Skip to main content

Reflections on some statements of Al-Allamah Rabee Bin Hadi Al-Madkhali [48 of 80]

In The Name of Allah, The Most Merciful, The Bestower of Mercy.

The books of the pious predecessors are present, from the early period up to this present day of yours. There exists numerous books. By Allah, your time is insufficient to thoroughly engage with all these works and these paths to the different sciences.

O my brothers! Do not squander your time on the books of misguidance, neither defend falsehood nor the proponents of Bidah.

Marhaban Yaa Talib Al-Ilm 406

Reflections on some statements of Al-Allamah Rabee Bin Hadi Al-Madkhali [47 of 80]

In The Name of Allah, The Most Merciful, The Bestower of Mercy.

Our religion is comprehensive and complete, leaving no aspect of life without Allah’s ruling on it and a stance. Whoever abandons something from it after the truth has been made clear to him, then indeed his destination is towards destruction.

Also, if he turns away from the truth while being capable of distinguishing between right and wrong, and chooses to reject the truth or neglect the pursuit of it, then indeed, by Allah, he is on a path towards ruin. Many people pretend to be oblivious and feign ignorance, while the truth is readily accessible to him.

However, various obstacles prevents them, such as personal desires, arrogance, blind following, (Footnote a) and numerous other factors. The truth is readily accessible and in front of his eyes, yet he may choose to  prevent himself, close his eyes, and turns away from the truth. This is also one who deviates from the truth, and his destination is towards destruction; and Allah’s refuge is sought. [Al-Makh’raj Min Al-Fitan 23-24]


Footnote a:

THE PERMISSIBLE FORM OF TAQLEED

https://www.salafipublications.com/sps/sp.cfm?subsecID=MNJ06&articleID=MNJ060005&articlePages=1

Reflections on some statements of Al-Allamah Rabee Bin Hadi Al-Madkhali [46 of 80]

In The Name of Allah, The Most Merciful, The Bestower of Mercy.

Al Allaamah Rabee Bin Hadi Al-Madkhali, may Allah preserve him, said:

Loyalty to and enmity against specific individuals, similar to the manner in which the Rawafid (Shiites) exhibit false loyalty to specific members of the Prophet’s family: Shaikh Al-Islam, may Allah have mercy on him, stated in “Minhaj al-Sunnah” (133/5):

“The Rāfidah have adopted a divisive approach regarding the companions of the Messenger, showing loyalty to some while excessively praising them, and harbouring animosity towards others while being extreme in their animosity”.

Many individuals adopt a similar stance towards their leaders, kings, scholars, and elders, resulting in rejecting one another for others besides the companions. You find a proponent of illegal partisanship showing loyalty to so and so, and to those who love him, while showing enmity to so and so, and to those who love him based on other than truth (or without a justified Shariah reason). This is entirely from that splitting and affiliation that Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, as He, the Exalted, stated:

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ فَرَّقُوا دِينَهُمْ وَكَانُوا شِيَعًا لَسْتَ مِنْهُمْ فِي شَيْء

Verily, those who divide their religion and break up into sects (all kinds of religious sects), you (O Muhammad) have no concern in them in the least.
(Al-An’am: 159)

Al-Majmu Al-Wadih. 488

Listen to clarification by Shaikh Abu Khadeejah, may Allah preserve him.

Bid’ee Daniel Haqiqatjou – The Inevitable transition from lying to wicked behaviour!

In The Name of Allah, The Most Merciful, The Bestower of Mercy.

Allah [The Exalted] said:

فَٱجۡتَنِبُواْ ٱلرِّجۡسَ مِنَ ٱلۡأَوۡثَـٰنِ وَٱجۡتَنِبُواْ قَوۡلَ ٱلزُّورِ

So shun the abomination (worshipping) of idols, and shun lying speech (false statements). [Al-Hajj. 30]

Al-Allamah Rabee Bin Hadi al-Madkhali, may Allah preserve him, stated:

“Allah forbade lying and mentioned it alongside shirk”.

The Shaikh also stated, “Numerous are liars today against the callers and carriers of the Salafi Dawah. They (i.e. the liars) are able to disseminate cruel rumours till it reaches the world using various means made available to them in this era. They divert people from Allah’s path and seek to make it crooked in order to further their falsehoods, twaddle, and dangerous innovations in religion that destroy sound belief, sound Islamic approaches to various subjects, and virtuous manners”. [1]

Bid’ee Haqiqatjou once attempted to create a division within Salafiyyah referred to as the Madkhalis. The label of Madkhalism is, in fact, a deceptive tactic employed by the adversaries of Salafiyyah. Lacking solid evidence to challenge the authentic Salafi methodology and its upright scholars, they resort to fabrications, illusions, and defamation. This term was invented by those people of bidah, such as the Qutbiyyah and Ikhwaanees, in an effort to undermine one of the great scholars in our era, Rabee Bin Haadi Al-Madkhali, may Allah preserve him. He (Al-Allamah Rabee) said: “Do you take revenge against these Salafiyyoon and nickname them with these nicknames only because they hold onto the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of Allah’s Messenger [peace and blessings of Allah be upon him]? What is the bidah that the Salafiyyoon have in order for them (i.e. the false accusers) to say Mad’khaliyyah, Jaamiyyah?” [2] There is no such thing as Mad’khalism nor a quietist train in Salafiyyah. For more information about this distinguished scholar, refer to the articles written by Shaikh Abu Khadeejah and Shaikh Abu Iyaad, may Allah preserve them.

https://abukhadeejah.com/biography-of-ash-shaykh-al-allamah-rabi-ibn-hadi-al-madkhali-and-the-praise-of-the-scholars-for-him/

https://www.themadkhalis.com/md/

https://abukhadeejah.com/a-response-to-western-academics-who-categorise-salafis-into-quietists-politicos-and-jihadists-and-why-this-is-a-false-categorisation/

This was among the earliest of Mr. Haqiqatjou’s outrageous and nonsensical falsehoods. Consequently, once it became clear that no group known as the Madkhalis exists, it is evident that the misguided Daniel is merely a liar and a slanderer. Imam Ibn Al-Qayyim [may Allah have mercy upon him] stated:

Beware of (lying or lies) because it corrupts one’s ability to illustrate information based on what it should be in reality. It corrupts one’s ability to illustrate information and his ability to teach the people. The liar portrays what is non-existent as something present and what is present as something non-existent. He portrays truth as something false and falsehood as something true; he portrays good as evil and evil as good, so this corrupts his conception and knowledge, which then becomes a punishment upon him. Then he portrays what is not true to the one deceived by him – the one who is inclined towards him- so he corrupts his conception and knowledge. The soul of the liar turns away from the existing reality -inclined towards what is non-existent and gives preference to falsehood. And when his conception and knowledge is corrupted, which is the basis of every willfully chosen deed, his deeds become corrupt and marked by lies, so those deeds would emanate from him just as lies emanate from the tongue- he neither benefits from his tongue nor his deeds. This is why lying is the basis of immorality, just as the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, said, “Indeed lies lead to immorality [or wickedness] and indeed immorality [or wickedness] leads to the fire. [Bukhaari 2606/2607]

Firstly lies emerge from the heart and then on the tongue, so it corrupts it; then it transfers to the limbs and corrupts its actions, just as it corrupts the statements of the tongue. Therefore, lying prevails over his statements, deeds and state of affairs; corruption becomes deeply rooted in him and its disease leads to destruction if Allah does not grant him cure him with the medication of truthfulness, which uproots it (i.e. lying) from its original source. This is why the basis [or foundation] of all the deeds of the hearts is based on truthfulness; and the basis of their opposites – such as showing off, self-amazement, pride, being glad (with ungratefulness to Allah’s Favours), conceitedness, boastfulness, insolence, weakness, laziness, cowardice, disgrace and other than them- is lies. The origin of every righteous deed- whether carried out in private or public- is based on truthfulness. And the origin of every corrupt deed – whether carried out in private or public- is lies. [3]

Following the conflict between the Rawafid and the Zionists, Mr. Haqiqatjou could no longer conceal his affection for the Rafidah and his disdain for the Sunnah and its followers. His repugnant behaviour first began with lies and slander against the people of Sunnah, and culminated in Fujoor (wicked behaviour) by manifesting affection for the Rawafid. The Messenger, peace and blessings of Allāh be upon him, said: “Truthfulness leads to righteousness, and righteousness leads to Paradise. And a man keeps on telling the truth until he becomes a truthful person. Falsehood leads to Al-Fajur (i.e. wickedness, evil-doing), and Al-Fajur (wickedness) leads to the (Hell) Fire, and a man may keep on telling lies till he is written before Allah, a liar.”  [Al-Bukhari 6094]

Fitan ultimately exposed the imposter to reveal the deep affection he harbours for the Rafidah, despite all attempts to conceal it. Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah said, “And Imaan is known about a man, just as all the states of his heart are known by way of his (outward) allegiances, enmities, his rejoicing, anger, hunger, thirst, and other such affairs. For these matters have certain outward binding necessities (lawaazim dhaahirah) and the outward matters necessitate inward matters. And this is a matter known, the people know this concerning the one that they have experienced and tested (jarraboohu wamtahinoohu)…”. (Minhaaj us-Sunnah 8/475) (translation by Salafipublications.com)

https://abuiyaad.com/a/daniel-haqiqatjou-madkhali-bootlickers
https://abuiyaad.com/s/daniel-haqiqatjou
https://abuiyaad.com/a/haqiqatjou-mental-retardation
https://abuiyaad.com/a/daniel-haqiqatjou-taqiyyah/print
https://abuiyaad.com/a/daniel-haqiqatjou-medication
https://abukhadeejah.com/concise-adequate-response-to-the-scorn-lies-deceit-of-daniel-haqiqatjou-against-ahlus-sunnah-wal-jamaah/

Also, following his inability to hide his affection and loyalty towards his cherished ones within Ahlul Bidah, he began to undermine the contributions of earlier scholars, including Imam Muhammad Ibn Abdil Wahhab, may Allah have mercy upon him, who came before Al-Allamah Rabee. Consequently, Haqiqatjou embraced a trait reminiscent of the people of Al-Jahiliyyah and those among Ahlul Kitab who strayed from the correct path.

