Shaykh Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab’s connection with Sufism
- Filed under: History, Islam, Salafi, Tasawwuf, Traditional Islam
- Date: Dec 5,2007 | 11:15 AM
I just read this amazing article posted on Imam Suhaib Webb’s blog, “A Sufi Salafi Connection: Sh. Abdul Wahab [ra] and Muhammad Hayyat al-Sindi [ra]: Dr. John Voll“. It’s a long article, so I took my own notes highlighting what I thought was interesting and noteworthy.
Shaykh Muhammad Hayyat al-Sindi…
- was a Hanafi.
- was a Sufi in the Naqshabandiyya tariqa via ‘Abd al-Rahmin al-Saqqaf. Also possible affiliation with the Khalwatiyya.
- was born in Pakistan, moved to Madinah and studied there.
- studied under:
- Abi al-Hasan Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Hadi al-Sindi, ‘Abdallah ibn Salim al-Bagri, Hasan ibn ‘li al-’Ajami, and Abi al-Tahir Muhammad ibn Ibrahim al-Kirini.
- 2 were Hanafi and 2 were Shafi
- six lines linking Muhammad Hayyat with al-Qashash
- Muhammad Hayyat had at least eight lines of connexion with al-Biibili
- other scholars too, check article.
Shaykh Muhammad Hayyat al-Sindi was the teacher of Shaykh Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab (alleged founder of Wahhabism). He taught Sh. ibn Abdul Wahhab “rejection of popular religious practices associated with ‘ saints ‘ and their tombs”. I guess this shows Sh. Muhammad Hayyat al-Sindi wasn’t an extreme Sufi.
Sh. Muhammad Hayyat had 20 students including Sh. ibn Abdul Wahhab:
- Twelve of them were Hanafi
- Five were Shafi
- One was a “Sufi recluse”
- Two Hanbalis (including Sh. ibn Abdul Wahhab).
- Out of the 20, 12 were directly connected to Sufism
- 7 identified with major Sufi tariqas
- 3 taught or wrote Sufi texts
- 1 was a Sufi miracle worker – the “Sufi recluse
- 5 of them were Sufi Shaykhs
So in other words, from what I understand in the article, these 20 brothers, scholars, students of knowledge were the classmates of Sh. ibn Abdul Wahhab. Regardless of what the students, followers of Sh. ibn Abdul Wahhab have to say about Sufism, it is clear that his classmates, teachers, friends, brothers, and people who he most likely “hung out” with were madhab-following sufis.
The author of the article is Dr. John Voll. He is a professor of Islamic history and the associate director of the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University. You can find his profile here.
Related posts:
- Love for Allah | Shaykh Husain Abdul Sattar | June 23 | New York City
- Shaykh Mohsen al-Najjar – Commentary of Ibn Ata’illah’s Hikam
- Shaykh Muhammad Alshareef – Perished Nations – 4 Episode Lecture Series
- Shaykh Muhammad al Yaqoubi – Belief in Allah, Its Reality and Sweetness
- School of What? History of Madhabs – Mufti Abdur Rahman ibn Yusuf – Jan. 29 – SBU
79 Responses for "Shaykh Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab’s connection with Sufism"
Even if the people he hung out with were madhhab following Sufis does not he was one. (Not saying he is or is not, just commenting on the logic).
Obviously, but I doubt he’d condemn his teachers, classmates and friends as deviant, ahlul biddah, etc.
BismillahirRahmanirRahim
Salamu’alaykum
That is exactly what he did, and in fact his own brother wrote an entire book condemning him.
salam… interesting indeed. I think the more we exclude the fitnah-mongers on both extremes from our learnings, the more we will find a lot of common ground, or like the name of organization in UK, on “the radical middle way”.
I have a small request. When you mention “Shaykh Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab (founder of the Salafi ideology)”… I believe many folks will have an issue with such a statement. He wasn’t a founder of any ideology. Instead you could say, the “alleged founder of Wahhabism”. And though I take issue with the whole wahhabism terminology, it would still be less controversial than what you stated here.
wasalam
Amad – I changed it to “alleged founder of Wahhabism”. I didn’t want to drop the W’ism, but I guess if you rather see it then Salafi then so be it.
That is very sad and disappointing. What did his teachers say?
Actually, Yursil is wrong. Shaykh al-Islam never condemned Shaykh Muhammad Hayyat al-Sindi and he’s a liar for saying that.
‘Tawheedullah’ I suggest you read what I wrote.
Muhummad ibn Abdul Wahaab’s brother, Sulayman, wrote a book refuting his brother’s ideas. The title of the book is Al-Sawaiq al-Ilahia fi al-Ra’d ala al-Wahabia, or Divine Lightning Bolts on the Teachings of Wahhab.
One excerpt:
That’s not what I was referring to. I was referring to the saentence you said before that, where you affirmed (falsely) that Shaykh al-Islam attacked his teachers and co-students.
Of course he did, maybe not by name, but in the same broad strokes that he attacked the rest of the Ahl ul Sunnah wal Jamaa.
fair enough MR…
w/s
please avoid using the title shaykh, a title dear to muslims, with the name of a deviant who has been the cause so much bloodshed and misguidance within this umma…
You’ve been brainwashed by your ignorant kaafir murshid al-Haqqani. You idolize the drunken, debauched, homosexual Ottomans and hate the Arabs. You are the epitome of deviancy.
http://riyada.blogspot.com/2006/09/glimpses-into-early-wahhabi-thought.html
This article shed alot of light on the relationship between early Wahhabism and Sufis.
BTW, I am NOT a Salafi, I’m a Maliki. I do, however, respect Shaykh Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab’s dawah.
tawheedullah,
Salafism as an ideology is defined less by adherence to a madhhab or lack there of, than by literalism, puritanical leanings, intolerance for ikhtilaf and wholesale demonization and anathematization of other Muslims- qualities which you’ve demonstrated in spades.
Not only that, you’ve gone so far as to regurgitate orientalist slanders against the Ottomans without any critical analysis whatsoever, simply because those fabrications suit your hateful worldview.
Given all that, following a madhhab is hardly the dispositive issue.
BTW, I am NOT a Naqshbadi, I’m a Maliki. I do, however, respect Shaykh Maulana Nazim al-Hakkani’s wilaya.
Actually Shaykh isn’t really a great title, becuase it is used for the princes, kings, royal family leaders in UAE, Qatar, Oman, Saudia, etc.
I think MR was trying not to disrespect anyone. But the usually norm on MR’s blog is no matter what he posts, controversy always starts, which is good, becuase I have learned a lot through these discussions.
