sick! Rebellion of Ibn Abdul Wahhab - by some khariji rabid wahabi

Wadood · Feb 7, 2007

I am beginning to believe they are just fools and because of their deeds cursed by Allah.
By wahabis, I guess Sidi Asif you mean, those who are aware of the truth but prefer wahabiyyat, like Najdi himself.

Allah disgrace those among them who do not listen to the Sufis and try to harm Islam and Tasawwuf.

Most of them, who are common and do not even know they are wahabi, just need da'wa and become Sunni again.

Habib 'Ali and the Habaib (under immense persecution) by the khawarij of today still deal with them in an orderly way.

Look at the results, MILLIONS OF FORMER WAHABIS, who were Sunni formerly but then became wahabis, are now back into Sunni and respecting the Sufis and the Awliya Allah and the Habaib (Ahl al-Bayt)

Habaib Zindeh Abaad!!!

naqshbandijamaati · Feb 7, 2007

wahabiyon pe la'anat!
cursed be the wahabis!

abu Hasan · Dec 14, 2006

look at the state of the world today - most (i daresay all) of this terrorism associated with muslim names sprouts from one wahabi strain or another.

their tashaddud is the proof of their impending doom - halaka'l mutanaTTi`un/extremists in the religion have perished.

may Allah cleanse this earth from the filth of wahabism. i passed by a riyad based bookstall in the book-fair and i saw one ostentatious poem: 'uqirru bi anni wahabi' / i accept that i am a wahabi [or something like that] and i hurried away from that stall lest some foul-ghoul influence me - na`udhubillah min kaydi'l fujjar wa sharri'l ashrar. just like one hurries away from the valley of muHassir [between muzdalifah and mina] seeking Allah's refuge from His Retribution.

shirk Tahrey jisme ta'azim e Rasul [sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam]
us burey maz'hab pey la'anat kijiye

in which the veneration of the Messenger [sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam] is considered as polytheism -
damnation be upon such a bad madh'hab.

faqir · Dec 14, 2006

part 2 from the khariji wahabi

THE SECOND SECTION:

THE STANDPOINT OF THE DA'WAH OF SHAYKH MUHAMMAD IBN 'ABD AL-WAHHAAB CONCERNING IT

One of the misconceptions that is often brought up about the da'wah of Shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhaab – rahimahullaahu ta'aalaa – is that it rose up against the 'Uthmaani khilaafah, and divided the Muslims.

And many of the 'ulamaa' who defended the da'wah of the Shaykh tried to respond to this misconception, but the most that they could say was: "Najd was, from the beginning, independent from the 'Uthmaani state, so for that reason the Shaykh's coming was not an uprising against it."

[See Da'aawaa al-Munaawi'een, 233-240.]

And the reality is that this statement is incorrect, for three reasons:

The first is that the 'Uthmaani state did have nominal rule over Najd, because it ruled al-Hijaaz, al-Yemen, al-Ahsaa', al-'Iraaq and ash-Shaam, and the taxes of the ameers of Najd used to come to the state via some of these countries.

[See ad-Dawlah al-'Uthmaaniyyah... 1/20, and 'Unwaan al-Majd, 1/97 onwards.]

The second is that even if we were to assume that Najd was independent, the da'wah of the Shaykh had entered al-Hijaaz, al-Yemen, al-Ahsaa', al-Khaleej, and the outlying areas of al-'Iraaq and ash-Shaam. They attacked Karbalaa' and beseiged Dimashq, and all of these were indisputably under the control of the 'Uthmaani state.

The third is that the sayings of the imaams of the da'wah – rahimahumullaah – are in agreement that the 'Uthmaani state was daar harb (in a state of war with the Muslims), except those who responded to the da'wah of tawheed, as we will later see, in shaa' Allaahu ta'aalaa.

For the da'wah of the Shaykh – rahimahullaah – was the da'wah to pure tawheed, and war against shirk and its people. And one of the greatest defenders of shirk in that time was the 'Uthmaani state. So the da'wah was an act of war against it. And I will narrate, in what follows, various quotes from the imaams of the da'wah and their followers, clarifying their standpoint regarding this state:

Imaam Sa'ood ibn 'Abd al-'Azeez – rahimahullaah (died 1229H):

I have already narrated some quotes from him regarding the affair of this state. Here are more of his statements in the letter that he sent to the governor of Baghdaad:

"And as for your saying: "How can you so boldly and recklessly stir up fitnah by making takfeer of the Muslims and the people of the qiblah, and fight against a people who believe in Allaah and the Last Day...?" So we say: "We have already stated that we do not make takfeer due to sins, but rather we only fight against those who made shirk with Allaah, and attributed to Allaah partners, calling upon them as they call upon Allaah, slaughtering for them as they slaughter for Him, vowing to them as they vow to Allaah, fearing them as they fear Allaah, calling to them for aid in difficulties and for bringing good, and who fight to defend the idols and the domes built over the graves, which have been taken as idols worshipped besides Allaah. So if you are truthful in your claim that you are on the Millah of Ibraaheem and following the Messenger (sallallaahu 'alayhi wa-sallam), then demolish those idols, all of them, and level them to the ground. And repent to Allaah from all of the shirk and bid'ah."

