http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/misc/najd.htm - Puncturing the Devil's Dream About the Hadiths of Najd and Tamim

THE BEGINNING AND SPREAD OF WAHHABISM

http://www.hizmetbooks.org/Advice_for_the_Muslim/wah-36.htm - The origins of Wahhabism

http://www.hizmetbooks.org/Advice_for_the_Muslim/wah-37.htm - The first Wahhabite mission

http://www.hizmetbooks.org/Advice_for_the_Muslim/wah-38.htm - The massacre and looting of the Muslims of Ta'if

http://www.hizmetbooks.org/Advice_for_the_Muslim/wah-39.htm - The Wahhabite persecutions in Mecca

http://www.hizmetbooks.org/Advice_for_the_Muslim/wah-40.htm - The Wahhabis in Medina

http://www.hizmetbooks.org/Advice_for_the_Muslim/wah-41.htm - The Ottomans clear the blessed cities of the Wahhabite bandits

http://www.hizmetbooks.org/Advice_for_the_Muslim/wah-42.htm - Invaluable works done in Mecca and Medina after the clearance

Bismillah irrahman irrahim

Wa'alaykum assalam wa rahmatullahe wa barakatuhu

Abu Mujahid wrote: Fatima Moderator! Assalamu alaikum You have difficult to live up with truth. Your support for Andulus shows how much you care about truth, brotherhood, Islam or revival of khilafa. Despite he filled in his post, hate, lies and deception he got stand oviation from liberals.  Your attack on me lacks direction let alone have stand in Islam.  I found this medium by accident long time ago. I preferred to be silent reader. Then I decided to join and contribute in proper way. I found amazing how liberals want to reshape islam in the context of American culture. Moreover, tear a part anyone who challenge them. You saw it and properly enjoyed our exchanges. When they insult me you never raise a finger. They call me all kind of un-islamic names. But when we expose your friends like this fake convert you cry foul.   Abu Mujahid

May Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala bless you brother you have given me a good hope that inshaAllah with mercy of my Lord, I might be on a middle path. As to some members i am a fundamentalist extremist and now according to you a liberal.

Wassalam

Some stuff is give from those who are against Ibn Abdul Wahhab, have a look at what proponent of him says.

Mind you, I have taken it from a webiste which can be categorised as Deobandi Sufi

http://www.alinaam.org.za/library/hist_bio/ibnwahhaab.htm - http://www.alinaam.org.za/library/hist_bio/ibnwahhaab.htm

SHAYKH MUHAMMAD IBN ABDUL-WAHHAAB (RA)

by Shaykh Abdul-Aziz bin Abdullah ibn Baaz

In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

All praise is to Allah, Lord of the worlds. Peace and blessings of Allah be upon his slave and Messenger and the best of Creation, our leader and guide, Muhammad Bin Abdullah, and upon his family, Companions and followers.

Dear brothers and children! I would like to present this lecture with a view to enlightening your thoughts, clarifying some facts, showing goodwill towards Allah and people, and fulfilling part of my duty towards the personality about whom I am going to speak. And the topic of this lecture is: Imam Muhammad Bin Abdul Wahhab - his life and mission.

When we talk about reformers, revivers and preachers, recalling their circumstances, good qualities and meritorious activities and describing their truthfulness and sincerity in their personal life as well as preaching, men of good spirits would eagerly listen to it with comfort and contentment. Whoever is attached to Islam and desirous of reformation and preaching cannot help hearing such talks.

I would like to talk about a great man, an outstanding reformer and a zealous preacher who appeared in the Arabian peninsula in the twelfth century A.H - Imam Sheikh Muhammad Bin Abdul Wahhab Bin Sulaiman Bin Ali Al-Tamimi Al-Hanbali Al-Najdi. He is wellknown to the people, particularly to the scholars, leaders, elders and high officials within and without the Peninsula. Many authors have written about him. And many others have mentioned him privately in their writings. Even the orientalists have dealt with him. Many others appraised and praised him in their writings about the reformers and history.

The unprejudiced described the Sheikh as a great reformer and reviver of Islam, and admitted that he had been on the Path and Light shone by his Lord. It is difficult to mention all the writers, but a few of them deserve reference. Among them was the great author, Abu Bakr Sheikh Husain Bin Gannam Al-Ahsae. He wrote well about the Sheikh and his mission and benefited many. In his book he has elaborately explained the life and campaigns of the Sheikh as well as his preaching and deduction from the Qur'an.

Another author was Sheikh Imam Uthman Bin Bishr who in his work, The Banner of Glory, wrote about the Sheikh's life, preaching, campaigns and jihad.

Among other authors from outside the Peninsula was Dr. Ahmad Amin who appraised him in his book entitled 'The Great Leaders of Islamic Reformation'. Another great scholar was Masood Alam Nadvi who wrote a book about him under the title 'The Persecuted Reformer', one of the well-written biographies of the Imam. The great scholar Muhammad Bin Ismael San'ani was a contemporary of the Imam, and he had preached Islam in his own capacity. When he heard about the Imam's activities, he thanked Allah with delight. Similarly, Allama Sheikh Muhammad Bin Ali Showkani, the author of Nailul A utar, had written about the Imam. He also lamented his demise in a grand elegy. And there are many others who had written about the Imam, and they are well-known to the readers and scholars.

Since many people seem to know little about the life and preaching of the Imam, I think I should explain his faithful life and sincere mission and struggle. Then whoever has ambiguity about the life and preaching of the Imam may understand the truth.

Muhammad Bin Abdul Wahhab was born in 1115 A.H though some are of the opinion that it was in 1111 A.H, which is not popular.

He was educated by his father at Oyayna, his homeland. It was a village located at Yamama in Najd, northwest of the city of Riyadh.

He lived there a pious life. He learnt to read the Qur'an very early. He exerted himself in his studies and advanced learning at the hands of his father, Sheikh Abdul Wahhab Bin Sulaiman, who was a great jurisprudent and the Judge of Oyayna.

Having attained puberty, the Sheikh went to the Sacred Mosque at Makkah to perform Hajj as well as to learn from the learned personalities of Makkah. From Makkah he went to Madinah.

During his stay there, he met two great scholars of Madinah. One of them was Sheikh Abdullah Bin Ibrahim Bin Sayf Al-Najdi, the father of Sheikh Ibrahim Bin
Abdullah who authored 'An Appreciation of the Law of Inheritance'. The other was Sheikh Muhammad Hayat Al-Sindi. The, Imam might have learnt from other scholars as well.

Then he travelled to Iraq to seek after knowledge. He reached Basara, met with the scholars therein and learnt from them.

It was in Iraq that he started his mission. There he called the people to Tawhid (Oneness of Allah) and the Sunnah of the Prophet [sallallaahu alayhi wasallam]. He announced that it was the duty of every Muslim to follow his or her religion (Islam) strictly in accordance with the Qur'an and Sunnah. He also engaged some scholars in discussions and debates. Thus he became famous among his teachers. He had a debate with one of the outstanding scholars, Sheikh Muhammad Al-Majmuei.

However, some characterless scholars rebelled against him. He and his teacher even received some harms and persecutions from them. Therefore, he left Basara. Although his intention was to go to Syriya, he gave up the idea due to paucity of money and travelled to Azzubair. He then headed towards Al-Ahsa. There he met some scholars and engaged them in discussions on the fundamentals of Islam.

Then he moved to Huraymela. It was in the fifth decade of the twelfth century A.H. While his father was the Judge of Oyayna, a dispute arose between the prince of Oyayna and his father. He therefore left Oyayna for Huraymela in 1139 A.H. That was why the Sheikh moved to Huraymela. His arrival there was in 1140 or so.

There he continued his activities in the fields of learning, teaching and preaching until his father died in 1153. There he had to face much suffering at the hands of the wicked. Some of them even attempted on his life. It is said that some persons climbed up the wall of his house, but ran away when some others knew about it.

In the circumstances, the Sheikh had to leave Huraymela. Why those mean people were hostile to him was that he enjoined the good and forbade the evil. He also persuaded the rulers to punish the criminals severely. Among them were those people known as "Abeed". They were used to stealing, plundering and violation of others' rights. As soon as they knew that the Sheikh was against their actions and interests, they tried to assassinate him. But Allah saved his life.

Then he moved to Oyayna which was then governed by Prince Uthman Bin Muhammad Bin Muammar. The Prince welcomed the Sheikh with hospitality. He persuaded him to start calling the people to Islam and promised him all support and help. He showed him kindness, goodwill and sympathy. Thus the Sheikh continued his activities in teaching and guiding the people, and calling them to the Path of Allah. He guided the people to piety, righteousness and love in the cause of Allah.

Gradually, Sheikh Muhammad Bin Abdul Wahhab became famous in and around Oyayna. People came to Oyayna to meet him from the neighbouring areas and villages. One day the Sheikh told the Prince: 'let us demolish the dome at the grave of Zaid Bin Al-Khattab [radhiallaahu anhu]. It is erected on deviation. Allah would not accept it. And the Prophet [sallallaahu alayhi wasallam], had forbidden building domes or mosques on the graves. Moreover, this dome has enthralled the people and replaced their creed with polytheism. So it must be demolished.' The Prince acceded to his suggestion. Then the Sheikh remarked that he was afraid that the people of Al-Jubaila would revolt against this action. Al-Jubaila was a village close to the grave. Uthman then mobilized an army of six hundred soldiers and marched towards the grave in order to destroy the dome. The army was accompanied by the Sheikh.

As soon as they approached the dome, the people of AlJubaila came forward to defend the dome. But when they saw the Prince with his army, they changed their decision and withdrew. Then the Sheikh took the action of demolishing and removing the dome. Allah removed it by his hands.

Let us now consider the condition of Najd before the arrival of the Sheikh and the reasons for his preaching.

The people of Najd had lived in a condition that could not be approved of by any believer. Polytheism had appeared there and spread widely. People worshipped domes, trees, rocks, caves or any persons who claimed to be Auliya (saints) though they might be insane and idiotic. Magic and soothsaying also had spread there, and the belief therein was popular. No one had showed disapproval of them except a very few. And the people were preoccupied with worldly goods and pleasures.

