A note I copied from another forum
Cannot remember the source, but had some very interesting points:
All praise is due to Allah, the Lord of the worlds. And may the peace and blessings be upon the Master of all Messengers - our Prophet Muhammad - and upon his family and companions and those who followed them in goodness until the day of judgement.
To proceed:
Al-Salamu 'alaykum wa rahmatullah,
I've read some threads on this forum and saw that there are people here who dislike the crimes of IS / ISIS against the Muslims and other innocent people, but at the same time they admire Muhammad bin 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH) and the original Najdi movement. This shows that there is huge amount of lack of information regarding the original Najdi movement and the level of their fanaticism.
Know that IS / ISIS has not even committed 10 % of that which the original Najdi / Wahhabi movement committed against the Muslims in the time of the first Saudi state.
The reason why it's important to know about the history of the original Wahhabiyyah is because it's necessary in order to understand the roots of fanaticism of an organization like ISIS and also in order not to be fooled by the deception, lies and propaganda of the Mashayikh of so called "Salafi" movement, who are exploiting the thirst of young people - especially those living in the West - to learn the religion. The reason why young people in the West are easily fooled by these so called "Salafis" is because of the ignorance regarding the [true] religion (i.e. Islam) that is unfortunately prevelant in the West.
In this thread I'll insha`Allah try to lessen this lack of information concerning the original Najdi movement.
Before I begin I would like to make an important note: This thread is NOT for the sake of dicussion and argumentation, but rather in order to inform those brother and sisters who don't know the reality of this movement and to warn them from being influenced by them or their descendants (i.e. the "Salafis"). I would also like to request that no one starts blindly defending Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab and his original followers in time of the first Saudi state, because I'm quite sure that you haven't read some of the Hardcore-Takfiri books of the original Najdis. All the informations that I will mention are from those books. If you want a proof for anything that I'll mention, then please write a comment here and I'll bring you the relevant qoutes in Arabic [from Najdi books] (and summarize its content).
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.
So let's now begin with the important part:
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."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 no 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 a 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.)
islamqa.info/en/92439243: Did Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab rebel against the Ottoman Caliphate and what was the reason for its fall?
Q: Some people talk very bad about Muhammad ibn Abdulwahhab (rh). They accuse him, that he fought against the ottoman islamic empire and against the caliph , so he was an enemy of the muslims. This is their argument. Is this right? How could one fought against the amir of the muslims, even if the caliph prayed, gave his zakah and so on? They say also that he made an contract with the english army and fought with them against the muslims.
Can you give me a detailed answere to this historical event and show me the truth? Whom should we believe?.
A: Praise be to Allaah.
There is never a man who brings some goodness to this world but he has enemies among mankind and the jinn. Even the Prophets of Allaah were not safe from that.
The enmity of people was directed against the scholars in the past, especially the proponents of the true call (of Islam). They were met with intense hostility from the people. An example of that is Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him); some of those who were jealous of him regarded it as permissible to shed his blood, others accused him of being misguided and of going beyond the pale of Islam and becoming an apostate.
Shaykh 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 Shaykh, and will refute them.
Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Azeez al-‘Abd al-‘Lateef said:
Some opponents of the salafi da’wah claim that Imam Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab rebelled against the Ottoman Caliphate, thus splitting the jamaa’ah (main body of the Muslims) and refusing to hear and obey (the ruler).
Da’aawa al-Munaawi’een li Da’wat al-Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahaab, p. 233
He said:
‘Abd al-Qadeem Zalloom claims that the emergence of the Wahhaabis and their call was a cause of the fall of the Caliphate. It was said that the Wahhaabis formed a state within the Islamic state, under the leadership of Muhammad ibn Sa’ood and subsequently his son ‘Abd al-‘Azeez, which was supplied with weapons and money by the British, and they set out to gain control of other lands that were under the rule of Caliphate, motivated by the urge to spread their beliefs, i.e., they raised their swords against the Caliph and fought the Muslim army, the army of the Ameer al-Mu’mineen, with the encouragement and support of the British.
Kayfa hudimat al-Khilaafah, p. 10.
Before we respond to the false accusation that Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab rebelled against the Caliphate, we should mention the fact that the Shaykh believed that hearing and obeying the imams (leaders) of the Muslims was obligatory, whether they are righteous or immoral, so long as they did not enjoin disobedience towards Allaah, because obedience is only with regard to what is right and proper.