Then he said: "Or, if you persist in this state of yours, and do not repent from the shirk that you are upon and observe correctly the religion of Allaah with which He sent His Messenger, leaving the shirk, bid'ah and superstitions, then we will not cease fighting you until you return to Allaah's straight religion."

[Ad-Durar as-Saniyyah, 7/397.]

Shaykh Sulaymaan ibn 'Abdillaah ibn ash-Shaykh – rahimahullaah – (died 1233H):

When the Turks invaded the land of tawheed, Shaykh Sulaymaan ibn 'Abdillaah wrote a book entitled ad-Dalaa'il (The Proofs), regarding the apostasy and kufr of whoever aided them and sided with them, even if he was not upon their religion of shirk. And he mentioned therein more than twenty proofs for that, and he referred to the invading army as "the troops of domes and shirk."

[Ad-Durar as-Saniyyah, 7/57-69.]

.

Shaykh 'Abd al-Lateef ibn 'Abd ar-Rahmaan ibn Hasan – rahimahullaah (died 1293H):

In one of his letter to Shaykh Hamad ibn 'Ateeq – rahimahullaah – regarding the case of 'Abdullaah ibn Faysal, the imaam at that time, seeking help from the 'Uthmaaniyyoon against his brother Sa'ood ibn Faysal, when the latter defeated him in the battle of Joodah during the events around the year 1289H, he said:

"And 'Abdullaah had a legitimate rule and bay'ah in general, but later on I found out that he had corresponded with the kaafir state (i.e. the 'Uthmaani state), sought help from it and brought it to the lands of the Muslims. So he became like the one about whom it is said [poetry]:

And the one who seeks protection with 'Amr in his difficulty,
Is like the one who seeks protection with fire from the burning heat.

So I spoke to him verbally, objecting to his action and declaring my disassociation from it, and I spoke harshly to him, telling him that this is destruction of the fundamentals of al-Islaam and uprooting of its bases, and that it was this and that and the other... the details of which conversation I cannot remember right now, so he expressed repentance and regret, and he made much istighfaar. And I wrote, at his dictation, to the governor of Baghdaad: "Allaah has sufficed, made easy, and arranged for the people of Najd and the bedouins that which has fulfilled our need, in shaa' Allaah. So we are no longer in need of the army of the state," and words to that effect. And I believe he sent the letter and disassociated himself from what had occurred, and it was a long letter."[End of quote.]

[Ad-Durar as-Saniyyah, 7/184, and Tadhkirat Ulin-Nuhaa wal-'Irfaan, events of the year 1289H, from the first volume.]

And he said in another letter to one of the students of knowledge regarding the same affair:

"As for Imaam 'Abdullaah ibn Faysal, then I have advised him, as I have mentioned, with very harsh advice. And I reminded him in the advice of the aayaat of Allaah and His right, and the obligation of preferring His good-pleasure, and keeping far away from the enemies of His religion, the people of ta'teel (negation of the Sharee'ah), shirk, and clear kufr. And he expressed repentance and regret..." [End of quote.]

[Majmoo'at ar-Rasaa'il, 2/69.]

And he said regarding the entry of the 'Uthmaaniyyoon to the Peninsula in the year 1298H:

"So whoever understands this fundamental principle – i.e. tawheed – will understand the harm of the fitnah that is current in these times regarding the Turkish armies. And he will understand that it (i.e. the fitnah) comes back to this principle, breaking it and demolishing and and utterly effacing it. And it leads to the predominance of shirk and ta'teel, and the raising of its banners of kufr."

[Ad-Durar as-Saniyyah, 7/148-152.]

And he said in a poem about this affair:

And the leader of the people has brought to the Turks a state
Which has committed the greatest crimes against the Millah of al-Islaam.

And it contains:

And they travelled to the people of shirk and submitted to them,
And there came to them every slander and every magician.

And it contains:

And the power has gone to the people of refusal and shirk,
And by them has been established the marketplace of destruction and evil.
And places for sodomy and vileness have returned among them,
That are frequented by every immoral one.
And the unity of the religion has been shattered, and its rope cut,
And it has become lost among the ranks of the soldiers.

And it contains:

And you have made alliance with the people of the Fire, in your stupidity,
And you have become, for the religion of Allaah, the first kaafir.
So ask the dweller of al-Ahsaa', are you a believer
In this, and what is contained in the authentic books?

[Ad-Durar as-Saniyyah, 7/187-191, and Tadhkirat Ulin-Nuhaa... 1/198-202. And he made particular mention of al-Ahsaa' here because the 'Uthmaaniyyoon, after Imaam 'Abdullaah had asked them for aid, entered al-Ahsaa' and took over it first. See the details of that in the events of the year 1289H, from Tadhkirat Ulin-Nuhaa 1/197, from his saying: "The mention of what occurred and took place with the arrival of the 'Uthmaani soldiers and the Turkish troops."]

And he said in another poem:

When the army of deviation appeared, to demolish
The land of guidance and the laws of goodness,
A people intoxicated, their companion would not wake up,
Never, and he would end up in loss,
A people, you see them rushing to every gathering
In which is misfortune and every kufr is close by,
Indeed, in which the laws of the Christians are ruling,
Without any text that has come from the Qur'aan.
So look at the rivers of kufr that have exploded,
They have clashed with the Sharee'ah of ar-Rahmaan.

