"Shaikh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab was simply another of these wronged scholars who were falsely accused by people, in an attempt to cause trouble (fitnah). People’s only motives for doing that were jealousy and hatred, along with the fact that bid’ah was so firmly entrenched in their hearts, or they were ignorant and were blindly imitating the people of whims and desires.
We will mention some of the false accusations that were made against the Shaikh, and will refute them."
We will mention some of the false accusations that were made against the Shaikh, and will refute them."
The full piece here.
8 comments:
I don't know about the fitna but i do know he was affiliated to the house of saud when the arabs revolted against the turks in world war 1.
the saudis then fought against the hashims (formerly the sheriffs of makkah) and drove them north to transjordan. it's a wonder saudi arabia and hashemite jordan, or iraq, for that matter, are on good terms.
i've always wondered if this historical baggage was at the top of the saudis' decision to allow us troops in saudi arabia in '91 when they fought against saddam's iraq (successor state to sheriff faisal's (hashemite) kingdom of iraq).
There were many mazhabs but only four remain with substantial adherents. Imam Ahmad Hanbal was a student of Imam Shafi'i as Imam Shafi'i studied under Imam Malik. They, and their scholars, always had great respect for the other schools. i read that in egypt a scholar switched mazhabs because the adherents of a particular mazhab, maliki, i think, was dwindling.
I don't think "wahabbi" is/was a mazhab in itself, but rather a movement towards purifying all the innovations and questionable, baseless practices being held dear by the ignorant.
Notice how now the US/Russia is using the "wahabbi" boogeyman to tar Osama, the Chechens and others determined to purge their lands of the oppressors/invaders.
Marhaban Nimr,
/* rather a movement towards purifying all the innovations and questionable, baseless practices */
Maybe that's true. we must always guard against innovation in the religion. Wahabbis say they are Hanbali although i don't think Hanbalis are against the mau'lid etc. anyway their scholars know better.
like Ha Mim Keller says, "As for would-be mujtahids who know some Arabic and are armed with books of hadith, they are like the would-be doctor we mentioned earlier: if his only qualification were that he could read English and owned some medical books, we would certainly object to his practicing medicine, even if it were no more than operating on someone’s little finger. So what should be said of someone who knows only Arabic and has some books of hadith, and wants to operate on your akhira?"
and Abdal-Hakim Murad says:
"There is a real danger that Sunni Islam is being treated in a similar fashion. The edifice has stood for centuries, withstanding the most bitter blows of its enemies. Only from within can it be weakened. No doubt, Islam has its intelligent foes among whom this fact is well-known. The spectacle of the disunity and fitnas which divided the early Muslims despite their superior piety, and the solidity and cohesiveness of Sunnism after the final codification of the Shariah in the four Schools of the great Imams, must have put ideas into many a malevolent head. This is not to suggest in any way that those who attack the great madhhabs are the conscious tools of Islam’s enemies. But it may go some way to explaining why they will continue to be well-publicised and well-funded, while the orthodox alternative is starved of resources. With every Muslim now a proud mujtahid, and with taqlid dismissed as a sin rather than a humble and necessary virtue, the divergent views which caused such pain in our early history will surely break surface again. Instead of four madhhabs in harmony, we will have a billion madhhabs in bitter and self-righteous conflict. No more brilliant scheme for the destruction of Islam could ever have been devised."
food for thought.
http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/default.htm
Ahlan Capt,
I don't think it was correct of me to say that it is a "movement" per se. Sheikh Muhammad al-Wahhab was committed to returning Islam back to its purer form sans innovations, tainted aqidah, esp with regards to Shirk. But I am sure he and the likes of Albani et al were armed with more than a smattering or Arabic and some hadith.
I do agree with you that many are instant scholar wannabes that pose the problems mentioned in that interview on Nuh Keller's site.
However, I am not so agreeable with the harsh stance taken against the purported 'wahhabi' (again, labels, labels...) scholars like Ibn Taymiyya, et al.
Interestingly, the harshest critics of the so-called 'wahhabis' are those who want to cling on to Sufism/tasawuf ie "traditional islamic spirituality"...which has its roots in dubious sources according to some scholars...
Wallahualam...may Allah guide us all to the right path...