Bid’ee Haqiqatjou, mocking upright scholars is a trait of Jahiliyyah!

Al-Allamah Zaid Bin Hadi Al-Mad’khali, may Allah have mercy upon him, said:

They insult the followers of the Messengers saying that they neither possess understanding of affairs nor are they far-sighted, in order to make people flee from their illuminated call that has a praiseworthy outcome. This is a false statement because the people of Nifaaq are the ones without understanding. Had they understood and were truthful – outwardly and inwardly, they would have followed the Prophets and Messengers and those people of sound understanding who followed their path. This [i.e. insulting the followers of the Prophets] is what the people of Prophet Nuh reiterated to him. [ وَمَا نَرَٮٰكَ ٱتَّبَعَكَ إِلَّا ٱلَّذِينَ هُمۡ أَرَاذِلُنَا بَادِىَ ٱلرَّأۡىِ – Nor do we see any follow you but the meanest among us and they (too) followed you without thinking].

To accuse the followers of the noble Messengers and great Prophets that they are people of weak understanding is a false accusation against the religion and belittlement of it. Whoever follows this path that was followed by the people of the pre-Islamic era of ignorance, not honouring the Messengers and what they brought, and not following their pious followers, he resembles the Yahud [i.e. those Yahud who disbelieved and rebelled against the Prophets], the disbelievers, the people of pre-Islamic era of ignorance and the wicked sinners. Therefore, the sensible Muslims should be cautious of resembling them because whoever imitates a people is from them. [4]

Indeed, this is why the senior Salafi teachers challenged this liar and imposter because they could tell from his speech that he is someone who desires trials, temptations and discord. Imam Al-Barbahaaree, may Allah have mercy upon him, said: “Know that leaving the correct path occurs in two ways. Firstly, a man strays from the correct path intending nothing but good, so his error is not to be followed since it leads to destruction. Secondly, a man who deliberately opposes the truth and acts contrary to the Pious ones who came before him, he is astray, leading others astray, a rebellious devil within the Ummah. It is a duty upon those who know of him to warn the people against him and to explain his condition to them so that no one falls into his innovation and is destroyed”.

Al-Allaamah Saalih Al-Fawzaan [may Allah preserve him] commented on the above statement of Imam Barbahaaree [may Allah have mercy upon him] saying: The first man is one who leaves the (correct path) without the intention (to do so), rather he intended good but followed other than the path of good. Striving [alone] is not sufficient, and even if the person has a righteous intention and a good aim, then that must be upon the correct path. Therefore, this (person) is considered mistaken and whoever agrees with him and follows his error will be destroyed because this is a path of destruction even though the (person) did not intend to leave (the correct path); rather his quest was (to reach something) good. This is the state of many of those who initiate newly invented matters in the knowledge of Aqeedah (Creed). This affair is not permissible, and they should not adhere to it. The person is not upon correctness. Allah [The Mighty and Majestic] said: [ وَأَنَّ هَٰذَا صِرَاطِي مُسْتَقِيمًا فَاتَّبِعُوهُ ۖ وَلَا تَتَّبِعُوا السُّبُلَ فَتَفَرَّقَ بِكُمْ عَنْ سَبِيلِهِ – And verily, this is my Straight Path, so follow it, and follow not (other) paths, for they will separate you away from His Path]. [Al-An’am. 153]

Therefore, we reject any path that exits us from the Straight Path even if the one who (calls) to it aims for good and has a good intention. We do not follow him in that while he continues upon his error, eventually leading to destruction because whoever abandons the correct path in his journey and takes a path of ruin will be destroyed.

As for the second person, it is the one who intends to leave (the correct path). He knows the truth and that what he embarks upon is falsehood, but he intends to leave the truth with the intention of misguiding the people. So, the intention of the first (person) is to bring about benefit for the people, but he did not follow the correct path. The second (person) intended to misguide the people and turn them away from the correct path. Therefore, this one is a devil because the devils take the people away from the Straight Path. (Allah informs us that) Iblees said:

[لَأَقْعُدَنَّ لَهُمْ صِرَاطَكَ الْمُسْتَقِيمَ -Surely, I will sit in wait against them (human beings) on Your Straight Path]. [7:16] So he intends to turn them away from it [i.e. the straight path] and [direct them] towards the deviated paths. The Prophet [peace and blessings of Allah be upon him] gave us an example when he drew a straight line and drew other lines on its sides, he then said about the straight line, “This is the path of Allah” and he said about the other lines, “These are the other paths, and on each path is a devil calling to it”. This is a clear example that agrees with that which the Shaikh (i.e. Imaam Barbahaaree) has stated here. So, the one who takes the people away from the Straight Path (and directs them) to the innovated paths of the innovators (in religious matters) is not one who intends good for them; rather he intends destruction for them. He is a devil, be it that he is a devil from amongst the Jinn or the people. It is obligated to us to be more careful of this (second person) than the first one because this one (i.e. the second) intends to misguide the people.

And regarding the statement of Imaam Barbahaaree: “He is astray, leading others astray, a rebellious devil”, Al-Allaamah Saalih Al-Fawzaan stated: He is misguided and misguiding others- a rebellious devil, a rebel intending to turn the people from the Straight Path.

And regarding the statement of Imaam Barbahaaree, “It is a duty upon those who know of him to warn the people against him and to explain his condition to them so that no one falls into his innovation and is destroyed”, Al-Allaamah Saalih Al-Fawzaan commented on the above statement, saying: It is not permissible to keep quiet about this one who leaves the truth intentionally; rather it is obligatory to unveil his affair and uncover his vileness until the people are warned about him. And it is not to be said that the people are free to hold views, freedom of speech and respecting the views of others, as say present with regards to [having] respect for the views of others. The affair is not about views; [rather] the affair is about Ittibaa [i.e. following the authentic proofs narrated from the Messenger accompanied with the understanding of the pious predecessors]. Allah has outlined a clear path for us, and He told us to adhere to it, when He [Glorified be He] stated: [وَأَنَّ هَٰذَا صِرَاطِي مُسْتَقِيمًا فَاتَّبِعُوهُ] ‘And verily, this is my Straight Path, so follow it’ [6:153]

If any person comes to us and wants us to leave this straight path, firstly we reject his statement. Secondly, we clarify and warn the people against him and we do not keep quiet about him; because if we keep quiet about him, the people will be deceived by him, especially if he is an eloquent person with (skillful) writing and education because the people will be deceived by him and will say, “This one is competent, this one is from the thinkers” as is taking place today. Therefore, the affair is very dangerous, and regarding this is a reason to refute the one in opposition, as opposed to what those who say, “Abandon the refutations, leave the people, everyone has his views and have respect for him”. By way of this (so-called) respect for the views and freedom of speech, the Ummah will be destroyed. The Salaf (pious predecessors) did not keep quiet about the likes of these people; rather they exposed and refuted them due to their knowledge of the danger upon Ummah. We do not keep quiet about their evil; rather that which Allah has revealed must be clarified, otherwise, we will be from those who conceal the truth-those whom Allah spoke of (saying): [إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يَكْتُمُونَ مَا أَنْزَلْنَا مِنَ الْبَيِّنَاتِ وَالْهُدَىٰ مِنْ بَعْدِ مَا بَيَّنَّاهُ لِلنَّاسِ فِي الْكِتَابِ ۙ أُولَٰئِكَ يَلْعَنُهُمُ اللَّهُ وَيَلْعَنُهُمُ اللَّاعِنُونَ – Verily, those who conceal the clear proofs, evidences and the guidance, which We have sent down, after We have made it clear for the people in the Book, they are the ones cursed by Allaah and cursed by the cursers].'[2:159]

The affair is not limited to the innovator, rather it is extended to the one who keeps quiet about him (i.e. the one who deliberately keeps quiet whilst being aware about him). Rebuke and punishment (i.e. warning) are extended to him because it is obligatory to clarify. [5

Al-Allamah Ibn Aqeel, may Allah have mercy upon him, said, “If the truthful ones were to keep silent and the falsifiers speak, then the creation would have relinquished what they have witnessed (of truth) and reject what they have not witnessed. So, when the devout ones desire to revive the Prophetic path, the people would reject it and think that it is Bidah”. [6]


[1] https://youtu.be/IeQQB8vX8bk?si=tut7_IyFe0gKEBR8

[2]https://salafidawahmanchester.com/2015/01/01/those-who-nickname-the-salafis-with-the-terms-madkhaliyyah-jaamiyyah-shaikh-rabee-responds-2/

[3] Fawaa’id’ pages 202-203]

[4] An Excerpt from Sharh Masa’il Al-Jaahiliyyah Page: 78-79. slightly paraphrased

[5] An Excerpt from It-haaful Qaaree Bitta’liqaat Alaa Sharhis Sunnah Lil Imaam Barbahaaree, Vol 1, page: 110-115. slightly paraphrased

[6] Shifaa As-Sudoor Fee Ziyaaratil Mashaahid Wal-Quboor page: 148

Outrageous declarations not uncommon from some with significant political power and wealth

In The Name of Allah, The Most Merciful, The Bestower of Mercy.