[Ad-Durar 192-194, at-Tadhkirah 1/203-206. And the amazing thing is that this is the description of the 'Uthmaani troops in the year 1289H, and in the Taareekh of al-Jabarti there is an identical description of the troops who entered the Peninsula around the year 1226H, as he says in his Taareekh (3/341): "And some of their high-ranking people who call to righteousness and piety said to me: "How will we attain victory when the majority of our soldiers are not on the Millah, and among them are those who do not practice the religion? And boxes of intoxicating drinks were brought with us, and you would never hear in our ranks the adhaan being called, nor was the obligatory salaah established among them, and they gave no concern at all to the symbols of the religion... etc." [End of quote.]]

Shaykh Hamad ibn 'Ateeq – rahimahullaahu ta'aalaa – (died 1301H):

He was – rahimahullaahu ta'aalaa – one of the hardest of the 'ulamaa' in his stance regarding this state. See the letters written between him and Shaykh 'Abd al-Lateef ibn 'Abd ar-Rahmaan ibn Hasan in the seventh and eighth volumes of ad-Durar as-Saniyyah, and I have mentioned some of them. And when the kaafir 'Uthmaani armies entered the Arabian Peninsula, some of the traitors and deviants from the bedouin entered their ranks. So just as Shaykh Sulaymaan ibn 'Abdillaah – rahimahullaahu ta'aalaa – had written the book ad-Dalaa'il, when the 'Uthmaaniyyoon entered the Peninsula in his time, regarding the ruling of aiding them, likewise Shaykh Hamad – rahimahullaahu ta'aalaa – wrote a book entitled Sabeel an-Najaah wal-Fikaak min Muwaalaat al-Murtaddeen wal-Atraak (The Path of Salvation and Release from the Alliance with the Apostates and the Turks), regarding the takfeer of whoever aided these armies that were called "Islaamic"!!

[This book is well-known by the name Sabeel an-Najaah wal-Fikaak min Muwaalaat al-Murtaddeen wa-Ahl al-Ishraak (The Path of Salvation and Release from the Alliance with the Apostates and the People of Shirk) instead of wal-Atraak (and the Turks), and the correct name is the one we have mentioned for the following reasons:

a] The original written copy was of this title, and it was from the time of the Shaykh. See Sabeel an-Najaah with the editing of al-Faryaan, page 12.

b] The Shaykh himself mentioned this title in the introductory khutbah of his book Sabeel an-Najaah, page 24.

c] The time of the book's writing and also its contents point to this title, such as his saying on page 35: "O you who believe! Do not take the Jews and Christians as awliyaa'..." And likewise whoever allies with the Turks becomes a Turki." And Allaah knows better.]

Shaykh 'Abdullaah ibn 'Abd al-Lateef – rahimahullaahu ta'aalaa – (died 1339H):

He was asked – rahimahullaahu ta'aalaa – about the one who did not make takfeer of the state – i.e. the 'Uthmaani state – and the one who brought them to fight against the Muslims, and chose their wilaayah (authority) and that it was obligatory to wage jihaad alongside them, and about another who did not have that view but rather said that the state and those who brought them were Muslim transgressors (bughaat), and it is not lawful do deal with them except in the way that the Muslim transgressors are dealt with, and that what was taken as booty from the bedouins is haraam. So he replied:

"Whoever does not know the kufr of the state, and does not differentiate between them and the Muslim transgressors, then he does not know the meaning of "laa ilaaha illallaah". So if he believes, along with that, that the state are Muslims, then this is even worse and severe, because it is doubting the kufr of one who has committed kufr in Allaah and shirk with Him. And whoever brought them and aided them against the Muslims with any form of aid, then this is clear apostasy (riddah)." [End of quote.]

[Ad-Durar as-Saniyyah, 8/242.]

Shaykh Sulaymaan ibn Sahmaan – rahimahullaahu ta'aalaa – (died 1349H):

He said – rahimahullaah – in one of his poems:

And what is said of the description of the Turks regarding their kufr,
Then it is true, for they are the most disbelieving of the people (akfar an-naas) in the religions.
And their enmity towards the Muslims and their evil,
Grows and increases in the deviation, more than the other sects.
And whoever takes the kaafiroon as awliyaa' then he is like them,
And there is no doubt regarding his takfeer for anyone with intelligence.
And whoever might ally with them or go towards them for support,
Then there is no doubt as to declaring him a faasiq, and he is in a shaky position.

[Deewaan ibn Sahmaan, page 191.]

Shaykh 'Abdullaah ibn Muhammad ibn Saleem – rahimahullaah – (died 1351H):

The Shaykh – rahimahullaah – was sitting one afternoon in the corner of al-Masjid al-Jaami', waiting for the Maghrib prayer, and in the first row there were men who did not know that the shaykh was present there. So one of them spoke to his companion saying to him: "It has reached us that the 'Uthmaani state has predominated, and that its banners have become victorious!" And he went on praising it. So as the shaykh prayed with them, and after the salaah he gave a touching sermon, and he went on to blame the 'Uthmaaniyyoon and to blame those who loved them and praised them [saying]: "Whoever said that saying must regret what he said and make repentance for it! What religion is there for the one who loves the kuffaar and is happy with their predominance and their advancement?! If the Muslim does not affiliate himself with the Muslims, then with whom will he affiliate himself?"

