Glimpses Into Early Wahhabi Thought

[Chisti]

Details on this blog: Riyadat an-Nafs » Blog Archive » Glimpses Into Early Wahhabi Thought


I have pasted the conclusions below from the very long post ... the article basically discusses how wahabism was actually very similar to certain Sufi tariqas in that their final goals were the same ...


Conclusions
By looking at these interactions between the early Wahhabis and the other scholars of the time one can see many things about the early Wahhabis:
1) They were very similar in belief to several Sufi scholars of the Qarawiyyin in Morocco, but the Moroccan scholars did not accept their excesses in killing those they disagree with. This includes the beliefs about the nature of God and the current state of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), as well as views on visiting graves, etc.
2) They were not opposed to Sufism, but to certain Sufi practices. They even honored such Sufis as Ahmad Ibn Idris because of his strict adherence to the Sharia and had friendly relations with him. Ahmad ibn Idris also preferred the Wahhabis to the traditional scholars of Cairo and Mecca, and only stayed in Mecca as long as the Wahhabis stayed there.
3) The later Wahhabi scholars diverged from the beliefs of the founders of the movement by holding that the entire ummah plunged into disbelief, and disrespecting such scholars as Ahmad ibn Idris. They also did not have the same scholarly knowledge that their founder had and simply imitated him in all his rulings, thus practicing taqlid. They were later to denounce all of Sufism itself, which none of the founders of the movement seem to have done.
4) Major scholars from Morocco and Yemen agreed that Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahhab had noble intentions but disagreed with his labelling of others, such as those who erect buildings over graves, as unbelievers. And they disagreed with his shedding of Muslim blood without due procedure. Sa’ud ibn Abd al-Aziz and Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahhab’s sons, however, did respect proper procedure and the demand for proof in persecution (according to Ibn Idris). But later Wahhabis did not, and killed indiscriminately, as had the founder.
5) The way in which Wahhabi and non-Wahhabi scholars saw each other at this early period, and their similar attitudes toward Sufism and many Sufi practices, give more credence to John Voll’s suggestion that Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab’s reforms were inspired by the Sufi reformers in his intellectual milieu. Perhaps his movement was not fundamentally different from the others, but only went to more extreme lengths.

[Jaysh]

Haha, can this be moved to the comedy section please?

[sixpakistan]

Jaysh said

Haha, can this be moved to the comedy section please?

I thought it was an interesting thread

[Jaysh]

sixpakistan said

I thought it was an interesting thread

I doubt you even read it.

And if you did read it, then thanks for reading this garbage instead of all the other stuff I always send you to read, which if you had read you would have no doubt become an evangelical salafi by now!

[Chisti]

Jaysh said

Haha, can this be moved to the comedy section please?

No.

I don't know much about that era and the developments that took place, but it is undeniable that Abdul Wahab studied and associated with Sufi inclined people, BUT was against certain practices during that era, which he associated with shirk.

Also, the scholar that most wahahbis held in high esteem was Ibn Taymiyya, again someone closely associated with the Qadiri sufi tariqa ...

If you have counter opinions then please post them instead of laughing it off. Also, I am not saying that what this guy has written is correct or incorrect. It's just his view of history.

[Ayooshi]

Asalamu Alaikum,

Well he has an off view of history. Abdul Wahab did not kill indiscriminately, that is false, and numerous other points are false as well.

inshaAllah before posting something, please back it up and make sure its from reliable sources.

wa Allahu Alim

Fi AmanAllah

[Chisti]

Ayooshi said

Asalamu Alaikum,

Well he has an off view of history. Abdul Wahab did not kill indiscriminately, that is false, and numerous other points are false as well.

inshaAllah before posting something, please back it up and make sure its from reliable sources.

wa Allahu Alim

Fi AmanAllah

This guy could be completely wrong for all I know ... but he backs his stuff from what ever books he mentioned, so he does have some "proof" however accurate that maybe.

I posted it here to get a response from people here about what the know regarding that time ... I only read one book about this and it was way back so can't remember the name. It didn't mention Abdul Wahab killing indiscrimantely etc ... but it did mention that later on wahabi tribesmen went on a killing spree all the way upto Iraq to destroy the shrines there .... The Saudi king at that time let the British bomb them to contain these tribesmen.

[Abu_Hind]

It seems like you're looking for another flame war.

The "wahhabi" tribesmen you refer to were known as "ikhwan". They were Bedouins who had responded to the "Wahhabi Call" and later went to extremes and used "Wahhabism" as a front to carry out their activities until the King was forced to take actions. Even Wahhabis readily admit that these ignorant Bedouins were wrong in many of their actions and went to extremes- but you seem to be using this as an excuse to further tarnish Shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-wahhab.

I mean if you're looking for some drama why not try "Sunni" forum, they'll egg you on and you can curse "Wahhabis" all you like?

[Chisti]

Abu_Hind said

It seems like you're looking for another flame war.

