travel alone." This contradicts the fatwa of the majority of the Ulema as well as the principle that when there is scholarly disagreement over an issue, it becomes automatically impermissible to declare it prohibited.

(p) Rephrasing a hadith (2:810-811) by omitting key words which invalidate their position. In chapter 184 of Riyad al-Salihin titled "Desirability of Assembling for Qur'an-Recitation," al-Nawawi cites the hadith of Muslim whereby the Prophet said: "No group of people assemble in one of the Houses of Allah, all of them reciting [plural pronoun] the Book of Allah (yatlûna kitâb Allâh) and studying It among themselves except Serenity (al-sak'na) shall descend upon them, etc." The editor/ commentator(s) of Riyad al-Salihin rephrased the hadith thus: "Any group of people that assemble in one of the Houses of Allâh to study the Qur'ân, tranquillity will descend upon them, etc." omitting the key words: "all of them reciting the Book of Allah." Then the same editor/ commentator(s) had the gall to comment: "This Hadith... does not tell us in any way that this group of people recite the Qur'an all at once. This is Bid`ah for this was not the practice of the Messenger of Allah ." This is tampering compounded with a shameless lie. This misinterpretation and false claim of bid`a is, of course, directed at the Maghribi style of Qur'anic recitation that relies heavily on collective tilâwa in order to strengthen memorization.
[sim-h RS-1453 (1448)]

(q) The statement (2:848) concerning the Prophet's miracle of seeing behind his back: "It must be borne in mind that a miracle happens with the will of Allah only. It is not at all in the power of the Prophet . Had he been capable of working a miracle on his own, he would have shown it at his own pleasure. But no Prophet was ever capable of it, nor was the Prophet an exception to this rule." In truth this speech comes directly from books such as Isma`il Dehlvi's Taqwyatul Iman concerning which Abu al-Hasan al-Thanvi said: "The words used by Isma`il Dehlvi are, of course, disrespectful and insolent. These words may never be used." (Imdaad-ul-Fataawa 4:115)

(r) The statement (2:861): "The right number of rak`ats in the Tarawih prayers is eight because the Prophet never offered more than eight rak`ats... It is not in any case twenty rak`ats. Authentic Ahâdith prove this pont abundantly." This is a transgressive innovation (bid`a mufassiqa) as it rejects the command of the Prophet to "obey the Sunna of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs after me" and also kufr as it violates the passive Consensus (ijmâ` sukût') of the Companions over twenty rak`ats.

(s) The statement (2:905): "Twenty rak`at Tarawih is not confirmed from any authentic hadith, nor its ascription to `Umar ( is proved from any muttasil (connected) hadith." This is a blatant lie, as the number of hadith masters who graded as sahîh the connected chains back to `Umar establishing twenty rak`at Tarawih are too numerous to count. They provided the basis on which the Ulema concur in declaring that Consensus formed on the matter among the Companions as stated by al-Qari, al-Zayla`i, al-Haytami, Ibn al-Humam, Ibn Qudama, and a number of other major jurists of the Four Schools.2

(t) The statement (2:1025): "In the present age Shaykh Nasir al-Din al-Albani has done a very remarkable work in this field [hadith]. He has separated the weak Ahadith found in the four famous volumes of Ahadith (Abu Dawud, al-Tirmidhi, al-Nasa'i, and Ibn Majah) from the authentic and prepared separate volumes of authentic and weak ahadith. This work of Albani has made it easy for the ordinary Ulema to identify the weak Ahadith. Only a man of Shaykh Albani's caliber can do research on it. The ordinary Ulema and religious scholars of the Muslims are heavily indebted to him for this great work and they should keep it in view before mentioning any hadith. They should mention only the authentic Ahadith and refrain from quoting the weak ones. It is wrong to ignore this work on the ground that Shaykh Albani is not the last word on the subject.... As Muhaddithûn have done a great service to the Muslim Umma by collecting and compiling the Ahadith, similarly in the style of Muhaddithûn, and in keeping with the principles laid down by them, the research carried out to separate the authentic Ahadith from the weak is in fact an effort to complete their mission. In this age, Almighty Allah has bestowed this honor on Shaykh Albani." All this fawning will not hide the facts that al-Albani has been exposed as the innovator of this age par excellence and that his splitting of the books of Sunan into Sahih al-Tirmidhi and Da`if al-Tirmidhi and so forth is an unprecedented attack on the Motherbooks of Islam for which, undoubtedly, he shall be brought to account on the Day of Judgment as he was rejected for it by the Ulema of the Umma from East to West.

(u) Another systematic mistranslation for the Chapter-title 338 (2:1294) states: "Prohibition of placing the hands on the sides during Salat" when the Arabic clearly states al-khâsira which means "waist" or "hip" rather than "sides." The same mistranslation is then repeated in the body of the chapter, then a third time in the commentary. This mistranslation is part of the "Salafi" campaign against the Maliki form of sadl consisting in letting the arms hang down by the sides during the standing part of Salât. In some places of North Africa today, such as Marrakech, certain people are paid to declare takfîr and tadlîl, in the name of the Sunna, of those who pray with their arms hanging by their sides although it is an established Sunna!

Truly we belong to Allah and to Him is our return, and there is no power nor might except in Allah the Exalted and Almighty Lord.

All sincere Muslims should consider themselves warned and warn others that this is NOT a Sunni translation of the great classic of Imam al-Nawawi but an innovative, deviant, and inauthentic translation which should never have been allowed. There are two other English translations of Riyad al-Salihin available in print, any one of which would be preferable to this one. And from Allah comes all success.

NOTES

1See Shaykh Hisham Kabbani's Encyclopedia of Islamic Doctrine, chapter on donating one's reward to the dead (ihdâ' al-thawâb).

2See on this issue articles by Sayf ad-Din Ahmed ibn Muhammad at the websites defect LINK: http://www.sunnah.org/fiqh/taraweeh.htm and defect LINK: http://www.sunnah.org/fiqh/8or20.htm.

GF Haddad ©

Ibn Baz, A Concise Guide to Another Primary Innovator in Islam

by GF Haddad ©

`Abd al-`Aziz ibn `Abd Allah Ibn Baz, the late (d. 1999) nescient mufti of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, government scholar par excellence, and major innovator whose influence on spreading deviant beliefs is incalculable. The present crippling of Islam and Muslims took place under his leadership and as a direct result of his policies as listed by Sayyid Yusuf al-Rifa`i in his Nasiha li Ikhwanina `Ulama' Najd ("Advice to Our Brothers the Scholars of Najd" ):

* Calling the Muslims "Pagans"
* Calling the Muslims "Apostates"
* Calling the Muslims "Deviants"
* Calling the Muslims "Innovators"
* Monopolozing Teaching in Hijaz
* Falsifying Our Scholarly Heritage (see below)
* Libeling Ulema Who Disagreed with Wahhabi Doctrine
* Imposting the Style of Najd in Adhân
* Shutting the Mosque in Madina at Night
* Posting Hoodlums at the Noble Grave
* Obstructing and Scolding Women in Madina
* Blocking Women from Visiting Baqi`
* Police Interrogation Centers
* Razing of the Mosque of Abu Bakr -riDiaLLahu 'anhu -
* Razing of Abu Ayyub al-Ansari's House
* Destroying Historical Makka and Madina but Preserving Khaybar
* Replacing Khadija's House with Latrines
* Outlawing Nasiha to Rulers
* Interdiction of Dala'il al-Khayrat and other books
* Forbidding Mawlid Gatherings
* Etc.

As former overall president of the Directorships of Scholarly Research, Iftâ', Da`wa, and Irshâd, Ibn Baz is on record for issuing a fatwa declaring as unislamic the Palestinian people's uprising against the Jewish State of Israel, whereas he never condemned the practices, in his own country, of gambling, horse-racing, and usury. In the late sixties he declared any and all forms of cooperation with the kuffâr prohibited and cast a judgment of apostasy on `Abd al-Nasir for employing a civilian force of a few hundred Russian engineers to build the Aswan dam. In the early nineties he again made it halâl for kufr forces to come, under their flag and sovereignty, in hundred of thousands, to occupy Muslim lands and destroy Iraq, because of "necessity." There was also no problem for them to stay after the "necessity" was over.