Masha’Allah, this is a very good Shayk, one of his famous books is called Kitab at Tawheed, owned and used by almost every Muslim. I’ve never heard, so far, anyone say anything bad about his books, the problem started when he implemented them.
“Kitab at Tawheed, owned and used by almost every Muslim”
I seriously doubt that…
Yes, thats what i said. Every hadith in there is in Bukhari and every verse is from the Qura’an. Now. you sound like one of those people who have something to say about it…and those same people are always the once that haven’t done any studying about is, thus have no right to say anything.
Assalaamu Alaikum MR,
You’ve brought all the haters out. On “both sides” of the “debate.” You did provide us with a bit of information, and I’m sure you meant well, but at the end of the day I don’t think it outweighs all the hating we’ve been subjected to.
Maybe it’s better to just stay away from the topic altogether, or disable comments when you do. Sometimes censorship is better for our souls.
These topics bring the “best” out of both sides… and clarifies the “middle way” upon the pledge
To be honest the salafis have been doing house-cleaning for some time and shying away from the SP / Troid type haters and the plethora of pdf refutations… On the other hand, the same type of rants are now taking place on the other side (example: the GF “refutation” of Qaradawi, a hit-job which could have been well been from the “other side” and you wouldn’t know the difference). So, the moderate-traditionalists need to do more to actively weed out the extremists within their ranks otherwise the same sort of implosion will occur that Umar talked about (a bit overboard but mostly right) in his “famous” series.
Other than that, i agree with spinoza, over-censorship is not bad for such posts. wallahualam
kitab at tawhid is not used by everyone;
i also have a problem with calling wahhabis salafi
it’s not fair to the salaf
however i understand the present connotations the word has
HONOR THE PLEDGE! YEAAAHHH!!
No matter what view you follow there are a few facts you need to learn:
-we Muslims cannot escape our history–Sufism played a huge role in our religion–we CANNOT ignore 1400 years! And the fact is many of us would not be born and raised Muslim had it not been for these people
-we Muslims cannot deny the spiritual nature our religion–Sufis (the Zahids, or Awliya) or whatever name you use, is something that will resurface over and over again in our history–in fact these same people would not even think of arguing like many of us here, so why do we bother?
-Allah SWT has chosen the Salafis NOT the Sufis to be the Protectors of our Two Holy Cities–that is His Command, we have to respect that…
I’ve opposed that pledge from the beginning.
Spinoza,
The two sides are not equal here.
You have, on the one hand, a supporter of Sh. ibn Abdul-Wahhab calling other Muslims ignorant kaffirs, “the epitome of deviancy” and slandering in the most disgusting way hundreds of years of the Ummah’s leaders for no reason at all.
On the other hand you have people arguing that Sh. ibn Abdul-Wahhab’s dawah was divisive and one person going so far as to call him a deviant.
It’s hardly equivalent. In fact the difference is startling.
How you could lump legitimate criticism in with the ravings of that “tawheedullah” person is beyond me.
Similarly Amad, bringing up Sh. Gibril’s harsh, though unrefuted, expose of Allamah Sh. Qaradawi is a non sequitur. No one was discussing either Shaykh and your point could have been made without citing any specific example.
I really don’t mind disagreement, but I do wish people would be more fair about how they present their arguments.
Assalamu alaikum
It seems that our Islam has once again been reduced to a system of exclusivity and labelling.
The truth of the matter is that there is so much propaganda surrounding Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab, that we will not really know what he truly believed and practiced. There are evidences that he was a staunch follower of a madhab, but in line with previous Hanbali scholars, opposed ilm ul kalam and the doctrine of stare decisis in favor of juristic activism.
There’s a lot of evidence that many lies were made against him, fanned by the French to malign the Anglo-American interests in the regions during the colonial era of the great game.
What matters is that the Shaykh is dead and while we may scrutinize his ideas, we are not allowed to scrutinize his character and deeds.
I find it ironic that some people here have the boldness to view the Ottoman Sultans to be Awliyah even though they engaged in horrendous deeds ranging from falling into drunken stupors to butchering competitors to the throne to engaging in pedastery, but can’t give 70 excuses to someone who was clearly a reviver of the deen (albeit we may disagree over the definition of ‘revival’).
With that said, I think the only reason why the Salafi dawah has become widespread as it is today is because of its: (a) the ability of the Saudi government to utilize its immense economic resources for creating publishing houses and educating scholars in its manhaj, (b) for it having control over the Haramayn, and (c) for the Saudi state serving as a refuge for Ikhan al Muslimeen and Jamaat e Islami which enabled them to produce a truly mass-movement of Islam based on Salafi ideas.
Moreover, the achievements of Shaykh Muhammad Ibn AbdulWahhab are pretty minor compared to the achievements of Shah Waliullah, his contempory, and Shaykh Uthman Dan Fodio, Shaykh Yusuf, and Imam Sanusi.
My point is not to belittle Shaykh Muhammad, but to point out that there are external factors for the conflict with Salafism other than the poor man’s teachings and there are other elements to the revivalism of the Ummah than the Saudi-centric worldview.
Nonetheless, may Allah (subhana wa ta’ala) forgive the shaykh of his shortcomings and grant him jannat al firdaus. Ameen.
masalama
HEADACHE!
same old stuff every single time.
go pray your salaah and feed the needy. stop wasting your time arguing over stuff that you know very little about!
M A Lahoz said:
“How you could lump legitimate criticism in with the ravings of that “tawheedullah” person is beyond me.”
If I lumped anything with anything, please forgive me. All I said was that there was hate spewed on “both sides.” I think most would have a hard time disagreeing with that. Feel free to re-read my post with greater care or whatever it takes to rid it any unintended meaning.
Anyway, thank you keepitsimple for keeping it simple.
of course wahhabis (please do not call them Salafi) reject Tasawuff. They are convinced they are the only ones that are correct and they label the rest as kuffar wa sufis.
Honestly, Muslims need to be warned of his teaching for they contradict the basis for Islamic Creed as seen in Imam Tahawiyys book on ^Aqeedah (which Shaykh Hamza Yusuf has recently translated into English).
http://www.antiwahabies.com/
“Wahhabis” speak the truth. When they see a Kaffir they call him a kaffir. thats it. But when sufis see a kaffir they call him “brother”. Does that make sense? no it does not. Now when Sufis see kaffir or shias they try to be nice to them and do interfaith and all that. when it comes to “wahhabis”, NOOOO straight up deviants? Sufis need to understand that “Wahhabis” are closer to the sunnah then kaffirs and shias and sufis themselves. Thats why you hate “Wahhabis” because they say there is no truth but the book of Allah and the Sunnah of His prophet?