[Tadhkirat Ulin-Nuhaa, 3/275.]

And Shaykh Husayn ibn 'Ali ibn Nufaysah [one of the contemporaries of Shaykh Sulaymaan ibn Sahmaan] said in one of his poems:

So O state of the Turks, may your power never come back
To us, and to our homelands may you never return,
You took power, and opposed the way of our Prophet,
And the evils and intoxicants you made permissible.
You made the symbols of the mushrikoon your own symbols,
So you were quicker to committing shirk than they were.
You gave the religion of the Christians pre-eminence,
So you have borne impurity upon great impurity.
So away with you, off with you, defeat upon you,
And whoever loved you and inclined towards you.

[Tadhkirat Ulin-Nuhaa, 2/149. And in a poem of Saalih ibn Saleem, in memory of Ibn Sahmaan:

And he clarified therein the ruling of the Turks, and their kufr
And the ruling of friendship and alliance with the state.

(Tadhkirat Ulin-Nuhaa, 3/254.)]

And 'Abd ar-Rahmaan ibn 'Abd al-Lateef ibn 'Abdillaah ibn 'Abd al-Lateef Aal ash-Shaykh said:

"And it is well-known that the Turkish state was an idol-worshipping state, whose religion was shirk and bid'ah, and which used to defend such things..." [End of quote.]

['Ulamaa' ad-Da'wah, written by him, page 56.]

Section:

It is clear from what has preceded that the imaams of the da'wah viewed the kufr of the 'Uthmaani state, and that it was a daar harb. And this is an open and clear matter – I mean the kufr of the 'Uthmaani state – and I do not believe that anyone who has read or heard what they were upon of shirk, or who has read what the imaams of the da'wah said regarding their standpoint from this state, will continue to hold any doubt regarding them.

Otherwise, one of the following three applies to him. Either:

a] He is accusing the imaams of the da'wah of ignorance.

b] Or he considers tawheed to be a secondary matter.

c] Or he is a stubborn rejector.

We ask Allaah to grant us sincerity and conformity in our knowledge and deeds, and may Allaah bless and grant peace to our Prophet Muhammad, his family and all of his companions.
Click to expand...

faqir · Dec 14, 2006

and they say they are not khawarij!!! notice how he does not even appear to spare the likes of Imam Ibn Abidin rh!

tibyanpubs said:

THE 'UTHMAANI STATE AND THE STANDPOINT OF THE DA'WAH OF SHAYKH MUHAMMAD IBN 'ABD AL-WAHHAAB CONCERNING IT

By Shaykh Naasir ibn Hamad al-Fahd

(fakkallaahu asrahu)

In the Name of Allaah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.

All praise is due to Allaah, and may prayers and peace be upon the Messenger of Allaah, and upon his family and his companions and all who followed him.

To proceed:

This is a short study that clarifies the reality of the 'Uthmaani state, which many from among those who are called "Islaamic thinkers" praise and speak well of, and describe it as the last of the bastions of al-Islaam, the destruction of which took away the honour of the Muslims.

Also, it clarifies the reality of the position of the da'wah of Shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhaab – rahimahullaahu ta'aalaa – concerning this state.

And I have divided it into two sections:

The first section: Regarding the 'Uthmaani state.
The second section: Regarding the standpoint of the Shaykh's da'wah concerning it.

THE FIRST SECTION:

THE REALITY OF THE 'UTHMAANI STATE

Verily, whoever considers the nature of the 'Uthmaani state – from its rise up to its fall – will not have any doubt regarding its direct contribution in corrupting the 'aqaa'id (beliefs) of the Muslims, and this becomes clear through two matters:

The first one: through its spreading of shirk.
The second one: through its war against tawheed.

[Those who defend the war of the 'Uthmaaniyyoon against ad-Da'wah as-Salafiyyah claim that this war was a political war. But the case is not so; rather it was from the very beginning a war based on 'aqeedah, started by the fataawaa of their 'ulamaa' from the qubooriyyoon. See Haashiyat Ibn 'Aabideen, 4/262.]

And the 'Uthmaani state spread shirk by spreading the shirk-based tasawwuf that is founded on worshipping the graves and the awliyaa', and this is an established fact that no-one argues about, even those who defend it. And I will quote in what follows some of the texts that prove this, from the very sympathisers with the 'Uthmaani state themselves:

'Abd al-'Azeez ash-Shanaawi said in his book ad-Dawlah al-'Uthmaaniyyah: Dawlah Islaamiyyah Muftaraa 'Alayhaa (The 'Uthmaani State: An Islaamic State Slandered) (1/59) – by way of praise – :

"And one of the manifestations of the religious direction in the policy of the state was the encouragement of tasawwuf among the 'Uthmaaniyyoon. And the state gave the mashaayikh of the sufi tareeqahs wide-ranging authorities and powers over their students and followers. And these tareeqahs initially became widespread in Central Asia, then they moved to the majority of the areas of the state... And the state extended a helping hand financially to some of the sufi tareeqahs... And some of the most important sufi tareeqahs were the Naqshabandiyyah, the Mawlawiyyah, the Baktaashiyyah and the Rifaa'iyyah..." [End of quote.]

