movement
Bloodshed & Takfir than
The
Takfir against the people of Sham and the attack against them
Short
refutation of the lie [of the "Salafi" Mashayikh] that the
Najdis did not rebel against the Ottomans
The Najdis make
Takfir upon the people of Makkah and those who do not make Takfir
upon them and let them die from hunger
The accusation against
al-Ahsa` and the terrorizing and mass-slaughtering of its people
The
attack against a market in Basrah: Killing the people and letting
them drown in the water
Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH): The
lying Dajjal from Najd
- These are the most important Najdi sources in order to know the reality of this movement:
Tarikh Najd by the Wahhabi historian Hussayn bin Ghannam (d. 1225 AH): It's a history book and the author is a supporter and direct student of Muhammad bin 'Abd al-Wahhab.
'Unwan al-Majd fi Tarikh Najd by the Wahhabi historian 'Uthman bin Bishr (d. 1288 AH): It's also a history book and the author lived during the time of the first and the second Saudi state. Similar to the book of Ibn Ghannam it's full of shocking passages where the author proudly reports how they attacked the cities of the Arabian peninsula and the surrounding areas and how "the Muslims" (while refering to themselves, i.e. the Najdis) killed the "Mushrikin" and "Murtadin" (while refering to the Muslims of the whole region!).
Mufid al-Mustafid fi Kufri Tarik al-Tawhid by Muhammad bin 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH): He wrote this book after he had made Takfir upon a whole town in Najd (i.e. Huraymila`) and tried to justify it. The reason for his Takfir was first and foremost that the people of the city didn't support his unjustified Takfir and call to bloodshed anymore.
Al-Rasa`il al-Shakhsiyyah: These are the personal letters that Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab sent to the scholars, people of authority and other imporant people. In these letters you'll see him making all kind of crazy statements like making Takfir upon the scholars of his time and claiming that he alone has understood Tawhid.
Al-Durar al-Saniyyah: A compilation of statements from Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab and his [blind] followers (whom the "Salafis" refer to as "scholars of Najd"). It was meant as a defence of their creed.
Who are the Wahhabiyyah and who is their leader?
The Wahhabiyyah are
the followers of Muhammad
bin 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH). He
was the son of a Hanbali scholar and was born in al-'Uyayynah, a
village in Najd.
He
started to study Islam and to become a student
of knowledge (Talib
al-'Ilm), but somehow he developed strange and extreme views.
He
became obsessed with
graves:
He
regarded the wrong actions concerning the graves, which according to
classical understanding are either forbidden (haram) or disliked
(makruh), as Shirk akbar (polytheism).
He
did not stop here:
He
even regarded actions which are allowed according to all 4 accepted
Madhahib of the Ahl al-Sunnah (like for example the seeking of
intercession through the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam -
(i.e. Tashaffu')) as "Shirk akbar" and regarded it as a
nullifier of one's Islam.
When
his father saw that his son had
developed these strange views and had deviated from the way of the
Ahl al-Sunnah,
he disallowed him to spread his wrong views. He feared however that
his son would be the cause of great tribulations after his demise and
he was indeed right with this feeling.
When
his father died, Ibn
'Abd al-Wahhab started
to try to spread his new call.
Before
I proceed I would like to show you what this person thought about
himself, so that you do not have any doubts regarding his deviance
from the way of the Ahl al-Sunnah and the Sawad al-A'dham of this
Ummah.
Ibn
'Abd al-Wahhab: "No
one knows Tawhid except me"
He
said in one of his letters:
---
وأنا
أخبركم عن نفسي والله الذي لا إله إلا هو
لقد طلبت العلم واعتقد من عرفني أن لي
معرفة وأنا ذلك الوقت لا أعرف معنى لا إله
إلا الله، ولا أعرف دين الإسلام قبل هذا
الخير الذي من الله به.
وكذلك
مشايخي ما منهم رجل عرف ذلك، فمن زعم من
علماء العارض أنه عرف معنى لا إله إلا
الله أو عرف معنى الإسلام قبل هذا الوقت
أو زعم عن مشايخه أن أحداً عرف ذلك فقد
كذب وافترى ولبس على الناس ومدح نفسه بما
ليس فيه
---
"And
I inform you about myself - I swear by Allah whom there is none
worthy to worship except Him - I have sought knowledge and those who
knew me believed that I had knowledge while I did not know the
meaning of La
Ilaha illa Allah at
that time and did not know the religion of Islam before this grace
that Allah favored. As well as my teachers (Mashayikh) no one among
them knew that. And if someone from the scholars of al-'Aridh (the
lands of Najd and surrounding areas) claims that he knew the meaning
of La
Ilaha illa Allah or
knew the meaning of Islam before this time, or claims on behalf of
his teachers that someone from them knew that, then he has lied and
said falsehood and deceived the people and praised himself with
something he does not possess."
Source: al-Rasa`il
al-Shakhsiyyah and al-Durar
al-Saniyyah 10/51
Just
look at the arrogance and narcissm of this person and how he claims
that he alone knows Tawhid while accusing the scholars (!) of the
whole region of not knowing it. And
where did this "knowledge"
come from if no one teached it him?