In his infamous al-Adilla al-Naqliyya wa al-Hissiyya `ala Jarayan al-Shamsi wa Sukuni al-Ard ("The Transmitted and Sensory Proofs of the Rotation of the Sun and Stillness of the Earth"), he asserted that the earth was flat and disk-like and that the sun revolved around it.

Like all the anthropomorphists of his School, Ibn Baz added modifiers to the Divine Attributes, asserting, for example, that Allah Most High and Exalted "istawâ `alâ al-`arsh haqqan" - variously translated as "He established Himself over the Throne in person" or "actually" or "literally" - haqqan being an innovated addition which violates the practice of the true Salaf consisting in asserting the Divine Attributes bilâ kayf - without "how" - any modifier being by definition a modality. What is worse, of course, is that such an innovated addition is an avenue to anthropomorphism.

In his footnote to article 38 of Imam al-Tahawi's `Aqida ("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"), he asserts, "Allah is beyond limits that we know but has limits He knows." This is, like haqqan, a true innovation of misguidance and innovated phrase as stated by al-Dhahabi and others, utterly unsupported by the Qur'an, the Sunna, and the Consensus, and violating the practice of the true Salaf who refrained from indulging in speculations of modality whenever they mentioned the Divine Attributes. (This footnote also appears in Shu`ayb Hassan's translation in English, which also contains other major doctrinal errors.)

Ibn Baz's Najdi friends commit the same ugly innovation: `Abd Allah al-Hashidi in his edition of al-Bayhaqi's al-Asma' wa al-Sifat - written in rebuttal of al-Kawthari's landmark edition - states: "As for us we affirm a form (sûra) for Allah unlike forms," while al-Albani in his Sharh approvingly quotes Muhammad ibn Mani`'s remonstration of Imam al-Tahawi for this particular article and his pretense that the Imam, perhaps, did not write it in the first place: "The Imam and author was in no need at all for these invented, wrongly suggestive words, and if someone were to say that they are interpolated and not his own words, I would not think it improbable, so as to keep a good opinion of him"!1

Ibn Baz also suggests corporal limbs for Allah Most High and Exalted in his statement in Taliqat Hamma `ala ma Katabahu al-Shaykh Muhammad `Ali al-Sabuni fi Sifat Allah ("Important Comments on What Shaykh al-Sabuni Wrote Concerning the Divine Attributes") that "To declare Allah transcendent beyond possessing body (al-jism), pupils (al-hadaqa), auditory meatus (al-simâkh), tongue (al-lisân), and larynx (al-hanjara) is not the position of Ahl al-Sunna but rather that of the scholars of condemned kalâm and their contrivance."2

By his phrase "the scholars of condemned kalâm" he disparages Ibn Khafif, Ibn `Abd al-Salam, Ibn al-Juwayni, Ibn Hibban, Ibn `Arabi, al-Ghazzali, al-Razi, al-Qadi `Iyad, al-Maziri, al-Nawawi, al-Pazdawi, al-Bayhaqi, al-Qurtubi, al-Khatib, Ibn al-Jawzi, Ibn Daqiq al-`Id, Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalani, Shah Wali Allah, the entire Ash`ari and Maturidi Schools and, lately, al-Sabuni, all of whom asserted transcendence in similar terms. As Ibn Hajar stated in Fath al-Bari: "The elite of the mutakallimûn said: `He knows not Allah, who attributes to Him resemblance to His creation, or attributes a hand to Him, or a son."3 Contrary to this the doctrine of the Literalists consists in attributing an actual hand to the Creator. But Ibn Baz in his notes on Fath al-Bari charges al-Qadi `Iyad and Ibn Hajar with abandoning the way of Ahl al-Sunna for stating that the Hand of Allah does not pertain to a bodily appendage.4 This is similar to the pretext of the anthropomorphist who said: "We expelled Ibn Hibban from Sijistan for his lack of Religion: he used to say that Allah is not limited!"5

Ibn Baz's acolyte Muhammad Zinu mumbles a similar claim of corporeality in his book Tanbihat Hamma `ala Kitab Safwat al-Tafasir ("Important Cautions Regarding [al-Sabuni's three volume Qur'anic commentary] `The Quintessence of Commentaries'"). Al-Sabuni blasted both of them in his 1988 rebuttal, Kashf al-Iftira'at fi Risalat Tanbihat Hawla Safwat al-Tafasir ("Exposing the Lies of the Epistle `Cautions'").

Ibn Baz explicitly attributes a geographical direction to Allah Most High and Exalted, and affirms that such was the belief of "the Companions and those who followed them in excellence - they assert a direction for Allah, and that is the direction of height, believing that the Exalted is above the Throne."6

In his tract translated into English as Authentic Islamic Aqeedah and What Opposes It (p. 16), Ibn Baz calls those who visit the graves of saints "unbelievers" who commit what he calls kufr al-rubûbiyya. This fatwa compounds three innovations: (1) the dreadful sin of indiscriminately declaring millions of Muslims kâfir without the proofs and due process required by the purified Shari`a: (2) the blind, wholesale dismissal of the numerous orders of the Prophet in the authentic Sunna to visit the graves for they are reminders of the hereafter; (3) the branding of Muslims with an innovated classification of disbelief he calls kufr al-rubûbiyya.

The weakness of Ibn Baz's doctrinal positions can be inferred from the very title of one of his tracts purportedly designed to champion true doctrine: Iqamat al-Barahin `ala Hukmi man Istaghatha bi Ghayr Allah ("Establishing the Patent Proofs for the Judgment on Whoever Calls for Help Other than Allah"). For the licitness of istighâtha or calling for help of a creature QUALIFIED TO HELP, is patently established in the Qur'an and Sunna, as shown by the verse {And his countryman sought his help (istaghâthahu) against his enemy} (28:15) and al-Bukhari's narration of the Prophet from Ibn `Umar - Allah be well-pleased with him - already quoted: "Truly the sun shall draw so near on the Day of Resurrection that sweat shall reach to the mid-ear, whereupon they shall ask (istaghâthû) help from Adam - upon him peace -, then from Musa - upon him peace -, then from Muhammad - Allah bless and greet him - who will intercede." Furthermore, Ibn Baz directly contradicts Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab's words in Majmu`at al-Tawhid (p. 232): "We do not deny nor reject the invocation of help from the creature [as distinct >from the Creator] INSOFAR AS THE CREATED CAN HELP, as Allah Most High said in the story of Musa - upon him peace -: {And his countryman sought his help against his enemy}."

An inveterate deprecator of the Prophet and principal enemy of the Sufis, in one of his fatwas he asserts, "Among other things, the Messenger of Allah , after his death, never appears in a vision to a wakeful person. He of the ignorant Sufis who claims that he sees, while vigilant, the vision of the Prophet , or that that vision attends the Mawlids or the like, is guilty of the foulest error, and exceedingly deluded... the dead never rise out of their graves in this world save on the Day of Judgement."

The above is a claim to know in their entirety: (a) the unseen, (b) the wherewithal of the Prophet in Barzakh, and (c) the states of the servants of Allah Most High; in addition to an impious reference to the Prophet as "the dead"! Surely, it is ibn Baz who is dead while the Prophet - Allah bless and greet him -, as stated by Shaykh Muhammad ibn `Alawi in Manhaj al-Salaf, "is alive with a complete isthmus-life (hayât barzakhiyya) which is greater and better and more perfect than worldly life - indeed, higher, dearer, sweeter, more perfect, and more beneficial than worldly life."

It is also related from one of the great Sufi shaykhs, Shaykh Abu al-Hasan al-Shadhili - may Allah have mercy upon him - who, unlike Ibn Baz, was only physically blind, whom the hadith master Ibn al-Mulaqqin mentioned in his Tabaqat al-Awliya, and concerning whom Ibn Daqiq al-`Id said: "I never saw anyone more knowledgeable of Allah," that he said: "If I ceased to see the Prophet for one moment, I would no longer consider myself a Muslim." His teacher Abu al-`Abbas al-Mursi said the same. The Ghawth `Abd al-`Aziz al-Dabbagh said something similar, as reported from him by his student Ahmad ibn al-Mubarak in al-Ibriz. Assuredly, Shaykh Abd al-Aziz shall have to answer for his calumny of these Sufis among many others on the Day of Judgment, in addition to having issued legal judgments and spoken of the Prophet - Allah bless and greet him - without knowledge.

