Debunking Danial pt 2.2

The Purpose of the Naming:

Even though Masʿūd al-Nadwī, may Allah have mercy on him, said in his book Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb: A Wronged and Falsely Accused Reformer that one of the most prominent lies about the call of Shaykh al-Islām was naming it Wahhābism, the ambitious tried to use this name to spread the idea that it was a religion outside of Islam. The English, the Turks, and the Egyptians united, creating a terrifying specter such that whenever any Islamic movement arose in the Islamic world over the past two centuries, and Europeans saw it as a threat to their interests, they connected it to Najdī Wahhābism—even when it contradicted it.

Shaykh Aḥmad ibn Ḥajar, judge of the first Sharia court in Qatar, linked the fabrications of some earlier Ḥanbalī theologians to the slanders against Shaykh Muḥammad.

(1) – See his book, translation by ʿAbd al-ʿAlīm al-Bustawī, reviewed and presented by Dr. Muḥammad Taqī al-Dīn al-Hilālī, p. 165.

The reason is that opponents do not diminish the stature of others except through slander, and likewise, the colonizer finds no path to suppress Islamic movements except through such methods.

Among what Shaykh Aḥmad said in his book Naqd Kalām al-Muftarīn al-Ḥanābilah al-Salafiyyīn is:

“They attributed to the Shaykh and his followers that they do not respect the Prophet ﷺ, that one of them says ‘my stick is better than the Prophet,’ that they do not recognize the status of scholars or the righteous, deny the intercession of the Prophet ﷺ, forbid visiting graves and the graves of all believers, do not see the permissibility of prayer upon the Prophet ﷺ, do not care for the books of the Imams but burn and destroy them, do not consider following them permissible, excommunicate Muslims of many generations except those sharing their belief, and forbid reading the Mawlid” (1)—among other allegations.

The response is that all these things attributed to them are lies and have no basis in truth whatsoever. Their books are printed, sold, and distributed, so whoever wants to know the falsehood of these claims should read their books (2).

From this, we understand the reason for insisting on the label Wahhābism and spreading that it is a fifth sect. Scholars in the Maghreb suffered from the Najdī Rasmīyah-Ibāḍī Wahhābism that arose there, founded by ʿAbd al-Wahhāb ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Rustum at the end of the second and beginning of the third century AH. They have fatwas concerning it and the doctrine of its people, as previously explained.

It is a ready-made garment; all the enemies of the call have to do is impose it on this new call (1). This is done to intimidate and shortcut the process because it serves the colonizer in Islamic lands only if applied to the innovators and superstitions.

As for scholars with true interests, they adhered to what was said regarding these fabrications and attached suspicions, even though dialogue and discussion refute those accusations, showing that they have no basis in truth, and they disavow them. Yet, passion blinds and deafens.

To confirm the validity of the suspicions they propagated, the enemies of the call exploited the early disagreement between Shaykh Muḥammad and his brother Shaykh Sulaymān ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb, in which Sulaymān initially opposed him—like other students of knowledge in Najd and beyond—who do not respond until the truth is known; once sound guidance is clear, they return to the truth in submission.

*(1) – It is known that establishing the Mawlid and reading it, as some do for veneration and worship, is an innovation. See Al-Qawl al-Fasl fī Mawlid Khayr al-Rusul ﷺ by Shaykh Ismāʿīl al-Anṣārī.

(2) – See his book, pp. 57–58 to 101, where he refutes those doubts.

And Shaykh Sulaymān was also among those convinced of the truth of the path his brother followed and the soundness of his purpose, so he became one of his supporters afterward.

We say that the opponents exploited this and authored two letters attributed to Sulaymān, namely al-Ṣawāʿiq al-Ilāhiyyah fī al-Radd ʿalā al-Wahhābiyyah and Fasl al-Khiṭāb fī al-Radd ʿalā Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb.

Meanwhile, those who follow the matter deny this regarding Sulaymān; it was only intended to attach these works to him to increase deterrence, claiming that even his brother Sulaymān, the closest person to him, denounced him, while in reality he followed him and came to him apologetically in Dirʿiyah.

Another evidence of the falsehood of these works and the incorrect attribution to Sulaymān is that the term Wahhābism did not emerge until the Turkish-Egyptian campaigns led by Ibrāhīm Bāshā on Najd, more than twenty years after the death of Shaykh Muḥammad and after the death of Sulaymān as well. This is evidenced by the fact that Ney Bour, the European contemporary of Shaykh Muḥammad, did not use the term Wahhābism at all. Masʿūd al-Nadwī said about him:

“It appears that the term Wahhābism was not known at that time, but he called the Shaykh’s call a ‘New Religion,’ although in the end he expressed it as the new doctrine of Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb, in al-Muḥammadiyyah.”

