Wahhabism or Slander ?

[المهندس]

The destruction of the ottoman empire was not caused by the dawah of tawheed which has been referred to as wahhabism in a derogatory way by its opponents who call to shirk.


Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Azeez al-‘Abd al-‘Lateef said:

Some opponents of the salafi da’wah claim that Imam Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab rebelled against the Ottoman Caliphate, thus splitting the jamaa’ah (main body of the Muslims) and refusing to hear and obey (the ruler).

Da’aawa al-Munaawi’een li Da’wat al-Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahaab, p. 233



^^ This is the grandson of muhammad ibn abdul wahhab this is what came out of his mouth


The Shaykh said in his letter to the people of al-Qaseem: “I believe that it is obligatory to hear and obey the leaders of the Muslims, whether they are righteous or immoral, so long as they do not enjoin disobedience towards Allaah. Whoever has become Caliph and the people have given him their support and accepted him, even if he has gained the position of caliph by force, is to be obeyed and it is haraam to rebel against him.”
Majmoo’at Mu’allafaat al-Shaykh, 5/11



^ Muhammad ibn abdul wahhab didn't believe in rebelling against rulers of the muslim world as long as they did not commit shirk

Dr. ‘Ajeel al-Nashmi said: … The Caliphate did not react in any way and did not show any discontent or resentment during the life of the Shaykh, even though there were four Ottoman sultans during his lifetime…

(Majallat al-Mujtama’, issue # 510)



^^ More proof he didn't rebel against the ottomans



Dr. Abdullah Al-A’thmeen says, “Whatever the case Najd was never regarded as being under the direct influence of the Ottomans prior to the call of Sheikh Mohammad bin Abdel Wahaab. It also has never experienced any strong influence on its internal affairs from the Ottomans, not even under control of Bani Jabr or Bani Khaled either, nor control from any other superior tribe trying to make some kind of political stability. For wars between Najd lands have remained constant and ongoing between its different tribes in a brutal manner.” [Mohammad Bin Abed Al-Wahaab His Life and Philosophy p. 11 via “Protestor Claims” (pg. 234-5)]


after some research i have to come a conclusion

^^ Najd was a place engulfed in shirk before muhammad ibn abdul wahhab came, all his oppononents were from his province and it was those people from those province who rebelled against the ottoman caliphate via help from the british not muhammad ibn abdul wahhab himself he simply called to tawheed, the british did not like the dawah of the muhammad ibn abdul wahhab hence they stirred up controversy by aiding his opponents in najd.

The actions of ibn saud did not correlate with the teachings of muhammad ibn abdul wahhab..

So i don't understand how muhammad ibn abdul wahhab can be the one who is accused of destroying the ottoman caliphate which was a legit caliphate..

If someone can bring proof muhammad ibn abdul wahhab actively or indirectly aided in the destruction of the caliphate than i will examine it and compare it to what i read ...

 

[ReerVanCadde]

wahhabism refers to the excessive cult like following that legit post ibn al-Uthaymeen said this and Albani said this every freaking time like as if they are some well regarded companions of the prophet. Heck, they even mention these sheiks with a fanatical obsession.

A guy asked the prophet if i follow the 5 pillars of islam will i go to jannah? the prophet said yes.
That's it islam is simple.

 

[المهندس]

wahhabism refers to the excessive cult like following that legit post ibn al-Uthaymeen said this and Albani said this every freaking time like as if they are some well regarded companions of the prophet. Heck, they even mention these sheiks with a fanatical obsession.

A guy asked the prophet if i follow the 5 pillars of islam will i go to jannah? the prophet said yes.
That's it islam is simple.

Thats not my question, my question is whether muhamma ibn abdul wahhab rebelled against the ottoman caliphate or not ?

Also let me ask you a question.. what about if someone does the 5 pillars and they go worship a statue at the same time ? will they go jannah??

 

[ReerVanCadde]

Thats not my question, my question is whether muhamma ibn abdul wahhab rebelled against the ottoman caliphate or not ?