There were few to rise up for the sake of Allah and support His Religion. Same was the situation in Makkah and Madinah as well as Yemen where building domes on the graves, invoking the saints for their help and other forms of polytheism were predominant. But in Najd polytheistic beliefs and practices were all the more intense.

In Najd people had worshipped different objects ranging from the graves, caves and trees to the obsessed and mad men who were called saints. Among others popular in Najd were praying to the demons asking for their help, sacrificing animals for them and placing them at the corners of the houses hoping for their protection and fearing their harms.

When the Sheikh saw that polytheism was dominating the people and that no one showed any disapproval of it or no one was ready to call the people back to Allah, he decided to labour singly and patiently in the field. He knew that nothing could be achieved without jihad (holy fighting), patience and suffering. So he exerted himself in teaching, orientation and guidance. Also he wrote to the scholars requesting their support and reminding them of their task of helping Allah's Religion and fighting against polytheism as well as superstitions. Many scholars from Najd, Makkah and Madinah acceded to his request. Also the scholars in Yemen and other countries agreed upon him and sent him their approval. However, some scholars who disagreed with him; they reproached his mission, condemned him and kept away from him.
 

Now the Sheikh and those with him were in between two types of people. One group consisted of the ignorant and the idiots who knew nothing about Islam or Tawhid. What they knew all about was nothing but polytheism, ignorance, deviation, innovations, superstitions etc. which their forefathers had upheld. The Qur'an reported on such people:

"We found our fathers following a certain way and religion and we will indeed follow their footsteps." (43:23)

The second group, on the other hand, was related to knowledge. They responded to the Sheikh negatively because of their envy and inferiority complex. They were ashamed of the people. They were afraid that the people would question their integrity: 'why did you keep silent without warning us against such and such evils until Ibn Abdul Wahhab appeared?' In choosing the worldly materials, they followed the Jews.

But as for the Sheikh, he carried on patiently. Many scholars and officials of high position from within and without the Peninsula persuaded him. And he was determined and resolute. He also sought help of Allah in all matters. He strove in studying the Qur'an and reading up the useful books. He had a special skill of interpreting the Qur'an and deducing from it. He also worked hard in studying the life of the Prophet [sallallaahu alayhi wasallam] and the lives of his Companions [radhiallaahu anhum] with deep insight till he got inspiration and firmness of faith from them by the grace of Allah.

The Sheikh became all the more determined and continued his mission of calling people to Islam and correspondence with the rulers and scholars. Allah materialized his virtuous desires, spread the preaching and strengthened the truth by him. Allah also provided him with supporters and helpers till Islam and Tawhid gained the upperhand.

The Sheikh went on teaching and preaching. Gradually, he exerted himself on action and practically removing polytheism when he noticed that his call to Islam had no effect on some. Thus he undertook the task of practically removing what was available and possible to be removed from the traces of polytheism. It was against this background that he said to Prince Uthman that the dome of the grave of Zaid should be demolished.

Zaid Bin Al-Khattab [radhiallaahu anhu], was the brother of Umar Bin Al-Khattab [radhiallaahu anhu]. He was one of the martyrs who died in their fighting against Musailamah Al-Kaddhab in 12 A.H. He was buried there and later on a dome was built over the grave said to be his grave.

Prince Uthman readily accepted the Sheikh's demand, as said before, and the dome was demolished. And thank Allah none of its traces remains now.

There were other graves such as the one said to be of Derar Bin Awzar [radhiallaahu anhu]. It had once a dome which was then demolished. There were also other signs which were removed by the grace of Allah. There were caves and trees which were worshipped besides Allah, but they were all destroyed and removed. Also the people were warned against them.

The Sheikh thus continued his mission by words and action. One day a woman came to him and confessed that she had committed adultery. She repeated the confession without any hesitation or external compulsion. After he realized that she was sane and married, he gave orders that she should be punished by stoning to death. His order could be soon implemented as he had by then become the Judge of Oyayna.

After this incident, the Sheikh became more famous. He had already become well-known for his earlier actions such as demolishing the domes and calling people to Tawhid. Immigration of people to Oyayna from the neighbouring places has also made him famous.

Meanwhile, the Prince of Al-Ahsa and the surrounding villages, who was of Banu Khalid Sulaiman Bin Orayer Al-Khalidi, came to know about the mission of the Sheikh and his actions such as the demolition of the domes and implementation of Islamic punishments. He took it as a menace. Since it was usual for the nomads with a few exceptions to commit wrong, robbery, murder and violation of the inviolable, the nomad prince was naturally afraid that the Sheikh's position would grow greater and that his political power would be taken away from his hands. Therefore, he wrote to Prince Uthman threatening him and demanding him to kill the Sheikh who was living with him in Oyayna. He also threatened that he would cut off the tax due to Uthman if his demand was not accepted. Uthman, who had to receive his due of gold from this nomad ruler, took the message seriously. He was afraid that the nomad ruler would cut off his taxes or attack him if he disobeyed him. Hence he reported that to the Sheikh: 'the nomad prince has sent me a message to do so and so. We never wish to kill you, but we are afraid of that prince and we are unable to fight him. So if you think, you may leave us'.

Then the Sheikh replied: `I am simply calling the people to Islam and to the fulfilment of the testimony of Faith that there is no God except Allah and Muhammad is Allah's Messenger. Whoever holds fast to Islam and upholds it truthfully, Allah will help him and make him ruler of his enemies' countries. And if you endure and be righteous and accept this Religion, then be glad that Allah will help you and protect you from that nomad prince and others. Allah will also give you power over his country and his kinsfolk'.

But Uthman said: `O Sheikh! but we cannot fight him nor can we stand his opposition'.

In the circumstances, the Sheikh had to leave Oyayna for Dareyya. He set out from Oyayna on foot at the beginning of the day and reached his destination at the end of the day. He travelled on foot because Uthman did not provide him with any means of transportation.

On reaching Dareyya, the Sheikh came to a man who was of the best personalities living in the upper city. His name was Muhammad Bin Suwailim Al-Orayni. The Sheikh stayed in his house. It is said that this man was afraid of Muhammad Bin Saud, the Prince of Dareyya. But the Sheikh reassured him and said: `be glad and hope for the best. I am simply calling the people to Allah's Religion, and He will undoubtedly make it victorious'.

The news about Sheikh Muhammad Bin Abdul Wahhab reached Muhammad Bin Saud as well. It is said that it was his wife who first informed him of the Sheikh. Some pious persons approached her and requested her to let her husband know about the Sheikh and encourage him to accept the Sheikh's mission and support it.

She was a kind, pious lady. When Muhammad Bin Saud came to her, she said to him: `here is a great fortune sent to you by Allah. A man who is calling the people to Islam, calling to the Qur'an and the Sunnah of the Prophet [sallallaahu alayhi wasallam]. What a good fortune! Rush to him and support him. Never resist him or stop him from that'.

Prince Muhammad Bin Saud accepted her advice, but hesitated a little whether to go to the Sheikh personally or to invite him to his presence. It is said that his wife along with a group of pious persons advised him thus: `it is not proper for you to invite him to you; you would rather go to his house to meet him personally in recognition to his knowledge and preaching'.

He accepted their advice, as it was destined by Allah to be his happiness in this world and the Hereafter. Then he went to the house of Ibn Suwailem, greeted the Sheikh and talked with him. He said: `O Sheikh Muhammad! I am glad to promise you all help, security and assistance'.

The Sheikh responded thus: `you too have glad tidings of help, power and a good end. This is Islam - the Religion of Allah. He will surely help those who help His Religion, and He will support those who support it. You would soon see its effects'.

Then the Prince said: `O Sheikh! I will make a contract with you on the Religion of Allah, His Messenger and jihad in the cause of Allah. However, I fear that, after we help and support you and Allah makes you victorious over your enemies, you may prefer another country and leave us'.

The Sheikh replied: `I will not make a contract on these matters. But the contract will be on blood for blood and destruction for destruction. I shall never leave your country'.

Then a contract was made to the effect that Sheikh Muhammad Bin Abdul Wahhab would remain in Dareyya and help Prince Muhammad Bin Saud who would in turn help the Sheikh and struggle with him in the cause of Allah till Islam gets the upperhand. Thus the contract was completed.

The Sheikh now settled at Dareyya. People started to come to Dareyya from every place - from Oyayna, Irqa, Manfooha, Riyadh and other neighbouring places. It continued to be a place of immigration. As soon as the people heard about the news of the Sheikh, his lectures at Dareyya and calling to Allah, they came to him individually and in groups.

Respected, loved and supported by the people, the Sheikh arranged the lectures on various topics such as Islamic Creed, the Holy Qur'an, the Qur'anic Commentaries, Islamic Jurisprudence and its Principles, the Hadith and its Terminology, Linguistics of Arabic, Studies on History and other useful disciplines.

People from many places came to him for learning; both the young and the old attended his classes. He arranged classes for the public as well as for the selected persons. Thus he disseminated knowledge in Dareyya and continued his activities in preaching.

Then the Sheikh turned to jihad. He wrote to the people to enter the field of jihad and remove polytheism which existed in their countries. First of all, he wrote to the rulers and scholars of Najd. He wrote to the scholars of Riyadh and its Prince Deham Bin Dawwas. He also sent messages to the scholars and rulers of Al-Kharj, and to the scholars of the south, Qassim, Hael, Washim, Sedir etc. Similarly, he wrote to the scholars of Al-Ahsa as well as Makkah and Madinah. Then he sent letters to the scholars of Egypt, Iraq, India, Yemen etc.

He continued his mission of writing letters. He wrote to the people establishing his arguments and warning them against polytheism and innovation into which the majority of mankind has fallen. But it does not mean that there have been no supporters of Islam. It cannot be so because Allah has given guaranty to the Religion that there would be always a group in this Ummah on the true path, receiving Divine Help, as the Prophet [sallallaahu alayhi wasallam] said. And there have been helpers of truth in many parts of the world.