The Shaykh said in his letter to the people of al-Qaseem: “I believe that it is obligatory to hear and obey the leaders of the Muslims, whether they are righteous or immoral, so long as they do not enjoin disobedience towards Allaah. Whoever has become Caliph and the people have given him their support and accepted him, even if he has gained the position of caliph by force, is to be obeyed and it is haraam to rebel against him.”
Majmoo’at Mu’allafaat al-Shaykh, 5/11
And he also said:
One of the main principles of unity is to hear and obey whoever is appointed over us even if he is an Abyssinian slave…”
Majmoo’ah Mu’allafaat al-Shaykh, 1/394; quoted in Da’aawa al-Munaawi’een, 233-234.
And Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Azeez al-‘Abd al-Lateef said:
After stating these facts which explain that the Shaykh believed it was obligatory to hear and obey the leaders of the Muslims, whether they are righteous or immoral, so long as they do not enjoin disobedience towards Allaah, we may refer to an important issue in response to that false accusation. There is an important question which is: was Najd, where this call originated and first developed, under the sovereignty of the Ottoman state?
Dr Saalih al-‘Abood answered this by saying:
Najd never came under Ottoman rule, because the rule of the Ottoman state never reached that far, no Ottoman governor was appointed over that region and the Turkish soldiers never marched through its land during the period that preceded the emergence of the call of Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab (may Allaah have mercy on him). This fact is indicated by the fact that the Ottoman state was divided into administrative provinces. This is known from a Turkish document entitled Qawaaneen Aal ‘Uthmaan Mudaameen Daftar al-Deewaan (Laws of the Ottomans concerning what is contained in the Legislation), which was written by Yameen ‘Ali Effendi who was in charge of the Constitution in 1018 AH/1609 CE. This document indicates that from the beginning of the eleventh century AH the Ottoman state was divided into 23 provinces, of which 14 were Arabic provinces, and the land of Najd was not one of them, with the except of al-Ihsa’, if we count al-Ihsa’ as part of Najd.
‘Aqeedat al-Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab wa atharuha fi’l-‘Aalam al-Islami (unpublished), 1/27
And Dr ‘Abd-Allaah al-‘Uthaymeen said:
Whatever the case, Najd never experienced direct Ottoman rule before the call of Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab emerged, just as it never experienced any strong influence that could have an impact on events inside Najd. No one had any such influence, and the influence of Bani Jabr or Bani Khaalid in some parts, or the Ashraaf in other parts, was limited. None of them were able to bring about political stability, so wars between the various regions of Najd continued and there were ongoing violent conflicts between its various tribes.
Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab Hayaatuhu wa Fikruhu, p. 11; quoted in Da’aawa al-Munaawi’een, 234-235.
We will complete this discussion by quoting what Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Azeez ibn ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Baaz said in response to this false accusation. He said (may Allaah have mercy on him):
Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab did not rebel against the Ottoman Caliphate as far as I know, because there was no area in Najd that was under Turkish rule. Rather Najd consisted of small emirates and scattered villages, and each town or village, no matter how small, was ruled by an independent emir. These were emirates between which there were fighting, wars and disputes. So Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab did not rebel against the Ottoman state, rather he rebelled against the corrupt situation in his own land, and he strove in jihad for the sake of Allaah and persisted until the light of this call spread to other lands…
Conversation recorded on tape; quoted in Da’aawa al-Munaawi’een, p. 237
Dr. ‘Ajeel al-Nashmi said: … The Caliphate did not react in any way and did not show any discontent or resentment during the life of the Shaykh, even though there were four Ottoman sultans during his lifetime…
Majallat al-Mujtama’, issue # 510.
If the above is a reflection of the Shaykh’s attitude towards the Caliphate, how did the Caliphate view the call of Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab?
Dr. al-Nashmi said, answering this question:
The view that the Caliphate had of the movement of Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab was very distorted and confused, because the Caliphate only listened to those who were hostile towards the movement of Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab, whether that was via reports sent by their governors in the Hijaaz, Baghdad and elsewhere, or via some individuals who reached Istanbul bearing news.
Al-Mujtama’, issue #504; quoted in Da’aawa al-Munaawi’een, p. 238-239.