As for attending Mawlid, "a vision" does not attend or do anything, but the spirits of the believers who passed away, together with the angels and the believing jinn, are certainly related to attend the gatherings of the pious all over the earth. Ibn al-Kharrat in al-`Aqiba, Ibn al-Qayyim in al-Ruh, al-Qurtubi in al-Tadhkira, Ibn Abi al-Dunya in al-Qubur, al-Suyuti in Sharh al-Sudur, Ibn Rajab in Ahwal al-Qubur, and others relate from many of the Salaf - including Imam Malik in al-Muwatta' - that the spirits of the believers in Barzakh are free to come and go anywhere they please. This is all the more possible for our Prophet - Allah bless and greet him - as we celebrate Mawlid specifically to remember him and invoke blessings upon him.

Ibn Baz passed a fatwa that "It is not permissible to celebrate the birthday of the Prophet , in fact, it must be stopped, as it is an innovation in the religion." His sole proof for this declaring an act illicit and an innovation in Islam is that it did not take place in the early centuries of Islam, whereas al-Shafi`i and the Imams and scholars of the principles of jurisprudence defined innovation in the Religion as "that which was not practiced before AND contravenes the Qur'an and Sunna." It is noteworthy that the heads of the "Salafi" movement and those of their offshoots who propagate their views are always careful, through ignorance and/or duplicity, to omit this second, indispensable pre-condition in their definition of bid`a: Deobandis, Tablighis, Tahriris, Muhajiris, Jama`is, Ikhwanis, ICNA, ISNA, IANA, MAYA, JIMAS, WAMY, QSS, SAS, IIIE, and other Wahhabis. Furthermore, the majority of the scholars of Ahl al-Sunna - and Allah knows best - concur either outloud or tacitly on the licit character of the celebration of the Mawlid provided the usual etiquette of Islam in public gatherings is kept. Lastly, the Hanbali school in its entirety never declared forbidden the celebration of the Mawlid and even Ibn Taymiyya stated that one who celebrates it with sincere intentions will be rewarded!7

Ibn Baz revived the innovation and invalid fatwa of Ibn Taymiyya to the effect that it is forbidden to travel with the intention of visiting the Prophet in his notes on Ibn Hajar's Fath al-Bari, book of Fadl al-Salat fi Makka wal-Madina, where Ibn Hajar comments on Ibn Taymiyya's prohibition of travel for Ziyara: "Ibn Taymiyya said: `This kind of trip - traveling to visit the grave of the Prophet - Allah bless and greet him - is a disobedience, and salât must not be shortened during it.' This is one of the ugliest matters reported from Ibn Taymiyya." To which Ibn Baz reacts in a footnote: "It is not ugly, and Ibn Taymiyya was right." Indeed, Ibn Hajar's teacher, Zayn al-Din al-`Iraqi, rightly called it in his Tarh al-Tathrib (6:43) "a strange and ugly saying."

Bin Baz also reduplicates word for word and without the least critical analysis or original understanding of the evidence the pretense of Ibn Taymiyya whereby "The hadiths that concern the desirability of visiting the grave of the Prophet are all weak, indeed forged." By the grace of Allah Most High this pseudo-bold and fashionable claim - among "Salafis" - has been laid to its final resting-ground by Shaykh Mahmud Mamduh's superb documentation work titled Raf` al-Minara fi Takhrij Ahadith al-Tawassul wa al-Ziyara ("Raising the Lighthouse: Documentation of the Narrations Pertaining to Using an Intermediary and Visitation").

Another astonishing deviation of Ibn Baz in his remarks on Fath al-Bari is his characterizing the visit of the Companion Bilal ibn al-Harth - Allah be well-pleased with him - to the grave of the Prophet - Allah bless and greet him - and his tawassul for rain there as "aberrant" (munkar) and "an avenue to polytheism" (wasîla ilâ al-shirk)."8

One of his innovations in usûl is his public declaration - in the Saudi periodical al-Majalla - that he does not adhere to the Hanbali Madhhab "but only to the Qur'an and Sunna," whereas Ibn Taymiyya said himself asserted in Mukhtasar al-Fatawa al-Misriyya that the truth is not found, in the whole Shari`a, outside the four Schools. Nor have any two Sunni Ulema on the face of the earth agreed on the qualification of Ibn Baz as an absolute Mujtahid capable of extracting his own proofs and School from the primary evidences of the Law. On the contrary, his fiqh is superficial compared to his subordinate Ibn `Uthaymin, his natural bent for taqlîd is evident, his blunders numerous, and his innovations countless.

Among the other innovations of Ibn Baz in doctrine, he tried to rectify whatever did not please him in Fath al-Bari by the Imam and hadith master Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalani with interpersed remarks that do not qualify as commentary but as an attempt to substitute Ibn Hajar's Ash`ari Sunni doctrine with anthropomorphism as the Islamic creed.9

Under his leadership, Ibn Taymiyya's Majmu`a al-Fatawa al-Kubra received a new edition from which the 10th volume - on tasawwuf - was suppressed. Similar examples of unreliable editorship and blatant tampering of the scholarly heritage abound at the hands of Wahhabis:

1- In the book of al-Adhkar by Imam Muhyi al-Din al-Nawawi as published by Dar al-Huda in al-Riyad in 1409/1989 and edited by `Abd al-Qadir al-Arna'ut of Damascus, page 295, the chapter-title, "Section on Visiting the Grave of the Messenger " was substituted with the title, "Section on Visiting the Mosque of the Messenger of Allah " together with the suppression of several lines from the beginning of the section and its end, and the suppression of al-`Utbi's famous story of intercession which Imam al-Nawawi had mentioned in full.10 When al-Arna'ut was asked about it, he replied that the Ryad agents were the ones who had changed and tampered with the text. A facsimile of his own hand-written statement to that effect was printed in full in Shaykh Mahmud Mamduh's Raf` al-Minara (p. 72-75).

2- Suppression of al-Sawi's (d. 1241/1825) words on modern-time Kharijis in his supercommentary on Tafsir al-Jalalayn titled Hashiya `ala Tafsir al-Jalalayn (v. 58:18-19), "namely, a sect in the Hijaz named Wahhabis" from all new editions beginning from the Eighties.11

3- Zuhayr al-Shawish's suppression of the word "substitute-saints" (al-abdâl) from his al-Maktab al-Islami (3rd) edition of Ibn Taymiyya's `Aqida Wasitiyya in the following passage: "The true adherents of Islam in its pristine purity are Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama`a. In their ranks are found the truthful saints (al-siddîqûn), the martyrs, and the righteous. Among them are the great men of guidance and illumination, of recorded integrity and celebrated virtue. And among them are the substitute-saints (al-abdâl) - the Imams - concerning whose guidance and knowledge the Muslims are in full accord. These are the Victorious Group..." as found in the Cairo Salafiyya edition (p. 36) and the Majmu`a al-Rasa'il al-Kubra (3:159).

4- Suppression of the chapter that concerns the Friends of Allah (al-awliyâ'), Substitute-Saints (al-abdâl), and the Righteous (al-sâlihîn) >from Ibn `Abidin's Epistles.12

5- Removal of Abu Hayyan's denunciation of Ibn Taymiyya as an anthropomorphist from his two Tafsirs, al-Bahr al-Muhit and al-Nahr al-Madd min al-Bahr (passage on Ayat al-Kursi).

6- Interpolation of the phrase bidhâtihi ("in person") into al-Gilani's mention of Allah Most High establishing Himself over the Throne as well as the takfîr of Imam Abu Hanifa in his classic al-Ghunya.

7- Interpolations among the same lines as well as the takfîr of Imam Abu Hanifa in al-Ash`ari's al-Ibana.

8- Suppressions and additions along anthropomorphist lines in al-Nawawi's Sharh Sahih Muslim from as early as Ibn al-Subki's time.

9- Anthropomorphist additions to al-Alusi's Ruh al-Ma`ani transmitted by his "Salafi" son Nu`man as shown by a comparison with its autograph manuscript.