But our concern at present is about Najd where evil, corruption, polytheism and superstitions in immeasurable quantity were rampant. Although there were pious scholars, they were unable to shoulder the task of preaching in its proper method. There were several preachers and helpers of Islam in Yemen and other countries, who were well-aware of these various kinds of polytheism and superstitions. But Allah did not grant them success and victory as He granted to the preaching of Sheikh Ibn Abdul Wahhab for several reasons. First, these preachers had no supporting force. Secondly, most of them could not presevere and withstand persecutions in the way of Allah. Thirdly, some of them were ill-informed with regard to the orientation of the people through proper methods, expressions, and advice and wisdom. There might be other reasons as well.

Because of his correspondence with scholars and rulers and his struggling in the cause of Allah, the Sheikh became famous. His preaching spread far and wide; his letters reached the scholars within and without the Peninsula.

His preaching had its impact on the people of the Indian subcontinent, Indonesia, Afghanistan, Africa, Morocco, Egypt, Syria and Iraq. There were many knowledgeable preachers in these countries. When they learnt about the Sheikh's mission, they became more active and their activities got wider recognition.

The Sheikh's mission continued and spread all over the Islamic world and other countries. Then in recent times his books and letters - as well as the works of his sons and grandsons, supporters and helpers from the scholars within and without the Peninsula - were printed and published. Also the works on his life and mission and on the lives of his helpers have been published; and they have become popular throughout the world.

It is a known fact that every favour has its envier as every preacher has his enemies. Allah the Exalted said:


"And so We have appointed to every Prophet an enemy - devils among rnen and jinn - inspiring to each other adorned speech as a delusion. And had your Lord willed, they could not have done it. So leave them alone to their fabrication." (6:112)

When the Sheikh became famous for his preaching and letters, and his writings received wide popularity among the people, many envious groups emerged as his opponents. Many other enemies also emerged.

These opponents and enemies can be grouped into two. One group opposed him in the name of religion, while the other opposed him in the name of politics though they hid under the cover of knowledge and religion and exploited the enmity of those scholars who had hated him and accused him of deviation.

Meanwhile the Sheikh continued his mission, removing the doubts of the people with the support of proofs and guiding them to the facts based on the Qur'an and Sunnah.

Sometimes his opponents argued that he belonged to the Khawarij. Sometimes they said that he tore apart the Consensus (of the scholars) and claimed the authority for absolute Ijtihad (independent judgement in a legal or theological question), without considering any scholar or jurisprudent before him. At times some criticised him out of their lack of proper knowledge. Another group hated him because of their imitation of and reliance on others. Still another group feared that they would lose their positions and therefore hated him politically under the cover of Islam and religion, relying on the words of the superstitious and misguided people.

In fact, there were three groups of the Sheikh's opponents. The first group consisted of the characterless scholars who saw the truth as falsehood and the falsehood as truth. They believed that building domes and mosques over the graves and invoking those in the graves for help and the like were right and pertaining to Islam. They also thought that whoever was against such things hated the righteous and the saints and that jihad against him was compulsory.

The second group was associated with knowledge; but they were ignorant of the reality of the Sheikh's mission. They knew nothing about the truth to which he was calling the people; they simply followed others and believed whatever was said by the characterless, superstitious scholars. Consequently, they even believed that he had hated the prophets and saints and denied their miracles. Therefore, they condemned him and kept aloof from him.

The third group feared the removal of their positions and ranks. They showed him hostility so that the supporters of the Islamic mission might not reach them and remove their positions and take over their lands.

Thus the fighting with words - arguments and debates between the Sheikh and his opponents - continued. He argued with them - he would write to them and they would reply to him, and he would refute them and they would reply to him. As a result, numerous questions and answers were accumulated and compiled into volumes. And thank Allah most of them have been published. The Sheikh carried on his mission of preaching and fighting with the help and support of Prince Muhammad Bin Saud, the ruler of Dareyya and later the founder of the Saudi Dynasty.

Then in 1158 A.H jihad with sword was started. It is wellknown that if the preacher who calls people to Allah does not have any force to support him and maintain the truth, then his mission will soon subside and his reputation will be extinguished, and consequently the number of his supporters will decrease. The importance of weapon and power is well-known for their effectiveness in spreading the preaching, subduing the opponents and falsehood and supporting the truth. Allah the Exalted said:


"Indeed we have sent Our Messengers with clear proofs, and revealed with them the Scripture and the Balance (justice) that mankind may keep up justice. And we brought forth iron wherein is mighty power (in matters of war) as well as many benefits for mankind, that Allah may test who it is that will help Him (His Religion) and His Messengers in the unseen. Verily Allah is All-Strong, All-Mighty." (57:25)

In the above verse, Allah points out that He sent the Messengers with clear proofs. These were arguments by which they clarified the truth and pushed back the falsehood. He also revealed to the Messengers the Book that contained guidance as well as clear explanation. He also revealed the Balance. It is justice which protects the oppressed from the oppressor, maintains the truth and spreads the guidance; it is in the light of justice that people treat one another with truth and fairness. Allah also brought forth iron of mighty power.

That is, it is force, deterrence and suppression against those who oppose the truth. So the use of iron is for those in whom proofs and explanation do not work. Hence it is adherent to the truth and suppressor of the falsehood.

Any intelligent man with a common sense will benefit from clear proof and accept the truth with its evidence. But the oppressor or the wrong-doer who follows his lusts cannot be deterred except without a sword.

The Sheikh thus strove in his preaching and jihad for fifty years from 1158 A.H. until he died in 1206 A.H. He resorted to all the methods in his mission - jihad, preaching, resistance, debates and arguments, elucidation of the Qur'an and Sunnah and guidance towards the legal ways shown by the Prophet [sallallaahu alayhi wasallam] - until people adhered to obedience, entered the Religion of Allah, demolished the domes and mosques built by them on the graves and agreed to run their affairs in accordance with Islamic Law, discarding all rules and laws which had been applied by their fathers and forefathers.

Thus mosques became active with prayers and study circles. Zakat (obligatory charity) was regularly paid. People fasted in the month of Ramadan as prescribed by Allah. The good was enjoined and the evil was forbidden. Peace and security reigned in villages and towns, and highways and desert areas. The Bedouins were stopped to their limits; and they entered the fold of Islam and accepted the truth. The Sheikh disseminated his message among them.

Then the Sheikh sent the guides and preachers to the desert areas and suburbs. He also sent instructors, advisors and judges to the towns and villages. This great blessing and straight path spread all over Najd; the truth and Allah's Religion prevailed there.

Then after the death of the Sheikh, his sons, grandsons, pupils and supporters continued his mission and struggle in the cause of Allah. At the head of his sons was the famous Sheikh Imam Abdullah Bin Muhammad; and the other sons were Sheikh Husain Bin Muhammad, Sheikh All Bin Muhammad and Sheikh Ibrahim Bin Muhammad. And his grandsons were Sheikh Abdurrahman Bin Hasan, Sheikh All Bin IluSain and Sheikh Sulaiman Bin Abdullah Bin Muhamrnad. And among his pupils were Sheikh Hamad Bin Nasir Bin I.VIuammar and many other scholars of Dareyya.

They all carried on the task of preaching and jihad and spread the Religion of Allah through correspondence and writing books as well as fighting the enemies of Islam. The only hostility between these preachers and their opponents was that the former called the people to Tawhid, to the worship of Allah alone with uprightness and demolition of domes and mosques erected on the graves, to the establishment of Islamic government and implementation of Islamic punishments, and to enjoining the good and forbidding the evil. And nothing else.

In short, the preachers guided the people to the Oneness of the worship of Allah, warned them against the different forms and ways of polytheism and made Islamic Law incumbent upon them. It was also ordained that whoever rejected the message of Tawhid and insisted on polytheism, even after the truth was explained to him on the basis of proofs and arguments, should be fought against until he and his people surrendered to the truth. The preachers also warned the people against the innovations and superstitions which were not prescribed by Allah, as building domes on the graves, seeking decision of false gods or un-Islamic rulers, seeking help of sorcerers and soothsayers and believing them and the like. But Allah removed all such things by the hands of the Sheikh and his supporters.

Mosques became active by the teaching of the Qur'an and Sunnah, Islamic history and other useful Arabic studies. People became interested in learning, knowledge, guidance, preaching and teaching. Some, on the other hand, took to agriculture and commerce; they combined both work and knowledge, the world and the religion. Thus a person learnt and referred to books, but at the same time worked in his farm or factory as well. In other words, he worked simultaneously for his religion and worldly interests; he called people and guided them to the Path of Allah, but indulged himself in various trades and industries which are beneficial to himself as well as his country.

Having accomplished their mission in Najd, the preachers and the Al-Saud extended their preaching to Makkah and Madinah and the south of the Peninsula. They had written to the scholars of the Two Holy Cities several times. But the preaching had no effect and the people therein continued their polytheistic actions like building domes on the graves, venerating the domes and seeking help of those who are buried in the graves.

After eleven years of the death of Sheikh Ibn Abdul Wahhab, Imam Saud Bin Abdul Aziz Bin Muhammad set out to Hijaz. He clashed with the people of Taif on his way to Makkah. Prince Uthman Bin Abdurrahman Al-Madaefi had already fought against them with an army - including the people of Najd; etc. - dispatched by the prince of Dareyya, Imam Saud Bin Abdul Aziz Bin Muhammad. They assisted him until he occupied Taif and expelled its sherief. There he established the calling to Allah, guided the people to the truth and forbade polytheism and the worship of Ibn Abbas [radhiallaahu anhuma], and others who were worshipped by the ignorant idiots of Taif.

Then Imam Saud set out to Makkah by order of his father, Abdul Aziz. The army sieged Makkah, and when its sherief came to know about this he fled to Jeddah. Then Saud along with his Muslim army entered the country and conquered Makkah without fighting in the early morning of Muharram 1 st in 1218 A.H. In Makkah they established the calling to Allah and demolished all the domes built over the graves of Khadija and others. They also appointed there scholars, teachers and guides for teaching and guiding the people, as well as judges for passing judgements according to Islamic Law.