With regard to Zalloum’s claims that the Shaykh’s call was one of the reasons for the fall of the Caliphate and that the English helped the Wahhaabis to topple it, Mahmoud Mahdi al-Istanbuli says concerning this ridiculous claim:
This writer should be expected to produce proof and evidence for his opinion. Long ago the poet said:
If claims are not supported by proof, they are used only by the fools as evidence.
We should also note that history tells us that the English were opposed to this call from the outset, fearing that it might wake the Muslim world up.
Al-Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab fi Mar’aat al-Sharq wa’l-Gharb, p. 240
And he says:
The ironic fact is that this professor accuses the movement of Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab of being one of the factors that led to the destruction of the Ottoman Caliphate, even though this movement began in 1811 CE and the Caliphate was abolished in 1922 CE.
Op. cit., p. 64
What indicates that the English were opposed to the Wahhabi movement is the fact that they sent Captain Foster Sadler to congratulate Ibrahim Pasha on his success against the Wahhabis – during the war of Ibrahim Pasha in Dar’iyyah – and also to find out to what extent he was prepared to cooperate with the British authorities to reduce what they called Wahhabi piracy in the Arabian Gulf.
Indeed, this letter clearly expressed a desire to establish an agreement between the British government and Ibrahim Pasha with the aim of destroying the Wahhabis completely.
Shaykh Muhammad ibn Manzoor al-Nu’maani said:
The English made the most of the hostility that existed in India towards Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab and they accused everyone who opposed them and stood in their way, or whom they regarded as dangerous, of being Wahhabis… Similarly the English called the scholars of Deoband – in India – Wahhaabis, because of their blunt opposition to the English and their putting pressure on them.
Di’aaya Mukaththafah Didd al- Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab, p. 105-106
From these various quotations we can see the falseness of these flawed arguments when compared to the clear academic proofs in the essays and books of the Shaykh; that falseness is also obvious when compared to the historical facts are recorded by fair-minded writers.
Da’aawa al-Munaawi’een, 239, 240.
Finally, we advise everyone who has slandered the Shaykh to restrain his tongue and to fear Allaah with regard to him. Perhaps Allaah will accept their repentance and guide them to the straight path.
And Allaah knows best.
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 orginal 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 - sallalalhu '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 qoutes and how we 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 made an embargo against Makkah al-mukarramah, which caused 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 thatmany 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!
Originally Posted by Al Riyadh
I don't know who you follow but you should stop . These are all lies about shaykh ul Islam . He came from a place were the Ottoman Empire had not reached there yet and in najd there was many many innovations going on , and he came and tried to purify them and did . For example he with the help of the Saudi state banned grave worshipping and brought back the shariah . And yes he did team with the house of saud , but this was for pure jihad in the path of Allah , and him and them the first Saudis brought back the proper Islam to Najd . I know king abdullah was not on Islam properly , but Islam is coming back in king salman .
True a huge bulk of Najd was not ruled directly by the Ottomans. But Makkah and Medinah were Ottoman territories. And Ibn Abdul Wahhab's rebellion did reach the two holy cities. Plus they attacked Ottoman trade routes.
That rebellion was efficiently crushed in a punitive war. Diriyah was completely destroyed. Abdullah ibn Saud was executed.
Later on in World War I, the same Saudis sided with the British against the Ottomans.
Or were you guys happy when the Ottomans lost control of everything and the Europeans got to carve out the entire region for themselves?
Wahhabis of those times also did not view Turks worthy enough to rule the Islamic world. They upheld a false belief that only Arabs could rule.
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 skyand 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 following are quotes from a former Wahhabi who become disillusioned with Wahhabism after reading their own books not available to the non-Arabic speaking world. He quotes from books of Wahhabi-Najdi historians but note that the language used is in terms of battle of Muslims versus Kafirs, but these alleged Kafirs they are writing about with great honors of battling against, are actually Muslims who didn’t agree with and support Wahhabism. All of this of course further crushes the takiyya the Wahhabis have been doing in lying and keeping in dark details about their own history. This being from their own books, takes away their usual charges that so and so are “soofee grave worshipers making up false stories” or some other conspiracy theory. Anyway here goes:
Medhat Al-Faraj, a contemporary najdi, quotes from Hussein Ibn Ghanam a companion of IAW and the main historian of the movement. Medhat Al-Faraj writes explaining the cause of the ”apostasy” of the people of Al-Huraymila in his commentary on Mufeed Al-Mustafeed:
قال الشيخ حسين بن غنام -رحمه الله تعالى- في كتابه النفيس: «وفي شوال من هذه السنة (1165 هـ) ارتد أهل «حريملا» – وكان قاضيها سليمان ابن عبد الوهاب، أخا الشيخ محمد بن عبد الوهاب. وكان الشيخ حين علم أن أخاه يسعى في الفتنة، ويُلقي على الناس الشبهات قد أرسل إليه كتبًا ينصحه فيها، ويؤنِّبه على ما كان يصنع، ويحذَّره العاقبة، فأرسل سليمان إلى الشيخ رسالة زخرف فيها القول، وأكد فيها العهد، وذكر له أن لن يقيم في حريملا يومًا واحدًا إن ظهر من أهلها ارتداد».