@Dawo, no he was born in 1703 and died in 1792 but the caliphate disbanded in 1922. He had nothing to do with it.

 

[المهندس]

Thats not my question, my question is whether muhamma ibn abdul wahhab rebelled against the ottoman caliphate or not ?

@Dawo, no he was born in 1703 and died in 1792 but the caliphate disbanded in 1922. He had nothing to do with it.

so why do some people say he is the direct or his teachings is cause of the destruction of the ottoman empire ?

Ibn saud didn't follow islam he was an extreme arab nationalist who had a materialistic agenda

 

[ReerVanCadde]

Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab's teachings were criticized by a number of Islamic scholars during his life for disregarding Islamic history, monuments, traditions and the sanctity of Muslim life.[96] One scholar named Ibn Muhammad compared Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab with Musaylimah.[97] He also accused Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab of wrongly declaring the Muslims to be infidels based on a misguided reading of Qur'anic passages and Prophetic traditions[97] and of wrongly declaring all scholars as infidels who did not agree with his "deviant innovation".[97]

 

[ReerVanCadde]

@Dawo, the issue is the intolerance. Firstly, if a person claims to be a muslim and they believe in Allah and him alone who are you or anyone else to claim they are kafirs or idolaters?

Secondly,
According to the historian Ibn Humayd, Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab's father criticized his son for his unwillingness to specialize in jurisprudence and disagreed with his doctrine and declared that he would be the cause of wickedness.[99] Similarly his brother, Suleyman ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab wrote one of the first treatises' refuting Wahhabi doctrine[99] claiming he was ill-educated and intolerant and classing Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab's views as fringe and fanatical.[96]

 

[المهندس]

Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab's teachings were criticized by a number of Islamic scholars during his life for disregarding Islamic history, monuments, traditions and the sanctity of Muslim life.[96] One scholar named Ibn Muhammad compared Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab with Musaylimah.[97] He also accused Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab of wrongly declaring the Muslims to be infidels based on a misguided reading of Qur'anic passages and Prophetic traditions[97] and of wrongly declaring all scholars as infidels who did not agree with his "deviant innovation".[97]

Who are these scholars no point copying and pasting you need to bring names so i can look upon it..

muhammad ibn abdul wahhab simply rebuked shirk and spread tawheed.. << nothing wrong with this

Why would they compare him to musaylimah??

Musaylimah was a kadhaab who claimed prophethood.

Abdul wahhab never claimed prophethood..

 

[ReerVanCadde]

The Shafi'i mufti of Mecca, Ahmed ibn Zayni Dehlan, wrote an anti-Wahhabi treatise, the bulk of which consists of arguments and proof from the sunna to uphold the validity of practices the Wahhabis considered idolatrous: Visiting the tombs of Muhammad, seeking the intercession of saints, venerating Muhammad and obtaining the blessings of saints.[100] He also accused Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab of not adhering to the Hanbali school and that he was deficient in learning.

 

[المهندس]

The Shafi'i mufti of Mecca, Ahmed ibn Zayni Dehlan, wrote an anti-Wahhabi treatise, the bulk of which consists of arguments and proof from the sunna to uphold the validity of practices the Wahhabis considered idolatrous: Visiting the tombs of Muhammad, seeking the intercession of saints, venerating Muhammad and obtaining the blessings of saints.[100] He also accused Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab of not adhering to the Hanbali school and that he was deficient in learning.

Ok theres a few things the opponent of a abdul wahhab advocated for


Tawassul ( invoking intermediaries through Allah)
Tabarruk ( seeking blessings through people)
Ziyarat Qubur ( grave visting)

The person you quoted believed in tawassul via dead people calling them for help aka grave worshipping.


Allah mentions many times in the quran invoke him only and no one else

Allaah says of the people of Hell (interpretation of the meaning): [They say:] By Allaah, we were truly in a manifest error when we held you (false gods) as equals (in worship) with the Lord of the Worlds. [al-Shuara 26:96-97]

So why are they visiting saints and asking for intercession is this not shirk ?