Jinn,
http://www.yursil.com/blog/2007/11/a-taste-of-the-real-sultan-selim-ii/
And that is just one example. The standard history of the Ottoman Sultans is the product of orientalists (writing about their closest enemy), Arab nationalists and Turkish secularists, all with an interest in promoting the worst lies.
They were Muslims and lead much of the Ummah for centuries, preserving our territorial integrity and defending the broad, multicultural, multilingual Sunnism that people today so desperately crave.
For all those reason, you should give them as much husn al-dhan as you’ve ask others to give Sh. Ibn Abdul-Wahhab, ra.
Sidi Alex,
Even if one doesn’t utilize the historical methodology of Orientalists, there are enough primary resources available that enable us to draw the conclusion that some of the Ottoman sultans were pretty unrighteous people. For example, there were several ‘Ulema revolts AGAINST Ottoman Sultans over issues pertaining to the Shari’ah. There are a plethora of court documents as well as court biographers. Even if one didn’t utilize Western sources to scrutinize the Ottoman Empire, one could develop a decent case that the Ottomans were not part of the awliyah. Were the Umayyads part of the Awliyah? Was Yazeed a Wali of Allah? Were the Abassids part of the Awliyah when they aligned with the Mu’tazila during the Mihna and punished Imam Ahmad for defending the aqeedah of Ahl us Sunnah? Was the Mughal emperor Akbar a wali of Allah when he tried to fuse all of India’s religions? For all of Islamic history, we’ve had many rulers who were corrupt and had questionable religious beliefs, but suddently, the Ottomans have come out of history and have had perfect rulers that committed no major sins? If the argument is true that we can’t use Western sources because they’re automatically biased, and we can’t use the Arab Nationalists because they were the opponents of the Ottomans, then by that same logic, we can’t use the opponents of Shaykh Muhammad ibn Abdulwahhab as a reliable source of information.
I’m not trying to assert that the Shaykh was infallible, but merely pointing out a very powerful incoherent contradiction in the methodology of some of the “Sufis” in their approach to history. When it comes to the defense of the Ottomans, they take an extremely apologetic tone that no ‘Ulema have ever taken, even during the time of the Ottomans let alone today. When it comes to attacking Salafis, they use every book in the arsenal. This is a contradiction in methodology. One should be consistent and use the same methodology for everyone.
Again, we cannot attack the Shaykh’s ideas if we don’t have any accurate information about them. So the Shaykh’s brother wrote a refutation about him? What does that prove? Imam Juwayni wrote scathing criticism’s of Imam Abu Hanifa. Imam Bukhari was kicked out of Tirmidh for his views on the createdness of the Qu’ran. Islamic intellectual history is a history full of refutations and counter-refutations. It does not prove the orthodoxy or unorthodoxy of a particular thinker.
In order to show that Shaykh Muhammad’s ideology was unorthodox, you’d have to show that it was abnormal, even from a Hanbali perspective. The mere fact that the teacher who introduced the works of Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah was an Ashari Nasqhbandi Sufi shows that Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah wasn’t considered a “whack” thinker. If even Sufis are teaching his works, how bad can they be? In terms of his anti-kalam stance, the majority of Hanbalis have opposed ilm ul kalam, so there’s no surprise there.
The problem is that we dont’ have reliable information about him. Western views are split between the British and the French. The British viewed him as a threat to their empire and called anyone who rebelled a “Wahhabi” but certain Orientalists praised the Shaykh for what they viewed to be a revival of Islamic thought. The French were competing with the British in this region and argued that the British were funding this movement in order to fight against the Ottomans. The people who opposed the Shaykh can be deemed bias since they disagreed with his ideas and that might have affected their views on history. The only people left are the people who supported him and their views might have been skewed by their support for him.
The safest route is to look at the totality of all the evidence and see if one can eradicate any inconsistency. Was the Shaykh present during the military campaigns of Ibn Saud? did he give specific fatwas regarding takfeer and executing people? Or did he hold beliefs closer to his teachers? The evidence exists both ways.
There’s an interesting quote I read in a letter by the Shaykh that said something to the effect that he didn’t stop following a madhab and didn’t oppose kalam or tasawwuf, just the extreme forms that they had manifested in his day.
We need to be balanced and fair in our assessment of people. That is the path of justice and it is closer to the Sunnah of the Prophet (sallahu alayhi wa sallam).
While John Voll makes an interesting thesis, subsequent Western Academians have raised some very interesting objections to the notion that a small circle of hadeeth scholars in Madinah were responsible for connecting the major resistance/revivalist movements during the modern era. They point out that the very nature of the science of hadeeth scholarship is to create chains of transmission. However, merely being a link in such a chain did not necessarily result in a massive transmission of knowledge. Some authors point out that while many of these ‘Ulema held common chains of transmission, they had radically divergent paradigms of revival ranging from the scholarly tradition to politics to militant movements and differed on key core issues ranging from following a madhab, tasawwuf, bid’a, jihad, the role of Islam in politics, and even how to respond to European expansion and whether to respond at all.
See “The Origins and Objectives of Islamic Revivalist Thought, 1750-1850? by Ahmed Dallal who compares Shaykh Muhammad ibn AbdulWahhab, Shah Waliullah, Imam Sanusi, and Shaykh Uthman Dan Fodio.
Jinnzaman,
I don’t really want to enter this debate here, but I’ll just ask these few questions..
1) Who introduced the idea that the Ottomans Sultans were Awliya enter this conversation?
2) Are the Awliya sinless / error-free? News to me. Is that your faith?
woops, #1 is:
Who introduced the idea that the Ottomans Sultans were Awliya and how did that enter this conversation?
As far as “When it comes to the defense of the Ottomans, they take an extremely apologetic tone that no ‘Ulema have ever taken, even during the time of the Ottomans let alone today.”
What do you say of Shaykh Abdul Hakim Murad and Mufti Taqi Usman and Imam Zaid, all who have referenced the Ottomans very recently in extremely positive lights are they not part of todays ulema? If you want quotes from the previous generation that could be provided just as well.
Mufti Taqi:
Shaykh Abdul Hakim Murad
Imam Zaid
The Prophet (S) was prophecizing the Ottomans: according to Imam Zaid Shakir. So I’m lost as to where you got the idea that this a positive attitude towards the Ottoman rulers is some newfangled opinion.
Literally each of the Sultans were members of one or another Sufi Tariqat, and at the tender age of their 20’s they struggled with challenges larger than simply the due date of their latest homework assignment, rather they dealt with the heavy responsibility of ruling and protecting the empire of Muslims.
