A Correction Of Misunderstandings Part 3

Admin Number of posts : 951 Registration date : 2006-10-07

A Correction Of Misunderstandings Found In Non-Arabic Sources About
The Movement Of Sheikh Muhammad Bin Abdul Wahhab

The objective behind recording the above quotations is to show that this
German author is enough proof to vindicate the Wahhabi stance against visiting
tombs and supplicating to the dead, as the religion of Islam has never allowed
such practices. A brief glimpse of Sheikh ibn al Wahhab’s book ‘Issues of
pre-Islamic era’ is enough to show the Messenger of Allah (SAS) opposed the
practices of Jahiliyya. The book contains some interesting chapters:

To take graves of past
people as places of worship

To take impressions/remains
of the Prophet (SAS) as Mosques

To light lamps on graves

To declare graves as Eid

Offering sacrifices besides
graves

To take blessings from
people who were held sacred

In these chapters he shows
through ahadith that the people of Jahiliyya took these matters from the Ahl
ul Kitab: the Jews and Christians. Islam came to destroy all such practices,
but they were re-introduced among the Muslim masses, so there was a need to
purify Islam from such practices anew.

Here, let us quote a very clear reply by Sultan Abdul Aziz bin Abdur Rahman
Al-Saud to the deputation which came from India in 1924, asking him to
reconstruct the tombs on the graves. He said to them,

‘We are concerned with the renovation of the sacred places and to keep them in
a dignified and respectable manner. As for reconstructing them, we can only
act in accordance with the Islamic Shariah. It is our duty to implement the
rulings of the Shariah in the sacred places as reported by the pious ancestors
and the four Imams. I am ready to rebuild them with gold and silver if the
scholars of the Ummah agree to say that building them is an obligation.’ [11]

However, Goldziher attributes the sanctity of the Black Stone among the
Muslims to a remnant of idolatory. We refute this by simply quoting Syyedina
Umar bin al Khattab, who said when kissing it,

‘I know that you are a stone which does not benefit nor harm. But had I not
seen the Messenger of Allah kissing you, I would not have kissed you.’ [12]

Similarly, Goldziher’s remarks about bid’a are not just:

‘The exaggerated, fanatical attitude to the Sunnah, even in quite trivial
matters, is matched by a similar fanaticism towards bid’a. Modern Wahhabism
follows the pattern of earlier times in striving to brand as bid’a not only
anything contrary to the spirit of the Sunnah but also everything that cannot
be proved to be in it. It is known that the ultra-conservative opposed every
novelty, the use of coffee and tobacco, as well as printing, coming under this
heading. Muslim theologians even today are not entirely reconciled to the use
of knife and fork.’ [13]

It is an established fact that declaring something to be bid’a is not
dependent upon the moods of people but on established principles. The Prophet
(SAS) said,

‘Anyone who innovates in this matter of ours something which is not from it
will have it rejected.’ [14]

He also said, ‘The one who practices something not in accordance with our
matter will have it rejected.’ [15]

So the whole issue is related to the worldly matters and not the religious
ones. It is moreover regulated with a number of conditions which make it quite
difficult to label something Bid’a easily, contrary to what the German
orientalist claimed and falsely attributed to Wahhabism.

Arberry

Religions in the Middle East: A. J.
Arberry

Arberry’s comments on the history of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and on the
movement begun by Sheikh Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab are generally acceptable.
However, his final thoughts on Wahhabism need to be discussed. He says,

‘How far can Wahhabism go along the path of adjustment without losing its
essential character’ Much depends on the quality of leadership and much also
depends on the generality of Wahhabis. Borrowing and adaptation from various
sources both Eastern and Western, will go on but if the Wahhabis can hold fast
to their fundamental beliefs, they stand a good chance of preserving the State
which their predecessors in the faith laboured to build.’ [16 ]

Arberry also discusses the issue of whether Syyed Ahmad Ash Shaheed
(1786-1831) had been favourably impressed by Wahhabism during his Hajj
journey. Arberry comments that this notion was first raised by W. W. Hunter in
‘Indian Mussulmans’, but was refuted by Syyed Abdul Barri in ‘The politics of
Syed Ahmad Barelwi’ and by Syed Mahmud Hussain in ‘History of the freedom
movements’. Arberry concludes that the Ahl ul Hadith movement was also accused
of Wahhabism towards the end of the 19 th Century. Our response to these
comments is that the new era of Saudi rule began at the beginning of the 20 th
Century, when its leadership exerted their efforts to unite all the areas of
the Arabian peninsula, and succeeded having been blessed with Allah’s Help.
The Kingdom established good relations with its neighbours and it is a fact of
history that the Kingdom’s friends among the Arab states in particular and the
Muslim countries in general have always outnumbered its enemies and critics.