And
you'll be surprised how
many times he makes such crazy statements in his letters and how he
sometimes lies (like for example by accusing anyone who critises him
of "Sabb al-Din"/"cursing the religion") in a
very clear way without having any shame whatsoever! May
Allah ta'ala give him what he deserves!
What was his connection to the first Saudi state?
After he was thrown out of his hometown he met the Amir of al-Dir'iyyah (which is a town in Najd), Muhammad bin Sa'ud (d. 1179 AH), in the year 1157 AH. Ibn Sa'ud accepted his call after Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab had told him that the people of Najd and the surrounding were upon "polytheism" and "ignorance" and after he explained to him his new religion. (Ibn Bishr has mentioned the incident.) Ibn Sa'ud and Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab made an alliance and agreed that the polical power shall be for Ibn Sa'ud (and his sons after him) and that the religious power shall be for Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab and his new ideas. This was the birth of the first Saudi state and he was the "Mufti" of this [accursed] state.
The first Saudi state:
The worst and
most bloodthirsty Khawarij
in the history!
After the alliance was made Ibn
'Abd al-Wahhab started
throwing around with Fatawa of Takfir and to claim that most people
of his time were are upon "Shirk akbar"
(polytheism), so that the soldiers of the new born Saudi state could
take this as a justifcation to fight the surrounding areas and occupy
these regions. The Najdis first started with the towns and villages
of Najd and attacked them one after the other.
But they
did not stop with Najd. Soon they started to attack the
whole Arabian peninsula. They also attacked all surrounding areas
like 'Iraq, Sham, Yemen, 'Oman, etc.
They did not even shy
away from making Takfir against the people of Makkah al-mukarramah
and Madinah al-munawwarah and harming them and occupying these
blessed cities!!
If you read how the two Wahhabi
historians Ibn Ghannam and Ibn
Bishr proudly and without any shame reported these
incidents you'll be shocked. They reported how they
made Takfir upon whole towns and villages, attacked them and killed
them on the streets, the markets and even in their houses. They
even killed the Amir of al-'Uyayynah inside the mosque (!!!) after he
had prayed the Salat al-Jum'ah. (Not even the houses of Allah had any
sanctity for them!)
They also reported how they burned and
destroyed the fields of Muslims (while referring to them
as "polytheists" and
"apostates"), robbed and stole
from them whatever they could take!
They
even reported what a great fear their attacks caused in the heart of
the people (this was during their attack on al-Sham) or how the
people - innocent Muslim men and women!!! - ran away from them and
died from hunger and thirst in the desert (this is what happened to
the people of al-Riyadh) or how the people fled to the ocean and
drowned in the water (this happened to the people of al-Basrah). They
also reported how they made an embargo against different cities which
caused the people to die from hunger (this happened to the people
Makkah al-mukarramah!).
And as if all of these
crimes are not enough: When they occupied Makkah
al-mukarramah they stopped the people from the other Muslim
lands from making Hajj for several years,
because they regarded all of them to be "polytheists"
and "apostates". The first
time this happened in the year 1221 AH.
When
their tyranny and bloodshed had reached its peak, the Ottomans - who
were the biggest "Mushrikin"
(polytheists) upon this earth according the Najdis - decided to stop
these criminal Mariqin and Khawarij and to retake every single city
that they had occupied. The Ottomans crushed their Khariji
state and the first Saudi state ceased to exist by the help of Allah
and his permission.
What is build upon deviation
does not lead to anything except more deviation:
After
the first state they had a second
state, but the second
state was only in Najd and was weak
compared to their first state. As for the third
state: It's
the current Saudi state and
it was build upon treason against the whole Ummah of Islam.
In
the time of their first State the Wahhabiyyah were hated by
all Muslims of the region (because everyone saw and knew of their
crimes) and the people did not accept their views. However
when time passed by the people started to forget about them.
During
the third state (i.e. the actual one) the
government started to spread the so called "Salafi"
Da'wah with huge amounts of money (because there
is still an alliance between the Saudi rulers and the Wahhabi Al
al-Shaykhs, who are the descendents of Ibn 'Abd
al-Wahhab). This and the widespread ignorance regarding the
religion in our times are the main reason why the "Salafis"
have spread. It should be noted that the so called "Salafi"
Da'wah has nothing to do with the Salaf
al-salih or the Ahl
al-Sunnah. It's the result of a mix of the ideas of Ibn
'Abd al-Wahhab and some other controversial personalities.
*
So beware from whom you take religion and do not let these deceivers
influence you.
And our last call is
that all praise be to Allah, the Lord of the worlds. And may the
peace and blessings be upon our Master
Muhammad - the seal of the Prophets and Messengers
- and upon all of his familiy and companions.
What
did the Najdi forefathers of
ISIS think about the people of al-Sham al-sharif and how did they
treat them?
Some people still don't get it why ISIS
/ IS in al-Sham are first and foremost fighting against the
Syrian rebels and people instead of fighting against the criminal
Bashar. (They only attack Bashar when they need a oil field.) Know
that they learned this from the Najdis!
The Najdis would
regard the Ottomans as the biggest "polytheists"
upon this planet and would even make Takfir upon anyone who would
regard them as Muslims or support them in any way.