10- Commissioning Muhammad Muhsin Khan and Muhammad Taqi al-Din al-Hilali with English translations of the motherbooks of Islam such as the Qur'an, al-Bukhari's Sahih, al-Zabidi's al-Tajrid al-Sarih, al-Naysaburi's al-Lu'lu' wa al-Marjan etc. when Khan was only trained as a chest doctor while the late Moroccan-born Hilali had no more than a poor mastery of the English language.13 Hence their translations are clumsy, inelegant, filled with gaps and approximations, and further corrupted by deliberate manipulations of meaning along doctrinal lines as shown by the following example in their Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 76, Number 549: "Narrated Ibn `Abbas: `The Prophet said, "The people were displayed in front of me and I saw one prophet passing by with a large group of his followers, and another prophet passing by with only a small group of people, and another prophet passing by with only ten (persons), and another prophet passing by with only five (persons), and another prophet passed by alone. And then I looked and saw a large multitude of people, so I asked Gibril, "Are these people my followers?' He said, `No, but look towards the horizon.' I looked and saw a very large multitude of people. Gibril said. `Those are your followers, and those are seventy thousand (persons) in front of them who will neither have any reckoning of their accounts nor will receive any punishment.' I asked, `Why?' He said, `For they used not to treat themselves with branding (cauterization) NOR WITH RUQYA (GET ONESELF TREATED BY THE RECITATION OF SOME VERSES OF THE QUR'AN) and not to see evil omen in things, and they used to put their trust (only) in their Lord." On hearing that, `Ukasha bin Mihsan got up and said (to the Prophet), "Invoke Allah to make me one of them." The Prophet said, "O Allah, make him one of them." Then another man got up and said (to the Prophet), "Invoke Allah to make me one of them." The Prophet said, `Ukasha has preceded you."'"

As demonstrated in the text of the Encyclopedia of Islamic Doctrine (6:137-149) on ta'wîz, there is a Jahili ruqyâ, and there is a Sunni ruqyâ. The former is made with other than what is allowed in the Religion, such as amulets, talismans, spells, incantations, charms, magic and the like: and that is what the Prophet meant in the above hadith. But the translator Khan mischaracterized it, in his parenthetical gloss, as the Sunna ruqyâ consisting in using some verses of the Qur'an or permitted du'â for treatment! Thus he suggests, in his manipulation, exactly the reverse of what the Prophet - Allah bless and greet him - said and practiced, and the reverse of what the Companions said and practiced both in the time of the Prophet - Allah bless and greet him - and after his time. One well-known probative example of the Sunna ruqyâ is the use of the Fatiha by one of the Companions to heal a scorpion-bite - and the Prophet approved of it - as narrated by al-Bukhari elsewhere in his Sahih.14

11- The 1999 translation of al-Nawawi's Riyad al-Salihin published by Darussalam publications out of Riyad makes a similar interpolation distorting the meaning of the words of the Prophet - Allah bless and greet him -: "They are those who do not make RUQYAH (BLOWING OVER THEMSELVES AFTER RECITING THE QUR'AN OR SOME PRAYERS AND SUPPLICATIONS THE PROPHET - Allah bless and greet him - used to say)."15 Observe their equating something the Prophet used to do with an act that those who enter Paradise do not do. The same book calls al-Albani "the leading authority in the science of hadith" (p. 88), declares that "in case of breach of ablution, the wiping over the socks is sufficient, and there is no need for washing the feet" (p. 31), that "ours should not be the belief that the dead do hear and reply [our greeting]" (p. 515), and that expressing the intention (niyya) verbally before salât "is a Bid`ah (innovation in religion) because no proof of it is found in Sharî`ah" (p. 14)!

12- Other manipulations of meaning along anthropomorphist lines and dilly-dallying can be seen in Khan-Hilali's discrepant, multiple translations of the meanings of the Qur'an into English. An example of this confusion is in the footnote to the verse of the Throne (2:255) for the word kursiyyuhu, translated as "His Throne": "Throne: seat."16 In a later edition by the same M.M. Khan and his friend M. Taqi al-Din al-Hilali, the word is left untranslated, giving "His Kursî," with a footnote stating:

"Kursî: literally a footstool or chair, and sometimes wrongly translated as Throne[!]. Ibn Taimiyah said: a) To believe in the Kursî. b) To believe in the `Arsh (Throne) [sic]. It is narrated from Muhammad bin `Abdullâh and from other religious scholars that the Kursî is in front of the `Arsh (Throne) and it is at the level of the Feet. (Fatawa Ibn Taimiyah, Vol. 5, Pages 54, 55)."17

None of the above explanations is authentically related from the Prophet - Allah bless and greet him -, least of all the astonishing mention of "the Feet"18 - and who are "Muhammad bin `Abdullâh" and the "other religious scholars"?! Nor is the call for imitating what "Ibn Taymiyya said to believe" other than a bankrupt innovation. Nor is the translation of kursî as "Throne" wrong when called for in certain cases, as in the narration: "On the Day of Resurrection your Prophet shall be brought and shall be made to sit in front of Allah the Almighty, on His kursî."19 Some of the Salaf, among them al-Hasan al-Basri, even explicitly said that the kursî is the `arsh.20 Furthermore, it is authentically related from Ibn `Abbas that he said: "His kursî is His knowledge (kursiyyuhu `ilmuhu),"21 and this is the explanation preferred by the Imams of the Salaf such as Sufyan al-Thawri, al-Bukhari, al-Tabari, al-Bayhaqi, and others.

13- Other examples of Khan-Hilali's bamboozled translations: "Then he rose over (Istawâ) towards the heaven" (p. 643) as compared to Pickthall's {Then turned He to the heaven when it was smoke} (41:11) and Yusuf `Ali's over-figurative "Moreover He comprehended in His design the sky, and it had been (as) smoke"; "and then He rose over (Istawâ) the Throne (really in a manner that suits His Majesty)" (p. 208) as compared to Pickthall's simple {then mounted He the Throne} (7:54) and `Ali's typical "then He established Himself on the Throne (of authority)"; "Do you feel secure that He, Who is over the heaven (Allâh)" (p. 772) as compared to Pickthall's literal (Have ye taken security from Him Who is in the heaven (fî al-samâ')( (67:16-17) and `Ali's "Do ye feel secure that He Who is in Heaven"; etc.

14- The translation of verse 2:200 states: "So when you have accomplished your Manaasik, remember Allâh as you remember your forefathers or with a far more rememberance" (p. 43)!; etc. Did Ibn Baz, "The Presidency of Islamic Researches, Ifta, Call and Guidance," and the "King Fahd Complex for the Printing of the Holy Qur'an" all think so cheaply of the Book of Allah and so dearly of their own agenda that the basic grammar and syntax of the translation of its meanings into the most heavily spoken language on earth did not deserve to be double-checked by a competent English proofreader before being printed on the best bible paper, sewn-bound, and distributed freely at huge cost?

Ibn Baz did his best to aid and abet the main innovators of our time such as al-Albani, on whom he bestowed the King Faysal Prize "for services rendered to Islam" (!) the year before their respective deaths; al-Albani's student and deputy in Kuwait, `Abd al-Rahman `Abd al-Khaliq the author of the despicable attack on the Friends of Allah which he titled Fada'ih al-Sufiyya ("The Disgraces of the Sufis") and which al-Buti termed an exercise in calumny; Muqbil ibn Hadi al-Wadi`i who asked that the Noble Grave be brought out of the Mosque and the Green Dome destroyed, and roamed the land in Yemen with armed thugs, digging up the graves of the dead with picks and spades; Abu Bakr al-Jaza'iri, Muhammad Zino, `Abd al-Rahman Dimashqiyya, and their ilk...

As Sayyid Yusuf al-Rifa`i said to the Ulema of Najd: "You left none but yourselves as those who are saved, forgetting the Prophet's - Allah bless and greet him - saying: `If anyone says, `The people have perished,' then he has perished the most."22

NOTES

1 Muhammad ibn Mani` as quoted by al-Albani in the latter's commentary in al-`Aqida al-Tahawiyya, Sharh wa Ta`liq, 2nd ed. (ed. Zuhayr Shawish, Beirut: al-Maktab al-Islami, 1993) p. 46.

2 Tanbihat Hamma (Kuwait: Jam`iyya Ihya' al-Turath al-Islami, p. 22).

3 Ibn Hajar, Fath al-Bari (1959 ed. 3:361 #1425).

4 Ibn Hajar, Fath al-Bari (1959 ed. 3:361 n.; 1989 ed. 3:357 n.)

5 See Ibn al-Subki, Tabaqat al-Shafi`iyya al-Kubra (3:132) and his stand-alone, edited Qa`ida fi al-Jarh wa al-Ta`dil (p. 31-33) [TSK (2:13)].