Even when you claim the Ulema revolted, they did so not against the Sultan but this or that Vezir. The layers of political intrigue that the Sultans dealt with would boggle your mind, if you were to listen of course…
Yursil,
The issue of the Ottoman sultanate illustrates how contorted some historical methodologies are. None of the statements from those respected scholars is relevant to the inquiry. No one is doubting the contribution of the Ottoman EMPIRE to the history of Islam, just like one can speak of the contributions of the Umayyads, the Abassids, the Safavids, and the Mughals to Islamic civilization. However, it is an entirely separate issue to claim that ALL of the Ottoman rulers were AWLIYAH. Merely praising a state is not the same as claiming that all of its rulers were Awliyah. If you have statements from either Mufti Taqi Usmani, Imam Zaid, or Shaykh AbdulHakeem that make this assertion, I’d be interested in seeing them.
The Walis of Allah are judged by their adherence to the Shari’ah and not by subjective assertions that cloud one’s common sense.
In terms of the hadeeth of the Prophet (sallahu alayhi wa sallam), there are other hadeeth that state that constantinople will be conquered towards the end of time and this will immediately precede the coming of Dajjal. Moreover, the conquest of Constantinople was described in these hadeeth as being done by DHIKR and not by CANNONS.
Abu Hurairah reports that the Prophet Peace and blessings be upon him said, ”Have you heard of a town of which a part is in the sea?” ”Yes” said they. He said: ‘The last hour shall not occur till 70,000 of the children of Isaac shall attack it. When they come to it, they (Muslims) will not fight with arms, nor throw arrows. They will only say: There is no god but Allah, Allah is the greatest, and then on of its sides will fall down. They will recite for the second time : there is no god but Allah, Allah is the greatest, and then another of its side will fall down. After that they will say it for the third time: there is no god but Allah and Allah is the greatest, and then it will be opened for them and they will enter and acquire booty. While they will be dividing the booty, a proclaimer will come to them and proclaim: ‘Verily Dajjal has come out. ‘Then they will leave everything and return. ‘ (Muslim)
So was the Prophet (sallahu alayhi wa sallam) referring to the Ottoman ruler, or was he praising the commander who would lead the conquest of Constantinople before the appearance of Dajjal and be part of the first group of men to fight against him?
Allahu alam. It is like the hadeeth regarding the 12 imams. Shias use it to argue that the hadeeth refers to their imams but we as Ahl us Sunnah don’t accept it.
If you want, we can look at the primary sources: court documents, court biographers, and statements from contemporary ‘Ulema. The issue is more nuanced then merely “well, the kuffar bash the Ottomans, therefore, they are all awesome.”
If you’re going to give Ottoman Sultans such deference in the face of strong evidence that SOME of them engaged in questionable practices, then you should give the same deference to Shaykh Muhammad whose teachers were some of the most eminent ‘Ulema in the Ummah today. You can’t take hadeeth out of context and say “Well, the Prophet (sallahu alayhi wa sallam) prophesied such and such.” These are, at best, estimations and guesses and are contradicted by other evidences.
Allahu alam. Lets be just and fair in our academic assessment.
Continuing the point of discussion above:
1. Merely being part of a tariqa doesn’t make one a wali.
2. Which tariqas were they a part of? Are we referring to tariqas such as the Bektashis who are hardly the best representatives of Ahl us Sunnah?
3. The ‘Ulema lead revolts against specific Ottoman Sultans and one of the Shaykh ul Islams actually issued a fatwa deposing a specific Sultan for his sinful lifestyle that included heavy drinking.
Lastly,
4. Which historical texts or authors do you consider to be a reliable source of information? Are you reading the original primary sources, or are you getting this information from elsewhere? Whats that source of information?
Not sure why this is your repeated issue. Again, who brought this up?
The reality is who is considered a Wali of Allah is certainly never been directly a consequence of their knowledge of Shariat commandments or some Shariat checklist but a number of people have been considered Wali of Allah from their generosity, sincerity, and love of Allah and impact.
Furthermore, the designation of Waliyat has always been a matter of community assertion and belief not a scientific test. If you don’t happen to be of that community that asserts that understanding, thats fine.
But it is certainly an issue to contradict Shaykh Abdul Hakim Murad who says:
By somehow saying you know better and accusing the sultans of disrespecting the ulema and shayukh, if not Islam itself. What differentiates this from the usual Wahabi Kufr calling again?
There used to be adaab, even against Caliphas we didn’t agree with.
As far who the hadith refers to…as you like Bro, Imam Zaid (someone a bit more highly respected than any of us) holds otherwise.
anyway I dont argue this way anymore… if you want to talk, speak to my Shaykh. Allah Hafiz.
Your august cohort in the Naqshbandi Haqqani tariqa, Gibril Fouad Haddad, has lent credence to the interpretation that Jinnzaman put forth:
http://www.sunnah.org/msaec/articles/Constantinople.htm
“The following authentic hadith about the conquest of Constantinople is usually interpreted to refer to the conquest that already took place at the hand of Muhammad (Mehmed) Fatih — may Allah be well-pleased with him. However, in the light of the Qur’an and other hadiths this narration has also received another interpretation which places its occurrence in the future… Some of the people of knowledge in our time said: This is a reference to one of the battles to be waged by al-Mahdi — peace upon him — and his army after the descent of `Isa — Allah bless and greet him.”
I’m not closing comments, because the discussion between Jinnzaman and Yursil is EXTREMELY beneficial to me and all those who feel it is. I feel it is not an argument but rather a discussion between two students of knowledge with with respect and adab. MashaAllah!
Please Yursil and Jinnzaman continue. Also if you have anything educational and intellectual to add, please do.
JazakAllah khair! May Allah (swt) forgive us all and guide us all to jannah! Ameen!
honestly i feel this has spiraled into a crazy Sufi-Salafi debate. people dont care to actually read the article and ITS PURPOSE, rather they just blindly bash. so annoying…
Subhana Allah! I was going to say the same thing…yeah please continue.
Those who don’t understand the argument of their opponents do not fully understand their own.
Jinnzaman you said:
“Again, we cannot attack the Shaykh’s ideas if we don’t have any accurate information about them. So the Shaykh’s brother wrote a refutation about him? What does that prove? Imam Juwayni wrote scathing criticism’s of Imam Abu Hanifa. Imam Bukhari was kicked out of Tirmidh for his views on the createdness of the Qu’ran. Islamic intellectual history is a history full of refutations and counter-refutations. It does not prove the orthodoxy or unorthodoxy of a particular thinker.
In order to show that Shaykh Muhammad’s ideology was unorthodox, you’d have to show that it was abnormal, even from a Hanbali perspective. The mere fact that the teacher who introduced the works of Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah was an Ashari Nasqhbandi Sufi shows that Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah wasn’t considered a “whack” thinker. If even Sufis are teaching his works, how bad can they be? In terms of his anti-kalam stance, the majority of Hanbalis have opposed ilm ul kalam, so there’s no surprise there. ”
I never heard that before but this is awesome to hear.