Outrageous or absurd declarations not uncommon – throughout history -from some of those with significant political power and wealth

Allah [The Most High] said:

قَدۡ مَڪَرَ ٱلَّذِينَ مِن قَبۡلِهِمۡ فَأَتَى ٱللَّهُ بُنۡيَـٰنَهُم مِّنَ ٱلۡقَوَاعِدِ فَخَرَّ عَلَيۡہِمُ ٱلسَّقۡفُ مِن فَوۡقِهِمۡ وَأَتَٮٰهُمُ ٱلۡعَذَابُ مِنۡ حَيۡثُ لَا يَشۡعُرُونَ
ثُمَّ يَوۡمَ ٱلۡقِيَـٰمَةِ يُخۡزِيهِمۡ وَيَقُولُ أَيۡنَ شُرَڪَآءِىَ ٱلَّذِينَ كُنتُمۡ تُشَـٰٓقُّونَ فِيہِمۡ‌ۚ قَالَ ٱلَّذِينَ أُوتُواْ ٱلۡعِلۡمَ إِنَّ ٱلۡخِزۡىَ ٱلۡيَوۡمَ وَٱلسُّوٓءَ عَلَى ٱلۡڪَـٰفِرِينَ

Those before them indeed plotted, but Allah struck at the foundation of their building, and then the roof fell down upon them, from above them, and the torment overtook them from directions they did not perceive. Then, on the Day of Resurrection, He will disgrace them and will say: “Where are My (so called) ‘partners’ concerning whom you used to disagree and dispute (with the believers, by defying and disobeying Allah)?” Those who have been given the knowledge (about the Torment of Allah for the disbelievers) will say: “Verily! Disgrace this Day and misery are upon the disbelievers. [An-Nahl. 26-27]

[قَدۡ مَڪَرَ ٱلَّذِينَ مِن قَبۡلِهِمۡ – Those before them indeed plotted]: The Mufassiroon say that this refers to Namrud who built a tall tower in order to climb – as he claimed – the heavens and fight its inhabitants.

[فَأَتَى ٱللَّهُ بُنۡيَـٰنَهُم مِّنَ ٱلۡقَوَاعِدِ فَخَرَّ عَلَيۡہِمُ ٱلسَّقۡفُ مِن فَوۡقِهِمۡ – but Allah struck at the foundation of their building, and then the roof fell down upon them, from above them]: The Mufassiroon say: Allaah sent a wind which flung the top of the tower to the sea and the rest was destroyed. [وَأَتَٮٰهُمُ ٱلۡعَذَابُ مِنۡ حَيۡثُ لَا يَشۡعُرُونَ – and the torment overtook them from directions they did not perceive]: Meaning, from where they thought they were safe. [ثُمَّ يَوۡمَ ٱلۡقِيَـٰمَةِ يُخۡزِيهِمۡ – Then, on the Day of Resurrection, He will disgrace]: Meaning, disgraced with punishment. [1]

[قَدۡ مَڪَرَ ٱلَّذِينَ مِن قَبۡلِهِمۡ – Those before them indeed plotted]: Meaning plotted against their Messengers, employed various types of tricks in order to reject that which the messengers brought and established gigantic safeguards [by way of arguments, views etc] on their plots. [فَأَتَى ٱللَّهُ بُنۡيَـٰنَهُم مِّنَ ٱلۡقَوَاعِدِ – but Allah struck at the foundation of their building]– Meaning, an affair came to them from its basis and foundation [فَخَرَّ عَلَيۡہِمُ ٱلسَّقۡفُ مِن فَوۡقِهِمۡ – and then the roof fell down upon them, from above them] -Meaning, so what they built became a punishment for them. [وَأَتَٮٰهُمُ ٱلۡعَذَابُ مِنۡ حَيۡثُ لَا يَشۡعُرُونَ – and the torment overtook them from directions they did not perceive]: Meaning, that is because they thought that such a building will benefit and protect them from punishment, but their punishment occurred from that which they built and established.

This is one the best of parables regarding how Allah nullifies the plots of his enemies, for indeed they pondered and reflected on that which the Messengers brought when they belied them, made up principles and rules for it based on falsehood, referred back to them to reject that which the Messengers came with, employed tricks to bring discomfort to the Messengers and inflict harm on them and those who followed them, but their plot became a source of evil against them, so their plan became their destruction, because their plot was evil as Allah said: [ وَلَا يَحِيقُ الْمَكْرُ السَّيِّئُ إِلَّا بِأَهْلِهِ – But the evil plot encompasses only him who makes it]. [Fatir. 43]

This is in this worldly life and the punishment in the afterlife would be more disgraceful, and due to this Allah said: [ثُمَّ يَوۡمَ ٱلۡقِيَـٰمَةِ يُخۡزِيهِمۡ – Then, on the Day of Resurrection, He will disgrace them]. [2]

[وَقَدۡ مَكَرُواْ مَڪۡرَهُمۡ – Indeed, they planned their plot, and their plot was with Allah]: There are four statements of the scholars regarding the above: That it was Namrud when he debated with Ibrahim about his Lord. That it was about Bakhtanasar. That it is about the nations of the past and their plotting which necessitates Shirk. That it is about those who plotted against the Messenger when they desired to kill him.

And regarding the statement: [وَعِندَ ٱللَّهِ مَڪۡرُهُمۡ – and their plot was with Allah]– meaning: Their plot is recorded so that Allah will recompense them.

[وَإِن كَانَ مَڪۡرُهُمۡ لِتَزُولَ مِنۡهُ ٱلۡجِبَالُ – though their plot was a great (one, still) it would never be able to remove the mountains]. Az-Zujaaj said, “Even if they plot reached the severity where it could move a mountain, they will still not be able to bring the affair of Islam to an end”. [3] Even if their plot were to reach a stage where it could move a mountain, Allah will still aid the religion He has ordained. [4]

Al-Awfee said reported from Ibn Abbas who said, “Their plot cannot move mountains”. Ibn Jareer  said, “This deed they commit is against themselves, such as associating partners to Allah and disbelief in Him cannot bring any harm to the mountains nor anything, rather it will haunt them”. [5] The verses (signs, revelations) of Allah, His divine laws and His manifest miracles at the hands of the Messengers are like mountains in robustness and firmness. So the intent is to belittle their plot and that it cannot remove the signs and Messenger ships. [6]

Allah [The Exalted] said:
أَلَمْ تَرَ إِلَى الَّذِي حَاجَّ إِبْرَاهِيمَ فِي رَبِّهِ أَنْ آتَاهُ اللَّهُ الْمُلْكَ إِذْ قَالَ إِبْرَاهِيمُ رَبِّيَ الَّذِي يُحْيِي وَيُمِيتُ قَالَ أَنَا أُحْيِي وَأُمِيتُ ۖ قَالَ إِبْرَاهِيمُ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ يَأْتِي بِالشَّمْسِ مِنَ الْمَشْرِقِ فَأْتِ بِهَا مِنَ الْمَغْرِبِ فَبُهِتَ الَّذِي كَفَرَ ۗ وَاللَّهُ لَا يَهْدِي الْقَوْمَ الظَّالِمِينَ

Have you not seen (contemplated with your heart) him who disputed with Ibrahim (Abraham) about his Lord (Allah), because Allah had given him the kingdom? When Ibrahim (Abraham) said (to him): “My Lord (Allah) is He Who gives life and causes death.” He said, “I give life and cause death.” Ibrahim (Abraham) said, “Verily! Allah causes the sun to rise from the east; then cause it you to rise from the west.” So the disbeliever was utterly defeated. And Allah guides not the people, who are Zalimun (wrong-doers, etc.). [Al-Baqarah. 258]

Imam Al-Baghawi, may Allah have mercy upon him, said:

There is a difference of opinion among (the Mufassiroon) regarding the timing of this debate. Muqatil, may Allah have mercy on him, stated that after Ibrahim, peace be upon him, broke the idols, Namrud imprisoned him and later brought him out to be burned. Namrud asked, “Who is the Lord you urge us to worship?” Ibrahim, peace be upon him, replied, “My Lord is the one who gives life and causes death.” Others say that this (occurred) after Ibrahim was thrown into the fire, during a time of drought when people sought food from Namrud. If someone approached him for food, he would inquire, “Who is your Lord?” If the person responded, “You are my Lord,” he would then offer to sell them food. [6]

أَلَمۡ تَرَ إِلَى ٱلَّذِى حَآجَّ إِبۡرَٲهِـۧمَ فِى رَبِّهِۦۤ

“Have you seen (contemplated with your heart and eyes) him who disputed with Ibrahim (Abraham) about his Lord (Allah)”……Meaning, his insolence, ignorant attitude and obstinacy, and arguing about that which there is no doubt! Nothing led him to this behaviour except because” Allah had given him the kingdom”, thus, he transgressed and rebelled, and considered himself as one in control of those under his authority, which led him to argue with Prophet Ibrahim about Allah’s Lordship and claimed that he can do the same thing as Allah does.

Prophet Ibrahim said to him, “My Lord is He Who gives life and death” – Meaning, “Allah alone is in absolute control of everything”. Then Ibrahim mentioned two specific things – life and death. This is because they the greatest things in Allah’s absolute control. Life is the beginning of the worldly life and death is the beginning of what is to occur in the afterlife.

Then the one (the king) who sought to ague against Ibrahim said, “I give life and cause death”, but he never said, “I am the One Who gives life and death, because could not claim that he is not in need of anyone to interfere in the matter; instead, he only claimed that he could do what Allah does by killing someone and sparing someone’s life. Prophet Ibrahim saw the fallacy in his argument and utterence of speech that is not even worthy of being a Shubhah (i.e. an ambiguity portrayed as wholesome truth) let alone a proof, so he said to him, “Verily! Allah causes the sun to rise from the east”.