The Wahhabi
historian Ibn Bishr (d. 1288 AH)
would even refer to the Ottomans as al-Rum (the
Romans...), which is quite ironic because the Ottomans were
trying to defend the Muslims against the real Romans (i.e.
Europeans) while the Najdis where
busy with slaughtering the
Muslims of the Arabian peninsula.
So let's see what
they thought about the people of al-Sham:
Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH) said:
لكن هو أتى من الشام، وهم يعبدون ابن عربي، جاعلين على قبره صنما يعبدونه، ولست أعني أهل الشام كلهم، حاشا وكلا; بل لا تزال طائفة على الحق، وإن قلّت، واغتربت
"But
he came from al-Sham, and they worship Ibn 'Arabi and have made an
idol upon his grave to worship it. I
do not mean all of the people of al-Sham, no of course not; rather
there does not cease a group [from them] to be upon the truth, even
if they're only few."
Source: al-Durar
al-Saniyyah 2/45
In
the above quote he accuses the majority of the people of al-Sham of
worshipping other than Allah ta'ala. Know
that this is from among his many many lies against this Ummah.
(In al-Durar
al-Saniyyah there
is even a quote where accuses
the majority of the people of the Hijaz of rejecting the resurrection
[after death].)
Let
us see now how the Najdis treated
the people of al-Sham:
Ibn
Bishr proudly
reported in his 'Unwan
al-Majd the
following incident which happened in the year 1225
AH:
بلغه الخبر أن بوادي الشام وعربانه من عنزة وبني صخر وغيرهم فيها , فلما وصل تلك الناحية لم يجد فيها أحداً منهم , وإذا قد سبقه النذير إليهم , فاجتمعوا على دوخي بن سمير رئيس ولد علي من عنزة , وهو من وراء الجبل المعروف بطويل الثلج قرب نابلس , نازلين عين القهوة من جبال حوران , ولما بلغ ابن سمير ومن معه إقبال سعود إليهم انهزم بمن معه من البوادي ونزلوا الغور من حوران , فسار سعود في تلك الناحية , وأقبل فيها وأدبر , واجتاز بالقرى التي حول مزيريب وبصرى , فنهبت الجموع ما وجدوا فيها من المتاع والطعام , وأشعلوا فيها النيران , وكان أهلها قد هربوا عنها لما سمعوا بمسيره , ثم نزل عين البجة , وروى منها المسلمون!! وشربت
خيلهم وجيوشهم....
ثم
رجع قافلاً إلى وطنه ومعه غنائم كثيرة من
الخيل والمتاع , والأثاث
والطعام , وقتل
من أهل الشام عدّة قتلى , وحصل
في الشام رجفة ورهب عظيم بهذه الغزوة , في
دمشق وغيرها من بلدانه وجميع
بواديه
Source: 'Unwan
al-Majd 1/309-310
Here
it is described how they robbed the property of Muslims, burned their
things down and how the people had fled from the areas they were
attacking. It's
also mentioned that a number of people from al-Sham got killed and
that this attack (he refers to it as a Ghazwah)
caused huge fear in the hearts of the people of al-Sham - especially
those in Dimashq (Damascus) and other towns and villages.
In
the next comment I'll insha`Allah show how much they hated the people
of Makkah al-mukarramah. (They said that whoever does not make Takfir
upon them is also a disbeliever and they made an embargo against them
until many people in Makkah died from hunger.)
Short refutation of the "Salafi" lie that the Najdis did not rebel against the Ottomans
The
problem with the link you posted is that the author hides
some very important facts and he even made incorrect
statements and lied.
Here
is my short reply:
- It's claimed that Najd was not
under the direct control of the Ottomans. But wasn't it under their
indirect control? (Of course it was.)
And it's not
even important whether it was under their control or not, because
even if Najd was not under their control, it would not justify
attacking its cities and villages (the people living there were
Muslims), slaughtering its people, destroying their fields and
stealing from them whatever one can take! (All of this is
reported by the Wahhabi historians Ibn Ghannam (d. 1225 AH) and Ibn
Bishr (d. 1288 AH) in an explicit manner, so there is no way to deny
it.)
- The Wahhabiyyah also
attacked al-Ahsa`, al-Hijaz, al-Yaman, al-'Iraq, al-Sham and other
areas. All of these lands were Ottoman land without any doubt. So
what is the justification for that? And again: There is no way
whatsoever to deny it, because Ibn Bishr - the Wahhabi! - reported
all of that and when he would mention an attack he would call it
as Ghazwah (military expidition) and when he
mentioned how they stole whatever they could he would call it
as Ghanimah (war booty). These kind of words are
usually only used when one fights against disbelievers who are at war
with Muslims, but Ibn Bishr uses them while describing their attacks
against Muslims.
- And the most important point: The
early Najdi movement (i.e. those in the time of the first
and second Saudi state) would make Takfir upon the Ottomans and
this is a known issue to whoever has read or looked into their
works. There are so many explicit and clear statements
in al-Durar al-Saniyyah and other books. Whenever
they mention the Ottomans they accuse them of "Shirk"
(polytheism) or "Kufr" and they explicitly said that
whoever does not regard them as "polytheists" is a
"disbeliever" and that whoever support them in any way is
also a "disbeliever" and so on.