Then after a short term, Madinah was conquered by AlSaud in 1220 A.H. (The Two Holy Cities have continued to be under the rule of Al-Saud). In Madinah also teachers and guides were appointed, and justice and Islamic rule were established. They showed benevolence to its people, especially the poor and the needy. They gave them financial aid, showed them sympathy, taught them the Qur'an and guided them to the good. They also respected the scholars there and encouraged them to teach and guide the people.

This condition continued till 1226 A.H when the combine of the Egyptian and Turkish armies moved towards Hijaz to fight against Al-Saud and expel them from the Two Holy Cities. It had several reasons. As mentioned earlier, the enemies were enviers and idiots who had no insight. Some politicians wanted to suppress this movEment because they feared that their positions and interests would be destroyed. Therefore, they charged false allegations against the Sheikh and his followers: they propagated that he and his followers hated the Prophet
[sallallaahu alayhi wasallam], and saints, and denied the miracles. Some ignorant and biased people took such allegations to be true and encouraged the Egyptians and Turks to fight against the followers of the Sheikh.

Consequently, affliction and war created havoc in the country. And a great war was fought between the forces of Turkey and Egypt on one side and those of Al-Saud from Najd and Hijaz on the other side. The war lasted for a long time (1226 -1233 A.H). It was a fierce battle fought between the forces of falsehood and truth.

Imam Sheikh Muhammad Bin Abdul Wahhab simply stood for the victory of Islam, guidance of the people to Tawhid, rejection of all the superstitions and innovations that have crept into the body of Islam, imposition of truth and deterrence of falsehood, and enjoining the good and forbidding the evil.

His creed was that of the Pious Predecessors: he believed in Allah and His Names and Attributes, in His angels, in His Messengers and Books, in the Last Day and in Fate, in its being good or bad. He was on the path of the Imams of the Ummah in his understanding and beliefs with regard to Tawhid and devotion of the acts of worship to Allah alone, belief in the Names and Attributes of Allah in a way that suits the Divine Majesty and without denying or comparing them with those of the creations. He also believed in the Resurrection, Reckoning, Reward of Heaven and Hell etc. strictly in accordance with the belief of the Predecessors. Concerning belief, he, like the Predecessors, believed that it increases and decreases - increases through submission to Allah and decreases through sins. In all these, the Sheikh meticulously followed the Pious Predecessors, both theoretically and practically. He never deviated from their path nor had he his own special doctrines other than those of the Pious Predecessors and the Companions of the Prophet [sallallaahu alayhi wasallam].

The Sheikh exerted himself in his mission of calling the people to the above creed and path, preaching and fighting, till the Religion of Allah got the upperhand.

When he called people to Allah or enjoined the good and forbade the evil, he was in fact fulfilling his duty as a Muslim. And Allah removed the innovations and superstitions from Najd and paved the way for Tawhid and Islamic preaching in the Muslim world by his hands.
Hence the reasons for the conflicts between the Sheikh and his opponents were clear, as mentioned earlier:
l. His rejection of polytheism and his calling to the pure and absolute Tawhid.
2. His refutation of innovations and superstitions such as building domes or mosques over the graves, celebration of birth anniversary and other "methods" invented by the sufis (mystics).
3. He enjoined the good on the people and imposed it on them. Whoever refused and rejected the good, he would use force against him and punish him. He also forbade the evil to them and implemented the punitive measures prescribed by Allah. He obliged the people to associate with the truth and avoid the falsehood. Consequently, the truth prevailed and the falsehood vanished.'The conduct and character of the people changed considerably; they treated mutually with fair and upright manners in the mosques, markets and in all conditions. Polytheism, innovations and all such vices were no more among them. Whoever noticed this condition would immediately recall the life conditions during the times of the Pious Predecessors and the Companions of the Prophet [sallallaahu alayhi wasallam].

The Sheikh and the followers followed the footsteps of the Pious Predecessors. They endured patiently and struggled vigorously in the cause of Allah. But after the death of the Sheikh and most of his sons and supporters, in the long run, certain changes occurred in the above conditions the result of which was a series of afflictions at the hands of Turkey and Egypt, in confirmation to what Allah the Exalted has stated in the Qur'an:

"Verily Allah will not change the (good) condition of a people as long as they do not change their state (of goodness) themselves." (13:11)

May Allah wipe out the sins that have befallen them and elevate their martydom!

The mission of ibn Abdul Wahhab has continued till this date. Within a short period after the destruction and killings let loose by the Egyptian army, his mission raised up again and spread far and wide. The revival was by the hands of Imam Turkey Bin Abdullah Bin Muhammad Bin Saud. He spread the preaching in and around Najd; and scholars were seen everywhere in Najd. He expelled all the Turks and Egyptians from Najd and the surrounding villages. It was in 1240 A.H.

Whereas the destruction of Dareyya and termination of the Al-Saud government were in 1233 A.H. The people of Najd remained in a state of riots and killing for about five years. Then in 1240 A.H the Muslims in Najd were reunited by Imam Turkey Bin Abdullah Bin Muhammad Bin Saud. The truth reappeared and the scholars started sending messages and letters to different parts of the country. They called the people to Islam. And very soon the afflictions occurred in the society were extinguished.

Again the Religion of Allah reigned in Najd. The people worked on education, guidance and preaching till everything fell in its proper place. They returned to their normal life which they were used to during the life of the Sheikh, his sons and his supporters.

By the grace of Allah, from 1240 A.H till this day, the Al-Saud has continued to govern the country, and the Al-Sheikh has continued to lead and guide the people through preaching and fighting in the cause of Allah.

But as for the Two Holy Cities, they remained separate from the Saudi rule for a long time till they returned to the Saudi authority in 1343 A.H. The Two Holy Cities were occupied by Imam Abdul Aziz Bin Abdurrahman Bin Faisal Bin Turkey Bin Abdullah Bin Muhammad Bin Saud. By the grace of Allah, Makkah and Madinah have continued to be under the Saudi rule till now.

May Allah guide the rest of the Al-Saud and Al-Sheikh as well as all the scholars in this country to the right! May He grant them all success in whatever is approved of by Him! May He guide all the scholars in all Muslim countries to the right and make them support the truth as a whole and abandon the falsehood altogether! May He grant all the preachers of truth success, and guide them as well as us to the right! May He preserve the Two Holy Mosques and its annexes! May He guide all the Muslim countries to the right and the true Religion! May He grant all Muslims good fortune to uphold the Qur'an and Sunnah, to learn them deeply, to live them with fortitude and perseverance and to make them judge in their affairs till their death! Allah is All-Powerful and Responsive.

All that I said is what I could easily explain to you about the life and mission of the Sheikh and his supporters and the activities of his opponents. We seek Allah's help and put our trust in Him. There is no power and might except with Allah. Peace and blessings of Allah be upon His slave and Messenger, our Prophet and leader, Muhammad, and upon his family and Companions and all who have entered his right path! All praise is to Allah, Lord of the worlds.

rami wrote: it makes no difference where you found this it

rami wrote: is by Shaykh Abdul-Aziz bin Abdullah ibn Baaz who is a major salafi figure, hardly an impartial personality.

According to your principle anybody who support Ibn Abdul Wahhab or known be salafi is partial and anybody who only condemn him is impartial???

On what basis you say that, those refernces you gave is impartial, as its clear from their writing that they have only hate for him?

rami wrote: You cant twist and hide the truth from people who have seen it, "say truth has come and falsehood has vanished".

rami wrote: you cant re write historical facts no matter how hard you try.

Bismillah irrahman irrahim

Assalamu alaykum

abuzaid wrote: Its not necessary that you associate all sort of evil with Ibn Abdul Wahhab if you have some differences with him.

I agree with brother that if we don't agree with some1 then we can simply state our reason and our side of truth and discuss it in a manner where there is no insult to any1. I would also like to point out that Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala tells us in Holy Qur'an to call each other with good names. I know people of ahle hadith don't like to be called wahabis so we should respect them and their choice and obey our Lord and should not call them that.

Wassalam

 I feel I have read the post and Fatawa posted by Abu Mujahid. It is hard to believe that.But it is all there, re;ated by some on and found in the Muslim (hadith). Surprising. I could not believe any of that. They had not been given any guidance. They had not rejected the truth. They had not opposed the truth. They had died long before.

 I mustsay that in the matters of Hadith there are two important tasks/ tests.

1. The Darayat.

2. The Rawayat.

I am sure that the darayat ( The integrity) takes perecedence over the rawayat (chain of narrators). Thanks any way.

abuzaid wrote: Some stuff is give from those who are against Ibn Abdul Wahhab, have a look at what proponent of him says. Mind you, I have taken it from a webiste which can be categorised as Deobandi Sufi http://www.alinaam.org.za/library/hist_bio/ibnwahhaab.htm - http://www.alinaam.org.za/library/hist_bio/ibnwahhaab.htm SHAYKH MUHAMMAD IBN ABDUL-WAHHAAB (RA) by Shaykh Abdul-Aziz bin Abdullah ibn Baaz

Are you serious? A piece by ibn Baaz? You must certainly be joking. Obviously anything written by this �wahabi� cleric about Imam An-najdi will be an over romanticized �love fest�, since he is a follower of the deviated Imam An-najdi. Bin Baaz is neither qualified to give rulings in matter of aqida or fiqh, much less a history lesson on his leader.  This is a "neo-Salafi" propoganda piece to hush the concerns of thier more intelligent adherents who might question their problematic history and deviated founder. 

abuzaid wrote: rami wrote: it makes no difference where you found this it Well, it actally makes a differnce, deobandis have been critics of Ibn Abdul Wahhab and when they give such article on their websites, it show that there are people who think differently. Its not necessary that you associate all sort of evil with Ibn Abdul Wahhab if you have some differences with him. This is what I tried to indicate by mentioning that this is from deobandi/sufi website. In india Abul Hasan Ali nadwi and Moulana Manzoor Nu'mani, both Hanafi/sufi were proponents of Mohammed Bin Abdul Wahhab.