Could you give me a sources for these? I want to read more on this. Jazaka Allahu khayran.
I like to remind everyone of the story in Surah Kahf of Khidr and Musa (alayhim salam). Where Khidr (as) does a number of acts which appear outright haraam and evil–and yet they are praiseworthy. Cool no?
MR,
Thanks for the entry, will check out the link if I get some time, insha’Allah.
Nice discussion and debate you got going on here, by the way
Siraaj
MR, I am no student of knowledge.
But since its beneficial to MR I’ll just answer the JM questions posted:
1) Merely being part of a tariqa doesn’t make one a wali.
Right. Neither does a Shariat checklist. Perseverance, carrying responsibility, character and sincerity can all contribute to that designation. Its a communal designation and an expression of love, and reflection of the love of Allah that person creates in other individuals.
I already explained the extremely fluid nature of the consideration of waliyat. One persons Wali may just be another persons janitor. Thats also perfectly fine, but simply bad manners.
The Sultans were part of mainstream Ahl ul Sunnah tariqats, Mevlevi’s, Naksibendi’s, Qadiri’s etc..
It is sinful to rebel against any leader due merely due to his personal sins as a Muslim. This type of rebellion is simply Kharijite/ Wahabi mentality.
Secondly, you dont site a specific case so I have no real example to do on your behalf.
The truth is the person who held the Sheikh ul Islam title was the one who opened the door for the Caliphate to be abandoned in the first place, in the case of Sultan Abdul Hamid allowing secularists to take power from the position of the Sultan. And I would dare you to find an anti-Islamic position from Sultan Abdul Hamid.
So if that is the case then what exactly are we thinking here? That the title of Sheikh ul Islam conveyed ultimate Islamic authority more than the Caliph? No, the reality is there were deep and complex political games being played constantly against the Sultans.. different roles of the government always influencing different pressures.
I personally hold actual Ottomans in high regard as reliable sources of information.
Also those who studied and know the language such as Shaykh Abdul Hakim Murad and have access to the Ottoman archives. The source of my information are people much more knowledgable than myself.
Online, I tend to make my arguments using Western sources, as that is all that is respected by others. Caroline Finkel’s book is just ok, but it does a decent job (especially when compared and contrasted with what is known today) of demonstrating the gap between the Muslims understanding of the Sultans vs the reality.
Assalamu alaikum
Sidi, it seems that you’ve propounding entirely subjective standards of historical scrutiny. If there’s no ascertainable way of determining who the awliyah are except for the opinions of a vaguely defined “community standard”, then wilayat is something that only Allah (subhana wa ta’ala) knows.
But assuming this is true, your argument collapses based on the hadeeth of the Prophet (sallahu alayhi wa sallam) that whoever declares war on the awliyah, Allah will declare war on them. If you consider the Ottomans to be Awliyah, then where was the destruction of Europe? If anything, we see the opposite, we see that the Ottoman Empire was completely destroyed and Europe was and is still ascendant up until this day.
This type of apologeticism is absurd and cannot be used as a source of legislation.
My purpose in bringing up the actions of the ‘Ulema of the Ottomans is because they were PRIMARY sources, as opposed to SECONDARY sources from people that did not live at the time of the Ottoman rulers, regardless if they were Muslim or not. The example of the Shaykh ul Islam deposing the Ottoman Sultan for his actions is crucial because it illustrates that their were Ottoman rulers who weren’t acting in accordance with the Shari’ah. There is also a lot of historical evidence in various archives which illustrates that their was a lot of leniency towards the Bektashis (who were EXTREMELY unorthodox) and also to the application of the Hadd.
Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah is a respected but controversial figure. He had several aberrant opinions, but if you look at each scholar in Islamic history, every scholar has opinions that differs to a certain degree.
Shaykh Muhammad ibn AbdulWahhab is just as controversial a thinker as Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah, but we have very scant information from primary sources to study his ideas objectively. There is only biased information, either by his radical defenders or his radical detractors or by Europeans caught up in the great game.
Allahu alam.
masalama
Also, has Shaykh AbdulHakim Murad asserted that ALL of the Ottomans were part of the Awliyah?
Where’s this statement coming from?
Jinn,
Before you return to quoting secular music lyrics again to express your confused state…make dua
As far as Allah declaring war …Allah did ..on false e-calipha touting and other confused and secular Muslims that betrayed the caliph. It is the “Muslims ” suffering not the sultans.
As far as Sh Abdal Hakim why don’t you ask him. He already contradicted you and you’ve so far claimed you know more than him and Imam Zaid
As far as where the idea came from…from those loyal to the sultans not rebelious liars.
Who is your shaykh, who do you respect?
name the sultan you are accusing if you stand by your suppposed facts. Tell me the source. Even better,r keep quiet.
Sidi Yursil,
I don’t see how these ad hominem attacks have anything to do with any of the issues presented above. I’ve never questioned your integrity, but wanted to point out an inconsistency in deference and critique towards historical figures.
First, you assert that the Ottoman rulers were awliyah, and claimed that Shaykh AbdulHakeem, Mufti Taqi Usmani, and Imam Zaid praised the Ottomans. I never contested their praise of the Ottomans, but pointed out its a bit of a stretch to claim that these ‘Ulema viewed the Ottoman Sultans to be Awliyah. I requested that you provide me direct evidence that they deemed them to be Awliyah, and you haven’t been able to provide any proof.
Secondly, the only proof you have that the Ottomans were awliyah was a particular hadeeth cited by Imam Zaid. However, this hadeeth doesn’t clearly refer to the first conquest of Constantinople, but could be applicable to the future conquest of Constantinople at the time preceding Dajjal. In fact, most of the hadeeth concerning Constantinople concern its conquest towards the end of time, and not by the Ottomans. Moreover, even if it was true that the hadeeth was referring to the Ottoman Sultan, it does not logically follow that it means all of the Ottomans were considered to be Awliyah. Where did I ever claim to know more than Imam Zaid or Shaykh AbdalHakeem?
Okay. We have Ottoman rulers who were deposed by the ‘Ulema because they were unfit to rule due to their behavior and you consider that rebellion and you consider them liars, but you will not apply the same level of criticism to the Ottoman Sultans yourself?
I have no shaykh and this is why I am not blinded or prejudiced by the same extreme fanaticism that you seem to be exhibiting as the “Wahhabis” you seem to love to hate. If you’re understanding of history, fiqh, and tasawwuf is this extreme, then you are no different from a Salafi.
I asked you first to list your sources and in the fulfillment of etiquette, you should fulfill my request first.
masalama
Also, please fulfill my request to list the scholars who stated that the Ottoman rulers were awliyah.