The
original Wahhabi movement:
" Whoever does
not make
Takfir upon the people of Makkah is
a disbeliever !"
Let
us see what
the Najdis said:
الأمر الثاني: الكفر بما يعبد من دون الله، والمراد بذلك تكفير المشركين، والبراءة منهم، ومما يعبدون مع الله. فمن لم يكفر المشركين من الدولة التركية، وعباد القبور، كأهل مكة وغيرهم، ممن عبد الصالحين، وعدل عن توحيد الله إلى الشرك، وبدّل سنّة رسوله صلى الله عليه وسلم بالبدع، فهو كافر مثلهم، وإن كان يكره دينهم، ويبغضهم، ويحب الإسلام والمسلمين ; فإن الذي لا يكفر المشركين، غير مصدق بالقرآن، فإن القرآن قد كفر المشركين، وأمر بتكفيرهم، وعداوتهم وقتالهم
"The
second issue: To disbelieve in that which is worshipped instead of
Allah, and this means to make Takfir (declare as disbelievers) upon
the polytheists (Mushrikin) and the disavowal from them and that
which they worship alongside Allah.
So
whoever does not make Takfir upon the polytheists of the turkish
state (i.e. the Ottomans!) and the grave-worshippers like the people
of Makkah (!!!) and
[upon] others from those who worship the righteous (Salihin) and left
the Tawhid (monotheism) of Allah for Shirk (polytheism) and exchanged
the Sunnah of his Messenger - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - with
innovations, then
he is a disbeliever like them even if dislikes their religion und
hates them and loves Islam and its people.
This
is so because the one who does not declare the polytheists to be
disbelievers has not accepted the Qur`an. The Qur`an declares the
polytheists as disbelievers, and commands to declare them as such and
to show enmity towards them and to fight them."
Source: al-Durar
al-Saniyya 9/291
Look
what a great lie they
made against the people of Makkah, who
were from the people of Tawhid and Tanzih! (And do you see the Takfir
against the Ottomans?)
And look how they make Takfir even upon
the one who does not make Takfir upon them. If this is not Ghuluww
(extremism), then I don't know what is!
Now look at this
letter of Sa'ud
I. bin 'Abd al-'Aziz [bin
Muhammad bin Sa'ud]
(d. 1229 AH)
addressing the people of
Makkah:
من سعود بن عبد العزيز , إلى كافة اهل مكة والعلماء والآغوات وقاضي السلطان , السلام على من اتبع الهدى
أما بعد: فأنتم جيران الله وسكان حرمه آمنون بأمنه.
إنما ندعوكم لدين الله ورسوله ,
( قل يا اهل الكتاب تعالوا الى كلمة سواء بيننا وبينكم ان لا نعبد الاّ الله ولا نشرك به شيئاً ولا يتخذ بعضنا بعضاً أرباباً من دون الله ، فان تولوا فقولوا: اشهدوا باننا مسلمون )
, فأنتم في أمان الله ثم في أمان أمير المسلمين سعود بن عبد العزيز , وأميركم عبد المعين بن مساعد ، فاسمعوا له وأطيعوا ما أطاع الله والسلام
"From
Sa'ud bin 'Abd al-'Aziz to all of the people of Makkah, the scholars,
the chiefs and the judge of the Sultan: Peace
be upon the one who follows guidance.
To
proceed: You're are the neighbours of Allah and the inhabitants of
his sanctity and secure by his safety. We
are calling you to the religion of Allah and that of his Messenger
(!!!), { Say:
O People of the Scripture! Come to an agreement between us and you:
that we shall worship none but Allah, and that we shall ascribe no
partner unto Him, and that none of us shall take others for lords
beside Allah. And if they turn away, then say: Bear witness that we
are they who have surrendered (unto Him). }
[3:64].
You're
in the safety of Allah and then in the safety of the leader of the
Muslims (!) Sa'ud bin 'Abd al-'Aziz, and your leader 'Abd al-Mu'in
bin Musa'ad. So listen to him and obey him as long as he obeys Allah.
Peace."
Source: Hashiyyah
of 'Unwan
al-Majd 1/261 by
Ibn Bishr (d. 1288 AH)
Look
how he greets them with "Peace
be upon the one who follows guidance"
instead of "Peace be upon you". (It
should be obvious by now why he's doing that!)
Then he's calling
them "to
the religion of Allah and that of his Messenger"?!?!
Why??
Are the People of Makkah not already upon the religion of Allah?
And
then look at the Ayah he quotes and how he
declares himself to be the leader of Muslims!
There
are two important
things that you need to know about this
Sa'ud
I. bin 'Abd al-'Aziz (d. 1229 AH):
- He
was not just the third leader/ruler of the first Saudi state, but
also a
direct student of Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH)
himself
-
The one who commanded all of the people of Najd to make Bay'ah to him
after 'Abd
al-'Aziz bin Muhammad bin Sa'ud (d. 1218 AH)
was none other than Ibn
'Abd al-Wahhab as Ibn
Bishr mentioned
in his 'Unwan
al-Majd 1/162:
"أمر
الشيخ محمد بن عبد الوهاب جميع أهل نجد
أن يبايعوا سعود بن عبد العزيز , وأن
يكون ولي العهد بعد أبيه , وذلك
بإذن عبد العزيز , فبايعوه"
- end of the qoute -
Know
that he's still trying to sound nice in the above letter, because
he said that after being able to control the city.