Ibrahim mentioned something that can be clearly seen and affirmed by everyone including this disbeliever. “Then cause it you to rise from the West”. This compelled him to bring proof if he is truthful in his claim.

When Ibrahim uttered this to him, about which he neither had the ability to present an ambiguity to make Ibrahim’s proof look confusing nor could he find something to disparage it, he was utterly defeated – lost for an answer, his proof cut off and his ambiguous statement toppled. [7]

He Who brings life and death (Allah) has absolute control over the existence and creates everything in it, including absolute control of its celestial bodies and their movements. The sun rises everyday from the east, thus, if you were god, as you claim, who gives life and cause death, make the sun rise from the west. [8]

This is the situation of an obstinate falsifier who wants to confront truth and overcome it, because he will be defeated and subdued. This is why Allah said:

وَٱللَّهُ لَا يَہۡدِى ٱلۡقَوۡمَ ٱلظَّـٰلِمِينَ

And Allah guides not the people, who are Zalimun (wrong-doers, etc.)]; instead He abandons them to their disbelief and misguidance. [9]

Allah, said: [وَقَالَ فِرْعَوْنُ – Fir’aun (Pharaoh) said] – Meaning, with haughtiness and tyranny, whilst deluding his foolish people; [ذَرُونِي أَقْتُلْ مُوسَىٰ وَلْيَدْعُ رَبَّهُ – Leave me to kill Musa (Moses), and let him call his Lord (to stop me from killing him)!]

This was his claim that had it not been for his consideration of the wishes of his people, he would have killed Musa and that (Musa’s) supplication to his Lord would not have prevented him from that. Fir’awn then mentioned what made him want to kill Musa and that he is a sincere adviser to his people, and that he wished to remove mischief from the land. Allah stated that Fir’awn said: [إِنِّي أَخَافُ أَنْ يُبَدِّلَ دِينَكُمْ أَوْ أَنْ يُظْهِرَ فِي الْأَرْضِ الْفَسَادَ – I fear that he (Musa) may change your religion, or that he may cause mischief to appear in the land!” [Ghaafir 26]

This is the most amazing the affair can be! The most evil one among the creation gives advice to the people against the best among the creation. This is (nothing but) disguised falsehood and propaganda, which cannot seize except the intellects of those (people) about whom Allah stated: [فَاسْتَخَفَّ قَوْمَهُ فَأَطَاعُوهُ ۚ إِنَّهُمْ كَانُوا قَوْمًا فَاسِقِينَ – Thus he Fir’aun (Pharaoh)] befooled and misled his people, and they obeyed him. Verily, they were ever a people who were Fasiqun (rebellious, disobedient to Allah).] [Az-Zukhruf. 54] [10]

Allah [The Exalted] said: [يَـٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلۡمَلَأُ مَا عَلِمۡتُ لَڪُم مِّنۡ إِلَـٰهٍ غَيۡرِى – O chiefs! I know not that you have an ilah (a god) other than me].

Just look at what Fir’awn said! He did not say. “You do not have a god besides me”, rather he said: “I know not that you have a god other than me’’. This is because they considered him to be a virtuous scholar and that whatever he said has to be the truth, and whatever he commands has to be followed. And after he made this statement, he then tried to prove that what he has stated is true. Allah [The Most High] said that Fir’awn said to Haamaan:

[فَأَوۡقِدۡ لِى يَـٰهَـٰمَـٰنُ عَلَى ٱلطِّينِ فَٱجۡعَل لِّى صَرۡحً۬ا لَّعَلِّىٓ أَطَّلِعُ إِلَىٰٓ إِلَـٰهِ مُوسَىٰ وَإِنِّى لَأَظُنُّهُ ۥ مِنَ ٱلۡكَـٰذِبِينَ – so kindle for me (a fire), O Haman, to bake (bricks out of) clay, and set up for me a Sarhan (a lofty tower, or palace, etc.) in order that I may look at (or look for) the Ilah (God) of Musa (Moses); and verily, I think that he [Musa (Moses)] is one of the liars]- Meaning: We think that Musa is lying, but we are going to ascertain the affair and prove that he is a liar.

Look at Fir’awn’s extreme sinful boldness! He belied Musa, peace be upon him, claimed that he was a God, claimed that he is not aware of a true object of worship and asked Haamaan to build him a tower in order that he can see the god of Musa! These claims were nothing else but propaganda; however what is really amazing is the affair of those chiefs who considered themselves as the elders of the Kingdom, for how did they allow Fir’awn to play about with their intellects and deceive them? Indeed, that was due to their extremely sinful behaviour, which corrupted their religion and then their intellects. We ask Allah to keep us firm upon Iman and that our hearts do not become deviated after we have been guided. [11]

Allah said:
فَأَمَّا عَادٌ فَٱسْتَكْبَرُوا۟ فِى ٱلْأَرْضِ بِغَيْرِ ٱلْحَقِّ وَقَالُوا۟ مَنْ أَشَدُّ مِنَّا قُوَّةً أَوَلَمْ يَرَوْا۟ أَنَّ ٱللَّهَ ٱلَّذِى خَلَقَهُمْ هُوَ أَشَدُّ مِنْهُمْ قُوَّةً وَكَانُوا۟ بِـَٔايَٰتِنَا يَجْحَدُونَ

As for ‘Ad, they were arrogant in the land without right, and they said: “Who is mightier than us in strength?” See they not that Allah, Who created them was mightier in strength than them. And they used to deny Our Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, revelations, etc.)![Fussilat 15]

Allah stated that Prophet Hud, peace be upon him, said to his people: [وَإِذَا بَطَشۡتُم بَطَشۡتُمۡ جَبَّارِينَ – And when you seize, seize you as tyrants]– Meaning, when you want to attack with a whip or sword, you attack like tyrants, completely overpowering and being savagely violent – neither compassionate nor aim to discipline (within justice as commanded by Allah), nor contemplating on the consequences. [12]Allah gave them great strength and it was obligated to them to use this strength in obedience to Allah, but they became boastful and haughty, and they said: [مَنۡ أَشَدُّ مِنَّا قُوَّةً‌ۖ – Who is mightier than us in strength? (Fussilat. 15], and they utilised their strength in disobedience to Allah, fruitlessly and foolishly, thus, their Prophet forbade them from that. [13]Their Prophet forbade them from that because it was done out of oppression. [14]


[1] An Excerpt from ‘Zad Al-Nasir By Imaam Ibn Al-Jawzi
[2: An Excerpt from Tafseer as-Sadi
[3] Fat-hul Qadeer. 3/160]
[4] Fat-hul Qadeer. 3/160
[5] Ruh Al-Ma’aanee 8/362
[6] An Excerpt from Tafsir Al-Baghawi
[7 ] An Excerpt from Tafseer As-Sadi.
[8] Tafseer Ibn Katheer
[9] An Excerpt from Tafseer As-Sadi
[10] An Excerpt from ‘Taysir As-Sadi
[11] An Excerpt from ‘Taysir As-Sadi
[12] Ruh Al-Ma’aanee 11/165
[13] Tafsir As-Sadi.
[14] Zadul Al-Maseer

A harmful behaviour observed in numerous nations across history

In The Name of Allah, The Most Merciful, The Bestower of Mercy.

Allah [The Exalted] said:

وَلَقَدۡ صَرَّفۡنَا فِى هَـٰذَا ٱلۡقُرۡءَانِ لِلنَّاسِ مِن ڪُلِّ مَثَلٍ۬‌ۚ وَكَانَ ٱلۡإِنسَـٰنُ أَڪۡثَرَ شَىۡءٍ۬ جَدَلاً۬

And indeed We have put forth every kind of example in this Quran, for mankind. But, man is ever more quarrelsome than anything]. [Al-Kahf. 54]

Allah informed us about the greatness of the Qur’an, its majesty and (perfect) inclusiveness, and that He has placed every kind of example in it – every path that leads to beneficial sciences and eternal happiness; every path that protects against evil and destruction. In it is clarification of halal and haram, recompense for one’s deeds, exhortation (towards good) and warning (against evil), true (information, stories) that are beneficial for the hearts regarding creed, a source of tranquillity and light (i.e. guidance). This necessitates that one should submit to this Qur’an, receive it with submission and obedience, and not to argue against it in any matter. Despite this, many people argue against truth – based on falsehood – after it has become clear.

لِيُدۡحِضُواْ بِهِ ٱلۡحَقَّ‌ۖ

“to dispute with false argument, in order to refute the truth thereby”.

This is why Allah stated:

وَكَانَ ٱلۡإِنسَـٰنُ أَڪۡثَرَ شَىۡءٍ۬ جَدَلاً۬

“But, man is ever more quarrelsome than anything”.

Meaning, arguing and disputing against it, despite the fact that this is neither befitting (permissible) nor just, and what inevitably led him to this and make him not accept Iman is wrongdoing and obstinacy; but not due to any flaw in its explanation, Hujjah [clear and overwhelming proof that defeats all the obstinate and stubborn ones] and Burhaan [proof that clarify and distinguish between truth and falsehood in affair], rather, if the punishment and what happened to the previous nations came to them, this would have have been their state of affairs (i.e. disbelief). This is why Allah said:

وَمَا مَنَعَ ٱلنَّاسَ أَن يُؤۡمِنُوٓاْ إِذۡ جَآءَهُمُ ٱلۡهُدَىٰ وَيَسۡتَغۡفِرُواْ رَبَّهُمۡ إِلَّآ أَن تَأۡتِيَہُمۡ سُنَّةُ ٱلۡأَوَّلِينَ أَوۡ يَأۡتِيَہُمُ ٱلۡعَذَابُ قُبُلاً۬

And nothing prevents men from believing, now when the guidance (the Quran) has come to them, and from asking Forgiveness of their Lord, except that the ways of the ancients be repeated with them (i.e. their destruction decreed by Allah), or the torment be brought to them face to face? [Al-Kahf. 55]

An Excerpt from Tafseer As-Sadi

Never prolong argumentation, time is precious

In The Name of Allaah, The Most Merciful, The Bestower of Mercy.

The Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, said:

“The most hated of men in the sight  of Allah is the one who is most quarrelsome”.

Al-Allamah Zayd Bin Hadi Al-Madkhali, may Allah have mercy upon him, said:

A warning against argumentation, falling into evil behaviour and its severe (consequences), especially if the argumentation is based on falsehood. As for when it is based on truth, there is nothing wrong with that for the one who has a right to do so;  but he should be just in his argument so that he does not enter into oppression or error, and Allah knows best.

The hadith is a warning against lying during argumentation, falsehood and adorned speech until one changes falsehood into truth and truth into falsehood – not bothered about making an oath, lying or giving false witness. All this takes place from a person who is extremely quarrelsome, goes into excess in the matter and does not feel shy in the presence of Allah- neither fears punishment in this life nor in the next life. When it is the case that the extremely quarrelsome person is blameworthy, the person who has good conduct – if entitled to something – during an argument and other matters, will not utter except truth, and will not seek after anything except the truth- neither lies nor deceives the Shariah judge. This is from the characteristics of the people of Iman – those whom Allah praised in the Qur’an and the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, praised them in the pure Sunnah. (1)

Imam Al-Barbahaaree, may Allah have mercy upon him, said: Al-Hasan (al-Basree) said, “The wise man does not argue or seek to overcome with stratagem rather he propagates his wisdom. If it is accepted, he praises Allah and if it is rejected he praises Allah”. [Sharh As-Sunnah]

Al-Allamah Salih Al-Fawzan, may Allah have mercy upon him, said:

Quotes:

The wise man is the one who posses wisdom, and wisdom is to place something in its place. Similarly, the wise one means the one with understanding.

He does not debate (with) a fruitless debate that is devoid of benefit.

He propagates his knowledge and if accepted he praises Allah. This is what is sought after.  If it is not accepted, he is absolved of his responsibility and the proof is conveyed.

“He praises Allah” because he established and conveyed the proof, and fulfilled what is required of him, and the guiding of the hearts is in the hands of Allah. (2)

Imam Muhammad Ibn Salih, may Allah have mercy upon them, said:

O student of knowledge! It is obligated to you to abandon (blameworthy) debate and argumentation because debate and argumentation is a means to cutting off the path to what is correct, makes a person speak to give the upper hand to himself. Even if the truth is made clear to him, you will find him either rejecting it or misconstruing the truth -out of disliking it- to give himself the upper hand and compel his opponent to accept his statement.

Therefore, if you notice (blameworthy) debate and argumentation from your brother when the truth is very clear, but he does not follow it, flee from him like you would flee from a lion, and say, “I do not have anything other than the truth I have mentioned to you”. (3)

People who fully and truly understood the great significance of time
https://salafidawahmanchester.com/2025/01/04/people-who-fully-and-truly-understood-the-great-significance-of-time/


(1) An Excerpt from at-Taleeqaat Al-Maleehah Alaa Silsilah Al – Ahadith As-Saheehah. 1/26

(2) An Excerpt from It’haf Al-Qari Bitta’liqaat Alaa Sharh As- Sunnah Lil Imam Barbahaaree. 2/265-266

(3) An Excerpt from Sharh Hilyah Talib Al-Ilm page 246

Debate regarding number of casualties in Gaza- brief dialogue with Mathilda Heller

In The Name of Allah, The Most Merciful, The Bestower of Mercy.

Allah, The Exalted, said:

يَـٰٓأَيُّہَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ كُونُواْ قَوَّٲمِينَ بِٱلۡقِسۡطِ شُہَدَآءَ لِلَّهِ وَلَوۡ عَلَىٰٓ أَنفُسِكُمۡ أَوِ ٱلۡوَٲلِدَيۡنِ وَٱلۡأَقۡرَبِينَ‌ۚ إِن يَكُنۡ غَنِيًّا أَوۡ فَقِيرً۬ا فَٱللَّهُ أَوۡلَىٰ بِہِمَا‌ۖ فَلَا تَتَّبِعُواْ ٱلۡهَوَىٰٓ أَن تَعۡدِلُواْ‌ۚ وَإِن تَلۡوُ ۥۤاْ أَوۡ تُعۡرِضُواْ فَإِنَّ ٱللَّهَ كَانَ بِمَا تَعۡمَلُونَ خَبِيرً۬ا

O you who believe! Stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to Allah; even though it be against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, be he rich or poor, Allah is a Better Protector to both (than you). So follow not the lusts (of your hearts), lest you may avoid justice, and if you distort your witness or refuse to give it, verily, Allah is Ever Well-Acquainted with what you do. [An-Nisaa. 135]

Imam Ibn Al-Qayyim, may Allah have mercy upon him, said:

Allah, Glorified be He and free is He from all imperfections, commanded His servants to stand out firmly for justice on behalf of everyone – be it an enemy or an ally, and the matter that is most worthy of being established with justice are the statements and methodology related to the commands of Allah as well as everything that Allah has (revealed in the Qur’an and the authentic Sunnah). Therefore, to establish these affairs based on desires and disobedience is contrary to Allah’s command and a negation (i.e. either intentionally or unintentionally) of that which Allah’s Messenger, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, was sent with. [1]

Allah, The Exalted, said:

وَيْلٌ لِّلْمُطَفِّفِينَ
الَّذِينَ إِذَا اكْتَالُوا عَلَى النَّاسِ يَسْتَوْفُونَ
وَإِذَا كَالُوهُمْ أَو وَّزَنُوهُمْ يُخْسِرُونَ
أَلَا يَظُنُّ أُولَٰئِكَ أَنَّهُم مَّبْعُوثُونَ
لِيَوْمٍ عَظِيمٍ
يَوْمَ يَقُومُ النَّاسُ لِرَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ

Woe to Al-Mutaffifin [those who give less in measure and weight (decrease the rights of others)], those who, when they have to receive by measure from men, demand full measure, and when they have to give by measure or weight to men, give less than due. Think they not that they will be resurrected (for reckoning), on a Great Day, the Day when (all) mankind will stand before the Lord of the ‘Alamin (mankind, jinns and all that exists)? [Al-Mutaffifeen. 1-7]

[وَإِذَا كَالُوهُمْ أَو وَّزَنُوهُمْ يُخْسِرُونَ – and when they have to give by measure or weight to men, give less than due].

Imam As-Sadi, may Allah have mercy upon him, said:

This noble verse shows that just as a person takes from the people what he is entitled to, it is also obligated to him to give them everything they are entitled to – whether related to wealth or mutual dealings; rather included in the generality of this verse are proofs and statements, because what usually takes place between those engaged in argumentation and discussion is that each of them is eager to establish his proofs, thus, it is obligated to a person to also make known the proofs possessed by the other person and examine the proofs of the other person just as he examines his own proofs. In relation to this affair, the justice of a person is known as opposed to whether he is afflicted with bigotry, his humility as opposed to being haughty, his common sense as opposed to foolish behaviour. We ask Allah bestow on us every good. [2]

Allah said:
سَيَقُولُونَ ثَلَٰثَةٌ رَّابِعُهُمْ كَلْبُهُمْ وَيَقُولُونَ خَمْسَةٌ سَادِسُهُمْ كَلْبُهُمْ رَجْمًۢا بِٱلْغَيْبِ وَيَقُولُونَ سَبْعَةٌ وَثَامِنُهُمْ كَلْبُهُمْ قُل رَّبِّىٓ أَعْلَمُ بِعِدَّتِهِم مَّا يَعْلَمُهُمْ إِلَّا قَلِيلٌ فَلَا تُمَارِ فِيهِمْ إِلَّا مِرَآءً ظَٰهِرًا وَلَا تَسْتَفْتِ فِيهِم مِّنْهُمْ أَحَدًا

(Some) say they were three, the dog being the fourth among them; (others) say they were five, the dog being the sixth, guessing at the unseen; (yet others) say they were seven, the dog being the eighth. Say (O Muhammad): “My Lord knows best their number; none knows them but a few.” So do not debate(about their number, etc.) except with the clear proof. And do not consult any of them about (the affair of) the people of the Cave. [Al-Kahf 22]

“So do not debate”, meaning, (do not) engage in debate and argumentation, “except except with the clear proof”, meaning, grounded in knowledge and certainty. [3]

There is doubt that Zionist injustices stem from a profound disregard for fear of Allah, which has consistently driven them to engage in unfounded speculation and an unwillingness to acknowledge their obligations to the Palestinians. At the same time, they continue to demand more than what is rightfully theirs. This pattern has been evident over the past 70 years of land theft and violence against the Palestinian people. However, it is important to clarify that not all individuals who identify as Jewish share this mindset, nor are those of other faiths entirely free from similar behaviours, including some Muslims. Nonetheless, this discussion focuses on the actions of Zionists, particularly the recent excessive violence and brutality witnessed in Gaza under the guise of retaliation and self-defense. Similarly, this does not absolve us from unequivocally condemning the actions of certain individuals and groups who identify as Muslims, especially when they resort to the murder of unarmed civilians and non-combatants under Netanyahu’s regime. [Footnote a]

