Wednesday, 22 July 2015

The Original Najdi Wahhabi movement was more Extreme in Bloodshed & Takfir than ISIS!

The Original
Najdi Wahhabi 
was more Extreme in 
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."

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
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]

(First Attack 1802)

Inhabitants of Taif put to the sword --

Mecca appeals to the world for vengeance.

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. 

(Edited by ADHM)


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.


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?


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 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)

Wahhabi history


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


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