(Sheikh Hussein Ibn Ghannam writes: In the month of Shawwal of the year 1165, the people of Al-Huraymila apostatized and their Qadi was Sulayman Ibn Abd Al-Wahhab, the brother of Muhammad Ibn Abd Al-Wahhab. The sheikh came to know that his brother was encouraging sedition and spreading doubts among the people so he sent him writings in which he advises him, reprimands him about what he was doing and warns him about the possible outcome. Sulayman then sent a letter to the sheikh in which he embellished his words, confirms the covenant and mentionned that he would not stay even for one day in Al-Huraymila if apostasy appeared from its people.)
ولكنه لم يلبث أن كشف عن غدره، ومكره، وحسده لأخيه، وغيرته منه، فنقض العهد. وتألّب أهل حريملا على من فيها من أهل التوحيد والإيمان فحاربوهم، وعزلوا والي البلدة وأميرها محمد بن عبد الله بن مبارك، بعد أن أصابه، منهم رجل اسمه ابن وحشان، ثم أخرجوه من البلد مع أولاده، وفرَّ معه غيره من أهل الدين، منهم: عزوان بن مبارك، وابنه مبارك بن عدوان، وعثمان ابن عبد الله أخو الأمير، وعلي بن حسن، وناصر بن جديع، وغيرهم.
(However it didn’t take long before his perfidy, his ruse, his envy and his jealousy towards him was exposed. He broke the covenant and the people of Al-Huraymila rallied against the people of Tawheed in the region and declared war against them, deposed the wali of the region and its amir Muhammad Ibn Abd Allah Ibn Mubarak after a man named Ibn Wahshan came upon him and expelled him with his children from the region. Other people of the religion fled with him like Adwan Ibn Mubarak and his son Mubarak Ibn Adwan, Othman Ibn Abd Allah (the brother of the amir), Ali Ibn Hussein, Nasser Ibn Juday’ and others.)
Later on :
ثم جدَّ أهل حريملا بعد ذلك في الاستعداد للحرب، ولم يكن لهم همٌّ بعد إتيانهم ذلك المنكر إلا البناء حول البلد وتسويرها، مخافة الهجوم عليهم، وتدمير البلد. ثم أرسلوا إلى مشاري بن معمر ليدخل معهم في هذا الأمر، فأبى، وأنكر عليهم مسعاهم.
وبقوا على تلك الحال بقية العام، ثم عادوا في سنة 1166هـ على أهل الدرعية فلم يفوزوا بشيء، وغزاهم المسلمون عدة مرات…
(The people of Al-Huraymila earnestly started preparing for war and they had no worries after committing this horrible act except the construction of walls around the city, fearing an attack upon themselves and the devastation of the region. They sent a message to Mishâri Ibn Mu’ammar in order that he joins with them in this matter but he refused and disapproved their endeavor. They stayed on this state for the rest of the year. They then resumed their hostility, in the year 1166, against the people of Al-Diri’ya but they did not gain anything and the Muslims attacked them several times.)
(ثم تحدث الشيخ عن ردة أهل منفوحة، وما حلّ بهم جراء مفارقتهم لدينهم إلى أن قال – رحمه الله تعالى) وحين رأى الشيخ محمد بن عبد الوهاب تظاهر بعض أهل البلاد بالضلال، وارتداد من ارتدَّ منهم عن التوحيد، جمع في هذه السنة (1167 هـ) أهل الإسلام من بلادهم، ووعظم وبيَّن لهم سُنَّة الله فيما يجري على أهل التوحيد من أهل الفجور والشرك وكشف لهم معاني الآيات الواردة في القرآن بذلك، وبشَّرهم بالنصر والظفر إن استقاموا على الدين وثبتوا عليه، وأمرهم بالرجوع إلى الله، والتوبة، وصدق النيَّة. فتصدقوا بصدقات كثيرة، وسألوا الله النصر.