In the article by Mathilda Heller, the perspectives of two factions regarding the fatalities among Palestinians in Gaza have been articulated. It is widely recognised that this discourse has persisted for an extended period, during which unlawful killings have been perpetrated by the operatives of Netanyahu under the pretext of retaliation and self-defense, as well as efforts to eliminate Hamas. At times, these operatives have reluctantly acknowledged their recklessness or significant errors, while vowing to conduct investigations and asserting that their military is making every effort to prevent civilian casualties. This ongoing debate serves as a distraction from the more pressing issue that demands urgent attention: the impunity that accompanies the actions of the Zionist forces when an unarmed civilian or non-combatant is murdered. The focus should not solely be on the number of casualties, but rather on the mindset of those within the Zionist military who disregarded the value of innocent Palestinian lives. This issue fundamentally exposes the moral decay and psychological corruption of the perpetrators, regardless of their claims to possess a higher moral standing. Allah said:

مِنْ أَجْلِ ذَٰلِكَ كَتَبْنَا عَلَىٰ بَنِىٓ إِسْرَٰٓءِيلَ أَنَّهُۥ مَن قَتَلَ نَفْسًۢا بِغَيْرِ نَفْسٍ أَوْ فَسَادٍ فِى ٱلْأَرْضِ فَكَأَنَّمَا قَتَلَ ٱلنَّاسَ جَمِيعًا وَمَنْ أَحْيَاهَا فَكَأَنَّمَآ أَحْيَا ٱلنَّاسَ جَمِيعًا وَلَقَدْ جَآءَتْهُمْ رُسُلُنَا بِٱلْبَيِّنَٰتِ ثُمَّ إِنَّ كَثِيرًا مِّنْهُم بَعْدَ ذَٰلِكَ فِى ٱلْأَرْضِ لَمُسْرِفُونَ

If anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread mischief in the land – it would be as if he killed all mankind, and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind. And indeed, there came to them Our Messengers with clear proofs, evidences, and signs, even then after that many of them continued to exceed the limits (e.g. by doing oppression unjustly and exceeding beyond the limits set by Allah by committing the major sins) in the land! [Al-Ma’idah. 32]

Imam As-Sadi, may Allah have mercy upon him, said:

If a person is bold enough to kill someone who does not deserve to be killed, this implies that he does make a distinction between the one he killed and other than him; rather he would commit this act whenever his evil calls him to that. Therefore, his bold attitude that led him to kill is as if he has killed all humankind. On the other hand, if a person saves a life and does not kill – whilst his soul calls him to do so – due to fear of Allah, this is as if he has saved the lives of all humankind because the fear of Allah he possesses stops him killing one who does not deserve to be killed. [4]

The arguments presented by Zionists in response to accusations regarding their actions in Gaza—both current and historical—concerning the numerous Palestinians they have killed without just cause, serve to implicate them. The murder of even a single innocent individual constitutes a serious crime in the sight of Allah. Consequently, it is irrelevant whether they acknowledge the additional casualties; the principle remains the same. Just as any individual who identifies as Muslim and takes the life of an innocent Zionist or Jew is condemned, so too should the actions of the Zionists be condemned and no room for excuses should be offered. Various organisations have documented evidence suggesting that Zionist forces intentionally target areas populated by civilians in the name of pursuing Hamas, despite the disapproval of certain Zionist figureheads and media outlets towards those who expose their actions. Their typical response to criticism is to label it as biased; however, when the evidence becomes undeniable, they often resort to accusations of antisemitism or invoke the memories of the Holocaust. There is no doubt that Antisemitism [Footnote b] is unlawful in the sight of the Creator when it is clearly identified and substantiated with credible evidence, rather than being used as a shield for Zionist violence or to suppress genuine discourse regarding the expected conduct of Zionists. The visible devastation in Gaza, the heartbreaking loss of thousands of civilian lives, coupled with aggressive Zionist propaganda aimed at silencing those who present evidence, raises legitimate concerns about their behaviour, even as they attempt to portray themselves as a moral force or champions of humanitarianism. Umar Ibn Al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, stated:

People were (sometimes) judged by the revealing of a Divine Inspiration during the lifetime of Allah’s Apostle but now there is no longer any more (new revelation). Now we judge you by the deeds you practice publicly, so we will trust and favour the one who does good deeds in front of us, and we will not call him to account about what he is really doing in secret, for Allah will judge him for that; but we will not trust or believe the one who presents to us with an evil deed even if he claims that his intentions were good. [5]

Imam Abdul-Azeez Bin Baaz, may Allah have mercy upon him, said:

Whoever manifests good, it will be accepted from him and a good suspicion is held about him. And if he manifests evil, it will held against him and an evil suspicion is held about him. [6]

Imam Ibn Al-Qayyim, may Allah have mercy upon him, said:

The fact that a statement regarding something is lies and falsehood is sometimes known based on the statement in and of itself, its contradictions, perplexity and the manifestation of those clear indications which shows that it is lies. Lies may manifest due to what it is in reality, what is apparent and what is being concealed. It is sometimes known due to the situation of the utterer of the lie, for indeed the one who is known for lying, wickedness and deception, his statements do not show anything else except a state of conformity with his deeds. He does not utter a statement or perform an action similar to that of a pious and truthful person – the one innocent of every evil, deception, lie and wicked behaviour; rather the heart, intention, statements and deeds of the truthful one have the same image; and the heart, statements, deeds and intentions of the liar have the same image. [7]

The absence of a profound fear of Allah, which affects the actions of a sinful believer, or the total lack of such fear, characteristic of entrenched Zionist opposition to the teachings of the Messengers, suggests that an individual in either state is unlikely to accept the truth, recognise their misdeeds, or strive for correction unless Allah guides them. It is crucial to emphasise that, aside from the Zionists, any individuals who commit acts of violence against non-combatants and defenseless civilians are firmly condemned. Furthermore, it is essential to acknowledge that no group has perpetrated greater cruelty and injustice against the Palestinians than the Zionists since 1948, a time that commenced with the backing of Christian Zionist colonialists who aided their ascendance in Palestine. [Footnote c] May Allah ease the suffering of the Palestinians, which has persisted for 70 years, and grant us all the strength necessary to overcome the weakness in the Ummah Amin. Read:

https://abukhadeejah.com/state-of-ummah-causes-of-weakness-means-of-rectification-ebook/

Footnote a: Just Rules of Fighting in the Sharīʿah of Islām Compared to Genocidal, Ethnic-Cleansing, Tribal-Vengeance Doctrines and Excesses of Trojan-Horse Muslim Extremists: https://abuiyaad.com/a/amalekite-genocide-doctrine-gaza

Footnote b:
https://abuiyaad.com/sn/muslims-antisemitism
https://abuiyaad.com/w/antisemitism-ernest-renan
https://abuiyaad.com/a/muhammad-semitic-prophet

Footnote c:
https://salafidawahmanchester.com/2024/11/13/the-initial-rise-and-gradual-impact-of-christian-zionism-on-some-european-political-decision-makers/

An Overview of Christian Zionism in America Since the Arrival of The Puritans

American Christian Zionists’ Media Initiatives Aimed at Influencing Public Opinion, With a Brief Mention of The Concept of Greater Israel


[1] An Excerpt from “Bada’i at-Tafsir Al-Jami Limaa Fassarahu Al-Imam Ibn Al-Qayyim. 1/300-303

[2] An Excerpt from “Tafsir As-Sadi”

[3] An Excrept from “Tafsir As-Sadi”

[4] An Excerpt from Tafsir As-Sadi]

[5] Al-Bukhari 2641

[6] An Excerpt from Al-Hulalul Ibreeziyyah Min At-Taleeqaat Al-Baaziyyah Alaa Saheeh Al-Bukhari 2/397. Footnote 1

[7] An Excerpt from As-Sawa’iq Al-Mursalah 2/469-470

Moderation (The Middle Path) and Sunniyyah – brief dialogue with Alan Rosenbaum

In The Name of Allah, The Most Merciful, The Bestower of Mercy.

Allah said:

يَٰٓأَهْلَ ٱلْكِتَٰبِ قَدْ جَآءَكُمْ رَسُولُنَا يُبَيِّنُ لَكُمْ كَثِيرًا مِّمَّا كُنتُمْ تُخْفُونَ مِنَ ٱلْكِتَٰبِ وَيَعْفُوا۟ عَن كَثِيرٍ قَدْ جَآءَكُم مِّنَ ٱللَّهِ نُورٌ وَكِتَٰبٌ مُّبِينٌ
يَهْدِى بِهِ ٱللَّهُ مَنِ ٱتَّبَعَ رِضْوَٰنَهُۥ سُبُلَ ٱلسَّلَٰمِ وَيُخْرِجُهُم مِّنَ ٱلظُّلُمَٰتِ إِلَى ٱلنُّورِ بِإِذْنِهِۦ وَيَهْدِيهِمْ إِلَىٰ صِرَٰطٍ مُّسْتَقِيمٍ

O people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians)! Now has come to you Our Messenger (Muhammad SAW) explaining to you much of that which you used to hide from the Scripture and passing over (i.e. leaving out without explaining) much. Indeed, there has come to you from Allah a light (Prophet Muhammad) and a plain Book (this Quran). Wherewith Allah guides all those who seek His Good Pleasure to ways of peace, and He brings them out of darkness by His Will unto light and guides them to a Straight Way (Islamic Monotheism). [Al-Ma’idah 15-16]

In this article, our focus is not on politics, as that falls under the purview and expertise of Muslim rulers and the counsel they obtain from righteous scholars. Rather, our response is prompted by the the word moderation and the term Sunni in the above article by Alan Rosenbaum. These terms have been misused and misinterpreted by both non-Muslims and uninformed or misguided Muslims. Consequently, it is essential to elucidate these concepts to differentiate truth from falsehood, clarity from ambiguity, and detail from generalization.