The statements by Shaykh Abdulhakeem, Mufti Taqi Usmani, and Imam Zaid DO NOT claim that the Ottomans were all awliyah.
No bro… The ‘attacks ‘ are necessary when you lose your manner, and the proper direction . To inshaAllah wake you up from the pit of heedlessness you have fallen into.
Destroying your point: No where have i stated the sultans were awliya. Nor does such a topic have anything at all to do with you fundamental assertion on this thread: that the sultans were anti Islamic and deposed by ulema. This is putting the cart before the horse. If one believes that about the sultans then being considered Awliya is, of course, ridiculous.
To the issue at hand:
Not only does Sh Abdal hakim Murat contradict you by saying all the sultans respected the ulema, but you have failed to present an ago ul sunnah scholar even criticizing one of them.
Next you seem to think the office of shaykhulislam in the empire somehow represented ijma of the ulema rather than a certtain political office.
Finally in the shazili tariqa and others it is often taught to consider every individual as a wali. Hence the fluid approach of this title has and always will be applied by those who do not agree on the matter. Yet what can ne discussed are the facts. Which have already been presented.
As far as my sources read the articles on my website, in the history and excerpts sections. The references are quite clear. More will be added inshaAllah. I’m done with arguing with this kid.
Typed from my cell phone excuse the horrendous spelling
Which kid? Are you referring to Jinnzaman? Is this where your level of discourse falls to when you cannot coherently argue your point?
Bro, you have been disposed to attacking people in nearly every response. Why not attack the arguments in a logical, coherent way, instead of simple character assasinations attempts? JZ has not attacked you personally even one time, which is testament to a stronger position. And it is also quite lame for you to say “talk to my Shaykh” when you have been talking “for your Shaykh” for a long, long time bro.
I also find it lame that you would take one statement from the esteemed Mufti Taqi out of context and forget all his other stances on Sheikh Ibn Taymiyyah. Neither Mufti Taqi nor Imam Zaid hold your extreme positions. They may have differences with the Shaykh, but if you consider their total positions, they have more respect than despise against this great scholar. And as JZ has pointed out, the statements you mentioned as being evidence for your position have so many logical fallacies, that I don’t even know where to start.
Finally, even the most revisionist history cannot hide the Ottoman’s excesses. If they had not fallen to the depths they did, Allah would not have taken power away from them, and we wouldn’t have lost the khilafa. Wallahu alam.
No doubt we would hear from the Wahabi.
We are not disussing Ibn Taymiyya, nor do you know *my opinion* on Ibn Taymiyya. I hold Ibn Taymiyya as a very knowledgable and respected scholar who lost his direction on some important matters.
Why are you talking about Mufti Taqi, Amad?
Mufti Taqi *agrees* with Imam Zaid on the prophecy referring to the Ottoman Sultan and the army, and hence giving legitimacy to their empire.
In his entry about the conquest of Istanbul Mufti Taqi Usmani writes:
Basically, what I’ve heard is a lot of bland accusations and simple understandings of prophecies and Islamic leadership. Which is probably why Muslims are in the situation they are in today.
The verse you may be subtly referring to is: Allah will not change the condition of a people until they change what is in their hearts.
The *PEOPLE*. The so-called Muslims of this day and the time of the Sultans failed and changed themselves, and indeed Allah changed our condition. The Sultans continued living their simple lives, just as Sultan Abdul Hamid continued his humble work as a carpenter after being deposed by ‘the people’.
In your somehow twisted logic, Ali (R) somehow failed Islam and that is why he was murdered and lost the Khalipha.
Childish ideas and lack of understanding of the deen in such a manner are not worthy of a more ‘intellectually’ phrased response.
That does not mean there are no intellectual points from within my comments, amad and jinn just seem to be ignoring them whether they are phrased intellectually or much more bluntly.
Sidi Yursil, I’m kind of shocked you referred to JZ as ‘kid’. He has clearly referred to you as ‘Sidi’ Yursil. The brothers of the same tariqa you are part of have never referred to anyone as a ‘kid’ when I spent time with them. It may have been a long time ago, but to this day I hold them with a lot of respect. They are more knowledgeable than me and definitely closer to Allah than me. May Allah (swt) forgive me if I have said anything wrong.
Anyways I found the sources of the 3 quotes via Shaykh Google:
Conquest of Istanbul
by Shaykh Mufti Taqi Usmani
Contentions 8
by Shaykh Abdal Hakim Murad
Answer to a Muslim Brother (formerly known as “Answer to a Salafi Brother”)
By Imam Zaid Shakir
Assalamu alaikum
Sidi Yursil,
Again, you haven’t provided any statements from the ‘Ulema listed above who viewed ALL of the Ottoman Sultans in a positive light. You cannot take ONE case example (that of Fatih Muhammad) whose conquest of Constantinople may or may not have actually been praised by the Prophet (sallahu alayhi wa sallam) since it could have been referring to the future conquest of Constantinople at the end of time and then say it applies to each and every single Ottoman Sultan during the entire span of the Empire.
Moreover, even assuming that the statements from these scholars is as expansive as you interpret it, these statements aren’t from primary sources describing the Ottoman Sultans as individuals.
Again, where are you getting your information from, aside from these sources? Which primary sources are you referring to? Or are you claiming that ALL Of the documentation from the archives and from various Scholars is “irrelevant” or “untrustworthy”?
MR. Sidi is not a term we use within our tariqat, where and when did you learn it?
Jinn. I’ve answered you time and time again.
You state:
“even assuming that the statements from these scholars is as expansive as you interpret it”
The statements are expansive, even if you put aside the prophecy. The statements about the splendour of the rule for centuries and what exactly occurred to have them deposed is very clear from Mufti Taqi and Sh Abdul Hakim Murad. It is also in clear contrast to the ‘dominant’ Wahabi view that the Sultans were against Islam and worthy of rebellion. It is also against the dominant discourse in Western historical works which discuss the downfall of the Ottomans.
We could go back further to founders and early Deobandi ulema texts when they gave their primary allegience to the Ottomans away from the British, if that would help you. From what I know they But you could do better research on that subject than me.
There are clear Ottoman documents on the Deobandi support for the Ottomans…
As far as sources, I posted this some time ago but here it is again:
I certainly refer to the Ottoman Archives from aggregate sources for my information as well (as stated above).
Of course, I don’t know Ottoman so I have it interpreted the information I have access to through those who do, (my Shaykh and scholars such as Sh Abdul Hakim Murad).
corrections:
“From what I know they were extremely supportive of the Sultans.”