6 Notes on Ibn Hajar, Fath al-Bari (1989 ed. 3:37-38; 1959 ed. 3:32-33 #1094).

7 A thorough refutation of Ibn Baz's fatwa on Mawlid was issued by the Imam Ahmed Raza Academy in South Africa and published on the Internet.

8 Al-Bayhaqi and others narrate from Malik al-Dar, `Umar's treasurer, that the people suffered a drought during the successorship of `Umar, whereupon a man came to the grave of the Prophet and said: "O Messenger of God, ask for rain for your Community, for verily they have but perished," after which the Prophet - Allah bless and greet him - appeared to him in a dream and told him: "Go to `Umar and give him my greeting, then tell him that they will be watered. Tell him: You must be clever, you must be clever!" The man went and told `Umar. The latter said: "O my Lord, I spare no effort except in what escapes my power!" Ibn Kathir cites it thus from al-Bayhaqi in al-Bidaya wa al-Nihaya (7:92) and says: isnâduhu sahîh; Ibn Abi Shayba cites it in his Musannaf with a sound chain as confirmed by Ibn Hajar who cites the hadith in the 3rd chapter of the book of Istisqa' in Fath al-Bari (1989 ed. 2:629-630) and al-Isaba (3:484), identifying the man who visited and saw the Prophet - Allah bless and greet him - in his dream as the Companion Bilal ibn al-Harth. He counts this hadith as one of the reasons for al-Bukhari's naming of the chapter "The people's request to their leader for rain if they suffer drought."

9 Cf. section, "Dwarves on the Shoulders of Giants" in Shaykh Hisham Kabbani's Encyclopedia of Islamic Doctrine (1:174-177) = Islamic Beliefs and Doctrine (p. 204-208).

10 See defect LINK: http://sunnah.org/msaec/articles/arnaut.htm.

11 See Reforming Classical Texts - How widespread is tampering of texts by the Salafis.

12 Namely, the epitle titled Ijabat al-Ghawth bi Bayan Hal al-Abdal wa al-Ghawth that can be found in the original edition of Ibn `Abidin's Rasa'il (2:264-284).

13 As revealed to the author by Dr. Muhammad Mustafa al-A`zami who personally knew Hilali. Perhaps Hilali's close friend Dr. Abu al-Hasan al-Nadwi should be credited for these translations instead of him.

14 The correct translation of the above hadith is: The Prophet - Allah bless and greet him - said: The people were displayed in front of me and I saw one Prophet passing by with a large group of his followers, another Prophet passing by with only a small group of people, another Prophet passing by with only ten (persons), another Prophet passing by with only five (persons), and another Prophet passed by alone. And then I looked and saw a large multitude of people (sawâd `azîm), so I asked Gibril: "Are these people my followers?" He said: "No, but look towards the horizon." I looked and saw a very large multitude of people. Gibril said: "Those are your followers, and there are seventy thousand of them in front of them who will neither have any reckoning of their accounts nor will receive any punishment." I asked: "Why?" He said: "They used not to treat themselves with cauterization nor amulets, nor to see auguries and omens in birds, and they relied solely upon their Lord." On hearing this, `Ukkasha ibn Mihsan stood up and said to the Prophet : "Invoke Allah to make me one of them." The Prophet - Allah bless and greet him - said: "O Allah, make him one of them." Then another man stood up and said to the Prophet: "Invoke Allah to make me one of them." The Prophet - Allah bless and greet him - said: `Ukkasha has preceded you with this request."

15 Riyâd-us-Sâliheen, vol. 1, translated by Muhammad Amin ibn Razduq with a commentary by Hafiz Yusuf (p. 94).

16 Footnote #298 in The Holy Qur-an: English Translation of the Meanings and Commentary, Revised and Edited by The Presidency of Islamic Researches, Ifta, Call and Guidance (Madinah: King Fahd Holy Qur-an Printing Complex, 1410 [1990]).

17 The Noble Qur'an: English Translation of the Meanings and Commentary by Muhammad Taqi al-Din al-Hilali and Muhammad Muhsin Khan, Revised and Edited by The Presidency of Islamic Researches, Ifta, Call and Guidance (Madinah: King Fahd Complex for the Printing of the Holy Qur'an, 1417 [1997] (p. 57 n. 1).

18 See al-Bayhaqi, al-Asma' wa al-Sifat (Hashidi ed. 2:196 #758), Ibn al-Jawzi, al-`Ilal (1:22), al-Dhahabi al-Mizan (2:265), Ibn Kathir, Tafsir (1:317), Ibn Hajar, al-Tahdhib (4:274), and al-Ahdab, Zawa'id Tarikh Baghdad (7:37-39 #1383).

19 Narrated mawqûf from `Abd Allah ibn Salam by Ibn Abi `Asim in al-Sunna (p. 351 #786) and al-Tabari in his Tafsir (8:100).

20 Narrated by al-Tabari, Tafsir (3:10).

21 Narrated marfû` from the Prophet by Sufyan al-Thawri with a sound chain according to Ibn Hajar in Fath al-Bari (1959 ed. 8:199) and al-Tabarani in al-Sunna; and mawqûf from Ibn `Abbas by al-Tabari with three sound chains in his Tafsir (3:9-11), al-Mawardi in his Tafsir (1:908), al-Suyuti in al-Durr al-Manthur (1:327), al-Shawkani in Fath al-Qadir (1:245), and others. Al-Tabari chooses it as the most correct explanation: "The external wording of the Qur'an indicates the correctness of the report from Ibn `Abbas that it [the kursî] is His `ilm... and the original sense of al-kursî is al-`ilm." Also narrated in "suspended" form (mu`allaq) by al-Bukhari in his Sahih from Sa`id ibn Jubayr (Book of Tafsir, chapter on the saying of Allah Most High: {And if you go in fear, then (pray) standing or on horseback} (2:239). Its chains are documented by Ibn Hajar in Taghliq al-Ta`liq (2/4:185-186) where he shows that Sufyan al-Thawri, `Abd al-Rahman ibn Mahdi, and Waki` narrated it marfû` from the Prophet , although in the Fath he declares the mawqûf version from Ibn `Abbas more likely.

22 Narrated from Abu Hurayra by Malik, Ahmad, Muslim, al-Bukhari in al-Adab al-Mufrad, and Abu Dawud.

Wal-`Aqibatu lil-Muttaqin.

GF Haddad ©

Al-'Uthaymin

Al-'Uthaymin
by GF Haddad

Muhammad Salih al-`Uthaymin, Ibn Baz's long-time Second Fiddle and his rightful heir and successor in strange and unusual rulings.

He made the following statements in his Fatawa:

1- "No human being seeks a means through something except he believes that it possesses effectiveness towards the end he desires."1 He made this statement in order to enable himself to declare those who make tawassul, apostate.

2- "We must not call the Messenger of Allah Habîbullâh ("the Beloved of Allah") but only Khalîlullâh ("the Intimate Friend of Allah").

3- "Can the vision of Allah Most High in the hereafter be other than in a direction?"2

4- "We should not ask the Prophet to ask forgiveness for us because the deeds of a human being end the moment he dies and he cannot even ask forgiveness for himself." Shaykh Mamduh called this statement "impudent" and "a blunder" and refuted it in Raf` al-Minara (p. 81-86).

Like the rest of his sect, `Uthaymin is an anthropomorphist who asserts "two eyes" for the Most High and Exalted in his commentary on Ibn Taymiyya's al-Wasitiyya, whereas none of the Salaf went beyond asserting "the eye" and "the eyes" without adding "two" into the letter of the Qur'an and the hadith, and Ibn Hazm remarked, "To say that He has two eyes is null and void and part of the belief of anthropomorphists."