[And these tareeqahs are all founded on worshipping the graves and the awliyaa', and indeed upon shirk in the ruboobiyyah that the Arab mushrikoon confirmed belief in, and that is through the soofiyyah's beliefs in "al-ghawth", "al-aqtaab", "al-abdaal", and others whom they claim to control the universe. Refer to what Shaykh al-Islaam [Ibn Taymiyyah] wrote about the soofiyyah, and his debates with the followers of the Rifaa'iyyah (al-Fataawaa, volume 11), and refer to what Ihsaan Ilaahi Dhaheer wrote about the soofiyyah and about these tareeqahs and their practices of shirk in his book Diraasaat fit-Tasawwuf (Studies Regarding Tasawwuf), and what as-Sindi wrote in his book at-Tasawwuf fee Meezaan al-Bahth wat-Tahqeeq (Tasawwuf in the Balance of Investigation and Verification), and what al-Wakeel wrote in his book Haadhihi Hiyas-Soofiyyah (This is Sufism). And a detailed description of some of these tareeqahs will follow, in shaa' Allaah.]

And Muhammad Qutb said in his book Waaqi'unaa al-Mu'aasir (Our Present Situation), page 155:

"Sufism began to spread in the 'Abbaasi society, however it was an isolated corner of the society. But in the shade of the 'Uthmaani state, and in Turkey to be exact, it became the society itself, and it became the religion itself." [End of quote.]

And in al-Mawsoo'ah al-Muyassarah fil-Adyaan wal-Madhaahib al-Mu'aasirah (The Simplified Compendium of Contemporary Religions and Sects), page 348:

"Al-Baktaashiyyah: The 'Uthmaani Turks were affiliated with this tareeqah, and it continues to be widespread in Albania. And it is closer to the shee'i tasawwuf than the sunni tasawwuf... and it had great authority over the rulers of the 'Uthmaaniyyoon themselves." [End of quote.]

[All of tasawwuf is innovation and bid'ah, and there is no such thing as a "sunni tasawwuf". And there will follow the details of this particular tareeqah.]

And in the book al-Fikr as-Soofi fi Dhaw' al-Kitaab was-Sunnah (The Sufi Thinking in the Light of the Book and the Sunnah), page 411:

"And the 'Uthmaani sultaans competed with each other in building tekkes, zaawiyahs, and the graves of the Baktaashiyyah. So some of the sultaans supported it, and others were opposed to them, preferring another different tareeqah." [End of quote.]

For this reason, it is unsurprising that shirk and kufr became widespread, and tawheed began to fade away, in the lands that they ruled. And Shaykh Husayn ibn Ghannaam – rahimahullaahu ta'aalaa – said, describing their lands:

"Most of the people in his time – i.e. Shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhaab – were sunk in pollution and smeared by the mire of impurity to the extent that they went headlong into shirk, after the Sunnah had been buried... So they turned to worshipping the awliyaa' and the righteous people, and they discarded the collar of tawheed and the religion. So they exerted themselves in seeking aid from them in times of calamities, accidents, and disastrous events, and they ran to them asking them to fulfill their needs and remove their difficulties, from the living ones among them as well as their dead. And many people believed that inanimate objects could bring help or harm..." Then he mentioned the forms of shirk that existed in Najd, al-Hijaaz, al-'Iraaq, ash-Shaam, Egypt, and elsewhere. [End of quote.]

[Rawdhat al-Afkaar, page 5 onwards.]

And Imaam Sa'ood ibn 'Abd al-'Azeez – rahimahullaahu ta'aalaa – (died 1229H) said in one of his letters to the 'Uthmaani governor of al-'Iraaq, describing the nature of their state:

"So the sha'aa'ir (symbols) of kufr in Allaah and shirk, this is the situation that exists among you. Such as building domes over the graves, lighting lamps over them, hanging curtains over them, the visits to them in manners not legislated by Allaah or His Messenger, celebrating yearly festivals there, and asking those buried therein to fulfill needs, remove difficulties and answer pleas; all of this along with the abandoning of the obligatory duties of the religion that Allaah has ordered to be established, such as the five prayers and other than them. For the one who wants to pray prays alone, and the one who leaves the prayer is not objected to. And likewise is the case with zakaah. And this matter has spread and become well-known, and has filled the ears of many in the lands of ash-Shaam, al-'Iraaq, Egypt and elsewhere from among the lands." [End of quote.]

[Ad-Durar as-Saniyyah, 1/382.]

This was, very briefly, the situation of the 'Uthmaani state. If the above quotations are not sufficient to convince a person of this, then there is no hope for him to understand.

And as for the situation of its sultaans – which I have briefly indicated already – it is also of this kind. And I will mention a number of miscellaneous examples of these sultaans, in order to clarify their situation:

.

Sultaan Orkhaan the First (died 761H):

He is the second sultaan of this state, after his father 'Uthmaan ('Uthmaan the first, died 726H). His rule lasted for 35 years. And this sultaan was a sufi upon the Baktaashi tareeqah.