But let's see
how this "safety" that
he claimed to give to the people of Makkah looked like when he lost
the control over the city.
The Wahhabiyyah make
an embargo against Makkah al-mukarramah, which causes the death of
many of its people
Ibn
Bishr said
while speaking about the incidents of the
year 1220 AH:
وفي هذه السنة اشتد الغلاء والقحط على الناس ... وأما مكة فالأمر فيها أعظم مما ذكرنا بسبب الحرب والحصار وقطع الميرة والسابلة , وذلك حيث انتقض الصلح بين غالب وبين سعود , فسدّت الطرق كلّها عن مكة من جهة اليمن وتهامة والحجاز ونجد , لأنهم كلهم رعية سعود وتحت أمره , فثبت عندنا وتواتر أن كيلة الأرز والحب بلغت في مكة ستة أريل , وكيلتهم أنقص من صاع نجد , وبيع فيها لحوم الحمير والجيف بيعت فيها بأغلى الأثمان ، وأكلت الكلاب ، وبلغ رطل الدهن ريالين , ومات خلق كثير منهم جوعاً
Source: 'Unwan
al-Majd 1/284-258
It's
mentioned that there was a drought in that year. What did
the Wahhabiyyah do
in this situation against the people of Makkah?
They
made an embargo against them so that nothing could enter the city
from the direction of Yemen, Tihamah, Hijaz and Najd (because all
of these regions were already under Wahhabi occupation), which
made the situation in Makkah even more serious. The
people had even started eating the meat of dogs and
Ibn Bishr says that many people
[in Makkah] died from hunger.
Know that they
treated Madinah al-munawwarah in
the same way (and this was in the same year
and Ibn Bishr mentioned that
some pages after the above qoute), even though Rasulullah -
sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - has explicitly warned from harming
al-Madinah!
Ibn
'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH)
accuses the people of al-Ahsa` of worshipping
idols:
While
addressing someone who is from al-Ahsa`, he tells him that idols are
worshipped in his land (which is again a clear-cut lie!):
وقد
بلغني أنكم في هذا الأمر قمتم وقعدتم،
فإن كنتم تزعمون أن هذا إنكار للمنكر،
فيا ليت قيامكم كان في عظائم في بلدكم
تضاد أصلي الإسلام: شهادة
أن لا إله إلا الله وأن محمداً رسول
الله! منها،
وهو أعظمها: عبادة
الأصنام عندكم من بشر وحجر
Source: al-Rasa`il
al-Shakhsiyyah
His
blind followers attacked al-Ahsa` (which
by the way is Ottoman land!), slaughtered its people, destroyed their
property and stole whatever they could take several times during his
lifetime and also after him. So let's see what they did in one of
these attacks:
Terrorizing and mass-slaugtering the
people of al-Ahsa`
Ibn
Bishr (d. 1288 AH)
said while speaking about the incidents of the
year 1210 AH:
فلما كان قبل طلوع الشمس ثور المسلمون بنادقهم دفعة واحدة , فأرجفت الأرض وأظلمت السماء , وثار عج الدخان في الجو , وأسقط كثير من الحوامل في الأحساء , ثم نزل سعود في الرقيقة المذكورة , فسلم له , وظهر له جميع أهل الأحساء على إحسانه وإساءته , وأمرهم بالخروج فخرجوا , فأقام في ذلك المنزل مدّة أشهر يقتل من أراد قتله ويجلي من أراد جلاءه ، ويحبس من أراد حبسه ، ويأخذ من الأموال ، ويهدم من المحال ، ويبني ثغوراً ، ويهدم دوراً ، وضرب عليهم ألوفاً من الدراهم وقبضها منهم ... وأكثر سعود فيهم القتل ... فهذا مقتول في البلد ، وهذا يخرجونه إلى الخيام ، ويضرب عنقه عند خيمة سعود ، حتى أفناهم إلا قليلا ، وحاز سعود من الأموال في تلك الغزوة ما لا يعد ولا يحصى
"Then
before the sunrise the Muslims (read: the Wahhabis) shot with their
rifles [all at] once, so that the earth trembled, and the heaven
became dark, and smoke rose into the sky and
many of the pregnant women (!!!) in al-Ahsa` had a miscarriage (due
to extreme fear).
Then
Sa'ud settled in the [earlier] mentioned al-Raqiqah, so it was given
to him. All of the people of al-Ahsa` [then] appeared in front of him
in kindness and badness. He commanded them to leave so they left.
He
stayed there for [several] months [while]
kiling whomever he wanted to kill, and exiling whomever he wanted to
exile, and imprisoning whomever he wanted to imprison, and
taking from the wealth, and destroying places, and building
strongholds, and destroying houses and wanting thousands of Dirhams
from them and taking it from them...
And
Sa'ud killed many of them...
So this one [lies] killed in the
land and that one is taken out to the tents and his neck is struck
off near the tent of Sa'ud until he annhalited [all of] them except
very few.