In his commentary on Ibn Taymiyya's `Aqida Wasitiyya, `Uthaymin commits tamthîl - making up similes - by comparing Allah Most High to the sun, stating that "Allah is in the heaven in person (bi dhâtihi) but despite this He draws near to the servant during the latter's prayer, just as the sun is in the heaven, while its rays reach creatures on earth." This unprecedented innovation was examined at length elsewhere.3

`Uthaymin echoed the claim of Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn `Abd al-Wahhab that Imam al-Busayri's (d. 694) verse masterpiece in praise of the Prophet titled Qasidat al-Burda "contains passages that constitute shirk."4

Wahhabis have leveled the same crass accusation against Imam al-Jazuli's (d. 870) Dala'il al-Khayrat and have succeeded in banning both books from entering Saudi Arabia. Not only none of the Imams of Ahl al-Sunna ever condemned Qasidat al-Burda for "containing passages that constitute shirk," but it was obligatory reading and part of the syllabus taught by Ibn Hajar as well as both his students, al-Suyuti and al-Sakhawi.5

He also states of the sayings of Allah Most High {Wait they for naught else than that Allah should come unto them in the shadows of the clouds with the angels?} (2:210) and {Your Lord shall arrive with angels, rank on rank} (89:22): "To explain these verses as a reference to the coming or arrival of the order of Allah is unsound because it contravenes the literal meaning (zâhir al-lafz) of the verse and the Consensus of the Salaf, and there is no proof for it."

Dr. Ahmad Hijazi al-Saqqa said: "Shaykh Muhammad ibn Salih al-`Uthaymin says in his explanation of Ibn Taymiyya's `Aqida Wasitiyya (Cairo: Maktabat al-`Ilm ed. p. 23) that 'the coming' is not explained as 'the coming of the order,' rather it is explained as a coming which befits the majesty of Allah without anthropomorphic imagery nor suggestion of modality (min ghayri tashbîh wa la takyîf). That is, he is establishing that there is a body that moves by coming and by returning (ay annahu yuthbitu jisman yataharraku bi al-majî'i wa al-rujû`), however, he does not declare corporeality explicitly (la yusarrihu bi al-jismiyya). And this is the 'Salafi' school."6

`Uthaymin's statement above mostly shows typical concealment of the actual Consensus of the Salaf and the proofs of the Sharî`a. It is authentically narrated from the Tâbi`în Abu al-`Aliya (d. 90) and al-Rabi` (d. 139) that they said of the first verse: "It means the angels come in the clouds"7 as confirmed by al-Bayhaqi.8 The grammarian al-Akhfash (d. 210) said that {that Allah should come} (2:210) is not understood literally concerning Allah, but means that His order (amr) should come.9
Imam Ahmad likewise interpreted {that Allah should come} (2:210) to mean that His order (amr) should come, in the light of His saying: {Await they aught save that the angels should come unto them or thy Lord's command should come to pass?} (16:33).10

He further interpreted {Your Lord shall arrive} (89:22) to mean His reward (thawâb) should come.11

The grammarian al-Zajjaj (d. ~310) said: "It means the promised reckoning and punishment shall come to them in the form of a cloud, as in His saying: {Allah visited them fromwhere they did not expect} (59:2), that is: by abasing them."12 The above reports suffice to refute the shameless lie of a supposed consensus of the Salaf whereby they did not interpret the coming of Allah Most High as His order.

In his `Aqidat al-Muslim ("The Muslim's Belief") `Uthaymin states: "The establishment of Allah on the throne means that He is sitting in person on His throne."13

In this simple line he has
(a) violated the Salaf's rule of bilâ kayf - "not saying how" - that applies to the verses pertaining to the Divine Attributes and Attributes of Acts;
(b) attributed an act that is precluded, prohibited, and close to shirk to apply to the Transcendent Creator of the worlds, namely, "sitting";
(c) made use of an innovated phrase which the pious Sunni Salaf never used, namely, "in person" (bidhâtih);
(d) applied that innovated phrase to the Deity Most High whereas any attribute pertaining to Allah is by, Consensus, ordained and non-inferable (tawqîfî);
(e) generally promoted the doctrine of anthropomorphism, which is not Islamic but comes straight out of the abrogated Books.

Al-Shahrastani said: "Pure, unmitigated anthropomorphism was found among the Jews - not all of them, but only their literate people of learning, for they found in the Torah many expressions that suggested it."14 Al-Shahrastani also related that Ibn Karram said: "Allah is firmly seated on the throne and He is with His very Essence (dhâtan) on its upper side."15

Dr. Ahmad Hijazi Saqqa wrote:

"Shaykh Ibn `Uthaymin differentiates between the kursî and the `arsh. He says (Sharh p. 15): "The kursî is the place of the two feet, and the `arsh is that upon which Allah made istiwaa'." The meaning of his words is that Allah sits on the `arsh and then places his feet on the kursî. This is anthropomorphism (tajsîm).

Furthermore, it is not permitted to differentiate (between kursî and `arsh), for the one who sits on the `arsh does not place his feet on the kursî; also, there are many texts adducing that the `arsh is the kursî.

"Shaykh Ibn `Uthaymin reinforces his anthropomorphism by saying (Sharh p. 42):
"It is established that Allah Most High has feet (al-qadam thâbit lillâhi ta`âlâ), and Ahl al-Sunna have explained the leg and foot (al-rijl wa al-qadam) as being literal according to what befits Allah (haqîqatan `alâ al-wajhi al-lâ'iq billâh); whereas the "People of Figurative Interpretation"16 (Ahl al-Ta'wîl) have explained al-rijl as being the group which Allah will place in the Fire, and al-qadam as being those who are sent forth (muqaddamîn) to the Fire... and I reject and return their explanation to them on the grounds that it contravenes the external meaning of the words (mukhâlifun li zâhir al-lafz)."

"What inspired Shaykh Ibn `Uthaymin to say such words (as the feet or legs of Allah being literal) is the external meaning of hadiths such as the following: "al-Khallal said in Kitab al-Sunna on the authority of Qutat ibn al-Na`man who said: 'I heard the Messenger of Allah saying: "When Allah was relieved from His creation he established Himself over His Throne and reclined (istalqâ), placing one of His legs on top of the other (wa wada`a ihdâ rijlayhi `ala al-ukhrâ), and said: Verily it does not befit human beings."

Al-Dhahabi and others said: "Its chain of transmission is sound according to the criteria of Bukhari and Muslim."

And note well that the "Salafis" are the "People of hadith" (ahl al-hadîth), and that they do not practice figurative interpretation (la yu'awwilûn)!" End of Dr. Saqqa's text.17

NOTES

1Cited in Mamduh, Raf` al-Minara (p. 80).

2Sharh al-`Aqida al-Wasitiyya.

3Cf. Shaykh Hisham Kabbani, Encyclopedia of Islamic Doctrine (1:164-166) Islamic Beliefs and Doctrine (p. 190-193) and Dr. Ahmad Hijazi Saqqa, Daf` al-Shubuhat (p. 58-59).

4In al-Sirat al-Mustaqeem magazine published in the United States, Issue #46-47 (Rabee` al-akhira 1416 / September 1995, p. 7).

5Respectively in Husn al-Muhadara (Cairo, 1293 ed. 1:260) and A.J. Arberry, Sakhawiana: A Study Based on the Chester Beatty Ms. Arab. 773 (London: Emery Walker Ltd., 1951, p. 5-9).

6Saqqa, Daf` al-Shubuhat `an al-Shaykh Muhammad al-Ghazali ("The Refutation of False Arguments Made against Shaykh Muhammad al-Ghazali," Cairo: Maktabat al-Kulliyyat al-Azhariyya, 1990 ed. p. 57-58).

7 Narrated by al-Bayhaqi with a "soft" chain - because of Abu Ja'far al-Razi ('Isa ibn Abi 'Isa Mahan) whom Ibn Hajar declared "truthful, but poor in memorizing" - through al-Hakim (AS p. 448; ASH 2:370 #943), and by al-Tabari, Ibn Abi Hatim, al-Qurtubi, and al-Suyuti in their Tafsir (verse 2:210), also by Abu 'Ubayd ibn Sallam and Ibn al-Mundhir as stated in al-Suyuti's al-Durr al-Manthur. Al-Kawthari (p. 448) decried Abu al-'Aliya's phrase "and Allah comes in whatever He wishes" as "a condemnable expression."

8Al-Asma' wa al-Sifat (Kawthari ed. p. 448; Hashidi ed. 2:370).

9As cited by al-Qurtubi in his Tafsir (verse 2:210).