[See Taareekh ad-Dawlah al-'Aliyyah al-'Uthmaaniyyah, page 123, and al-Fikr as-Soofi, page 411. And al-Baktaashiyyah is also spelled al-Bakdaashiyyah (with a "daal" د ) and al-Baktashiyyah (with a "taa'" ط ). And the historians have mentioned about this sultaan that he helped the Roman king against the Serbian king, because the Roman king promised to give his daughter to him in marriage. See Taareekh ad-Dawlah, page 125.]

And the Baktaashi tareeqah – which I have mentioned several times already – is a sufi, shee'i, baatini tareeqah founded by Khankaar Muhammad Baktaash al-Khurasaani, who spread it in Turkey in the year 761H. And it is a mix of the 'aqeedah of wahdat al-wujood (the unity of all existence, essentially negating the separateness of Allaah from His creation), worship and deification of the mashaayikh, the 'aqeedah of the Raafidhah regarding the imams, and they exaggerate regarding the Prophet (sallallaahu 'alayhi wa-sallam) in a manner that takes them out of al-Islaam.

And from that is the saying of the student or "mureed" when he wants to enter into this tareeqah: "I have come with longing to the door of the Truth as a beggar, affirming Muhammad and Haydar (i.e. 'Ali), and seeking the "secret" (as-sirr) and the "outpouring" (al-faydh) from both of them, and from az-Zahraa' (i.e. Faatimah) and Shubayr and Shabar (i.e. al-Husayn and al-Hasan)." Then he says: "And with love I have submitted my inner self as a servant of the family of al-'Abbaas, and my refuge is al-Haajj Baktaash, the qutb (pivot) of the awliyaa'." And he says to his shaykh: "Your face is a lamp, and a lighthouse of guidance, your face is an indicator to the form of the Truth, your face is the Hajj and the 'Umrah and the Ziyaarah, your face is to the obedient ones the qiblah of leadership, your face is a summary of the Qur'aan."

And the awraad of the Baktaashiyyah are on the 'aqeedah of the Ithnaa' 'Ashariyyah Raafidhah. And they have in their 'aqeedah, from their baatini awraad, and the way that they visit the graves to get their shirk-based "acceptance", such things that are too terrible to mention.

[See them in detail in al-Fikr as-Soofi fi Dhaw' al-Kitaab was-Sunnah, page 409-424.]

Sultaan Muhammad the Second (al-Faatih) (died 886H):

He is one of the most famous of the sultaans of this state, and he ruled for 31 years.

After conquering Constantinople in the year 857H, he discovered the site of the grave of Abu Ayyoob al-Ansaari – radhiyallaahu 'anhu – and built a tomb over it, and next to it he built a masjid, and the masjid was decorated with white stone. And he built over the tomb of Abu Ayyoob a dome. And the custom of the 'Uthmaaniyyoon, in their blind-following of the sultaans, was that they would come in a big procession to this masjid, then the new sultaan would enter this tomb, and he would then receive the sword of Sultaan 'Uthmaan the First from the shaykh of the Mawlawi tareeqah.

[See ad-Dawlah al-'Uthmaaniyyah: Dawlah Islaamiyyah Muftaraa 'Alayhaa, 1/64.]

And this sultaan was the first to lay down the foundations of "civil law" and "penal law". So he replaced the shar'i bodily punishments that are narrated in the Book and the Sunnah – i.e. a tooth for a tooth, and an eye for an eye – with monetary fines, in a clear methodology that was completed by Sultaan Sulaymaan al-Qaanooni.

[See Taareekh ad-Dawlah al-'Aliyyah, page 177, and Fath al-Qustanteeniyyah wa-Muhammad al-Faatih, page 177.]

And he also issued a legislation – that continued to be implemented after him – which was that every sultaan who came to power could kill all of his brothers, so that the throne would be safe for him alone!!

[See ad-Dawlah al-'Uthmaaniyyah: Dawlah Islaamiyyah...", 1/64. And he began his rule by killing his own infant brother Ahmad! (Taareekh ad-Dawlah al-'Aliyyah, page 161).]

Sultaan Sulaymaan al-Qaanooni (i.e. the legislator) (died 974H):

And he is also one of the most famous sultaans of the 'Uthmaani state, and his rule was approximately 46 years.

When he entered Baghdaad, he built a dome over the tomb of Abu Haneefah. And he visited the holy places of the Raafidhah in an-Najaf and Karbalaa', and he rebuilt the structures there that had begun to deteriorate.

[See ad-Dawlah al-'Uthmaaniyyah: Dawlah Islaamiyyah...", 1/25, and Taareekh ad-Dawlah al-'Aliyyah, page 223.]

And he was called "Al-Qaanooni" because he was the first to introduce the European laws upon the Muslims, and to make them enforced in the courts. And it was the Jews and Christians who influenced him to do that.

[See Waaqi'unaa al-Mu'aasir, page 160, and Taareekh ad-Dawlah al-'Aliyyah, page 177 and page 198 onwards.]

