By Syed Zubair Ahmad
August 25, 2013
I respect Muhammad bin Abdul Wahab Najdi (1703-1792). I have lots of regard for him. I believe whatever he preached and performed to eliminate shirk and bida’t and to remove new inventions in the purest form of Islam was the work of a revivalist. Despite all this I have some strong objections about his ideology and sectarian views. When he started his movement against shirk and bida’t and other new inventions in the name of Islam he got tremendous response and full support of the people and became very popular among the masses within a short span of time.
At the same time Muhammad bin Saud (……-1765) was struggling desperately to grab the power and expand his territorial authorities. Muhammad bin Abdul Wahab’s popularity caught his attention and Ibn Saud decided to use Muhammad bin Abdul Wahab’s popularity to accomplish his goal. In 1746 Muhammad bin Saud met Muhammad bin Abdul Wahab in person at Diriyya near Riyadh and pledged his allegiance to support his movement against shirk and bida’t. Abdul Wahab found it as a golden opportunity to boost up his movement and implement his reform works.
In coming years this unity took an ugly turn and proved devastating for Muslim Ummah as it shook the very foundation of Ottoman Caliphate. Wahabi Ulema got loyal to Saud dynasty rather than Islam and Muslim world and this loyalty put the interests of Islam and Muslim world on the back burner. Although they proclaim themselves to be the followers of Imam Ibn Hambal but they mince no words in equating the jurisprudence of Imam Abu Hanifa with shirk and bida’t. They started a hate campaign against Ahnaaf (followers of Hanafi or school of thoughts) only to defame Ottoman rulers because they were the followers of Imam Abu Hanifa. The rulers of Najd gained what they wanted from Wahabi Ulema. An irreparable damage has been done to Islam and Muslim world.
Then started Arab Nationalist movement by the Zionist conspirators to counter Turkish rule over Arab land with the full support of Colonialist Britain, France and Russia to dislodge and abolish Ottoman Caliphate. For Wahabi Ulema who were already working tirelessly against Ottoman Caliphate the new Arab nationalist movement was an unexpected help so they gave their full support to this movement.
It may require voluminous books to discuss how the Wahabi brand of Ulema conspired to abolish the Ottoman Caliphate willingly or unwillingly directly or indirectly and collaborated with the Zionists, Britishers, and Russians conspirators. Following are few questions which need to be answered by those who support Wahabi movements blindly.
(1) Isn’t it the fact that Wahabi Ulema were the part of this great conspiracy hatched to abolish Ottoman Caliphate and which ultimately resulted in the illegal formation of Jewish state in the heart of Arabian Peninsula ignoring the saying of the prophet (PBUH)?
(2) Isn’t it the fact that instead of supporting Caliph Abdul Hameed they waged a war against Ottoman Caliphate which was an Islamic government at a time when that Islamic empire was in the whirlpool of Zionists, Free missionary, Russian and western conspiracies?
(3) Why the Wahabi Ulema didn’t try to reform Ottoman rulers if they were not following Islam?
(4) Instead of giving them a chance to reform why they preferred a hurried war against a somehow Islamic government?
(5) Why the birth of Israel was quite acceptable for them but the jurisprudence of Abu Hanifa was unacceptable?
(6) Why Wahabi Ulema didn’t object to the accord between British and Ibn Saud in which Ibn Saud didn’t object to the formation of Israel in Palestine provided a ‘Saudi Kingdom’ under the kingship of Ibn Saud is assured.
(7) Wahabi Ulema adopted it as a permanent policy to support Najdi rulers, no matter whatever be the consequences? And this deadly combination continues in complete harmony even after 300 years. Why?
(8) The Wahabi Ulema assert themselves to be the followers of Imam Ibn Taymiyyah. Don’t they know that Ibn Taymiyyah stopped preaching and started fighting against Tartars when they attacked on Damascus? But the so called ‘followers’ of Ibn Taymiyyah invite modern Tartars by issuing Fatwas to invade Muslim lands, kill innocent people, rob their recourses and exile them en masse?
(9) Instead of working as check and balance mechanism, why they have become dumb supporters of Saudi Dynasty?
(11) Why they have become justifiers and legitimiser of Saudi rulers’ un-Islamic and anti-Islamic policies?
(12) Why the Wahabi brand of Ulema loses temper on hearing the word ‘Caliphate’?
(13) Instead of advocating ‘Caliphate’ why Wahabi scholars justify, legitimize and support the un-Islamic dynastic rule?
Ironically when the Britain was using the Wahabi Ulema to disintegrate and abolish Ottoman Caliphate in Arab peninsula they were defaming Syed Ahmad Shaheed, Shah Ismaeel Shaheed and their followers by calling them Wahabis and killing them ruthlessly because they were fighting against British rule in Indian sub-continent. On other front “the India Office was allied with Ibn Saud and gave him money and arms, while the Arab Bureau had allied with Hussein and gave him money, arms, and promises’ (Lords of Arabia, By H.C. Armstrong, p. 162)