10Narrated by Ibn Hazm in al-Fisal (2:173). Al-Kawthari in his edition of al-Bayhaqi's al-Asma' wa al-Sifat (p. 448) states that Abu Ya`la also narrates it from Ahmad. See also Ibn al-Jawzi's Daf` Shubah al-Tashbih (p. 110 and 141).

11Narrated through al-Bayhaqi by Ibn Kathir in al-Bidaya wa al-Nihaya (10:361), by al-Bayhaqi in Manaqib Ahmad, and by Ibn al-Jawzi in Daf` Shubah al-tashbih p. 13. Al-Kawthari in al-Asma' (p. 292) states that Ahmad interpreted it as amr, citing Ibn Hazm.

12As cited by al-Qurtubi in his Tafsir (verse 2:210).

13Second ed. Saudi Arabia (p. 11).

14Al-Shahrastani, al-Milal wa al-Nihal (1:92-93).

15Al-Shahrastani, al-Milal wa al-Nihal (Cairo, 1317 ed. p. 145); English version: Muslims Sects and Divisions (p. 92).

16By this expression are meant Ash`ari Sunnis, while the expression Ahl al-Sunna in these lines means the anthropomorphists!

17Saqqa, Daf` al-Shubuhat (p. 59).

GF Haddad ©
[2000-07-17]

AL-ALBANI

Concise Guide to
the Chief Innovator of Our Time
By GF Haddad

Nasir al-Albani is the arch-innovator of the Wahhabis and "Salafis" in our time. A watch repairman by trade, al-Albani is a self-taught claimant to hadith scholarship who has no known teacher in any of the Islamic sciences and has admitted not to have memorized the Book of Allah nor any book of hadith, fiqh, `aqîda, usûl, or grammar. He achieved fame by attacking the great scholars of Ahl al-Sunna and reviling the science of fiqh with especial malice towards the school of his father who was a Hanafi jurist. A rabid reviler of the Friends of Allah and the Sufis, he was expelled from Syria then Saudi Arabia and lived in Amman, Jordan under house arrest until his death in 1999. He remains the qibla of the people of Innovation, self-styled re-formers of Islam, and other "Salafi" and Wahhabi sympathizers, and the preferred author of book merchants and many uneducated Muslims.Most of the contemporary Sunni scholars warned of his heresy and many of them wrote articles or full-length works against him such as:

- The Indian hadith scholar Habib al-Rahman al-A`zami who wrote al-Albani Shudhudhuh wa Akhta'uh ("Al-Albani's Aberrations and Errors") in four volumes.

- The Syrian scholar Muhammad Sa`id Ramadan al-Buti who wrote the two classics al-Lamadhhabiyya Akhtaru Bid`atin Tuhaddidu al-Shari`a al-Islamiyya ("Not Following A School of Jurisprudence is the Most Dangerous Innovation Threatening Islamic Sacred Law") and al-Salafiyya Marhalatun Zamaniyyatun Mubaraka La Madhhabun Islami ("The `Way of the Early Muslims' Was A Blessed Historical Epoch, Not An Islamic School of Thought")

- The Moroccan hadith scholar `Abd Allah ibn Muhammad ibn al-Siddiq al-Ghumari who wrote Irgham al-Mubtadi` al-Ghabi bi Jawaz al-Tawassul bi al-Nabi fi al-Radd `ala al-Albani al-Wabi ("The Coercion of the Unintelligent Innovator with the Licitness of Using the Prophet as an Intermediary in Refutation of al-Albani the Baneful"), al-Qawl al-Muqni` fi al-Radd `ala al-Albani al-Mubtadi` ("The Persuasive Discourse in Refutation of al-Albani the Innovator"), and Itqan al-Sun`a fi Tahqiq Ma`na al-Bid`a ("Precise Handiwork in Ascertaining the Meaning of Innovation").

- The Moroccan hadith scholar `Abd al-`Aziz ibn Muhammad ibn al-Siddiq al-Ghumari who wrote Bayan Nakth al-Nakith al-Mu`tadi ("The Exposition of the Treachery of the Rebel").

- The Syrian hadith scholar `Abd al-Fattah Abu Ghudda who wrote Radd `ala Abatil wa Iftira'at Nasir al-Albani wa Sahibihi Sabiqan Zuhayr al-Shawish wa Mu'azirihima ("Refutation of the Falsehoods and Fabrications of Nasir al-Albani and his Former Friend Zuhayr al-Shawish and their Supporters").

- The Egyptian Hadith scholar Muhammad `Awwama who wrote Adab al-Ikhtilaf ("The Proper Manners of Expressing Difference of Opinion").

- The Egyptian hadith scholar Mahmud Sa`id Mamduh who wrote Wusul al-Tahani bi Ithbat Sunniyyat al-Subha wa al-Radd `ala al-Albani ("The Alighting of Mutual Benefit and Confirmation that the Dhikr-Beads are a Sunna in Refutation of al-Albani") and Tanbih al-Muslim ila Ta`addi al-Albani `ala Sahih Muslim ("Warning to the Muslim Concerning al-Albani's Attack on Sahih Muslim").

- The Saudi hadith scholar Isma`il ibn Muhammad al-Ansar who wrote Ta`aqqubat `ala "Silsilat al-Ahadith al-Da`ifa wa al-Mawdu`a" li al-Albani ("Critique of al-Albani's Book on Weak and Forged Hadiths"), Tashih Salat al-Tarawih `Ishrina Rak`atan wa al-Radd `ala al-Albani fi Tad`ifih ("Establishing as Correct the Tarawih Salat in Twenty Rak`as and the Refutation of Its Weakening by al-Albani"), and Ibahat al-Tahalli bi al-Dhahab al-Muhallaq li al-Nisa' wa al-Radd `ala al-Albani fi Tahrimih ("The Licitness of Wearing Gold Jewelry for Women Contrary to al-Albani's Prohibition of it").

- The Syrian scholar Badr al-Din Hasan Diab who wrote Anwar al-Masabih `ala Zulumat al-Albani fi Salat al-Tarawih ("Illuminating the Darkness of al-Albani over the Tarawih Prayer").

- The Director of Religious Endowments in Dubai, `Isa ibn `Abd Allah ibn Mani` al-Himyari who wrote al-I`lam bi Istihbab Shadd al-Rihal li Ziyarati Qabri Khayr al-Anam ("The Notification Concerning the Recommendation of Travelling to Visit the Grave of the Best of Creation ) and al-Bid`a al-Hasana Aslun Min Usul al-Tashri` ("The Excellent Innovation Is One of the Sources of Islamic Legislation").

- The Minister of Islamic Affairs and Religious Endowments in the United Arab Emirates Shaykh Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Khazraji who wrote the article al-Albani: Tatarrufatuh ("Al-Albani's Extremist Positions").

- The Syrian scholar Firas Muhammad Walid Ways in his edition of Ibn al-Mulaqqin's Sunniyyat al-Jumu`a al-Qabliyya ("The Sunna Prayers That Must Precede Salat al-Jumu`a").

- The Syrian scholar Samer Islambuli who wrote al-Ahad, al-Ijma`, al-Naskh.

- The Jordanian scholar As`ad Salim Tayyim who wrote Bayan Awham al-Albani fi Tahqiqihi li Kitab Fadl al-Salat `ala al-Nabi .

- The Jordanian scholar Hasan `Ali al-Saqqaf who wrote the two-volume Tanaqudat al-Albani al-Wadiha fi ma Waqa`a fi Tashih al-Ahadith wa Tad`ifiha min Akhta' wa Ghaltat ("Albani's Patent Self-Contradictions in the Mistakes and Blunders He Committed While Declaring Hadiths to be Sound or Weak"), Ihtijaj al-Kha'ib bi `Ibarat man Idda`a al-Ijma` fa Huwa Kadhib ("The Loser's Recourse to the Phrase: `Whoever Claims Consensus Is a Liar!'"), al-Qawl al-Thabtu fi Siyami Yawm al-Sabt ("The Firm Discourse Concerning Fasting on Saturdays"), al-Lajif al-Dhu`af li al-Mutala`ib bi Ahkam al-I`tikaf ("The Lethal Strike Against Him Who Toys with the Rulings of I`tikaf), Sahih Sifat Salat al-Nabi Sallallahu `alayhi wa Sallam ("The Correct Description of the Prophet's Prayer "), I`lam al-Kha'id bi Tahrim al-Qur'an `ala al-Junub wa al-Ha'id ("The Appraisal of the Meddler in the Interdiction of the Qur'an to those in a State of Major Defilement and Menstruating Women"), Talqih al-Fuhum al-`Aliya ("The Inculcation of Lofty Discernment"), and Sahih Sharh al-`Aqida al-Tahawiyya ("The Correct Explanation of al-Tahawi's Statement of Islamic Doctrine").