Sultaan Saleem Khaan the Third (died 1223H):

Imaam Sa'ood ibn 'Abd al-'Azeez – rahimahullaahu ta'aalaa – said in his letter to the governor of Baghdaad, which we have previously mentioned:

"Your situation, and the situation of your imams and your sultaans, testifies to your falsehood and your lying in regard to that (i.e. their claim to al-Islaam). For we have seen, when we opened al-Hujrah ash-Shareefah (the room of the Prophet), upon its owner be the best of prayers and peace, in the year 22, a letter from your sultaan, Saleem, sent by his cousin to the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu 'alayhi wa-sallam), asking help from him and calling upon him to grant victory over the enemies. And it contains enough lowliness, humilation and self-abasement to testify to your falsehood. It begins: "From your little slave, Sultaan Saleem. To proceed: Yaa Rasoolallaah, we have experienced difficulty and hardship that we are unable to avert, and the slaves of the cross have taken over the slaves of ar-Rahmaan! We ask you to grant us victory over them and help us against them." And he mentioned a lot of words of this general meaning. So look at this enormous shirk, and kufr in Allaah, the One, the All-Knowing! The mushrikoon did not even ask this from their idols al-'Uzzaa and al-Laat, for when hardship and calamities befell them they used to call only on the Creator of all beings!" [End of quote.]

[See ad-Durar as-Saniyyah, page 160, and Taareekh ad-Dawlah al-'Aliyyah, page 177 and page 190 onwards.]

Sultaan 'Abd al-Hameed the Second (died 1327H):

This sultaan was a fanatical sufi upon the Shaadhili tareeqah. Here is a letter from him to the shaykh of the Shaadhili tareeqah of his time. He says in it:

"All praise is due to Allaah... I lift up this request of mine to the shaykh of the high Shaadhili tareeqah, and to the one who pours out the spirit and the life, the shaykh of the people of his age, Shaykh Mahmood Effendi, Abush-Shaamaat, and I kiss his two blessed hands, hoping for his righteous prayers. My master: By the tawfeeq of Allaah ta'aalaa I am constantly reciting the awraad of the Shaadhiliyyah night and day, and I request that I continue to be in perpetual need of your heartful prayers."

[See Imaam at-Tawheed, by Ahmad al-Qattaan and Muhammad Zayn, page 148, and at-Tareeq ilal-Jamaa'ah al-Umm, page 56, and the filthy Kuwaiti magazine al-'Arabi, number 157-169.]

And the Shaadhili tareeqah is a sufi, grave-worshipping, shirk-based tareeqah, full of enough enormities and blasphemies to classify it among the idol-worshipping kuffaar.

[See some of the forms of their shirk, deviance and bid'ahs in Diraasaat fit-Tasawwuf, page 235, and at-Tasawwuf fee Meezaan al-Bahth wat-Tahqeeq, page 327.

As for the stories of the relations of this state with the Jews and Christians and other kuffaar, in their appointing them to positions of power, aiding them, and even making them equal with the Muslims, then they are many. Look, if you wish, in Taareekh ad-Dawlah al-'Aliyyah and ad-Dawlah al-'Uthmaaniyyah: Dawlah Islaamiyyah... and you will hardly find a single 'Uthmaani sultaan whose life does not feature something of that. See, for example, the life of 'Abd al-Majeed ibn Mahmood, who issued the Gulkhaanah Decree in the year 1255H, in which he declared total freedom in personal matters and in ideas, and made non-Muslims equal to the Muslims. See Taareekh ad-Dawlah al-'Aliyyah, page 455, and al-Islaam wal-Hadhaarah al-Gharbiyyah, page 15.]

.

.

Section:

As for the war of the 'Uthmaaniyyoon against tawheed, then it is well-known. For they declared war against the da'wah of Shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhaab – rahimahullaah – as is known. "They wish to extinguish Allaah's Light with their mouths."

And they sent campaign after campaign to war against the people of tawheed, until they crowned this war of theirs with the destruction of ad-Dir'iyyah, the capital of ad-Da'wah as-Salafiyyah, in the year 1233H.

[To know about some of their crimes, see 'Unwaan al-Majd, 1/157.]

And the 'Uthmaaniyyoon, in their war against tawheed, sought help from their brothers the Christians. For one of the researchers in Europe discovered documents of correspondence between Napoleon Bonaparte, the ruler of France, and "al-Baab al-'Aali" (the "High Door", the title of the 'Uthmaani ruler), regarding the da'wah of Shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhaab, and the necessity of taking decisive action against it, as it was a threat to their interests in the east.

[The introduction of 'Atiyyah Saalim to the book al-Imaam Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhaab, by Ibn Baaz. And the researcher was Ahmad at-Taweel, while presenting his doctorate.]

And during the wars of the 'Uthmaaniyyoon against the people of tawheed, such atrocities were committed that made those of the crusaders pale in comparison. Here are some examples for you:

The 'Uthmaani state wanted to incite its troops to kill the people of tawheed, so it issues a decree that every soldier will receive a reward for every one that he killed, and it was necessary that the soldier prove his kill by cutting off the ears of his victim and sending them to the capital al-Astaanah (Istanbul). So they did that in al-Madeenah, al-Qunfudhah, al-Qaseem, Dhirmaa, and elsewhere.

[See that in detail in Taareekh al-'Arabiyyah as-Sa'oodiyyah, by the Russian historian Vasiliev, page 173, 183, 176, and 184.]

As for their destruction of villages and cities, and even their burning of masaajid, then narrate without difficulty.

[See that in 'Unwaan al-Majd, 1/157-219, and also in the previous reference.]