Look at it from a non biased POV

does this mean that ayah in the quran is wrong ? (Audubillah)

Why did Allah say invoke me only and do not associate partners with me ?

Invoking dead people in the grave is associating partners with Allah.

 

[ReerVanCadde]

@Dawo When someone becomes a muslim, thats between god and that person. Correct?
This abdul-wahhab dude was intolerant of shia and others who ask for blessings from saints and so on, claiming they weren't muslim.
My only issue with him is who was he to enforce it? Yes, he can comment and say this isn't part of islam and so he should but the whole wahhabi thing became excessive with the destruction of buildings and monuments.

 

[ReerVanCadde]

@Dawo


Shaykh Faraz Rabbani has noted that it is not the way of Sunnis to make blanket takfir of Shias. He writes:[29]

...we only declare someone who denies something necessarily known of the religion to be a kafir--and this is not the case with common Shias. Someone who says 'There is no God but Allah, Mohammed is the Prophet of Allah' is a Muslim. Shia Muslims, who make this declaration of faith are therefore MUSLIM.

 

[المهندس]

@Dawo When someone becomes a muslim, thats between god and that person. Correct?
This abdul-wahhab dude was intolerant of shia and others who ask for blessings from saints and so on, claiming they weren't muslim.
My only issue with him is who was he to enforce it? Yes, he can comment and say this isn't part of islam and so he should but the whole wahhabi thing became excessive with the destruction of buildings and monuments.

Im generally looking at this from a non biased POV, the opponents of abdul wahhab have not convinced me one bit what they are doing is part of islam, but abdul wahhab has convinced me what they are doing is wrong.

I just see personal insults from them against him not addressing why he was wrong if he was wrong ( i very much doubt abdul wahhab is wrong everything he said was proved from the quran and tafsir from classical scholars of the four madhabs)

Every muslim unanimously believes do not associate partners with Allah.

There are many stern warnings in saheeh hadith and in the quran itself about invoking other than Allah and that this sin causes mountains to shake and is completely forbidden.

I mean if someone goes to a grave and begs that dead person to help them what is this to you ?

 

[المهندس]

@Dawo


Shaykh Faraz Rabbani has noted that it is not the way of Sunnis to make blanket takfir of Shias. He writes:[29]

Forget shia'a not talking about them.. if you want to talk about takfir let me ask you this..

Whats the point of being muslim if you do not differentiate yourself who worships the sole omnipotent creator of the universe to someone who worships statues and dirt ?? are you equal ?

This is when takfir comes in, takfir preserves the truth and shows falsehood

There are barriers to takfir, such as insanity, ignorance or durees

There are different types of takfir a general takfir which is not appplicable to individuals or a specific takfir which is directed towards a sole person.

People do abuse takfir but that doesn't deem it to be something which people should avoid just cause others abuse it...

 

[ReerVanCadde]

@Dawo, honestly the guy was a typical hardliner. Remember all the notable imams before him never took any actions or incited anything. His followers ended up demolishing shrines and buildings, which the British capitalised on. You need situational awareness. For example, when alcohol was banned, it was done in steps - first no one is allowed to be drunk whilst praying etc then a slow banning.

لاَ إِكْرَاهَ فِي الدِّينِ (There is no compulsion in religion), meaning, "Do not force anyone to become Muslim, for Islam is plain and clear, and its proofs and evidence are plain and clear. Therefore, there is no need to force anyone to embrace Islam.

Allah is the judge, end of full stop.

 

[المهندس]

@Dawo, honestly the guy was a typical hardliner. Remember all the notable imams before him never took any actions or incited anything. His followers ended up demolishing shrines and buildings, which the British capitalised on. You need situational awareness. For example, when alcohol was banned, it was done in steps - first no one is allowed to be drunk whilst praying etc then a slow banning.

لاَ إِكْرَاهَ فِي الدِّينِ (There is no compulsion in religion), meaning, "Do not force anyone to become Muslim, for Islam is plain and clear, and its proofs and evidence are plain and clear. Therefore, there is no need to force anyone to embrace Islam.