“Of course, I don’t know Ottoman so I have the information I have access to interpreted through those who do, (my Shaykh and scholars such as Sh Abdul Hakim Murad).”
Sidi is a not a common Turkish greeting. It comes from North African colloqial and later on spread to the Levant.
I mean to the best of my knowledge, but Wallahu a’lam. I’ve been meaning to do some research and linguistic interpretation on it for some time now. Its a cool term.
Sidi Yursil – What I meant was that JZ referred to you as Sidi, while you referred to him as ‘kid’. Even when the brothers in the tariqa were discussing and debating with the salafis, they didn’t refer to them as ‘kids’ but with respect using terms as ‘brother’ or ’sidi’. Allah knows best.
Thats fine but the debaters were also looking to understand rather than throw out accusations. Anyway please dont compare me to those better than me. In fact you must be a better murid than me MR certainly. I use terms of respect for people I respect. I also dont use brother by the way.
I am not better than you. May Allah (swt) forgive me and us all. Ameen!
Shaykh Abdal Hakim Murad said:
From what I understand from what Shaykh Abdal Hakim Murad is saying, is that the Ottoman when started, the Sultans were great leaders and respected the differences amongst the Ummah. BUT, the westernization and being too open got to them and the ruling class. They left the sunnah and thus the end of the Ottoman empire.
Shayk Abdal didn’t say anything about the Sultans being awliyah.
There are two concepts to the term Ottoman in this excerpt. One is ALL the sultans respected the ulema. How could one be loving and respecting ulema and abandoning sunnah? It doesn’t make sense.
The other is referring to the Ottomans as a people:
“the Ottoman nobility and middle classes began to abandon the Sunna”
THAT is what Sh. Abdal Hakim Murad said.
Yes, they indeed turned secular, and that is why we have a secular Turkey. But who is they?
It was the Sultan was deposed by this noble and middle class. It was not that the Sultans became European wannabe’s and then decided to turn Turkey secular. Sultan Abdul Hamid was kicked out for representing the sunnah to these classes. Future Sultans were only figureheads with no power until that same class completely removed them.
This is such common knowledge that it really is not really a matter of debate for anyone.
On the other hand, you said
“the Sultans were great leaders and respected the differences amongst the Ummah. BUT, the westernization and being too open got to them and the ruling class. They left the sunnah and thus the end of the Ottoman empire.”
“They” is lumping up the ruling class with the Sultans. This is completely showing a lack of understanding of how the Ottoman Sultans worked.
To dumb it down for those who need it to be:
This situation was similar to a hypothetical situation where there might be a Muslim president and a complete secular congress, supreme court, and powerful city dwelling population. Then we impeach the head of the office.
And then, 100 years later, we wake up and remember Islam. Then we go back to our history books and blame the president for being impeached by us.
Allah, Allah.
Secondly, I have not said anything about them being Awliya here, I’m thinking everyone here is expressing extreme ignorance by repeating this assertion as:
1) Who is a member of the awliya in an absolute sense is known only to Allah
2) It is not proper manner for the ulema of Shariat to interfere with the realm of politics nor write written treatise about the awliya.
That is left for the texts and words of the Sufis (Rashahat al Ain, Nafahat al Uns, Kashful Majub, etc, etc) .
3) It shows complete lack of understanding and the protocol surrounding the discussion of Awliya and who is contained within them. Something taught within tariqat.
4) And the killer point: I never mentioned anything about this very personal opinion on this thread.
Abdul Hakim Murad said the Sultans respected the ulema. That doesn’t mean they follow them. Also, if the Sultans weren’t to open and generous in there rule, they wouldn’t have been impeached. If they sticked to the sunnah and been harsh to the ones who wanted to be secular, then the Ottoman empire would still be here.
That is what I got out of what Abdul Hakim Murad said.
chill with the egos, i’m reminding myself first before anyone else. By the way, just curious, is there a prize to the “winner” of this debate. if not then….yea, waste of time.
and of course some smart guy is gonna respond to this with some type of smarty comment that attempts to belittle my thoughts. then comes the comment like,” we’re not arguing, it’s a DISCUSSION”. or the whole ” it’s dawah, i’m trying to save my brother from the hellfire” argument.sure whatever you say.
everyone has an ego issue, even myself. just the fact that I would type this, is the product of some arrogance and pride that hovers in my soul, some portion of my mind that has convinced to me believe that I am somehow better than these ppl, that they need MY advise. (which you probably dont)
i don’t know where i’ve heard it before, but it was something more or less to the meaning of ” do not argue, even if you know you are right”. although i don’t agree with the statement under all circumstances, it is a pretty wise statement that takes a lot of patience for one to put into action.
Please forgive me for my arrogance, pride, and big-headedness. please make du’a . jazaks
Sidi,
I have never attacked the legitimacy of the Ottoman Empire and have always viewed the majority of the Sultanate in high esteem. Have you forgotten how often you and I defended the Ottoman Empires in various discussions? I am the last person to question the legitimacy of the Ottoman Khalifate. I am not a Salafi and I do not appreciate the accusation of being a Khwaraj merely because I am pointing out that the Sultans were not infallible and some of them had serious character flaws.
Whenever evidence is presented to support this assertion, you cannot claim that it is merely Orientalist or Kharajite in nature. You cannot claim that all of the flaws were due to meddling Viziers and nobles. If the Ottoman Sultans had no power, then they should not be praised either. Praise should instead be given to their Viziers, the nobles, and the janissaries. There is a severe contradiction in the historical method and the level of deference given to the Sultanate is absurd.
Also, many of the elite Sufis of our age have made it clear that Wilayat is not the procurement of magical powers, psychic abilities, or other feats, but complete and total adherence to the Shari’ah of Allah (subhana wa ta’ala) inwardly and outwardly.
You’ve done far more than that. Please don’t try to escape the reality of your words. Own up, and say that you don’t know something rather than rushing to slander great people in defense of the founder of the Wahabi sect.
You have in the course of this conversation:
1) Questioned the interpretation of the hadith of Constantinople by Imam Zaid and Mufti Taqi and basically the majority of the Ahl ul Sunnah.
2) Questioned Shaykh Abdal Hakim Murads conclusion that all the sultans respected the ulema and shayukh.
3) Promoted the heretical point of view that power was lost by Allah’s decree because of personal failings on the part of the Sultans.
4) Accused the Sultans of being heretical Bektashi’s, when it was the Sultans who banned the order entirely.
5) Claimed, uncited, that the ulema revolted against more than one Sultan
6) Claimed, uncited, that the Sultans engaged in pedastry
7) Claimed, uncited, that the Sultans were ‘butchering competitors to the throne’ (this is relevant specifically in Sultan Mehmed Fateh’s case -praised by contemporary and past ulema- as the orientalists tell this interpretation of the tale as well regarding him and his younger brother)
If the accusation list continued we may run out of Sultans to individually assign them to. If there was an orientalist lie that you didn’t repeat I might be ready to give you an excuse.