And from their crimes is that they took the women and children of the people of tawheed as captives, and sold them as slaves. Al-Jabarti said in his Taareekh:

"And the month of Safar began on a Friday in the year 1235H... and during it a group of the Arab and Maghaaribah troops arrived, who had been in the land of al-Hijaaz. And they were accompanied by prisoners from the "Wahhaabiyyah", women, girls, and boys. They came to al-Hamaayil, and sold them to whoever would buy them, even though they were Muslims and free people." [End of quote.]

[Taareekh 'Ajaa'ib al-Aathaar, 3/606. But be careful regarding this book, for al-Jabarti, as is apparent from his Taareekh, was a sufi khalwati who venerated the graves and the awliyaa', indeed even the heretical deviants such as the zindeeq Ibn 'Arabi.]

And I conclude that with this event that was narrated by a Russian historian. He said:

"In the year 1818M – i.e. 1234H – 'Abdullaah (Imaam 'Abdullaah ibn Sa'ood ibn 'Abd al-'Azeez ibn Muhammad ibn Sa'ood, the last imaam of the first Sa'oodi state) was taken via al-Qaahirah (Cairo) road to al-Astaanah (Istanbul), accompanied by two of those close to him, at the beginning of Kaanoon al-Awwal (December). And the Russian ambassador in al-Astaanah gave the following information:

Last week, the leader of the Wahhaabiyyoon, his minister and his imaam, who had been captured in ad-Dir'iyyah and later taken to the capital, were beheaded. Seeking to add to the impression of his victory over the worst enemies of the two cities that are considered to be the cradle of al-Islaam, the sultaan ordered on that day for an assembly to be made in the old palace in the capital, and they brought to the palace the three prisoners, bound in heavy chains and surrounded by the crowds of spectators. And after the introductory formalities, the sultaan ordered their execution, so the leader was beheaded in front of the main gate of the "Hagia Sofia", and the minister was beheaded in front of the "Saraay Entrance", and the third was beheaded in one of the main markets in the capital. And their bodies were put out on display with their heads under their armpits, and after three days they were thrown into the sea. And His Majesty ordered the observance of a special prayer of thanks to Allaah for the victory of the sultaan's armies, and for the extermination of the group that had laid waste to Makkah and al-Madeenah, spread fear in the hearts of the Muslims, and exposed them to danger." [End of quote.]

[Taareekh ad-Dawlah as-Sa'oodiyyah, by Vasiliev, page 186.]

Section:

So this was their enmity towards tawheed and its people, and this was their spreading of shirk and kufr. So how can it possibly be claimed that this corrupt, infidel state was an "Islaamic khilaafah"?! May Allaah have mercy on Imaam Sa'ood ibn 'Abd al-'Azeez (died 1229H) when the 'Uthmaani governor of al-'Iraaq said to him: "For we are Muslims in truth, and this is what all of our imaams have agreed upon, from all four madhaahib, and the mujtahidoon of the Deen and the Millah."

So the Imaam replied:

"We have clarified from the Words of Allaah ta'aalaa, the words of His Messenger, and the words of the followers of the four imaams, that which refutes your weak case, and defeats your false claim. For not everyone who makes a claim proves it by his action. And a poor person does not become rich simply by saying: "A thousand deenaars!" And a tongue does not burn simply by saying: "Fire". For verily, the Jews, the enemies of the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu 'alayhi wa-sallam) said to the Messenger of Allaah when he called them to al-Islaam: "We are Muslims!" And the Christians said similar to that. And likewise Fir'awn said to his people: "And I show you not except that which I see to be correct, and I guide you not except to the path of correctness." Yet he lied and uttered falsehood in that." [End of quote.]

[Ad-Durar as-Saniyyah, 1/391.]

And likewise, whoever claims that the 'Uthmaani state was a Muslim state, then he has uttered a lie and a falsehood, and the greatest forgery in this regard is that it was an Islaamic khilaafah!

[The fact that the 'Uthmaani state was a kaafir state does not necessitate the takfeer of everyone in it, and the two sons of Shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhaab (Husayn and 'Abdullaah) – rahimahumullaahu ta'aalaa – "It might be ruled that this village is one of kufr, and its people kuffaar whose ruling is that of the kuffaar, but it is not ruled that every single individual of them is himself a kaafir, because it is possible that among them were those upon al-Islaam who were excused from making hijrah, or who openly displayed his religion yet the Muslims did not know about him." Majmoo'at al-Masaa'il, 1/44.]

And know, O my brother, that no-one claims that the 'Uthmaani state was an Islaamic state except for one of two people:

Either a misguided deviant who sees that shirk is al-Islaam.
Or a person ignorant about the affair of this state.

As for the one who understands tawheed, and who understands what this state was upon, and still has doubt regarding its affair, then he is in a very dangerous position, wallaahul-musta'aan (and from Allaah all help is sought).
Click to expand...

Log in or Sign up

Forums

sick! Rebellion of Ibn Abdul Wahhab - by some khariji rabid wahabi

Wadood Veteran

naqshbandijamaati Veteran

abu Hasan Administrator

faqir Veteran

faqir Veteran

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Useful Searches

sick! Rebellion of Ibn Abdul Wahhab - by some khariji rabid wahabi

Wadood Veteran

naqshbandijamaati Veteran

abu Hasan Administrator

faqir Veteran

faqir Veteran

Share This Page