Among Albani's innovations in the Religion:

1- In his book Adab al-Zafaf he prohibits women from wearing gold jewelry - rings, bracelets, and chains - despite the Consensus of the Ulema permitting it.

2- He claims that 2.5% zakât is not due on money obtained from commerce, i.e. the main activity whereby money circulates among Muslims.

3- He absolutely prohibits fasting on Saturdays.

4- He prohibits retreat (i`tikaf) in any but the Three Mosques.

5- He claims that it is lawful to eat in Ramadan before Maghrib as defined by the Law, and similarly after the true dawn.

6- He compares Hanafi fiqh to the Gospel.1

7- He calls people to imitate him rather than the Imams of the Salaf such as the founders of the Four Schools, and his followers invalidate the hadiths that contradict his views.

8- He prohibits the make-up performance of prayers missed intentionally.

9- He claims that it is permissible for menstruating women and those in a state of major defilement (junub) to recite, touch, and carry the Qur'an.

10- He claims over and over that among the innovations in religion existent in Madina is the persistence of the Prophet's grave in the mosque.

11- He claims that whoever travels intending to visit the Prophet or to ask him for his intercession is a misguided innovator.

12- He claims that whoever carries dhikr-beads in his hand to remember Allah Most High is misguided and innovating.

13- He invented a location to Allah Most High above the Throne which he named al-makân al-`adamî - "the non-existent place."

14- He claims in Tamam al-Minna that masturbation does not annul one's fast.

15- He published "corrected" editions of the two Sahihs of al-Bukhari and Muslim, which he deceitfully called "Abridgments" (mukhtasar) in violation of the integrity of these motherbooks.

16- He published newly-styled editions of the Four Sunan, al-Bukhari's al-Adab al-Mufrad, al-Mundhiri's al-Targhib wa al-Tarhib, and al-Suyuti's al-Jami` al-Saghir, each of which he split into two works, respectively prefixed Sahih and Da`if in violation of the integrity of these motherbooks.

17- He said: "Many of those who interpret figuratively [the Divine Attributes] are not heretics (zanâdiqa), but they say what heretics say," and "figurative interpretation is the very same as nullification (al-ta'wîl `ayn al-ta`tîl)."2

18- He suggests that al-Bukhari is a disbeliever for interpreting the Divine Face as dominion or sovereignty (mulk) in the verse (Everything will perish save His countenance( (28:88) in the book of Tafsir in his Sahih: "Except His wajh means except His mulk, and it is also said: Except whatever was for the sake of His countenance." Albani blurts out: "No true believer would say such a thing" and "We should consider al-Bukhari innocent of that statement."3

19- In imitation of the Mu`tazila, tawassul (seeking means), istighâtha (asking for help), and tashaffu` (seeking intercession) through the Prophet or one of the Awliyâ' he declared prohibited acts in Islam (harâm) tantamount to idolatry (shirk) in his booklet al-Tawassul as did his friends Bin Baz and those who obey them such as al-Qahtani in al-Wala' wa al-Bara' and others, in flat rejection of the numerous sound and explicit narrations to that effect, such as al-Bukhari's narration of the Prophet from Ibn `Umar - Allah be well-pleased with him -: "Truly the sun shall draw so near on the Day of Resurrection that sweat shall reach to the mid-ear, whereupon they shall ask (istaghâthû) help from Adam - upon him peace -, then from Musa - upon him peace - , then from Muhammad who will intercede (fa yashfa`u)... and that day Allah shall raise him to an Exalted Station, so that all those who are standing [including the unbelievers] shall glorify him (yahmaduhu ahlu al-jam`i kulluhum)."

20- He denies that the name of the Angel of death is `Azrâ'îl and claims such a name has no basis other than Israelite reports, although `Iyad reports the Consensus on the Umma on it in al-Shifa'.

21- Like the rest of Wahhabi and "Salafi" innovators he declares Ash`aris, Maturidis, and Sufis to be outside the fold of Ahl al-Sunna and even outside the fold of Islam, although Allah Most High and His Prophet praised them! Upon revelation of the verse (Allah shall bring a people whom He loves and who love Him( (5:54), the Prophet pointed to Abu Musa al-Ash`ari - Allah be well-pleased with him - and said: "They are that man's People."4 Al-Qushayri, Ibn `Asakir, al-Bayhaqi, Ibn al-Subki, and others said that the followers of Abu al-Hasan al-Ash`ari - i.e. Ash`aris who were mostly Sufis - are included among Abu Musa's People for in every place that a people are affiliated to a Prophet, what is meant is the followers of that Prophet. As for Maturidis, they are referred to in the narration of the Prophet from Bishr al-Khath`ami or al-Ghanawi with a sound (sahîh) chain according to al-Hakim, al-Dhahabi, al-Suyuti, and al-Haythami: "Truly you shall conquer Constantinople and truly what a wonderful leader will her leader be [Mehmet Fatih Sultan - Allah be well-pleased with him -], and truly what a wonderful army will that army be!" Both the leader and his army were classic Hanafi Maturidis and it is known that Mehmet Fatih loved and respected Sufis, practiced tawassul, and followed a Shaykh. Moreover, enmity against Ash`aris, Maturidis, and Sufis, is nifâq and enmity against the Umma of Islam as most of the Ulema of Islam are thus described.

22- In at least five of his books5 he calls for the demolition of the Green Dome of the Prophet's Mosque in al-Madina al-Munawwara and for taking the Prophet's grave outside the Mosque.

23- He states: "I have found no evidence for the Prophet's hearing of the salaam of those who greet him at his grave" and "I do not know from where Ibn Taymiyya took his claim6 that he hears the salaam from someone near." This and the previous item are among his greater enormities and bear the unmistakable signature of innovation and deviation.7

• see: <The Prophet in Barzakh >
• see ahadith: <Proof-texts of the Life of the Prophet in His Grave >

24- He considers it an innovation to visit relatives, neighbors, or friends on the day of `Eid and prohibits it.8

25- He gave the fatwa that Muslims should exit Palestine en masse and leave it to the Jews as it is part the Abode of War (dâr al-harb).9

26- He advocates in his Salat al-Nabi , the formula "Peace and blessings upon the Prophet" instead of "upon you, O Prophet" in the tashahhud in contradiction of the Four Sunni Schools, on the basis of a hadith of Ibn Mas`ud whereby the Companions used the indirect-speech formula after the passing of the Prophet . But the Prophet himself instructed them to pray exactly as he prayed saying: "Peace and blessings upon you, O Prophet" without telling them to change it after his death, nor did the major Companions (whose Sunna we were ordered to imitate together with that of the Prophet ), such as Abu Bakr and `Umar, teach the Companions and Successors otherwise!

27- He prohibits praying more than 11 rak`as in Tarawih prayers on the grounds that the Prophet never did and in blatant rejection of his explicit command to follow the Sunna of the well-guided Caliphs after him.

28- He declares that adding more to 11 supererogatory rak`as in the late night prayer (tahajjud) is an innovation rather than an act of obedience on the grounds that the Prophet "never ever prayed one hundred rak`as in his whole lifetime"10 although the Ulema agree that there is no prescribed limit to something which the Prophet commanded without specifically quantifying it, and he said in three authentic narrations: "Know that the best of your good deeds is prayer,"11 "Prayer is a light,"12 and "The night prayer is in cycles of two [rak`as] and when one of you fears the rising of the dawn, let him pray a single one."13 It is also established in many authentic narrations collected by Imam `Abd al-Hayy al-Lacknawi in the second part of his Iqamat al-Hujja `ala anna al-Ikthar min al-Ta`abbudi Laysa bi Bid`a that the Companions and Salaf prayed hundreds if not thousands of rak`as in every twenty-four hours!

29- He considers it an innovation to pray four rak`as between the two adhâns of Jumu`a and before Salat, although it is authentically narrated that "the Prophet