Al-Wasatiyyah – The Middle Path

It is well-known regarding some of the people that ٱلۡوُسۡطَ is only what occupies the middle position between two things, and they do not take note of the meaning of this term in the Magnificent Qur’an and the Prophetic Sunnah. [ٱلۡوُسۡطَ ]  in the Shariah is something that is superior to other things. Allah said: [حَـٰفِظُواْ عَلَى ٱلصَّلَوَٲتِ وَٱلصَّلَوٰةِ ٱلۡوُسۡطَىٰ – Guard strictly (five obligatory) As-Salawaat (the prayers) especially the Salatul Wustaa (the Asr prayer)]. [Al-Baqarah. 238] [ٱلۡوُسۡطَىٰ]- Meaning, the best, most excellent.

Allah said: [مِنۡ أَوۡسَطِ مَا تُطۡعِمُونَ أَهۡلِيكُمۡ  (On the scale) of the average of that which you feed your own families]. [Al-Ma’idah. 89]  [مِنۡ أَوۡسَطِ ] – Meaning, the best and most just. Allah said: [وَكَذَٲلِكَ جَعَلۡنَـٰكُمۡ أُمَّةً۬ وَسَطً۬ا – Thus We have made you  أُمَّةً۬ وَسَطً۬ا]- Meaning, the best and most upright Ummah.

The intent behind this is to understand that [الوسطية] in the religion is what is best and the justice of the religion – to follow the command of Allah and refrain from His prohibitions. As for the explanation of [الوسطية] in the religion with a meaning other than this, it is (something) ready to crumble and a mirage which a thirsty one considers water [i.e. an illusion]. [1]

Both moderation and extremism are evaluated through the lens of divine revelation, as interpreted and practiced by the companions of the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him. Allah said:

يَٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوٓا۟ أَطِيعُوا۟ ٱللَّهَ وَأَطِيعُوا۟ ٱلرَّسُولَ وَأُو۟لِى ٱلْأَمْرِ مِنكُمْ فَإِن تَنَٰزَعْتُمْ فِى شَىْءٍ فَرُدُّوهُ إِلَى ٱللَّهِ وَٱلرَّسُولِ إِن كُنتُمْ تُؤْمِنُونَ بِٱللَّهِ وَٱلْيَوْمِ ٱلْءَاخِرِ ذَٰلِكَ خَيْرٌ وَأَحْسَنُ تَأْوِيلًا

O you who have believed, obey Allāh and obey the Messenger and those in authority over you. And if you disagree among yourselves over anything then refer it back to Allāh and the Messenger if you truly believe in Allāh and the Last Day. That is better (conduct) and (leads to) the most excellent outcome.

Allah said:

وَمَن يُشَاقِقِ ٱلرَّسُولَ مِنۢ بَعْدِ مَا تَبَيَّنَ لَهُ ٱلْهُدَىٰ وَيَتَّبِعْ غَيْرَ سَبِيلِ ٱلْمُؤْمِنِينَ نُوَلِّهِۦ مَا تَوَلَّىٰ وَنُصْلِهِۦ جَهَنَّمَ وَسَآءَتْ مَصِيرًا

And whoever contradicts and opposes the Messenger (Muhammad) after the right path has been shown clearly to him, and follows other than the believers’ way (i.e. the companions). We shall keep him in the path he has chosen, and burn him in Hell – what an evil destination. [An-Nisaa 115]

Allah said:
فَلْيَحْذَرِ ٱلَّذِينَ يُخَالِفُونَ عَنْ أَمْرِهِۦٓ أَن تُصِيبَهُمْ فِتْنَةٌ أَوْ يُصِيبَهُمْ عَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌ

And let those who oppose the Messenger’s (Muhammad) commandment (i.e. his Sunnah legal ways, orders, acts of worship, statements, etc.) (among the sects) beware, lest some Fitnah (disbelief, trials, afflictions, earthquakes, killing, overpowered by a tyrant, etc.) befall them or a painful torment be inflicted on them. [An-Nur 63]

Allah [The Most High] said:
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا اسْتَجِيبُوا لِلَّهِ وَلِلرَّسُولِ إِذَا دَعَاكُمْ لِمَا يُحْيِيكُمْ ۖ وَاعْلَمُوا أَنَّ اللَّهَ يَحُولُ بَيْنَ الْمَرْءِ وَقَلْبِهِ وَأَنَّهُ إِلَيْهِ تُحْشَرُونَ

O you who believe! Answer Allah and (His) Messenger when he calls you to that which will give you life, and know that Allah comes in between a person and his heart. And verily to Him you shall (all) be gathered. [8:24]

Imam Ibn Al-Qayyim, may Allah have mercy upon him, said:

This Ayah comprises some affairs and one of them is that a beneficial life is only attained through obedience to Allah and His Messenger, therefore, whoever does not submit to this call (of Allah and His Messenger) will have no life (upright guidance), even though he has a life similar to that of the most despicable animals (eats, drinks and fulfils desires whilst devoid of the sound faith that enables a person to distinguish between guidance and misguidance). A real and good life is the life of that one who answers the call of Allah and His Messenger- outwardly and inwardly. They are those who are alive (with sound faith in this life), and even if they have passed away (their righteous example remains). As for others besides them, they are dead (with hearts devoid of sound faith), even if their bodies are alive. This is why the one with the most perfect life amongst the people is the one with the most perfect response to the call of the Messenger because there is life (upright guidance) in everything he calls to. Therefore, whoever missed a portion of it will miss a portion of life and there is life in accordance with his response to his call.

[لِمَا يُحْيِيكُمْ -To that which will give you life]. Mujahid [may Allah have mercy upon him], “Meaning, the truth”. Qatadah [may Allah have mercy upon him] said, “Meaning, this Qur’an in which is life (upright guidance), safety and protection in the life of this world and the hereafter. As-Sa’dee [may Allah have mercy upon him] said, “Meaning, Islam. They were given life (upright guidance) by way of it after being dead (completely misguided) through disbelief. [وَاعْلَمُوا أَنَّ اللَّهَ يَحُولُ بَيْنَ الْمَرْءِ وَقَلْبِهِ وَأَنَّهُ إِلَيْهِ تُحْشَرُونَ – And know that Allah comes in between a person and his heart. And verily to Him you shall (all) be gathered. [2]

Allah [The Most High] said: [وَٱلسَّـٰبِقُونَ ٱلۡأَوَّلُونَ مِنَ ٱلۡمُهَـٰجِرِينَ وَٱلۡأَنصَارِ وَٱلَّذِينَ ٱتَّبَعُوهُم بِـإِحۡسَـٰنٍ۬ رَّضِىَ ٱللَّهُ عَنۡہُمۡ وَرَضُواْ عَنۡهُ -And the first to embrace Islam of the Muhajirun (those who migrated from Makkah to Al-Madinah) and the Ansar (the citizens of Al-Madinah who helped and gave aid to the Muhajirun) and also those who followed them exactly (in Faith). Allah is well-pleased with them as they are well-pleased with Him]. [9:100]

Allah said:
إِنَّ ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ وَهَاجَرُواْ وَجَـٰهَدُواْ بِأَمۡوَٲلِهِمۡ وَأَنفُسِہِمۡ فِى سَبِيلِ ٱللَّهِ وَٱلَّذِينَ ءَاوَواْ وَّنَصَرُوٓاْ أُوْلَـٰٓٮِٕكَ بَعۡضُہُمۡ أَوۡلِيَآءُ بَعۡضٍ۬‌ۚ

Verily, those who believed, and emigrated and strove hard and fought with their property and their lives in the Cause of Allah as well as those who gave (them) asylum and help, – these are (all) allies to one another [8:72] until Allah stated: [وَٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ مِنۢ بَعۡدُ وَهَاجَرُواْ وَجَـٰهَدُواْ مَعَكُمۡ فَأُوْلَـٰٓٮِٕكَ مِنكُمۡ‌ۚ – And those who believed afterwards, and emigrated and strove hard along with you, (in the Cause of Allah) they are of you]. [8:75]

Allah said:
لِلۡفُقَرَآءِ ٱلۡمُهَـٰجِرِينَ ٱلَّذِينَ أُخۡرِجُواْ مِن دِيَـٰرِهِمۡ وَأَمۡوَٲلِهِمۡ يَبۡتَغُونَ فَضۡلاً۬ مِّنَ ٱللَّهِ وَرِضۡوَٲنً۬ا وَيَنصُرُونَ ٱللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ ۥۤ‌ۚ أُوْلَـٰٓٮِٕكَ هُمُ ٱلصَّـٰدِقُونَ
وَٱلَّذِينَ تَبَوَّءُو ٱلدَّارَ وَٱلۡإِيمَـٰنَ مِن قَبۡلِهِمۡ يُحِبُّونَ مَنۡ هَاجَرَ إِلَيۡہِمۡ

(And there is also a share in this booty) for the poor emigrants, who were expelled from their homes and their property, seeking Bounties from Allah and to please Him. And helping Allah (i.e. helping His religion) and His Messenger (Muhammad). Such are indeed the truthful (to what they say); And those who, before them, had homes (in Al-Madinah) and had adopted the Faith, love those who emigrate to them.” [59:8-9]- up until His [The Most High] statement: [وَٱلَّذِينَ جَآءُو مِنۢ بَعۡدِهِمۡ يَقُولُونَ رَبَّنَا ٱغۡفِرۡ لَنَا وَلِإِخۡوَٲنِنَا ٱلَّذِينَ سَبَقُونَا بِٱلۡإِيمَـٰنِ – And those who came after them say: “Our Lord! Forgive us and our brethren who have preceded us in Faith]. 59:10

The Prophet [peace and blessings of Allah be upon him] said, “This ummah will split into seventy-three sects; all of them will enter the fire except one. They said, ‘Which is that (saved sects) O Messenger of Allaah?’ He replied, ‘Those who are upon that which I and my companions are upon today’. The Prophet said, ‘Adhere to my Sunnah and the Sunnah of the rightly guided Khulafaa after me’. https://salafidawahmanchester.com/2024/12/28/all-in-the-fire-except-one/

The standards for evaluating moderation and extremism are rooted in the Qur’an and Sunnah, as interpreted by those who were contemporaneous with their revelation and observed their application. Any belief or methodology that diverges from this foundational understanding—be it labeled as extremism, moderation, or progress—can only be seen as a form of misguidance. It is essential to inform Alan Rosenbraum that this matter is exclusively evaluated according to the aforementioned principle. The statements of individuals can be accepted or dismissed, with the exception of that of the Messenger, as has been articulated by Islamic scholars over the centuries. The assessment of moderation or extremism is not determined by personal desires or human ideologies; instead, it is based on the principle previously outlined, neither ambiguity, sophistry, nor philosophy.