Allah is the judge, end of full stop.

Allah is the ultimate judge but if humans are not bought to accountability for their action in this world than injustice and corruption will be rampant.. emotions aside for a minute levelling shrines to the ground is actually proven in the sunnah.

We are talking about shirk the worst sin, alcohol is nothing compared to shirk alcohol the person who drinks alcohol is still a muslim regardless how many times he drinks alcohol, same applies to the fornicator, same applies to the interest dealer, same applies to the murderer, backbiter etc these people are still muslim because they didn't commit that one sin which is shirk.



Muslim (969) narrated that Abu’l-Hayaaj al-Asadi said: ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib said to me: “Shall I not send you with the same instructions as the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) sent me? ‘Do not leave any image without defacing it or any built-up grave without leveling it.’”


Muslim (832) narrated from ‘Urwah ibn ‘Abasah that he said to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him): “With what were you sent?” He said, “I was sent to uphold the ties of kinship, to break the idols, and so that Allaah would be worshipped alone with no partner or associate.”

Imam Muslim recorded this in his hadith and as muslims we understand these hadiths have a high degree of authenticity..

How can we question this ?


This is why i believe what Muhammad Ibn abdul wahhab taught was not wrong, he simply preached against shirk.

 

[المهندس]

@Dawo, honestly the guy was a typical hardliner. Remember all the notable imams before him never took any actions or incited anything. His followers ended up demolishing shrines and buildings, which the British capitalised on. You need situational awareness. For example, when alcohol was banned, it was done in steps - first no one is allowed to be drunk whilst praying etc then a slow banning.

لاَ إِكْرَاهَ فِي الدِّينِ (There is no compulsion in religion), meaning, "Do not force anyone to become Muslim, for Islam is plain and clear, and its proofs and evidence are plain and clear. Therefore, there is no need to force anyone to embrace Islam.

Allah is the judge, end of full stop.

your point on situational awareness is correct this is why a versed scholar can make an ijtihaad and if its wrong he will still get rewarded

But you must understand shirk and islam cannot mix.

 

[ReerVanCadde]

Wow @Dawo, are you listening to what I am saying?
I SAID HIS APPROACH WAS WRONG
ABSOLUTELY 0 SITUATIONAL AWARENESS
These shias who go and ask for help from graves etc, by in large do that because of their imams and the fact that it is cultural practice. This guy should of stepped back understood, the british were going to deploy divide and conquer and tackled it a different way.
I can guarantee you if he took the path of explaining things and being patient there would have been a much better result.

 

[ReerVanCadde]

Now you know, how the term *islamism* was termed and Wahhabism, with goddamn ISIS taking it to the next level and legit destroying cultural sites etc.
What this guy was saying wasn't wrong its his freaking approach and this new over-zealous status quo that never existed before. It literally is a cult now.

 

[المهندس]

Wow @Dawo, are you listening to what I am saying?
I SAID HIS APPROACH WAS WRONG
ABSOLUTELY 0 SITUATIONAL AWARENESS
These shias who go and ask for help from graves etc, by in large do that because of their imams and the fact that it is cultural practice. This guy should of stepped back understood, the british were going to deploy divide and conquer and tackled it a different way.
I can guarantee you if he took the path of explaining things and being patient there would have been a much better result.

Shirk is not cultural practice, the fact you consider it such shows you don't deem it a massive sin..

Consider the riddah wars, Abu Bakar Sidiq waged war against those who denied zakah ??

was his situational awareness wrong ?

Absolutely not, he done it so islam can't be distorted and for it to be preserved in its true form which is pure tawheed.

Compare this to abdul wahhab i see no difference ..


Also look into his life, he did explain what tawheed and shirk is and how it cannot be compatible in the mind of a muslim.. you can guess what came after complete ridicule, insults and hostility

No one proving him wrong, which this thread is about and its a general question if someone can prove the dawah of muhammad abdul wahhab to be wrong using quran and sunnah i will accept it but it seems very very unlikely because everything he preaches goes hand in hand with the quran and sunnah.