Deobandis are not in "total"agreement concerning Muhammad ibn wahab najdi, and because a few who have connections to the Deobandi Ulema are misguided does not imply that deobandis supprt him, or any further implication that mainstream sunnis accept him. The piece you postes, is what it is, and to try and draw deeper inferences would be inaccurate.

rami wrote: is by Shaykh Abdul-Aziz bin Abdullah ibn Baaz who is a major salafi figure, hardly an impartial personality. According to your principle anybody who support Ibn Abdul Wahhab or known be salafi is partial and anybody who only condemn him is impartial???

Anyone who is a follower and proponent of najdi, and who's ideas are also rejected by the Ahl Asunnah, and who has a stake in being a apologetic for a figure head who is the founder of their way of thought and their government, (who was also on the government payroll) cannot be expected to write an accurate piece. And there are no more salafis, that time period is gone, they are all dead, and there is no way to go back. I would say that he tried to push "neo-salafism", which is as banckrupt as "wahabism", and in many ways they are just a like.

On what basis you say that, those refernces you gave is impartial, as its clear from their writing that they have only hate for him?

On what bases would you say that ibn Baaz would be impartial and that his work should be accepted without critical review? And why should all other accounts that list the crimes of Annajdi and his bandits be discounted when they are in direct opposition to the love fest piece you put up?

Annajdi's own brother was against him. 

rami wrote: You cant twist and hide the truth from people who have seen it, "say truth has come and falsehood has vanished". And my answer to point is exactly same as yours. Just by quoting a portion of verse Quran you can't become truth. rami wrote: you cant re write historical facts no matter how hard you try. Again you also can't rewrite histrical facts no matter how hard you try. Propaganda of innovators can't become historical facts just because of your wish.

So how do you decide what happened? rami just presented historical accounts of what happened, you posted an aplogetic from a mainstream wahabi cleric that was on the Saudi payroll.

The hadith "Your mother is with my mother" related in Ahmed has been delcared "dha'eef" by such hadith scholars as Ibn Hajar Asqalani due to a single "weak" narrator without other chains to strengthen it. Only your sect would go out of its way to try and give rise to fitnah and such a quest as to convince everyone that the Prophet Muhammad's (saw) parents are in hell. This is simply rude, terrible adhab that is at the bases of your sect. I dislike even mentioning the idea in debate about his parents being in hell. Sunnis did not accept this single hadith as a source to issue a belief about his mother in hell. The others (hadith) have been explained in a piece I have put up in another thread. I am done with this topic about his parents, if you want to dabble is such nonsense, do it some place else. We respect the Prophet (saw) here, and not try and find ways to degrade him and his family. You are the proof of the deviance of your group and its uneducated, and unrefined apporach to theology.

God help you.

Assalamualaikum WRWB,

1. Why anything written in support of Mohammed Ibn Abdul Wahhab is salafi propganda and rhetorics; and why anything against him is reality, is not it just mindsed? Again whoever write in his support is prejudiced and whoever write against him in free from any prejudiced. These are the two principles I have derived from posts of Rami and Andalus. On what criteria you people repeatedly call Bin baaz as biased and on what basis you believe that YOU are not biased against Mohammed Bin Abdul Wahhab? Just don't try to prove by you eloquence. Let reader choose to beleive what they prefer to.Final Judge will be Allah SW.
2. Why Ibn Abdul Wahhab is called repeatedly unqualified? what was the criteria for a person to be called qualified before 300 to 250 years?
3. As per history, you can't just claim that whatever is written against him is truth and anything in his support is fabrication. I personally prefer not to judge him based on history because we don't have common account of history acceptable to both supporters and opponents of him. Indian traditional religious faction have been his great opponents based on known history about him. But things have changed now. In last two decades I never have not come across any reputed deobandi scholars writing against Mohammed Bin Abul Wahhab. Though they are opposed to "sect called salafis" yet you will never find anything written against Ibn Abdul Wahhab. This is just because they have realised that what was presented to them as history was fake. Both Manzoor Nu'mani and Abul Hasan Ali Nadwi have specifically mention this in his writing. Abul Hasan Ali nadwi (a sufi hanafi) have specifically written a book to defend him.
Now about me..
Some of you have just assumed that I am Wahhabi or salafi. I don't care what you call me or think about me. I am just one among many who think positively about Ibn Abdul Wahhab, like the two personalities mentioned above. I neither think that he was right in all respect neither I think that he was just an evil. I have read many post of Brother Rami and respect him for his knowledge and agree that he is comparatively unbiased, but unfortunately when it comes to Ibn Abdul Wahhab he is on one extreme. I understand that our difference is based on history, I don't trust on the historical account that he choose to believe and he don't trust on hisotiry I choose to believe. The reason I do not believe on what was writtin against Ibn Abdul Wahhab is not that I am a blind follower of salafi folks, its actually influnce of writing of Manzoor Numani and Abul Hasal Ali Nadvi, I also agree with the brother Rami that calling yourself as "Ahl-e-hadith" is claiming your own ignorance.

I appreciate if we can have healthy and beneficial discussion about salafi approach rather than discussing personalities and their history.

Bismillah irrahman irrahim

Assalamu alaykum

rami wrote: Bi ismillahir rahmanir raheem I know people of ahle hadith don't like to be called wahabis so we should respect them and their choice and obey our Lord and should not call them that. What about the salafis who like being called wahhabi's shouldnt we respect there wishes equally. is it an insult to be called hanafi or shafii the term wahhabi is in the same vein it is only insulting if you believe there is something wrong with muhammad ibn abdul wahhabs teachings. The term ahl al hadith is literally more insulting than being called wahhabi since it is a direct reference to there Ignorance. I find it insulting that we should be forced to call them salafi's and if we shouldnt call them salafi's or wahhabi's then what should we call them?

I never knew of people who liked being called wahabis so i raised that point and i don't think it is an insult that if some1 wants being called something you have to call them that, even though to you it might be worse than what you were originally calling them. 

I dont really get why brothers disagree so fiercely about religious matters. You can state your side of truth and others can do the same and have discussion with adab that islam teaches us. If you can convince others then mashaAllah good, if not khair, say salam and depart.

Wassalam

 Not all all ahle Hadith were wrong. In fact they did a good work to keep the people away from Shirk. There was too much ignorance in the muslims, and malpractices such as peer parasti and grave worship etc. Sir Syed Ahmad Khan was a great ahle hadith. I forget the name of another one.

But the moral: Too much of everything is bad.

In order to bring about improvements, it is necessary to have a licence, a permission, a connection with Allah. Without that no one can take up task. Deeds are dependent on intentions (hadith number one).

 What a good man may have started can go wrong in the end by too much bad work.

abuzaid wrote: Assalamualaikum WRWB, 1. Why anything written in support of Mohammed Ibn Abdul Wahhab is salafi propganda and rhetorics; and why anything against him is reality, is not it just mindsed? Again whoever write in his support is prejudiced and whoever write against him in free from any prejudiced. These are the two principles I have derived from posts of Rami and Andalus. On what criteria you people repeatedly call Bin baaz as biased and on what basis you believe that YOU are not biased against Mohammed Bin Abdul Wahhab? Just don't try to prove by you eloquence. Let reader choose to beleive what they prefer to.Final Judge will be Allah SW.

wa aleikum asalam Br,

1) The only real apologetics that support him come from those who follow him, and the apologetics never deal with his teachings and the great fitnah they brought. Actual historical account remove any sugar coating that the apologists put forth.

2) Bin Baaz is biased because his beliefs are deviated, his writings are simply unsubstantiated apologetics, and he has never actually covered the barbarism that stemmed from the deviated Anajdi. In other words, the acorn does not fall far from the tree.

3) We can get into the proofs behind his deviance. Here is a well established proof: No single scholar of any merit or worth as ever come out of that sect, and Bin Baaz and his sect have been clearly shown to be in great error. The scholarly works have spanned centuries which have defined and refuted the idea and beliefs that have been engendered from Anajdi and his fitnah.

2. Why Ibn Abdul Wahhab is called repeatedly unqualified? what was the criteria for a person to be called qualified before 300 to 250 years?

Show me his ijaza. There is an established method for learning and teahcing Islamc sciences. Anajdi was untrained, unqualified, and his juvenile methdologies for reaching his conclusions are self evident.

3. As per history, you can't just claim that whatever is written against him is truth and anything in his support is fabrication. I personally prefer not to judge him based on history because we don't have common account of history acceptable to both supporters and opponents of him.

His supporters have no historical methods for creating aplogetics. The aplogetics are extremely isolated and they simply "white wash" the historical accounts, based upon the best sources we have. In other words, from his supporters, we simply "disagreement", and no real answers to events that were documented. History accounts that they were uneducated brigands, and his modern day followers continue the tradition.

Indian traditional religious faction have been his great opponents based on known history about him. But things have changed now. In last two decades I never have not come across any reputed deobandi scholars writing against Mohammed Bin Abul Wahhab. Though they are opposed to "sect called salafis" yet you will never find anything written against Ibn Abdul Wahhab. This is just because they have realised that what was presented to them as history was fake.

This is a strawman. The merits or nonmerits of this deviant do not count on what deobandis think or not think about wahabis. The argument about how some deobanids feel or not feel is a matter of debate, and is not relevant to this discourse.

"Neosalafis", or la madhabis, or are acorns from the root, and they exist in vairuous shades.

Both Manzoor Nu'mani and Abul Hasan Ali Nadwi have specifically mention this in his writing. Abul Hasan Ali nadwi (a sufi hanafi) have specifically written a book to defend him. Now about me.. Some of you have just assumed that I am Wahhabi or salafi. I don't care what you call me or think about me. I am just one among many who think positively about Ibn Abdul Wahhab, like the two personalities mentioned above. I neither think that he was right in all respect neither I think that he was just an evil.