Sa'ud
came into possesion of [much] wealth in this attack (Ghazwah) which
can not be counted or numbered." Source: 'Unwan
al-Majd 1/216-217
(Remember: Sa'ud
I. bin 'Abd al-'Aziz [bin
Muhammad bin Sa'ud] (d. 1229 AH)
later on (i.e.
1218 AH)
became the third
ruler of
the first
Saudi state and
was a
direct student of Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab.)
The Wahhabiyyah attack
a market near al-Basrah, kill the people there and let those who flee
from them drown in the water
The
known Wahhabi historian Ibn
Bishr (d. 1288 AH)
said regarding the events of the year 1212 AH:
وفيها
في رمضان سار سعود رحمه المعبود , بالجنود
المنصورة والخيل العتاق المشهورة , من
جميع نواحي نجد وعربانها وقصد الشمال , وأغار
على سوق الشيوخ المعروف عند البصرة , وقتل
منهم قتلى كثيرة , وهرب
أناس وغرقوا في الشط
"And
in [that year] in [the month of] Ramadhan (!) Sa'ud [I. bin 'Abd
al-'Aziz] - may the worshipped One have mercy upon him - set out with
the victorious armies and the famous horses, from all of the areas of
Najd and its [bedouin] Arabs and intended the North (i.e. 'Iraq). He
attacked the known al-Shuyukh market
near al-Basrah and killed many of them. The people fled and drowned
in the river."
Source: 'Unwan
al-Majd 1/240
So
here we see that the Wahhabiyyah attacked
a random market of a Muslim town without any reason whatsoever and
killed whoever was on that market. And as if that is not enough: They
ran after the poeple who tried to flee from them, so that the people
had to throw themselves into the river. Then these evil criminals
waited until the people drowned in the water!
*And
they did all of this in the month of Ramadhan!!!
Know
that doing this is not even allowed against disbelievers, so what
about doing this against Muslims?
(Our religion makes a
distinction between fiqhters and non-fighers and the Jumhur of the
classical scholars have mentioned that the reason for fighting is
Muqatalah (fighting) and not Kufr (disbelief).)
Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH):
The
lying Dajjal from Najd
He said:
ومعلوم: أن
أهل أرضنا، وأرض
الحجاز،
الذي ينكر البعث منهم أكثر ممن يقر به،
والذي يعرف الدين أقل ممن لا يعرفه
"It's
known regarding the people of our land (i.e. Najd) and
the land of al-Hijaz,
that those among them who reject the resurrection [after death] are
more than those who accept it and
that those [among them] who know the religion are less than those who
do not..."
Source: al-Durar
al-Saniyyah 10/43
This
is such a shameless lie from him and whoever believes his claim must
have lost his mind.
Just
imagine: He accuses the majority of the people of Hijaz - which by
the way was full of scholars [of the Ahl al-Sunnah] at that time -
and the people of his land of the rejection of the resurrection after
death.
I mean even in our time, when ignorance regarding the
religion is becoming widespread (and "Salafism" is one of
the forms of this ignorance), we do not see anywhere people from the
Ahl al-Qiblah rejecting the resurrection!
So
how for God's sake can one trust this person after knowing this?
How can one trust a person, who lies and deceives?!
And
if you ask why he was lying like that, then the answer is: He
was doing this so that his blind followers can attack al-Hijaz (and
they attacked it more than once!).
And know
that lying is
something that some of his followers do until today:
So
you'll see them accusing other
Muslims of things that they have never done nor would ever do! Or
they will interpret an action that may be even allowed in the divine
law in the worst possible manner, so that they can accuse their
opponent of disbelief and polytheism and this and that.
And
what is also widespread among their Mashayikh is
to deceive their followers and
give them false information
regarding events of the past, other
Muslims, etc. (And this unites them with the Mashayikh of the
Rafidhah!)
[Originally
Posted Here and Here By
Abu Sulayman]
(Edited by ADHM)
================================================
12 SEPTEMBER 1924
WAHHABIS SECOND ATTACK AND MASSACRE OF TAIF
(First Attack 1802)
REPORT MASSACRE OF WHOLE ARAB TOWN;
Inhabitants of Taif put to the sword --
Mecca appeals to the world for vengeance.
By WIRELESS TO THE NEW YORK TIMES. SEPT. 13, 1924
LONDON, Sept. 12. --
Reports of attacks by the Wahabites of Nejd, Central Arabia on the town of Taif, seventy miles southeast of Mecca, and the slaughter of its inhabitants, have been received in London in the form of a telegram from aggrieved inhabitants of Mecca. [Here]
Originally Posted by Mikha’eel said: " So you create a topic for where you lecture people about the evil of this movement but won't tolerate any discussion or argumentation of it by anyone that rejects these "facts" of yours. Sorry but that simply isn't gonna happen.”
^ Reply from Abu Sulayman: The reason why I said that this thread is not for the sake of discussion and argumentation is the following: In order to have a serious and fruitful discussion both sides must have knowledge regarding the issue that they're talking about (and both sides need to be read to accept the truth). The problem however is that most people who are influenced by the so called "Salafi" Mashayikh do not know the history of the movement that they're admiring. The "Salafi" Mashayikh have simply told them that Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH) "fought against Shirk and Bid'ah" and they've unfortunately simply accepted this without further investigation. May Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala guide us and them.