(Ibn Ghannam then writes about the apostasy of the people of Manfuhat: (When the sheikh Muhammad Ibn Abdel-Wahhab saw the apparition of misguidance in some of the region and the apostasy of who apostatised from tawheed, he united the people of islam from the different region in the year 1167, he clarified the sunnat of Allah in what happens to the people of tawheed from the people of perversion and shirk and exposed the meaning of the verses of the Quran about this and gave them the glad tidings of victory, if they stayed firm on religion. He ordained them to return to Allah, repent to him and make their intention sincere. They then gave a lot of sadaqa and asked victory to Allah.)
ثم إن السيايرة في بلدة ضرمي، وهم المعروفون بآل سيف، صقر وإخوته غرتهم قوتهم بعد أن قتلوا إبراهيم بن محمد بن عبد الرحمن وأبناءه، فخاضوا في الباطل، وهمُّوا بقتل أميرهم، فأخبره بذلك النذير، واحتقروا أهل الدين، فكثرت فيهم الظنون، وذكروا عنهم أنهم يتعاونون مع الأعداء، وأنهم غير مأمونين. فرفعوا أمرهم إلى الشيخ محمد بن عبد الوهاب، والأمير محمد بن سعود فقالا: نحن نجهل حالهم، فإن كنتم تحققتم منهم شيئًا فامضوا فيهم بعلمكم، فبادر إليهم أمير ضرمى وجماعته فقتلوهم صبرًا.
(The people known as Âl Saif, Saqar and their brethren in Darmi were fooled by their force after having killed Ibrahim Ibn Abd Al-Rahman and his sons. They then embarked upon batil, they made up their mind about killing their leader, a warning was sent by the action, they humiliated the people of religion so doubts increased about them and it was mentioned that they help the enemy and that they aren’t trustworthy. Their affair was brought to Sheikh Muhammad Ibn Abdel-Wahhab and the amir Muhammad Ibn Saoud. They said: We are unaware of their situation, if something becomes ascertained about them to you, proceed with them according to your knowledge. The emir of Darmi and a group advanced towards them and fought/killed them with patience.)
وفي هذه السنة أيضًا قُتل سليمان بن خويطر، وسبب ذلك أنه قدم بلدة حريملا خفية – وهم إذ ذاك بلد حرب – فكتب معه قاضي البلدة سليمان بن عبد الوهاب – أخو الشيخ – كتابًا إلى أهل العيينة، ذكر فيه شبهًا مريبة، وأقاويل محرَّفة، وأحاديث مُضلَّة، وأمره أن يقرأه في المحافل والبيوت. فألقى بذلك في قلوب بعض أهل العيينة شبهات غيرت قلوب مَنْ لم يتحقق الإيمان، ومن لم يعرف مصادر الكلام، فأمر الشيخ به أن يقتل فقُتل.
(In this year, Sulayman Ibn Khouweitir was killed and the reason for his killing is that he came secretly from Al-Huraymila and it was at this time a region of war(Dar Al-Harb). He wrote with the qadi of the region, Sulayman Ibn Abdel-Wahhab, the brother of the sheikh, a letter to the people of Al-Uyyayna and mentioned in it fishy ambiguities (shubuhat), distorted words and misguiding ahadeeth and he ordained that it be read in houses and assemblies. He put some doubts in the hearts of the people of Al-Uyyayna which changed the heart of people in which Iman had not been firmly ascertained and who do not know the source of the words. The sheikh ordained that he be killed.)
وفي هذه السنة ارتد رجلٌ اسمه «الغفيلي» في قصر من قصور بلدة ضرمى، وأرسل إلى إبراهيم بن سليمان رئيس ثرمداء يخبره بذلك ويستنجد به، فأرسل إليه إبراهيم جيشًا وخيلاً لتطمئن نفسه. فلما علم بذلك محمد بن
عبد الله، أمير ضرمى أرسل إلى الأمير محمد بن سعود يخبره به، فجهزَّ الأمير ابن سعود من فوره جيشًا من أهل العيينة وأهل الدرعية، وبادروا بالسير إلى قصر ضرمي، وسار معهم محمد بن عبد الله أمير ضرمي وأغلبُ قومه. فلما اقتربوا من البلد كمنوا في زرع ذرة هناك، فلما مضى هزيع من الليل سمعوا وقع حوافر الخيل، فبادروهم بالقتال فانهزموا.