So it is ok to murder hundreds of Muslims by manipulating aqida without any education or qualification, and from a hole in the ground give permission to steel and pillage? Let me ask you, what qadi over saw this takfir?

It is ok to aid kafirs to over throw an Islamic ruler?

I know, there was bida in the land and shirk, and it had to be cleaned. This is the matra repeated by wahabis, but it is just that: Unsubstantiated, baseless mantra, and excuse to sugar coat the life of one of Islam's greatest deviants and fitnah mongers. Nothing good ever came from his sect, nothing.

I have read many post of Brother Rami and respect him for his knowledge and agree that he is comparatively unbiased, but unfortunately when it comes to Ibn Abdul Wahhab he is on one extreme. I understand that our difference is based on history, I don't trust on the historical account that he choose to believe and he don't trust on hisotiry I choose to believe. The reason I do not believe on what was writtin against Ibn Abdul Wahhab is not that I am a blind follower of salafi folks, its actually influnce of writing of Manzoor Numani and Abul Hasal Ali Nadvi, I also agree with the brother Rami that calling yourself as "Ahl-e-hadith" is claiming your own ignorance. I appreciate if we can have healthy and beneficial discussion about salafi approach rather than discussing personalities and their history.

Brother, I look at the fruit, which is the teachings, the claims, and the actions of the followers. Thats what I look at.

Assalam Aleikum

Andalus,

I prefer not to reply to you...I don't have any problem if you keep on calling my apologetic. Let readers judge.

Let me wait for Rami.

ALHAMDULILAH.. FINALLY i'm back..

first and foremost.. brother/sister andalus.. i need to know where are you from [your origin]? you may think its irrelevant but its not.. i'll tell u why but first let me know and dont worry, i am not looking forward to any personal attacks.. i'm jus' trying to help myself understand why do you hold these views.. thats it!

abuzaid wrote: Andalus, I prefer not to reply to you...I don't have any problem if you keep on calling my apologetic. Let readers judge. Let me wait for Rami.

An "apologetic" is not a derogatory term.

Sonya wrote: ALHAMDULILAH.. FINALLY i'm back.. first and foremost.. brother/sister andalus.. i need to know where are you from [your origin]? you may think its irrelevant but its not.. i'll tell u why but first let me know and dont worry, i am not looking forward to any personal attacks.. i'm jus' trying to help myself understand why do you hold these views.. thats it!

Actually sister, where I am from is irrelevant. It has no bearing on my views, which are based upon sound reasoning, historical events, and current claims of the deviated sect now in question. I perfer not to allow my geographic location to become a kind of "strawman" to explain why I think the way I do, as opposed to looking at the problems with "wahabism".

Assalam Aleikum

Alright as you wish.. its your choice anyway..

but i'll still tell you why i wanted to kno.. since i am not an Arab myself, I have heard people's opinions towards wahabbis in countries like pakistan, afghanistan etc. This does not apply to you but trust me, those people talk out of ignorance. For example, i have an afghani friend who decided to quit music and at her home, her brothers would tease her by calling her things like al-qaeda, osama bin laden, in short 'wahabbi' but if you ask them anything about Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab, they wont be able to answer.. anyone who appears to be ultrastrict is labeled as Wahabbi. Brother Abuzaid had mentioned this and i agree becoz i have witnessed it. however, u seem to have knowledge but your knowledge could have been influenced by these views [thts if you're from them]. how? wen you believe that something's evil then whatever you tend to find about it should be -ve.. in case you come across something good then its NOT true. so you go like 'whatever..'

As for Mohammad ibn Abdul Wahab's history... there's no proper record. Atleast I cant find anything about him as easy as about Osama bin Laden, G. Bush, or Alexander. Its also mentioned that not much was written about him. Therefore, we are not in a position to judge him as a person. At this point, i would say Allahu'Alam. To be honest, whatever u hve provided so far is nothing more than your personal opinion about this man. You have not provided any significant fact so far and to remind you brother Abu Mujahid always had some good things as a counterattack to your argument. its not about agreement or disagreement, the thing is if there's someone who can fill up one entire page against Mohammad ibn Abdul Wahab then there's also someone else who can fill up 10pages in his favor. Brother Abuzaid made a very good point over here.. he said 'Mohammad ibn Abdul Wahab is history'. i totally agree.. trust me this line made me stop wasting my time trying to find a true picture of this man. you should also remember that if you sit with a shia, they'll be able to convince you somewhat that Umar[ra] was an evil [thts if you dont kno much about him] by providing you AUTHENTIC ahadith. but does that change the fact that he was one of Prophet Muhammad[saw]'s beloved sahabah? we should also consider the fact that Mohammad ibn Abdul Wahab was a reformer and media does not always treat reformers as good ppl. however, anyone's denial makes no difference i believe...

what we should do is try to judge whats good and not good among present day's beliefs of various ppl. What did Mohammad ibn Abdul Wahab do? did he try to reinterpret the Quran? No! did he try to include something new in Shari'ah? No! Did he try to collect ahadith by himself? No! then what makes one say that 'Wahabbis' are a different sect? now thats st**id.. isnt it? Well according to my father, we belong to the hanafi school of thought. Its a fact that Mohammad ibn Abdul Wahab studied and followed the Fiqh of the Hanbalee Mathab so isnt he supposed to be one of us? You may argue that he didnt stick to his Mathab for every minor thing. he said there's no such thing for one to stick to a single mathab and i agree to this! if something of Imam Shafi' appears to be more convincing to me.. wht do i do? ignore it becoz i dont belong to his mathab? well i wont do that.. if its more covincing, i'll go for it regardless of which mathab does it belong to. Which Quranic verse or hadith tells us that we should stick to a single mathab and follow it no matter what? With all due respect to these 4 great Scholars, i would say no one can deny that human is fallible. how would i kno which mathab is the perfect one? its not possible that all four of them are on the right path.. 3 has to be wrong.. isnt it? I'm aware that these scholars went a long long way.. they devoted their lives for the sake of teaching islam.. no proper muslim would deny this! i shall not be able to reach anywhere near them.. may Allah[swt] reward them for their sincere service but why dont we understand that these mathabs were not divinely ordained?

There were differences even among the Sahabas and we have plenty examples. we also have differences but i dont think the sahabbas ended up calling someone 'accursed innovator' jus becoz he didnt understand something the way they did. this is unjust!

The other thing which made Mohammad ibn Abdul Wahab an extremist is his objection to grave worshipping.  Let Allah be my witness that he has my full support on this! no matter how much they say 'we dont intend to worship the dead', you can still make out from their actions.. wen i look at these ppl, i ask myself 'how st**id can one get..'.

i dont know whether it was you or someone else you said Wahabbis give priority to ahadith over anything else. i would say Wrong! i hve studied in an Arab country and my teachers held the so called 'wahabi' ideology. none of them ever said that ahadith should be considered before anything else.. We have been taught that ahadith are the second source [after Qura'n] of Shair'ah and this is not wrong. There's a verse confirming this...

i would be thankful to any brother or sister who could provide me the name starting with letter 'M' which should be used instead of 'Wahhabis'. Allah knows that i never used this offensive term to discriminate between prophet Muhammad's [saw] Ummah.. i tried to recall the accurate term but my memory failed me..

may Allah bless and guide us all...

ma'salaama.. [i'm used to writing a lot although i always try to make it short.. sorry for this!].

Sister Sonya

Salamu alaikum

May Allah reward you khair. Muhammad Abdulwahabs books speak volume and non one can challenge its authencity. The only option they have is to ambush and distort innocent muslims who don't know fast the true picture of this chapter.

I tried to educate him in peace but he opted for Kabbani hit and run game. That won't help him. Every muslim should be fair even with kafirs. If you look his intense hatred toward Muhammad Abdulwahab you wonder what kind of venom was injected to this convert by Kabbban's. BTW, Hisham Kabbani is US sufi Spy who operatate under direction of US government. All American muslim organizations has condemned him on his lies and deceptions. He is one sufi wacko who careless real Islam in this climate of fear.

Sister, have a patience while debating with these poor fellows. One day they may realize their Hisham/Habashi fake creed was not the right path of Isalm 

May Allah guide us to right path.

Abu Mujahid

 Sonya has stated:

  I dont know whether it was you or someone else you said Wahabbis give priority to ahadith over anything else. i would say Wrong! i hve studied in an Arab country and my teachers held the so called 'wahabi' ideology. none of them ever said that ahadith should be considered before anything else.. We have been taught that ahadith are the second source [after Qura'n] of Shair'ah and this is not wrong. There's a verse confirming this...

 I had posted that Hadith is the third source of guidance. Nobody replied properly except that some friends tried to meddle (tied) the Hadith with the Sunnah. I request that if Hadith is kept and understood as something separate from the practice of the prophet s.a.w.s. (IF) then please let me know which thing has the priority. The Hadith or the Sunnah??? Just guide me about it please. Thanks.

minuteman wrote:  I request that if Hadith is kept and understood as something separate from the practice of the prophet s.a.w.s. (IF) then please let me know which thing has the priority. The Hadith or the Sunnah??? Just guide me about it please. Thanks.

Even if you say that Sunnah is the source, source of Sunnah is Quran and Hadith.

Another possibility could be that, history is another source of Sunnah. But Hadith is the most authentic history of Prophet Mohammed PBUH.

So, when you say Sunnah; from where you get that Sunnah other than Quran and hadith??

 abuzaid That is your question. You do not know that there is a continous practice also going on about all rituals, prayers etc from the very first day without any break and millions of people have been doing it all the time in all countries. Will you ignore that??

 The Quran had been put into practice in the life time of the prophet s.a.w.s. and very one learnt that from the prophet s.a.w.s. They copied and followed that practice. There were no books of Hadith then. Even verbal Hadith was not needed because every one knew what to do and how to do it.

 If there were any Hadith  (The said word) they were advisory sentences spoken by the prophet s.a.w.s. and they were far and few  with few people only such that they had to be gathered by much effort 80 -100 years after the passing away of the prophet. They were collected, compiled and written down.