The
absolute majority of the laymen who are influenced by the "Salafi"
Mashayikh have never read books/works like Mufid
al-Mustafid, al-Rasa`il
al-Shakhsiyyah, Tarikh
Najd, 'Unwan
al-Majd or al-Durar
al-Saniyyah.
If
someone wants to speak about the original
Najdi movement with knowledge then
he's welcome to do so, but if someone wants to blindly
defend them without having looked into the above
mentioned books then I believe that this is not acceptable,
because our religion prohibits
talking without knowledge.
--------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by Abd al-Rahman said: " I bet the writer belives Rassullulah(saw) has knowledge of the unseen”
^ Reply from Abu Sulayman: Let's first make a differentiation between the knowledge of the Creator and that of the creation: The knowledge of Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala is eternal, personal, all-encompassing and infinite, while the knowledge of the creation is limited and acquired.Some of the creation however has been given more knowledge than others.
Rasulullah - sallallahu 'alahi wa sallam - is the best of creation and the most knowledgabe of them. Allah ta'ala has given him knowledge regarding many unseen matters and that's how he - 'alahis salatu was salam - has narrated us regarding events that will happen in the future.
Read here: Knowledge of the Unseen by Imām al-Nawawī
-------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by Abd al-Rahman said: " and that he is in Bristol and Mogadishu and Johannesberg and Lahore and in my house all at the same time.”
^ Reply from Abu Sulayman: I don't believe that. I would however like to mention three points in this context:
- Being in
place - no matter whether it's in every place or
in one place - is not from among the divine attributes. Allah
subhanahu wa ta'ala is beyond the universe and his existance is
completely independent from time and place.
- Rasulullah - sallallahu
'alayhi wa sallam - knows the state of his Ummah and their
deeds, because these informations are presented to him as it's
established through the narrations.
Read
this here: ...And
My Death is a Great Good For You by
Shaykh Mahmud Mamduh
Imam
al-Qurtubi (d.
671 AH)
said:
ابن المبارك، أخبرنا رجل من الأنصار، عن المنهال بن عمرو، حدثنا أنه سمع سعيد بن المسيب يقول: ليس من يوم إلا تعرض على النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أمته غدوة وعشية فيعرفهم بسماهم وأعمالهم فلذلك يشهد عليهم يقول الله تبارك وتعالى:
{فكيف إذا جئنا من كل أمة بشهيد وجئنا بك على هؤلاء شهيداً}
. فصل: قلت: قد تقدم أن الأعمال تعرض على الله تعالى يوم الخميس ويوم الأثنين، وعلى الأنبياء والآباء والأمهات يوم الجمعة ولا تعارض، فإنه يحتمل أن يخص نبينا عليه السلام بالعرض كل يوم ويوم الجمعة مع الأنبياء
"(It
has been narrated that) Ibn al-Mubārak narrated with his chain to
al-Minhāl ibn ‘Amr who narrated that he heard Sa’īd ibn
al-Musayyib say: ‘There is not a day, except that on it, the
actions of the Ummah are presented to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم,
both in the morning and the evening. So, he knows them by their deeds
and appearances, and it is due to that he will bear witness against
them. Allāh the Exalted said:
“So
how will it be when We bring every nation with a witness and bring
you as a witness over these’’
It
has proceeded, that the deeds are presented to Allāh the Blessed and
Exalted on Thursday and Monday and (the deeds are presented) to the
Prophets and fathers and mothers on Friday and there is no
contradiction, for it is possible that it is specific to the
Prophet صلى
الله عليه وسلم that
the deeds are presented to him every day and on Friday with the other
Prophets."
Source: al-Tadhkirah and
the next
page; translation taken from here: Tawassul
and Istighatha by
Imām Ibn al-Hājj al-`Abdarī
- It's
possible for the souls of the Prophets -
and even that of non-prophets! - to move after death. If you look at
the incident of al-Isra`
wal Mi'raj you
will see that Rasulullah - sallallahu
'alayhi wa sallam -
met many different Prophets and Messengers even though they had died
a long time ago.
-------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by Al Riyadh said: " grave worshipping ”
^ Reply from Abu Sulayman: You and some other people are using the expression "grave worship" while being ignorant of the Ahkam (rulings) that the classical scholars mentioned in this context. These actions concerning the graves are not "Shirk akbar"! In my opening post I mentioned that some of these actions are disliked, some are forbidden and some are even allowed.
To
act as if Tawhid and Shirk is
all about graves is an innovation. Read
any classical Matn
of 'Aqidah and
you won't see
a sinlge word
about graves.
Rasulullah -
sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - said:
يَكُونُ
فِي آخِرِ الزَّمَانِ دَجَّالُونَ
كَذَّابُونَ يَأْتُونَكُمْ مِنَ
الأَحَادِيثِ بِمَا لَمْ تَسْمَعُوا
أَنْتُمْ وَلاَ آبَاؤُكُمْ فَإِيَّاكُمْ
وَإِيَّاهُمْ لاَ يُضِلُّونَكُمْ وَلاَ
يَفْتِنُونَكُمْ
"There
will be in the end of time charlatan liars coming to you with
narrations that you nor your fathers heard, so beware of them lest
they misguide you and cause you tribulations."
