ATTACKS ON MUHAMMAD IBN ‘ABDIL WAHHAB ANSWERED
Naturally, those from the Wahhabi persuasion do not like it when people point out some very basic facts about Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdil Wahhab. Whenever somebody seemingly attacks Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdil Wahhab, the Salafi-Wahhabi response is mostly the same. They begin by saying
“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 Allah were not safe from that”.
They then proceed to compare that person to the enemies of Islam, the pagans of Makkah due to their opposition against the Prophet, sal Allahu alayhi wasallam. By making this analogy, they are also making an analogy between Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdil Wahhab and the Prophet, sal Allahu ‘alayhi wasallam, and this is wrong.
The Prophet, sal Allahu ‘alayhi wasallam, did not permit rebellion against the valid Muslim authority, nor did he never permit the blood of the believers. In fact the Prophet, sal Allahu ‘alayhi wasallam, warned us in numerous ahadeeth about those who do. Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdil Wahhab, especially, being one of them. So much so that the Prophet, sal Allahu ‘alayhi wasallam, is known to have dedicated specific hadeeth to the appearance of Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdil Wahhab.
To accuse people who believe in the kalimah of Islam of major polytheism, and equate them to the pagans of Makkah, calling them the enemies of tawheed, etc is not from any type of goodness bought into this world. It is, none the less, pure evil. Therefore, the Muslims believers have every right to level critique towards the ideologies of Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdil Wahhab and even his personal character. The Wahhabi cannot cry in this instance that it is any form of personal attack. Muslims must see past these crocodile tears and this clever play of the victim syndrome.
MUHAMMAD IBN ‘ABDIL WAHHAB DID NOT REBEL AGAINST STATE?
Those who claim that Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdil Wahhab never rebelled against the valid Muslim authority of his time are lying through their teeth. The books penned by Muhammad ‘Abdil Wahhab, the books of history and their very own publications refute them. It is admitted within such books that the Saudi-Wahhabi alliance was based on declaring jihaad against the Muslims of their time. This is so obvious with their attempts to take-over the two holy cities and the whole of the Hijaaz. They can repeat the letter to al-Qaseem all they want, but they know in their very hearts that the messages contained within Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdil Wahhab’s works contradict everything written in those letters. This is why many deem the reply to Imaam Sulaymaan Shuaym, rahimahullah, a hoax, or that penned by a mentally unstable person with a split personality. They cannot have it both ways.
THE CLAIM NAJD WAS NOT UNDER OTTOMAN KHILIFATE
It was true that Najd was not under Ottoman rule. Simply due to the fact they was not bothered about it. According to the hadeeth it was a place devoid of blessings. Yet there were separate rulers and they did have a connection with the Islamic state. For example, when Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdil Wahhab had a woman stoned to death, it was the scholars that wrote to the ruler of ‘Uyaynah demanding that Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdil Wahhab be punished. This is the reason why he was then exiled, and fled to ad-Darriyyah fearing for his life. This is only because the ruler of Uyaynah had a soft spot for him. The valid Muslim authority wanted him executed. No matter what, the independent rulers, leaders and Qadis of Najd, always had to refer back to the valid Muslim authority of their time, which was the Ottomans. Since Muhammad Ibn’Abdil Wahhab rebelled against the the independent rulers, leaders and Qadis of Najd, he also rebelled against the valid Muslim authority.
DID MUHAMMAD IBN ‘ABDIL WAHHAB HELP DEMOLISH THE KHALIFATE?
Even though Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdil Wahhab was not alive when the Khalifah system totally collapsed, he was indeed the catalyst. His sons and the Sa’udis carried on the very same message eventually conquering the hijaaz until they formed the first Sa’udi state. Yet the Sunni armies defeated the Wahhabis. It was only with the interference of the British that Wahhabism was revived again with the Khalifah collapsing and the Sa’udis taking the throne and ruling as a monarchy. Those who deny these simple facts and argue that Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdil Wahhab was not responsible for the fall of the Khlaifah, simply because he did not live to see the results, are again lying through their teeth. These people know the facts, and they are clearly guilty of misleading people with their lies.
THE CLAIM THAT THE BRITISH WERE ENIMIES OF THE WAHHABIS
The British were not against Wahhabism. They was against Islam as a whole. They admittingly sent many spies into ‘Arabia in order to devise how to divide the Muslims. All because Captain Foster Saddler congratulated Muhammad ‘Ali Pasha on his victory over the Wahhabi cult does not logically imply he was on their side. The tact of the British were to play both side of against each, as they did with Ibn Sa’ud and Muhammad al-Shareef. Moreover there are numerous documents and photos that display that the Sa’udi-Wahhabi cult and the British went hand in hand. All one has to do is study into Sir Percy Cox and they will yield some very surprising results. Furthermore, if the British were truly against Wahhabism as some Wahhabi apologetics like to claim, then why did the British give control of the Hijaaz to the Sa’udi family in the 1930s? Again the Wahhabiyyah are clearly lying through their teeth when they claim that they did not have any help from the British and that the Ottomans and Muhammad Ali Pasha were stooges of the kuffar! Little did the Wahhabis pay attention to the ayaat of Allah about taking the Jews and the Christians as war allies!
THE CLAIM THAT THE BRITISH MADE INDIA HATE WAHHABIS
Also the claim that the Indians were made to hate the Wahhabis due to the British. This claim is absolutely fallacious. The truth is the English have made the most of the hostility that existed everywhere, not just in India. Any person that is slightly educated in the history of the British Empire knows this fact well. Their strategy was to divide and conquer.
The British were not solely for the reason why the Indians hated the Wahhabi cult so much. The main reason was due to a great scholar and reviver name Imaam Ahmad Rida Khan, rahimahullah, from the district of Barelwi. He had travelled to the hijaaz to study at the feet of the blessed Ulumaa of the hijaaz. It was there he witnessed the fitnah of the Wahhabiyyah first hand. When he travelled back home and witnessed how the school of Deoband has been infiltrated by the Nadwiyyah, and the Ahle Hadeeth, he accurately assessed them as being Wahhabi offshoots. However, this is not the only reason Indians hate Wahhabis. We have to keep in mind that many Indian Muslims travelled to Hajj and Umrah, and were victimized by the Wahhabiyyah, treated like elephant worshipping Hindus. Still today the Najdi ‘Arabs are very racist towards Indians and Pakistanis. The Indians would not hate the Saudi-Wahhabis due to the English. If they is the case then why do they also hate the English so much? It just does not add up.
And indeed Allah knows best.