Yet, I’ve already addressed, using actual primary sources in an article about that they call “Selim the Sot” and exposed your true ‘primary source’ for #8 ala wikipedia and Kinross. MA Lahoz linked you to it. InshaAllah when I get time I will address the other orientalist lies you have swallowed and decided to transmit onto this comment board.
I didn’t claim that somehow character flaws appeared from meddling Viziers. What I did state is your limited view of the ShaikhulIslam office ‘removing’ a Sultan needs more broader scope than simply, the ‘Sultan was against Islam’.
Frankly, it is a childish and simplistic understanding of politics of any age, much less that of the Ottomans.
You have ignored political struggles and stated the removal of some sultans was due to Islamic infractions *rather* than greater political realities.
Your next sentence assumes the Sultans were powerless in the face of this.
They were not, and from my opinion and from my knowledge of their actions they worked with wisdom especially when dealing with matters like this.
However when it became clear that the avenues were closed for them and their strategies exhausted, they stepped down, rather than weakening the Muslim world in ego-driven conflict.
Again, this is a personal opinion based on fact interpretation, and why also I can hold any opinion about the state of the Sultans and it should be as legitimate as yous. When it coincides with positive statements from others, my position is only strengthened.
I didn’t claim infallibility for the Sultans. In fact for all the questions you have asked and I have answered, you have failed to answer any for me.
All these have been asked:
1) Are the Awliya infalliable? Not in my opinion. In yours, it seems: yes. In my opinion, even someone with a character flaw can work on themselves and die a saint. Those who have subdued their ego can be saints, even if they dont have knowledge of the Shariat.
2) Who mentioned Sultans as awliya here? My opinion on their waliyat is a personal one, and is based on interpretation of facts. Further, I clearly have a broader understanding of the Awliya than you do. As stated matters of Waliyat are in the realm of the Sufis. I understand your elite sufis take, I also understand that reasoning. But who is to say that the Sultans didnt follow the Shariat?
I’ve read what the Sultans dealt with, in my opinion (as dervishes) they were never out to secure power for their ego’s sake. I also see the burden they beared for protecting Islam, and what each and every one of them did for the sake of the religion. There is much good to find in each of them.
The Ottomans are unlike other Sultanates which one can simply many problems, and therefore choose to remain silent on (Abbasids, Ummayads etc). In each and every of the Ottoman Sultan one can find a tremendous desire for Islam and Allah and cite specific examples of their Islamic character.
Looking for an academic treatise on the subject is trying to explain beauty of a particular woman. Yes, its somewhat fact based, but it is also largely in the ‘eyes of the beholder’ .. in the process of explaining, facts can be conveyed yet the beauty itself is never appreciated.
Frankly, they would be considered awliya for simply all the abuse they have taken on this thread in my opinion, you’ve eaten enough of their flesh and wiped away enough of their sins with lies.
3) You have failed to give the name of a Sultan whom you consider guilty of major sins.
4) ‘Primary sources’ includes the Ottoman Achives for me. They have only been open since the 1980’s and even until now only 25% of the Ottoman Archives are available to those who apply for special access. I’ve given names of those that I use to aggregate and interpret that information, you have given none.
Certainly I can claim that.
The uncited example of the ‘ulema’ attacking a Sultan which you constantly turn to that directly points to this.
The only ‘ulema’ like this were those of the Wahabi sect, as it is inherently a Kharjite idea to depose a rule on account of sins, and certainly the Ottomans bled them for it.
InshaAllah, may Allah give them more of what they are deserving.
Here’s a question for Yursil:
Do you believe that the khilafah belongs to the Quraysh?
[...] in a hadeeth circle in Madinah in the 18th century. (Imam Suhaib Webb, Sidi AbulHussein, and Mujahideen Ryder). The following is my contribution to the [...]
Jinnzaman,
I may be understanding you incorrectly, but I am getting the vibe that you regard Muhammad ibn Abul Wahab as some sort of mujadid. Is this true?
I want to know how you treat the many testimonials and writings of ulama who were warning against the Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab.
Do you consider their testimonails of Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab “atrocities” such as murder, pillaging, etc., as true or false?
If true, was Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab justified in doing these things?
If false, do you feel his contemporary ulama conspired against him?
The sheik did not invent a new ideology or wahabism , those against him conspired against him. The sheik only revived back the sunnah of the prophet (saw) his biggest enemies where the Rafidah shias who still today slander and curse him, and there are some extreme sufis who joined the anti wahab wagon , but his influence on islam back then and today has mad a major impact
and you cant ignore that. Any ways its better for you to hold your tongue back from saying anything ill about the sheik because you will be accountable on the day of judgment.
Abu Hurairah RA narrates that Rasulullah saw said: A man speaks something without realising what he has said, but because of it he falls deep into hell to a distance more than between the east and the west. (Muslim)
Abu Hurairah reported that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said: “Whosoever believes in Allah and the Last Day, let him say what is good or remain silent.” (Bukhari)
I just find it hard to believe that dozens of reputable scholars (many non-shia) would conspire against him. They lived during his time witnessed his, and his followers actions. This includes his own family members, grand muftis of Mecca, and many scholars of this ummah that everyone agrees upon.
There are too many critics of not only his doctrines, but more about his actions, and what his followers did, to say that he was a mujadid. I believe that his history has had an great impact, but one that has caused more confusion and division within the muslims than others.
I think there are too many other scholars than Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahab, that we can look up to as mujadids and good influences in this Ummah.
Personally I think the “wahabi” term and discourse more attention than it deserves, and it has become a term that means too many different things.
Regardless I wanted to post the following examples of scholars that wrote against him to see the controversy surrounding him:
http://www.sunnah.org/publication/fajr/fajr.htm
an article that lists approximately 30 scholars that wrote against him
http://www.sunnah.org/aqida/fitnatulWahhabiyyah.htm
Mawlana Shaykhu-l-Islam Ahmad Zayni Dahlan
al-Makki ash-Shafi’i (Chief Mufti of Mecca al-Mukarramah)
http://www.marifah.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=83&Itemid=46
The Mufti of the Hanbali School of Mecca al-Mukarrama who died in the year 1295 A.H
salam `alaykum :
what is this bickering and arguing doing for the ummah?
all of you get off the computer, stop arguing and do some thikr or something else that is productive !
imam Ibn Raghib al-Ifsahani (r) said “Arguing is Makruh for the `ulama and it is haram for commoners.”
wassalam `alaykum
s
Leave a comment