The "wahhabi" tribesmen you refer to were known as "ikhwan". They were Bedouins who had responded to the "Wahhabi Call" and later went to extremes and used "Wahhabism" as a front to carry out their activities until the King was forced to take actions. Even Wahhabis readily admit that these ignorant Bedouins were wrong in many of their actions and went to extremes- but you seem to be using this as an excuse to further tarnish Shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-wahhab.

I mean if you're looking for some drama why not try "Sunni" forum, they'll egg you on and you can curse "Wahhabis" all you like?

Thanks Abu Hind ... so there were some people who went nuts and had to be taken care of by the King ... what those nut cases did does not represent wahahbis since the King was a wahabi himself ... how is this causing drama??? there are nut cases in every group of people.


I am not tarnishing Shaykh Abdul Wahab ... why can we not have a civilized discussion? I never heard before that Abdul Wahab himself went on a killing spree etc until i read this post by this guy.

Hasn't Jaysh posted posts that were basically claiming that certain practices are haram or shirk? We discussed those by using texts and scholarly authorities. No one is stopping you from having a decent discussion.

This post is not even an issue of religion. It is about history. So no, I am not going to sunni forum. You just can't suppress ideas.

[Abu_Hind]

Chisti said

Thanks Abu Hind ... so there were some people who went nuts and had to be taken care of by the King ... what those nut cases did does not represent wahahbis since the King was a wahabi himself ... how is this causing drama??? there are nut cases in every group of people.


I am not tarnishing Shaykh Abdul Wahab ... why can we not have a civilized discussion? I never heard before that Abdul Wahab himself went on a killing spree etc until i read this post by this guy.

Hasn't Jaysh posted posts that were basically claiming that certain practices are haram or shirk? We discussed those by using texts and scholarly authorities. No one is stopping you from having a decent discussion.

This post is not even an issue of religion. It is about history. So no, I am not going to sunni forum. You just can't suppress ideas.

No one is suppressing ideas, you're already working within a certain paradigm where you've presupposed that ibn 'abdul-wahhab was bad- so even if we were to have a civilized discussion, you would still conclude that Wahhabis are bad.

[SyedShoaib786]

a shaykh is not known except by his students. but the shaykh at the same time should not be judged by the actions of his students. so stay free from his innovations and remain firm to his truths inshaAllah. it is known his followers committed heinous acts. what we need to look at critically is did these actions have an acceptance by the wahabi scholars. i think its already understood they were dismissed by the ulema. and one can not simply presume Ibn Abdul Wahab accepted these actions, rather we should bring forth his fatwas.

Allahu alim.

-shoaib

[Chisti]

Abu_Hind said

No one is suppressing ideas, you're already working within a certain paradigm where you've presupposed that ibn 'abdul-wahhab was bad- so even if we were to have a civilized discussion, you would still conclude that Wahhabis are bad.

oh wow we have a mind reader in our midst ... how do you know that i have already presupposed abdul wahab is bad? And what on earth do you mean by 'bad'???

From what I have read, he was sincere in his quest. He may have arrived at ideas that were not correct but that doesn't make him a 'bad' or 'evil' person. He traveled places to learn religion. Back then traveling was a pain in the back ... that enough shows he was sincere. Allah knows best about every individuals sincerity ....

SO now are you going to come up with another childish term and excuse? If you don't have the substance to discuss issues then stay out of it. Let others who are capable handle it.

[Abu_Hind]

Chisti said

oh wow we have a mind reader in our midst ... how do you know that i have already presupposed abdul wahab is bad? And what on earth do you mean by 'bad'???

From what I have read, he was sincere in his quest. He may have arrived at ideas that were not correct but that doesn't make him a 'bad' or 'evil' person. He traveled places to learn religion. Back then traveling was a pain in the back ... that enough shows he was sincere. Allah knows best about every individuals sincerity ....

SO now are you going to come up with another childish term and excuse? If you don't have the substance to discuss issues then stay out of it. Let others who are capable handle it.

Man you're so lame. No one here has much interest in "Wahhabis", people who do either start any topic discussing him in order to either defend him or discredit him. Let's not forget that your "contradictions" have already been exposed before. So, why don't you give it a rest?

Oh, and it doesn't take a genius to guess what sort of "paradigm" you're operating under. And God forbid if I ever had to read your mind!

[Rida]

wahhabi's are evil.
They eat babies.

k seriously though. I read somewhere that Abdul wahhabs father & brother were followers of sufi tariqahs. Is it true?

was-Salaam

[Chisti]

Abu_Hind said

Man you're so lame. No one here has much interest in "Wahhabis", people who do either start any topic discussing him in order to either defend him or discredit him. Let's not forget that your "contradictions" have already been exposed before. So, why don't you give it a rest?

Oh, and it doesn't take a genius to guess what sort of "paradigm" you're operating under. And God forbid if I ever had to read your mind!

Since you have nothing of substance you revert to attacking the person ...