وقتل من أهالي ثرمداء ممن أقبل معهم سبعين رجلا، وأسر أناس منهم: عبد الكريم بن زامل رئيس بلد وثيثية.
(In that year, a man named Al-Ghafeeli, from a castle among the castles of the region of Darmâ, apostatised. The chief of Tharmadâ- sent a letter to Ibrahim Ibn Sulayman, informing him about this (the ”apostasy”) and sought his help. Ibrahim sent him an army and cavalry so he be reassured. When the amir of Darmâ, Muhammad Ibn Abd Allah learned about all of this, he informed the amir Muhammad Ibn Sa’ûd about it. The amir Ibn Sa’ûd assembled an army consisting of the people of Al-Uyyayna and of Al-Diri’ya and they advanced towards the border of Darmâ. The amir of Darmâ Muhammad Ibn Abd Allah joined them and the majority of his people. When they approched the region they hid in a plantation. When a group of watchers passed by, they heard the sound of horses coming so they advanced in order to fight and they were defeated. They killed seventy attackers and took prisonners. Among them there was Abd Al-Karim Ibn Zâmil, the chief of the region Wathithiyat.)
ثم فتح المسلمون حريملا عنوة، فقد سار إليها عبد العزيز بن محمد بن سعود في نحو ثمانمائة رجل، ومعهم من الخيل عشرون فرسًا فأناخ شرقي البلد ليلاً، وكمن في موضعين، فصار عبد العزيز ومعه عدة من الشجعان في «شعيب عوجا» وكمن مبارك بن عدوان، مع مائتي رجل في «الجزيع» فلما أصبحوا شنُّوا الغارة، فخرج إليهم أهل البلد، فاشتد بينهم القتال، فلما خرج عليهم الكمين الأول صبروا حتى بدا لهم الكمين الثاني فلم يملكوا إلا الفرار فتفرقوا في الشعاب والجبال، وقتل المسلمون منهم مائة رجل، وغنموا كثيرا من الذخائر والأموال، وقُتِل من المسلمين سبعة.
(The Muslims then opened Al-Huraymila by force, Abd Al-Aziz Ibn Muhammad Ibn Saoud advanced towards the town with 800 men and with them 20 horses, he remained in the east of the region during the night and they hid in two places. Abd Al-Aziz and a group of braves hid in Shuayb Awja and Mubarak Ibn Adwan hid with a hundred person in Al-Juzay’. When it became day, they launched the attack, the people of the region went towards them and the fighting intensified between them. When the first group hidden advanced towards them they stayed firm until the second hidden group started fighting.The enemy had no other option than to flee to the mountains and the Muslims killed a hundred of them and took a lot of their wealth and their supplies as booty. Seven Muslims were killed.)
ودخل المسلمون البلدة، وأعطى عبد العزيز بقية الناس الأمان، وصارت البلدة فيئًا من الله، ودورها ونخيلها غنيمة للمسلمين.
(The Muslims entered the region and Abd Al-Aziz gave the aman(protection) to the people and the region became a booty from Allah and its area and date trees a booty for the Muslims. )
وفي هذه الوقعة هرب قاضي البلدة سليمان بن عبد الوهاب – أخو الشيخ
ماشيًا حتى وصل إلى سدير سالمًا. وولى عبد العزيز مبارك بن عدوان أميرًا على البلد، وأعطاه نفائس الأموال، وخيره ما شاء من البيوت والبساتين ولكنه لم يحفظ نعمة الله، فارتدَّ بعد ذلك على ما سيجيء بيانه.
ثم أقبل عبد العزيز بالأموال والغنائم إلى الدرعية، فقسمها الشيخ محمد بن عبد الوهاب متبعًا بذلك سنة رسول الله، وما كان يصدر عن السلف.