Source: Sahih
Muslim
It
should be noted that many among those who are obsessed
about graves and think
that Tawhid and Shirk is all about graves are ignorant regarding
Allah ta'ala and his attributes. That's
why you will see the Mashayikh of the so called "Salafiyyah"
ascribing Allah ta'ala Sifat
'Ayniyyah (i.e.
tangible attributes) and claiming that Allah
is a Mahall for Hawadith (i.e.
is subject to changes) and
other such Kufriyyat.
(I'm not mentioning that in order to make Takfir upon them.)
High
Exalted is Allah above what the oppressors
claim!
---------------------------------------
Imam Ibn 'Abidin lived from 1198 AH till 1252 AH.
The
first Saudi state existed from 1157 AH
until 1234 AH. The
Wahhabiyyah attacked al-Sham al-sharif (and Imam Ibn 'Abidin was from
Sham!) in the year 1225 AH.
And Imam
Ibn 'Abidin was
not alone in his rejection of
the Wahhabi
movement: Literally
ALL scholars from the 4 Madhahib of the whole region were against
the Najdi
Shayatin.
Imam al-Sawi (d. 1241 AH) even referred to them as Hizb al-Shaytan!
Najd
was under the indirect control of the Ottomans, but this point is not
even important. The "Salafi" Mashayikh of today are only
mentioning this in order to distract their followers from some very
important informations:
The Wahhabiyyah were SLAUGHTERING Muslims
in huge numbers and taking their wealth and destroying their property
not just in Najd, but also in all areas around it.
It
is established with absolute certainity that they attacked al-Ahsa`,
al-'Iraq, al-Sham, al-Hijaz (including the Haramayn al-Sharifayn!),
al-Yaman and other areas. All of that is Ottoman land.
Just
read what the Wahhabi historian Ibn Bishr (d. 1288 AH) reported. He
has mentioned all of these attacks.
And
if you want to claim that only the followers of Ibn
'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH) were
crazy and that they had misunderstood him, then let me tell you that
he was the Mufti of the first Saudi state (and after him his
sons!).
And
not just that! He openly commanded his followers to attack other
Muslims and he even prepared the fighters and sent out the Saraya [to
kill the believers of the Arabian peninsula].
You don't believe me? Should I qoute what Ibn Bishr said?
If
you look at the post where one of their attacks against al-Ahsa`
(which is Ottoman land!) has been mentioned,
you'll see that I also mentioned that they had attacked it several
times DURING the lifetime of Ibn
'Abd al-Wahhab and
after him.
All of this is reported by Ibn
Bishr, but
what should do we with a people who are refusing to read?
Do
you know what Allah ta'ala said regarding the one who kills a
believer?:
{ وَمَن
يَقْتُلْ مُؤْمِناً مُّتَعَمِّداً
فَجَزَآؤُهُ جَهَنَّمُ خَٰلِداً فِيهَا
وَغَضِبَ ٱللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَلَعَنَهُ
وَأَعَدَّ لَهُ عَذَاباً عَظِيماً }
{ Whoso
slayeth a believer of set purpose, his reward is hell for ever. Allah
is wroth against him and He hath cursed him and prepared for him an
awful doom. }[4:93]
So
what about slaughtering thousands of Muslims on the Arabian
peninsula?
--------------------------
Mikha’eel said: “I may not agree with his posts, but he made a valid point. If you're going to refute, then do so based on actual evidence and not just throw around the standard anti Sufi clichés which does not address any of the points being made. Defend him the right way and examine the sources being used and the translations, because that is the first place any distortions will come from.” (From Ummah.com/forum- Join Date: Jan 2006-Posts: 30,854)
Read
other comments: Here
------------------------------------
As
from 24/July/2015 Stats: Ummah
.com/forum:(Views: 3,181)
IA forum : (Views: 471)
------------------------------------
(Edited by ADHM)
---
Quote:
SkippedPath of IA
Forum response
to wahhabi/salafi
:
" When I was a Wahhabi, and I was one very extreme and zealous Wahhabi, a asooli one, then my definition of grave-worship was, going to graves doing and askign the occupant of grave, your defintion of grave-worship has slightly evolved to make Quran fit your religion.
My understanding of the definition stems from how Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab used this phrase and those who succeeded him but your is a novel effort to blurr distinction between persona worship [which worhsip of a personality living/dead] and grave worship [which is prostrating to, kissing grave, askign the person in the grave for something while being at the grave] so you inject the poison into text of Quran." IA Forum: Here
====================
ANCESTORS
OF THE MODERN DAY
KHAWARIJ
Following link is a description of the early Khawarij taken from the book:
“Violence and Belief in Late Antiquity”
By Thomas Sizgorich (a non-Muslim author and hence a takfiri (wahhabiyyah) cannot charge of being from a “biased Soofee”).
One can see from it how much the Khawarij of today resemble their ancestors in their ideology, slogans, piety, takfirism & violence. An exception can be made that the Kharijites back then lived during the time of Salaf and as a result they had some of the piety of the righteous salaf, while the Kharijites of today live during the worst of times in terms of Islamic piety, and hence are the worst of the Kharijites history has ever witnessed.
---
Read further : Here