 Do you think that nobody knew how to pray before the Hadith were compiled?? People did not know how to pray or how to perform Hajj etc.??? Please think over these lines and then you will come to know that there is something else present other than the Quran and the Hadith. That is the second thing And that is between the Quran and the Hadith. Please reply.

Brother,

You have a point when it comes to throery; but practically how do we follow sunnah. Can you give me list of Sunnah according to your definition which is not mentioned in Quran and Hadith?? and which is agreed upon by all muslims in 15th century. If not, than simple conclusion drawn by your principle is to follow only Quran and reject everything other than Quran. If we agree on your principle, even explnantion of Quran will also be subjected to understanding of individuals. Which also would divide this whole ummah into scattered groups.

Another point is that, Hadith is not just "said word" or "advisory sentences" of Prophet PBUH. It gives an impression that you have not read any hadith so far.

Hadith contains saying of Prophet PBUH, action of Prophet PBUH. There are hadith, which even mentions that, such and such thing is done in front of Prophet and Prophet did not prohibited it. So, hadith is recored of Life of Prophet and also Sahabah. Thus (Authentic)Hadith is one of the basic source of Sunnah.

Further, if we know something is said by Prophet from authentic source can we just ignore it by saying these were "advisory sentneces"!!!

Are not we disobeying Allah SW who order us to Obey Prophet and even follow Prophet-- Allahumma Swalli Ala Mohammed

Hope this helps

Sis Sonya wrote : ........name starting with letter 'M' which should be used instead of 'Wahhabis'.

What I know...... is that the Wahhabi title is riddled with pejorative intent. Instead  they called themselves MUWAHHIDUN----or those who profess the Doctrine of the Unity of God...(Ahl al tawhid).

It is precisely because they called themselves muwahhidun, that others have accused the Wahhabi of dismissing other Muslims as being guilty of practising shirk.

Don't label yourself barelvi, deobandi, ahl-e-hadith, salafi, wahaabi, or any other. We all are just MUSLIMS.

May Allah help us forever...

Ameen.

Dear number41;

You have a point, when a specific group claim to be Muwahideen, this also means that other than this group is non-muwahhideen. In the same way when a specific group claim to be salafi, a direct conclusion is that any group other than this does not follow manhaj of Salaf As Saaliheen, which is wrong. However, Followers of Ibn Abdul Wahhab called themselves Muwahhideen in a specific context; these were the people who tried to spread tawheed when grave worshipping has become common in Arabian penninsula.

Sister Sonya's suggestion was in this specific context when other members insisted on slandering them and calling them as Wahhabis.

 Abuzaid: You have a point when it comes to throery; but practically how do we follow sunnah. Can you give me list of Sunnah according to your definition which is not mentioned in Quran and Hadith?? and which is agreed upon by all muslims in 15th century. If not, than simple conclusion drawn by your principle is to follow only Quran and reject everything other than Quran. If we agree on your principle, even explnantion of Quran will also be subjected to understanding of individuals. Which also would divide this whole ummah into scattered groups.

 My reply:How do I follow Sunnah. I am surprised at you. The Sunnah is being followed by all the Muslims from the very first day that they learnt from the prophet s.a.w.s. There is no break and no need of any book of Hadith for that.

 To think that without Hadith, one will reject everything other than Quran is also false. Why? Do you think that people will forget how to pray?? Orhow to perform Hajj without your Hadith. You are wrong. The practice of the holy prophet s.a.w.s. which you are denying and you have no value for that, is continous and is a good explaination of the Quran and its verses. Itis not hadith or books of Hadith which are explaining the Quran. It is the practice of the Holy prophet which is supporting the Islamic teachings. Hadith came on the scene much later.

I ask you again, were the people not praying properly until the Ahadith were collected?? You have not replied.

Abuzaid:

Another point is that, Hadith is not just "said word" or "advisory sentences" of Prophet PBUH. It gives an impression that you have not read any hadith so far.

  My reply:I know Hadith is not just "said word". It also contains the various deeds of the prophet s.a.w.s. Please do not try to misunderstand me. How do you say that I have not read any book of Hadith. I have read them quite a lot. There are acts and deeds in the books of Hadith. Admitted and many other useful words of wisdom too.

But remember that the deeds (acts) in Hadith are not necessary to teach us what to do. They simply prove that what we are doing is in fact right and it was done by the prophet s.a.w.s. If you think that it is the books of Hadith which taught us how to do Wudhu and how many Rak'at of prayer at various times then you are very much mistaken. Why don't you admit that please???

What I understand from you is..Continuous practice of Muslim Ummah over the period of time till today is sunnah. and the moment these practice is written down in a book it ceases to be sunnah. I am not getting confused, when you try to define Sunnah while avoiding hadith you conclude this.

your Question:were the people not praying properly until the Ahadith were collected?? You have not replied.

Well! even Sahabah and early generation followed Hadith. Because what they heard from Prophet and observed Prophet doing is nothing but hadith. Only difference is that these hadith were not in written form. Muhadditheen in an attempt to preserve Sunnah/hadith; they collected available ahadith from people, verified its authenticity and wrote it for the ease of Ummah. And what you are saying is that we should not follow sunnah if it is written.

We are far away from Prophets period, and its easy to manipulate any prevailing practice among ummah as sunnah. In practice, for many, celebration of Prophets birth day is one of the greatest sunnah and for some worshipping grave is another important sunnah, just because they learned it from their parents and we are 1400 years away from Prophetic era.

you said: If you think that it is the books of Hadith which taught us how to do Wudhu and how many Rak'at of prayer at various times then you are very much mistaken. Why don't you admit that please???

Well, I never hesitate to admit my mistakes. But I don't totally agree with you. You are correct wrt to wudu by itself. But if any differences arises among ummah about wudu, like if wudu gets broken by touching wife. and if saying Bismillah is complusory before wudu etc.. In such cases the only option we have is to refer to Ahadith.

oho how many groups do we have?

can anyone tell me who are Deobandis?

I thought we only have shia and sunni...

 No Sonya, there are many groups. There are Deobandis, Brelvis, Sunnis, Shias, Ahle Hadith (Wahhabis) and Ahle Quran (who are considered not Muslims) and there are many more.

Here our discussion is going on between the Ahle Sunnah and Ahle Hadith. The problem is that the Ahle Hadith want to keep the Sunnah (practice) with the hadith (sayings)  of the prophet s.a.w.s.

 They should consider these two as different and one is preceding the other. I have read the post of Abuzaid. His first sentence is right but soon he has created doubt. I will reply to him separately, Insha Allah.

Brother,

minuteman; I am not Ahle-hadith (in its popular meaning) and neither I am defending Ahle-hadith. In my understanding I am trying to defend Ahlus Sunnah. I got a perception that you are hadith-rejector.

All four Imams and their school of fiqh consider hadith as valid source of Deen.

Would you mind mentioning name of any reputed scholar of Ahlus Sunnah who rejected hadith as a source of Deen. Its possible that some of them rejected one or two hadith for some reason. But had anyone among them have rejected collection of hadith itself as a source of knowledge in Deen.

 Thanks Abuzaid, I am in agreement with you about hadith being a  valid source of Deen. But I place it at the third place after the Quran and Sunnah.

But first you must understand that Hadith is not Sunnah. The Hadith may be a descriptive if the Sunnah. Hadith is different to the daily practice of the prophet. When ever any order came, the prophet s.a.w.s. acted on that order and every one learnt it. Then other people learnt it from the first group.

If you keep the Sunnah separate from the sayings of the prophet then you will see easily that I am belonging to Ahle Sunnah while you are belonging to Ahle Hadith. I have studied your posts and found that your beliefs are same as Ahle Hadith.

 You may be thinking that you are ahle Sunnah but with your beliefs it is clear that your beliefs are same as ahle hadith. We have seen many of them and we know all about it.

Next, your claim that all Imam of Fiqah have upheld the Hadith as a source of Deen, it is correct and I believe the same. But the Imams did not go for Hadith. They acted on the practice of the prophet. And used Hadith too for their guidance.

The ahle hadith accuse the Imams for not knowing the Ahadith. The followers of the ahle Hadith call the Sunni people as Muqallid. While they are themselves non Muqallid.

First of all, I do not agree that Ahlus Sunnah and Ahl-e-hadith are exatcly opposite.

As per your point that second source of Deen is Sunnah and third is Hadith is a totally novel idea to Ahlus Sunnah.  Other than hadith rejector all muslims consider hadith and Sunnah as interchangeable.

When Sunnah is written it becomes hadith. I do not agree with your point that we should not follow written hadith, but only sunnah from our parents.

Four Imams of Fiqh and their students also bothered to find out the authenticity of any sunnah/hadith they learned and thus they are ahl-e-hadith. They never advocated to follow anything that they learned from elders.

According to your principle why should we follow written fiqh.. Nowaday we learn all the fiqh in written form. Should not we reject written fiqh as written is not acceptable in your principle.

I am a critic of traditional ahl-e-hadith for many reason, which I may explain in some other post if required.

As you have your own understanding of Ahlus Sunnah and thus you declared me as Ahle-e-hadith. I too have my understanding of Ahlus Sunnah and consider your approach as hadith-rejector and out of Ahlus Sunnah.

first of all [this is for everyone].. let us have some respect and use Muwahhidun [thank you bro/sis number41] instead of 'wahabi'. Even saying followers of him or her is wrong i believe becoz as muslims, we can only be followers of prophet Muhammad [saw] regardless of whom do we agree or disagree with..

now brother minuteman.. i do not kno about the other groups you have mentioned but Muwahhidun [or ahle hadith as you name them] and ahlus Sunnah are not different sects! I had mentioned it earlier that Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab was trained by the Hanbalee school of thought and this is a fact. Even today what Muwahhidun follow or believe comes from the hanbalee school of thought so for you to say that they are different from ahlus sunnah would be something very wrong..  

the differences of shias and sunnis are crystal clear. We have different sources. If not Quran then the books of ahadith and we all kno that ahadith play a very important role in determining our path. They dont have what we have and we dont have what they do. I am aware of some deviant groups such as the one in india who claim that we should only do what is farz and make Quran our only source since ahadith might not be authentic as they were not recorded during the time of prophet Muhammad [saw]. But for the rest of us who believe in Quran, Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim and the other authentic books of ahadith.. how can we differ? how can we be different sects when we use the very same sources? just becoz you dont understand a verse or hadith the way i do, we split into two different sects? in such a case there should be millions of sects.. unity is what we truly require today and with such thoughts in mind, i doubt prophet Muhammad's [saw] ummah will ever be united. Its so sad wen you look around and find people in the west progressing at a speed of light and us Muslims being busy in finding faults of eachother..