It is also another fact of history that the Kingdom’s strong grip on the dogma
of Tawheed (Oneness of Allah) and their rejection of all signs of Shirk and
superstitions is still as strong today as it was when the reformatory movement
of the Sheikh began two hundred years ago. The secret of success lies in this,
with the will of Allah.

Arberry’s comments that Syed Ahmad Shaheed was impressed by Wahhabism have
been mentioned by others such as Morgoliouth. The famous author Mas’ud Alam An
Nadawi has commented on this, saying,

‘And similarly the renewal of the movement of Islam and Imamate which began in
India was so similar to the movement of Najd that even the supporters of the
movements believed both movements to be the same’.

The similarities are not surprising since the roots of both movements lie in
the Qur’an and Sunnah. However, the movements do have distinctly different
methods of da’wah and work, despite agreeing in principle. The movement of
renewing Jihad which was established by Syed Ahmad Shaheed (d. 1246 AH) and
Sheikh Ismail Ash Shaheed (d. 1246) was not affected by the movement of Najd
[17] . The Ahl ul Hadith in India were also labelled as Wahhabis because they
too fought to refute all signs of Shirk, innovations and superstitions from
the Muslims.

Encyclopaedia
Britannica

Encyclopaedia Britannica: The
movement of Wahhabism under Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab The author of the
article claims that,

‘Having completed his formal education in the holy city of Medina, in Arabia,
‘Abd al-Wahhab lived abroad for many years. He taught for four years in Basra,
Iraq and in Baghdad married an affluent woman whose property he inherited when
she died. In 1736 in Iran he began to teach against what he considered to be
the extreme ideas of various exponents of Sufi doctrines.’ [18]

The article ends with a surprisingly refreshing praise of Sheikh ibn al Wahhab
and comments that his followers preferred the title of ‘Muwahhidoon’. The term
‘Wahhabis’ was a derogatory label used by their opponents.

The lies concerning the Sheikh’s travels have been attributed to Morgoliouth.
In his article in the ‘Encyclopaedia of Islam’, Morgoliouth includes the
fabrication that the Sheikh married a wealthy lady in Baghdad from whom he
inherited two thousand.

He then travelled to Kurdistan, Hamdan, Qum and Isfahan. Other writers such as
Palgrave, Zwemmer and Brigges in his ‘Brief history of the Wahhabis’ have also
claimed that the Sheikh travelled beyond Baghdad and Damascus. But these
claims are untrue, as there is no evidence of the Sheikh travelling beyond
Basrah to Baghdad, Syria or Egypt. [19]

Ameer Ali

Ameer Ali: ‘The Spirit of
Islam’

The author was a member of the Judicial Committee of His Majesty’s Privy
Council in the early 20 th Century, i.e. during the days of British colonial
rule in India. He writes,

‘In Najd, under the rule of the Wahabis, who have been called the Covenanters
of Islam, laggards were whipped into the mosque. And today under Ibn Saud, his
followers who designate themselves Ikhwan, or ‘Brothers in faith’, pursue the
same method for enforcing the observance of religious rites. Prayers
bil-jama’at as being obligatory (farz’ain) naturally made the presence of the
Imam obligatory.’ [20]