The first mention of Wahhābism came with Burckhardt, who arrived in the Hijaz after Muḥammad ʿAlī’s conquest in 1229 AH, as mentioned by al-Jabartī in his history (1).

It also appeared in the journey of Sadler, which was previously referenced.

A third piece of evidence: if Sulaymān ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb were truly among those who opposed his brother and resisted the call, his name would repeatedly appear in the responses, as occurs for others who opposed it, even for a short period, since debate and discussion continued. Instead, the attribution to Sulaymān was merely a cloak, not genuinely his, just as the term Wahhābism was imposed, though it has no connection with him, due to the divergence between Shaykh Muḥammad’s call and the external Rustumīyah Wahhābism in terms of creed, content, location, method, and use of legal proof. Thus, his name does not appear in that context, indicating his innocence from it.

The Rustumīyah Wahhābism contradicts the creed of Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jamāʿah, as is known to those who study it. Meanwhile, Shaykh Muḥammad, as he himself states in his letters and as all his books, his sons’ books, and his students’ books testify, was a follower, not an innovator, following the path of Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jamāʿah and advocating his opinion with correct proof from the Noble Qur’an, the Sunnah of His Messenger ﷺ, and what the righteous predecessors followed from the preferred centuries, as is clear in all his books and letters.

A fourth indication: Sulaymān’s opposition to his brother was only at the beginning of Shaykh Muḥammad’s mission, and at that time, the responses did not exceed verbal remarks and correspondence.

(1) – See al-Nadwī, Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb, pp. 167–168.

A fifth indication: the term Wahhābism refers to both their father together, and it is impossible that Sulaymān innovated it, because he did not oppose his father in that regard. Furthermore, he knew the attribution was incorrect since it is a misattribution—just as one would not call a Makkan person a Madinī or a Maghribī an Indian. Even if used loosely, it is debatable, and this would not deceive Sulaymān ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb if he were the actual responder.

A sixth indication: contemporary writers on the call, such as Ney Bour, who observed it when he reached al-Aḥsāʾ, called it al-Muḥammadiyyah after Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb, and sometimes called it the “new call.” These two names did not achieve the intended purpose of inciting the public. Burckhardt, who reached the Hijaz in 1229 AH and met Muḥammad ʿAlī, praised this call, its doctrinal standing, and its purity from impurities, while criticizing those who feared it in his records. This proves that the trick originated in creating a new name meant to stir emotions and legitimize military campaigns against the call under this new title, which had to have roots to manipulate feelings and incite zeal.

Therefore, this naming preceded the campaigns to exhaust people with taxes and to encourage them to give and spend, as al-Jabartī mentioned in his history, reporting their claims about the obligation to fight the Kharijites and that the external Ibāḍī Wahhābism had re-emerged, necessitating maximum effort to combat it.

This is among the most important reasons for shaking off the dust from that label hidden in the records of history. Thus, it is false that Sulaymān ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb authored these two letters after his death. Likewise, the memoirs of Humphreys—who was said to be a British spy and connected to Shaykh Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb—have been falsified in the present time, as there is no basis for this, and this person was never known or heard of before.

This is one of the claims for which there is no evidence or proof… and falsehood knows no bounds. Enemies of Islam are concerned with stirring such matters because they create confusion of thought, provoke sedition, and undermine trust in every sincere caller. Today’s press is a decisive proof of this method of provocation and the proliferation of slander against many countries, because its approach contradicts that of others.

Indeed, the true religion, pure from impurities, whenever it emerges and people begin to incline toward it due to its purification of souls and societies from negative influences that infiltrate Islam (though it is innocent of them), the enemies of Islam become disturbed by this work that unites hearts and mobilizes their allies to prevent this closeness. This is evident, for example, in the Palestinian intifada with stones and chants… the Jews were disturbed by the call for jihad expressed by children and by the repetition of the phrase “Allāhu Akbar”, and they spread in the world through their media that the uprising was communist to divert attention from the Islamic direction they feared… How similar is today to yesterday.

Source: Correction of a Historical Error Regarding Wahhābism —

Muḥammad ibn Saʿd al-Shuwaiʿir (d. 1442 AH)

The Purpose of the Naming

Regarding prostrating to other than Allah

Those Who Transmit the Consensus:

Al-Nawawī (676 AH) said: “As for what the common poor people and their like do in prostrating before the shaykhs, and perhaps they are scholars themselves, it is prohibited by the consensus of the Muslims.” (1)

And Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah (728 AH) said: “The Muslims have reached consensus that prostration to anyone other than Allāh is prohibited.” (2)

Evidence for the Consensus: This chapter’s issue is indicated by the Prophet ﷺ forbidding prostration to anyone other than Allāh in narrations, including:

1. From Muʿādh ibn Jabal – may Allāh be pleased with him – that he went to Yemen (or he said Sham) and saw the Christians prostrating to their patriarchs (3) and bishops (4). He felt in his heart that the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ deserved greater reverence. When he returned, he said: “O Messenger of Allāh, I saw the Christians prostrating to their patriarchs and bishops, and I felt in my heart that you are more deserving of reverence.” The Prophet ﷺ said: “If I commanded anyone to prostrate to anyone, I would have commanded a woman to prostrate to her husband. But a woman does not fulfill her duty to Allāh until she fulfills the rights of her husband completely.” (5)

(1) Al-Majmūʿ (2/79).

