Shaykh Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab’s connection with Sufism

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.


79 Replies to “Shaykh Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab’s connection with Sufism”

  1. 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.

  2. 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.


  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. Yursil: The references are quite clear. More will be added inshaAllah. I’m done with arguing with this kid.

    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.

  6. 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:

    It was this tremendous importance of this city that prompted Rasoolullah sallallahu alayhi wasallam to make the prophecy of “salvation in the Hereafter for the first participants of Jihaad on this city, and their commander as a better commander and their army as a better army”.

    In order to be eligible to these glad tidings, every Khalifah tried his best to conquer Qustuntunia, (or Istanbul) but the greatest and foremost difficulty was the oceanic circle around this city. The second hurdle was that Istanbul had been built on mountainous terrain, and it’s severe winters used to become unbearable for the Arabs. Thirdly, there were three successive ramparts that were built around this city. In the distance between each of the three ramparts was a trench which was 100 ft. deep, and 60 ft. broad. Thus, it’s fortress had become impregnable. Fourthly, as this city had acquired a pivotal position politically and religiously, the smallest danger to her would rally the whole Christian World to defend her. These were the fundamental reasons that several attempts to conquer her resulted in failure by the Muslims.

    Eventually, the Almighty Allah had destined the assignment to the fortunate Sultan Muhammad Faatih (conqueror) who was the seventh ruler in the Ottoman Empire.

    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.

    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.

    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.

  7. 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

  8. 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”?

  9. 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.

  10. 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 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

    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).

  11. 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).”

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. Yursil on December 8, 2007 at 9:08 pm said:

    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:

    Much of the recent history of the Umma can be understood as the simple consequence of ghafla – of heedlessness of Allah ta‘ala. The Ottoman empire, for instance, is a good example. By Allah’s decree and permission, this state continued for an astonishing six hundred years or more, from 1280 until 1924. In fact, the Ottoman sultans were the longest-reigning of any significant dynasty in world history. No family, in China, India, Europe or anywhere else, ruled for so long. And the achievement is the more remarkable when we look at the size and the diversity of the empire. Many races, religions and languages were present; there was no obvious unifying criterion for all the sultan’s subjects; and yet the empire endured.

    It is not difficult to see why Allah should have given the Ottoman state such success. The sultans always respected the ulema and the shuyukh: Sultan Mehmed, who liberated Constantinople from the Byzantine oppression, was the disciple of Ak Shamsuddin, himself of the lineage of Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani, radiya’Llahu anhu. With such men to pray for them, the early sultans could hardly be defeated in battle. Another factor in Ottoman success was the insistence of the Ottoman ulema on tolerating differences of opinions among Muslims. All classical writers on Muslim political theory have taken to heart Imam al-Ghazali’s insistence that the Muslims are never served by attempts to impose one narrow definition of the faith on everyone else. That kind of totalitarian approach results only in hatred and civil war, bringing misery and weakness to the Muslim community.

    The Ottoman demise resulted not from the adoption of a narrow definition of Islam that set Muslim against Muslim, but from a thoughtless Westernisation among the ruling classes. Adopting the materialism of Western Europe, the Ottoman nobility and middle classes began to abandon the Sunna. The turban began to disappear, followed by the remainder of Muslim dress. Houses began to be designed to bring the sexes together, rather than to separate them. The mosques in rich sections of town emptied, except on Fridays. And the high men of the state, with some exceptions, were increasingly reluctant to ask the great ulema for their prayers.

    The Ottoman empire ended, effectively, with the First World War. Sultan Abd al-Hamid had been overthrown by a Westernising clique which then decided to bring the empire into the war which ended in its dismemberment. If the Ottomans had remained loyal to the Sunna, and hence avoided injustice, bribery, and weakness on the field of battle, the Ottoman state would in all probability be in existence today, and its model of an Islam which tolerates diversity would still prevail, instead of the nervous, intolerant little groups which fill the Islamic scene today.

    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.

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

  18. 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

  19. 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.

  20. I am pointing out that the Sultans were not infallible and some of them had serious character flaws

    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)

    8) Claimed, uncited, that the Sultans were falling into drunken stupors.

    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.

    You cannot claim that all of the flaws were due to meddling Viziers and nobles

    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.

    Whenever evidence is presented to support this assertion, you cannot claim that it is merely Orientalist or Kharajite in nature

    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.

  21. 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?

  22. 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)

  23. 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.

  24. 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:
    an article that lists approximately 30 scholars that wrote against him
    Mawlana Shaykhu-l-Islam Ahmad Zayni Dahlan
    al-Makki ash-Shafi’i (Chief Mufti of Mecca al-Mukarramah)
    The Mufti of the Hanbali School of Mecca al-Mukarrama who died in the year 1295 A.H

  25. 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


Comments are closed.