وكان فتح حريملا يوم الجمعة لثمان خلت من جمادى الأولى سنة
1168 هـ»
During that event, the qadi of the region Sulayman Ibn Abd Al-Wahhab fled until he reached Sudayr without harm. Abd Al-Aziz Ibn Mubarak Ibn Adwan then became the amir and was given a huge amount from the wealth and the choice to pick whatever he wants from the houses and gardens but he did not conserve the grace of Allah and he apostatised as will be explained later.Abd Al-Aziz (Ibn Saoud) then brought the wealth and the booty to Al-Diri’ya and the shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abd Al-Wahhab divided the booty following the exemple of the messenger of Allah and what the salaf used to do. The opening of Al-Huraymila was made on the day of friday, the eight of Jumada Al-Awal year 1168)
He later quotes from other najdi books:
Speaking about the actions of Sulayman Ibn Abd Al-Wahhab, Ahmad Ibn Abd Al-Aziz Al-Hasseen writes in Da’wa Muhammad Ibn Abd Al-Wahhab salafiyat la wahhabiyat :
يقول الأستاذ محمد بن أحمد العقيلي:
“لم يكتف بالتدابير والتحريضات حتى تفرد بكتابة رسالة مطولة إلى أهلالعيينة، هاجم فيها العقيدة السلفية وناقض آراء آخيه، وفند أقواله وركز على تكفير المخالفين وقتال المرتدين، وبعث بالرسالة مع شخص يعرف “بالخويطر”1.وألف رسالة سماها: [فصل الخطاب في الرد على محمد بن عبد الوهاب] 2، كان من آثارها نكوص أهل حريملاء أتباع الدعوة، ولم يقف الأمر عند هذا الحد، بل تجاوزت آثار الكتاب إلى العيينة، فارتاب وشك بعض من يدعي العلم -في العيينة- من صدق هذه الدعوة وصحتها3.
قال الشيخ عبد الرحمن بن عبد اللطيف:”كان سليمان في بادئ الأمر مناوئاً لأخيه الشيخ محمد، معارضاً لدعوة التوحيد -حسداً وظلماً- وقد ألف رسالة يعارض فيها دعوة التوحيد ويرد فيها على أخيه الشيخ محمد، وقد وضع أعداء التوحيد لهذه الرسالة عنواناً وسموها (الصواعق الإلهية في الرد على الوهابية) ، وطبعت بهذا العنوان سنة 1328هـ4
(The ustadh Muhammad Ibn Ahmad Al-Oqeili says: ”He did not content himself to schemes and provocations. He singularly wrote a lengthy letter to the people of Al-‘Uyyayna in which he attacked the salafi aqeedat and contradicted the position of his brother (IAW), disproved his words and his focus on takfir of his opponents and fighting apostates. He sent the letter with a person known as Al-Khouweitir and wrote a letter he called : (Fasl Al-Khitab Fi al-rrad ‘ala Muhammad Ibn Abd Al-Wahhab) and from the impact of this letter came the withdrawal of the people of Al-Huraylima from the followers of the da’wa. The affair didn’t stop here : the book was even read in Al-‘Uyayna. Some people who pretend knowledge in Al-‘Uyayna questionned the da’wa and had doubts about the truthfulness and the authenticity of the da’wa.”
Abd Al-Rahman Ibn Abd Al-Lateef wrote: ”In the beggining of the affair, Sulayman Ibn Abd Al-Wahhab was hostile to his brother, in opposition to his da’wa, because he was injust and envious. He wrote a letter in which he contradicts the da’wa of tawheed and he refutes his brother the sheikh Muhammad. The ennemies of the tawhîd gave it a title and called: (Al-Sawaiq Al-Ilahiya Firrad ala Al-Wahhabiya) it was published with that title in 1328.”)
IAW then wrote Mufeed Al-Mustafeed fi kufr Tarik Al-Tawheed as an answer to that letter (of his brother) and to explain the rules of takfir almu’ayyan as it is written in the beggining of it:
مما قال الشيخ الإمام وعلم الهداة الأعلام محمد بن عبد الوهاب رحمه الله تعالى، لما ارتاب بعض من يدعي العلم من أهل العيينة، لما ارتد أهل حريملا، فسئل الشيخ أن يكتب كلاما ينفعه الله به،
(And from what said the shaikh, the Imam, the ‘âlim from the guided ulamâ-, Muhammad Ibn Abd Al-Wahhab rahimahullah taala, when some of the people who pretend ‘ilm from the people of Al-Uyyayna had doubts and when the people of Al-Huraymila apostatized, the sheikh was asked to write a statement which Allah would make beneficial.)
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 informations regarding events of the past, other Muslims, etc. (And this unites them with the Mashayikh of the Rafidhah!)