(2) Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā (4/358).

(3) Bishop (al-Usquf): the Christian leader and chief; plural: asāqifah. See Tahdhīb al-Lughah (8/315), Al-Muḥīṭ fī al-Lughah (5/293), Al-Muʿjam al-Wasīṭ (1/61).

(4) Patriarch (al-Baṭrīq): the leader in the language of the people of Rome, Arabized; plural: baṭārīq. See Al-Mukhaṣṣaṣ (1/323), Tahdhīb al-Lughah (3/309), Al-Ṣiḥāḥ (5/136).

(5) Narrated by Aḥmad (36/318) and Ibn Mājah (No. 1853). Also narrated by al-Tirmidhī (No. 1159), who said: “In this chapter, from Muʿādh ibn Jabal, Saraqah ibn Mālik ibn Jaʿsham, ʿĀ’ishah, Ibn ʿAbbās, ʿAbd Allāh ibn Abī ʿUffā, Ṭalq ibn ʿAlī, Umm Salamah, Anā, and Ibn ʿUmar. Abu ʿĪsā said: The hadith of Abū Hurayrah is ḥasan gharib.” Al-Hākim in Al-Mustadrak (4/195) said: “It is authentic according to the conditions of al-Bukhārī and Muslim, though they did not report it,” and al-Dhahabī agreed. Al-Albānī authenticated it in Irwāʾ al-Ghalīl (7/54).

However, Ibn Ḥazm weakens it, stating in al-Muḥallā (10/160-161) after mentioning some chains: “All of this is invalid. As for the hadith of Buraydah, it contains ʿUbayd ibn Isḥāq known as ʿAṭṭār al-Muṭallaqāt, a Kufī who narrates falsehood; it is worthless. As for the hadith of Muʿādh, it is disconnected because Abū Ẓabyān did not meet Muʿādh nor reach him. As for the hadith of Anas, it includes Ḥafṣ ibn akhī Anas, who is unknown, for Anas had no brother except al-Barrāʾ ibn Mālik from his father, and ʿAbd Allāh ibn Abī Ṭalḥah from his mother; none of them had a son named Ḥafṣ. Khalaf ibn Khalīfah is not a reliable narrator. As for the hadith of Saraqah ibn Jaʿsham, it is disconnected because ʿAlī ibn Rubbāḥ never met Saraqah. As for the hadith of Qays ibn Saʿd, it contains Sharīk ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Qāḍī, a mudallis who attributes fabricated matters from unreliable sources to trustworthy ones.”

And once it is established that prostration to anyone other than Allāh تعالى constitutes shirk with Allāh تعالى, it becomes necessary to distinguish between prostration of worship and prostration of greeting. As for the prostration of worship, it has already been discussed. As for the prostration of greeting, it was permissible in previous scriptures but became prohibited for this nation. Submission and reverence belong to Allāh alone; this is part of tawḥīd agreed upon by all the messengers, and if directed to anyone else, it constitutes shirk and blameworthy innovation.

However, if someone prostrates to a father, scholar, or similar person with the intention of greeting and honoring them, this falls under prohibited acts that are less severe than shirk. But if the intention is subjugation, seeking closeness, or humiliation toward them, then this constitutes shirk. If someone prostrates to the sun, moon, or a grave, such prostration can only occur as an act of worship, submission, and seeking closeness, and thus it is shirk prostration (3).

Accordingly, whoever does this out of religious devotion and seeking closeness commits one of the gravest forbidden acts and is a misled innovator. It must be made clear to them that this is neither religion nor a proper act of nearness to Allāh. If they persist, they are to be admonished; if they repent, well, and if not, they are to be killed (4).

Sources:

• Nawāqiḍ al-ʾĪmān al-Qawliyah wal-ʿAmaliyah, Dr. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-ʿAbd al-Laṭīf (pp. 278–279)
• See also: Tafsīr Ibn ʿAṭīyah (9/377–378), Tafsīr al-Qurṭubī (1/293; 9/265), Tafsīr Ibn Kathīr (2/491), Tafsīr al-Manār by Muḥammad Rashīd Riḍā (1/265)
• Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā (1/372)

regarding tawaf is he quoting himself?