Ahlan Nimr,
I hope you don't mind my continuing this discussion [it's selfish on my part but i find it educational]
*/ However, I am not so agreeable with the harsh stance taken against the purported 'wahhabi' (again, labels, labels...) scholars like Ibn Taymiyya, et al. */
Exactly so. people, for reasons only known to them, like to label others. i think it's incorrect, though, for them to say ibn Taymiyya, at-Tabari, etc were 'wahabbis' simply because they pre-date the wahabbis.
ibn Taymiyya, et al had problems with other scholars during their time as did Imam Ahmad Hanbal but that doesn't mean that they were wrong; certainly not Imam Ahmad!
their problems were with the scholars -- people like them -- not the muslim laity.
i've said this before and i'll say it again: i think an ordinary muslim (even one with a PhD or several doctorates in Islamic studies) is not qualified to pass judgement on these great scholars; not if he hasn't produced the same amount of scholarly work to the same stringent standards that these great scholars adhered to in their time.
Extract from the biographical notice on Imam Ahmad in the Reliance of the Traveler:
'Imam al-Shafi`i said:
"You (addressing Imaam Ahmad ibn Hanbal) are more knowledgeable about Hadith than I, so when a hadith is sahih (correct), inform me of it, whether it is from Kufah, Basrah or Syria, so that I may take the view of the hadith, as long as it is sahih."
and
"Out of piety, Imam Ahmad never gave a formal legal opinion (fatwa) while Imam Shafi`i was in Iraq" '
at any rate, the emphasis on these labels and distinctions between mazhabs, movements and even shias and sunnis, only came about recently. it is especially evident after the recent debacle in iraq: when saddam's iraq fought iran, it was between two countries. it wasn't sunnis vs shi'as. if it were so, saddam wouldn't have had any soldiers to do the fighting; and it (the fighting) lasted eight long years. and what did norman schwarzkopf (US commander, first gulf war) say at the end of his book on the war? well, stormin' norman said, 'at last the crusades are over.'
these differences are usually brought to the fore and seized upon by non-muslims as you've said. but muslims have noticed these differences for a millenium and a half (during the Haj) and have had no problems.
personally speaking i once saw a group of foreign-looking men praying with their hands at their side during Qiyam and, after prayers, during the customary du'a, they looked hesitant and walked off without waiting for the du'a to end -- but i reckon they were Maliki, so no problems. in fact nobody in the mosque gave them a second look.
i think we should be wary of these labels and i especially like this one heard on the bbc: 'the wahabbis, an austere strain of islam...'.
what? is Islam a pathogenic microbe?, a virus? a bacteria?
capt,
you're most welcome to continue the discussion :)
I'm quite perturbed by some of the things I read on Nuh Ha Mim's site...will read it thoroughly first.
Aren't those who stand for the Qiyam with hands on their sides are the Shiites, no?
Yeah, the Western terrors sure are having a field day with 'em labels...esp that equating "Wahhabis" with terror.
We have our very own anti-wahhabis here in Malaysia...I was laughing at the anti-wahabi site on Facebook...so funny, because yang rabid ones tu were the ones yang kaki botol and very liberal...wonder if they even read any of Sheikh Muhammad's books....
Thanks Nimr,
What are you worried about in Keller's site? i notice he doesn't quite agree with the wahabbis.
AFAIK Maliki and Shia do that in Qiyam. that group i saw looked middle-eastern, and the turbans looked Omani. but you're right, they could be shi'as.
FYI i saw a group, i think iranians by the dress, praying with imam after friday prayers at masjid negara. again, nobody said or did anything. some gave a second look but didn't pass any remarks. correct thing to do, i think. we should be slow to condemn other muslims.
*/ I was laughing at the anti-wahabi site on Facebook...so funny, because yang rabid ones tu were the ones yang kaki botol and very liberal */
you know them? sounds like they're the 'ana' and 'anta' and 'fadel-fadel' arabist-types holding forth on the finer points of fiqh without bothering to learn that the pre-requisite of being a faqiha is mastery of arabic.
being kaki botol and liberal would make them anti-wahabbi by definition...haha
Capt,
There was a piece on the translation of classical texts and alleged tampering by the salafis. Thought I might take a closer read.
Ya, I always wanted pack up and stay in Yemen or Syria for a bit with the kids (and family) to learn Arabic and maybe more...but a bit difficult now, since kids would prefer dad to follow. Maybe continue kat UIA when kids a bit bigger. Mostly night classes lah...
Yeah, definitely anti-wahhabi those type...wahhabi pun anti depa...hahaha.
Post a Comment