Discussing the Azariqa, a faction of the Khawarij, he says,

‘Of these the Azarika are the most fanatical, exclusive, and narrow. According
to them, every sect besides their own is doomed to perdition, and ought to be
forcibly converted or ruthlessly destroyed. No mercy ought to be shown to any
infidel or Mushrik (an expansive term, including Muslims, Christians and
Jews). To them every sin is of the same degree: murder, fornication,
intoxication, smoking, all are damning offences against religion. Whilst other
Muslims, Shiah as well as Sunni, hold that every child is born into the world
in the faith of Islam, and remains so until perverted by education, the Azraki
declares that the child of an infidel is an infidel. The orthodox Christian
maintains that every child who is not baptized is doomed to perdition: the
Khariji, like the Christian, declares that every child who has not pronounced
the formula of faith is beyond the pale of salvation. The Azarika were
destroyed by Hajjaj ibn Yusuf; but their sanguinary, fierce, and merciless
doctrines found expression nine centuries later in Wahabism.’ [21]

He then says,

‘The Wahabis have been depicted in rather favourable colours by Mr. Palgrave,
in his Travels in Central Arabia, but, in fact, they are the direct
descendants of the Azarika, who after their defeat by Hajjaj ibn Yusuf, had
taken refuge in the recesses of Central Arabia. Abdul Wahab’s doctrines. bear
the closest resemblance to those held so fiercely by the followers of Nafe ibn
al-Azrak. Like them, the Wahabis designate all other Muslims as unbelievers,
and permit their despoilment and enslavement. However commendable their revolt
against the anthropolatrous usages in vogue among the modern Muslims, their
views of religion and divine government, like those of the Ikhwan in the
present day in Najd, are intensely morose and Calvinistic [22] , and in
absolute conflict with progress and development.’ [23]

Our response to these claims is as follows:

1) There is no disagreement among the different mazahib of Islam regarding
obligatory prayers. But there are some minor differences regarding the duty of
the man to offer these prayers in a Masjid. Some held that it is obligatory if
he is in the vicinity of a Masjid and hears the adhan, but others held it as a
confirmed Sunnah. Muslim societies in general took it for granted that their
men would attend the Masjid for prayer after hearing the adhan, and it was
only in very recent times that laxity developed among some people. Al Ikhwan
introduced a disciplinary punishment for those who were lazy in attending
congregational prayers in order to counteract the lethargy that was
developing. But this punishment was never needed on a large scale; in Saudi
Arabia today, for example, an observor will notice people flocking to the
Masajid at times of prayer, despite the absence of any forms of punishment for
not doing so.

2) The treatise of Sheikh Hamad bin Naasir bin Uthman Ma’mari An Najdi (d.
1225 AH) gives permission to fight those who do not pray out of laziness. He
reports the consensus of all the Imams except Az Zuhri. And this is the mazhab
of the people known as Hanbalis. For the people of Najd, anyone who abandons
prayer voluntarily is regarded a Kafir. [24]

3) Ameer Ali’s comments about the alleged resemblance between the Wahhabis and
the Khawarij are not new. Zaini Dahlan also took all the ahadith pertaining to
the Khawarij and applied them to the Wahhabis in his books ‘Al Durrar al
Sunniya’ and ‘Al Futuhat al Islamiyya’. [25]

Ameer Ali’s comments regarding the resemblance between the Wahhabis and the
Khawarij, especially the Azariqa, shows his deep ignorance of the beliefs of
Sheikh Ibn Abdul Wahhab, which were simply a renewal of the pure teachings of
the Salaf. Let us hear the evidence of the mazhab of Sheikh Muhammad bin Abdul
Wahhab.

i) The Khawarij declare any individual who commits a major sin to be a Kafir.
The Sheikh will only declare someone to be a Kafir if the consensus of the
entire Muslim ummah is that he is a Kafir, and if the evidence has been made
clear to him. The Sheikh did not declare someone a Kafir if the evidence had
not been presented to the wrongdoer. He says concerning people who commit the
major sin of drinking alcohol,

‘If these people insist on declaring something which is haram to be halal,
they are to be labelled Kuffar. But if they believe them to be haram but still
partake of them, they are to be flogged. Our pious predecessors did not
declare people to be Kuffar for taking the haram to be halal until the truth
was made clear to these people. If they persisted despite the evidence, they
could then be labelled Kuffar.’ [26]

» A Correction Of Misunderstandings Part 2
» A Correction Of Misunderstandings Part 1
» A Correction Of Misunderstandings Part 4
» Where is Allah? Part 4
» The Ill Effects of Sin Part 1