Sonya your expression are fully understood, I have been reading and analyzing different aspect of what is now and what it could be. I am not a genius, but I find most of the problems lies in as most of you have said and mentioned...understanding of ISLAM!

The reason why we are behind, because we LET OURSELVES being fooled...being manipulated and fight each other�.. We cannot blame anybody else than ourselves! It is our fault, ��and it cannot be said enough. If we all improve ourselves and then being working to "benefit" the Ummah, we will indeed begin the elevation.

Each of us should stand firm by the philosophy and logic of our faith.  It is first faith, then knowledge. We are only getting further and further away from knowledge because we are getting further and further away from Quran and the Sunnah. How many Muslims are we? How many good leaders do we have? Are we then sincere?  Yes we do have differences and these differences are exploited by foreign forces to split us up in ethnically and regional differences thus avoid a united ummah. As I have been pointing out between lines, it is about character. Improve our character...and do not say what  we do not do ourselves�. If we have to do things positive around us, we must see our deeds, or attitude and behavior toward other people. Insha Allah we will be the Great Muslim Ummah.

Rami,

Ijaza -though I don't down play its importance- is not required to convey Islam? I don't want to discuss with you deeply in this......because you are just overlooking the writings of the man and his citation from Quran and sunnah correctly. The prophet pbuh said, convey from me even a single verse.

If you are muqallid, no one is forcing you to go outside madhab. Just mindful what madhabs got wrong is what we are saying!!.  Instead of dangling around Ijaza issue which is -adorable if someone gets- look out what Ulima has said about the issue at hand.

I visited your Lakemba website couple of times to see your direction. I don't blame you but saw you are traped in madhab world alone. Imam Shafi" wrote a madhab when he was Sham. Then when he came Egypt to learn from Waki Ibnu Jarrah, he changed many rules/edicts he adopted happily when was sham. In his life he has two madhabs. Because, the proof of Waki was stronger than what he said in first madhab. Before that, all madhab founders has explicity said if Hadith is correct its my madhab. 

Rami, you remind a me group of Salafi defeatist who said during first gulf war you have to ask every question regarding personal/community/internalitional only three Sheikhs: Albani, Bin Baz and Uthaimen. Otherwise, you are committing bida etc. They altered the whole ummah mind and other reputable scholars. Allah said in Quran, "and we have indeed made the Quran easy to understand and remember; then, is there anyone who will remember". Qamar:17

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying you don't need a sheikh or alim. I'm saying Quran is not dhalasim and alqaz.....magic words that only small group of people understand. If someone speaks Arabic and know Nahwa, Sarf, balaqha, asbabul nuzul, mutlaquhu etc and got someone help him from any Islamic sheikh without giving ijaza its persmissible. My friend has sat down with couple of sheikhs for seven years for learning tafsir and ummahatu sitah without getting Ijaza. He teaches Tafsir/Hadith/Usul fiqh and master his subjects. Yusuf Qardawi and these Ikhwan Sheikhs has no izaja at all. At least to my knowledge. The best one is graduate from Azhar only. They fill the air with fatwa all the time. Even your Taj in Lakemba, who issued some strange fatwas in Australia, has no ijaza. He carry the title of Mufti Australia!! No one said you can't do that until we know your ijaza or who taught you. People need prove even if someone wear the Azhari Turbans.

As long as they cite correctly from Quran and sunnah and they have extensive reading and knowledge of one or two three or all four madhahibs their fatwa count.

Muhamad Ibnu Wahab was only mujadid. He never came up anything new. He was hanbali madhab though he was not strict muqallid. He focued on towhid and fought hard to show the true towhid that Othman's and Arabs neglected. The condemnation of some traditionalist didn't count that much. Their premises was based on hearsay and envy only. For instance, Dahlan's who spear headed the smear campaign couldn't live up the challenges of Sheikh's writings.

When Islamic movements began in Islamic world and demand rule of sharia, Sh. Ali Abdirizak come out from Azhar shadow, claiming strange stuff. Many traditionalist went against muslim brotherhood in their early days even though they were muqallideen's.

When Ansaru sunnah was founded before Ikhwan's, traditionalist walk on their heads. Both groups were condemned and lynched by traditionalist in various ways.

So please discuss the writings of the man, not topics he didn't ever bother that much. Get his kitabul towhid  for instance and see what mistakes he make in light of Quran and correct hadith. If you get something on it, then people can discuss.....but this sweep claims don't help anyone.  

Abu Mujahid

 Just in case someone did not know, there are many Ahle Hadith (Wahhabi) schools of thought and many mosques in Indian sub continent. Their beliefs are different from those of Ahle Sunnah. The Ahle Sunnah are called Muqallid and they follow one of the Imams of Fiqah, Imam Abuhanifah or Malik or Shafi or hanbal.r.a.

The Ahle Hadith do not follow any Imam. They say that their Imam is Muhammad s.a.w.s. They do not believe in Taqleed. They try to derive their theories from the Ahadith. So, it appears that each of them is a Mujtahid. In order to defend themselves, they combine the Hadith (sayings) with the Sunnah (practice of the prophet). Let them admit that practice was from the very first day, even though done by the prophet himself, it was watched and picked up and followed by the Ummah without any Hadith or book of hadith. As soon as they admit that practice is different to sayings, they will fail at once. This practice was carried forward by observation.

 I don't deny the importance of Hadith at all. But I keep it at the third place i.e. after the Quran and the Sunnah. I feel that Hadith is very useful for guidance if not against the Quran and Sunnah. Hadith is to serve the Quran and Sunnah. Hadith is not to take charge of the Quran and Sunnah.

 There are people (Muslims) who say that Hadith is more important than Quran. That Quran cannot be understood without Hadith. If a verse of the Quran is in accordance with their Hadith then they will accept it. Otherwise they will obey the meaning of the Hadith and will not obey the verse of Quran. That attitude, I feel, is not right.

 Discussion is going on the forum but no result is coming out. There are all types of people in the Muslims... There are those who doubt the Hadith and do not admit its importance. They are called Quranis. But there are some opposite type who give too much importance to hadith.

 I remember one friend who argued that dead people do come backto this world. I told him that it was against the teachings of the Quran. But he said that it was written in a Hadith and according to Hadith, dead people do come back alive in this world again. I could not continue the discussion with him any more.

 Also I may inform you that every one was praying very well in a single and simple way until some people opened the books of Hadith and saw some faults with the prayers too. Now every sect has its own Hadith and do not co-operate with the others. It is the Ahadith which have put differences in the minds of the Muslims.

 On top of thattoo much lecture about the common Muslims being Mushriks, that put the Ummah on hellfire. Please think about it.

(Some Chapters from the book)

WALAYAH
 

The Relations of Islamic Community

After the establishment of the great 'community', the integrated group which is the origin of the Islamic Nation, expands to the extent of all the true believers of the world. In such a community the principle of 'walayah' influences its civil and foreign affairs.

The Paradise of Walayah

Only that society can enjoy having 'walayah' in which the 'wali' is ascertained, the one who is the authority and the inspirer of all the liveliness and activities of life. And a person can enjoy having 'walayah' if he has a true understanding of the wali and if he is in a constant struggle to connect himself with him, who is the manifestation of God's walayah. So far as the wali is God's successor and the manifestation of the Divine authority and justice on the earth, he uses all the possibilities and talents, which are disposed in men's nature for their evolution and exaltation and for their own benefits. Furthermore, he would not let any of these talents be used against humanity or be lost, for if it happened, it would be a great damage. He firmly fixes justice and security, in the community, which are necessary for man's flourishing as are rich soil, water and good weather necessary for the growth of a plant. He will stop the appearance of cruelty in any form (polytheism, doing injustice to others or oneself). He leads all towards God's servitude. He ripens man's knowledge and vision and leads him to endeavor and initiation. His principal obligations are: keeping up prayer for God's remembrance (salat), just distribution of wealth (zakat)"' , spreading of goodness (al-'amr bil-ma'ruf). and abolishment of wickedness (al-nahy'an al-munkar)". In short, he helps man to approach the ultimate aim of creation.

About Walayah (1)

The principle of walayah, discussed in the Qur'an comprehensively, can be considered from many points of view. Sometimes each of them can be regarded as a principle in itself in understanding Islam. If one thinks attentively about the following verses, some of these points of view can be observed.

About Walayah (2)

Any walayah except the walayah of God and His viceroys is the walayah of taghut and Satan. The acceptance of Satan's walayah makes Satan dominant over all the constructive and creative forces of man which he will use in the way of his own lusts. As far as taghut does not consider any essentiality for anything except his own benefits and due to his lack of information about man's needs and his possibilities in Nature, his leadership for human community is the origin of damage and loss of man's valuable energies. The very lack of Information in the community under the dominance of  taghut's walayah deprives its people of the brightness of knowledge, humanity and God's life-giving rules, and confines them in the darkness of ignorance, lusts, selfishness and perverseness. The Holy Qur'an says:

About Walayah (3) (Hijrah)

4. Taghut's and Satan's walayah in a community makes the true believer dependent on taghut's power in many different ways and encumbers him with its invisible net; his freedom is taken away and he is unconsciously let to the end which that system is doomed to. Such a system prevents the true believer from spending his power in the way of Islam.