Sunniyyah

It is important to recognize that an individual’s affiliation with Suniyyah must be grounded in unequivocal evidence. Imam Barbahaaree [329AH], may Allah have mercy upon him said:

It is not permitted for a man to say, “So and so is a person of the sunnah” until he knows that he combines the characteristics of the Sunnah, so it is not said of him, “a person of the Sunnah” until he combines all the Sunnah.

Al-Allamah Salih Al-Fawzan, may Allah preserve him, commented on the above statement as follows: Do not give recommended to a person and a praise of him, except based on knowledge, lest the people become deceived by your praise of him, while he is not what (you have stated about him).  So, when his real affair and path is clear to you, his knowledge and steadfastness, you can give him recommendation. As for giving out praise and recommendation whilst not knowing of anything about him, this is a dangerous recommendation through which the people will be deceived by this person. Had only those who give commendations to the people stopped at that (i.e. put it in its proper place), they would not give recommendation, except for one who fulfils the conditions of (receiving) recommendation because recommendation is a witness, thus, if the recommendation is not correct it will be a false witness. And regarding the statement of Imaam Al-Barbahaaree: “until he knows that he combines the characteristics of the Sunnah”. The characteristics of the Sunnah are to be in creed, knowledge and adherence to the (path) of the pious predecessors. But if there is not in him except a single characteristic of the (sunnah), he is not judged to be from Ahlus Sunnah on the basis of a single characteristic or one thing, then what about the one who does not have anything from that? [3]

Al-Al-Allaamah Rabee Bin Hadi Al-Madkhali, may Allah preserve him, was asked: The questioner says: We request a comment from you on this statement: “Indeed both Sunnah and Bidah may be gathered in a man, thus, if the Sunnah is predominant in him, he is a Sunni Salafi. And if bidah is predominant in him, he is an innovator, a misguided one”. Benefit us (i.e. with a comment) and may Allah reward you.

Response: This (statement) is from the [مغالطات-i.e. those misleading statements or affairs that are brought forth for the purpose of deception or sophistry]. There is no doubt that the one in whom Bidah is predominant is an innovator in religious matters, but it is not a condition, for example, that he has thirty (matters) of bidah with him and twenty (matters) of Sunnah, because he may have one bidah with him and thus declared an innovator in religioys matters. Rather the verdict of disbelief may be passed against him. [Footnote c] Because if he adheres to all the Sunnah, but then he says, “Indeed the Qur’an is created”, do we say that the Sunnah is predominant in this (person)? The Salaf (pious predecessors) declared (people) disbelievers due this because the Qur’an is the Speech of Allah and not created. The Salaf held a consensus regarding this. If he says, “I am a Sunni and the Qur’an is created”, we say: ”You are an innovator in religion, a misguided one, rather this innovation of yours is tantamount to disbelief.  Either you recant or else you are a disbeliever.”  We clarify the truth for him and unless he recants, otherwise he is a disbeliever. He rejects the Ruyah (i.e. he rejects the fact that the believers will see Allah on the day of judgement) and says: “I am a Sunni in everything except in this, for I do not believe that Allah will be seen in the Afterlife.” This one (i.e. the person who says this) has belied the Qur’an and the Sunnah.

This principle (i.e. that a person is a Sunni Salafi or an innovator depending whether the Sunnah or Bidah is predominant in him) is false; and how many with a single bidah – among the major bidah- were declared innovators by the Salaf?! Jad Ibn Dirham had two innovations- negation of the attributes of Allah and the statement (i.e. the belief) that the Qur’an is created, whilst he used to pray, observe fasting and worshipped Allah. And how many of Ahlul bidah and the Ubbaad (those dedicated to worship) have numerous (practices) of Sunnah, but alongside this he is an innovator!

Therefore, it is obligated to the Sunni to be solely dedicated to the truth and that his religion (Creed, Methodology and acts of worship) are pure and not stained by anything from the (matters) of bidah. However, if he falls into a Bidah khafiyyah (i.e. an innovation that is obscure or hard to detect), whilst he is desirous of the truth and seeking after it, then if the people were to inform him about it he would recant. So we do not pass the judgement of Tabdee against this person. If he had passed away we ask Allaah to forgive him and we do not pass the verdict of Tabdee against him. If he is alive, we advice him, and unless he accepts (the truth), we pass the verdict of Tabdee against him. [4]

The Shaikh also stated:

All sects of Ahlul Bidah gather truth and falsehood, deny the truth that is with the other sect of Bidah and believes in that which they possess of falsehood. Shaikh Al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy upon him, said: Allah says:

وَإِذَا قِيلَ لَهُمۡ ءَامِنُواْ بِمَآ أَنزَلَ ٱللَّهُ قَالُواْ نُؤۡمِنُ بِمَآ أُنزِلَ عَلَيۡنَا وَيَكۡفُرُونَ بِمَا وَرَآءَهُ ۥ وَهُوَ ٱلۡحَقُّ مُصَدِّقً۬ا لِّمَا مَعَهُمۡ

And when it is said to them, “Believe in what Allah has sent down,” they say, “We believe in what was sent down to us.” And they disbelieve in that which came after it, while it is the truth confirming what is with them]. [Al-Baqarah 91]

The Shaikh also stated: As for the one who falls into an innovation, then he is of categories. he first category: Ahlul-Bid’ah such as the Rawāfid, the Khawārij, the Jahmiyyah, the Qadariyyah, the Mu’tazilah, the Grave-worshipping Sūfīs, the Murji’ah, and whoever is connected to them [in our times] such as al-Ikhwān, at-Tablīgh and those similar to them. For these innovations the Salaf did not make it a condition that the proof be established due to the fact that the ruling upon them is [in accordance to] the innovation. So regarding the Rāfidī, it is said about him, “Innovator (mubtadi’)”. As for the Khārijī, it is said about him, “Innovator”, and so on, regardless of whether the proof is established upon him or not. [5]

Concerning the interactions between Muslim nations and non-Muslim nations, including peace treaties, war, and bilateral relations, these matters are managed by the leaders. It is not within our authority to dictate the actions of Muslim rulers, as this responsibility lies with them and the senior scholars of the Ummah. The rulers are tasked with determining diplomatic relations that serve the interests of the Muslim community and the senior scholars are there to give them sincere advice.

https://abukhadeejah.com/the-life-of-the-muhammad-in-madinah-treaties-conquests-and-his-death/

https://abukhadeejah.com/treaties-with-the-non-muslims-do-they-necessitate-allegiance/

https://abukhadeejah.com/salafi-shaikh-fawzaan-on-jihaad-in-our-times-and-the-guidelines-of-jihaad-according-to-islam/


[1] An Excerpt from Al Haqeeqatus Shar’iyyah Fee Tafsir Al-Qur’aa Al-Adheem Was-Sunnah An-Nabawiyyah. 186

[2] An Excerpt from Al-Fawaa’id. pages 140-144.

[3] It’haf Al-Qaaree Bitta’liqaat Alaa Sharhis Sunnah Lil Imaam Barbahaaree. 2/275-276]

[4] Source:   بهجة القاري بفوائد منهجية ودروس تربوية من كتاب الإعتصام بالكتاب والسنة من صحيح البخاريPages 92-93 Question number 13.

[5] https://abukhadeejah.com/shaikh-rabee-establishment-of-proof-in-declaring-a-person-to-be-an-innovator/

[27] The Ascent and Decline of The Ottoman Empire: [Emergence of The First Saudi State]

In The Name of Allah, The Most Merciful, The Bestower of Mercy.

Sultan Mahmud II [1223 – 1255 AH /1808 – 1839 CE]

He ascended to the throne at the age of twenty-four and gained valuable insights during his house arrest with Salim III, who acquainted him with various reform initiatives. Initially, he was forced to acquiesce to the demands of the Janissaries, resulting in the annulment of all reforms to placate them until a more favourable time for their execution.. He demonstrated patience, biding his time to free himself from the Janissaries, who represented a considerable threat to the Ottoman state. Regrettably, this opportunity eluded him for several years, particularly as his reign was characterised by wars and significant events that consumed much of his energy and resources.

The War With Russia

A peace treaty was concluded with England in 1224 AH / 1809 CE, and efforts were made to forge a similar agreement with Russia; however, these attempts were unsuccessful, culminating in a conflict between the two nations. The Ottomans suffered defeat, resulting in the Russians seizing several strategic positions. As a consequence, Grand Vizier Dhiya Yusuf Pasha was dismissed and succeeded by Ahmad Pasha, who successfully repelled the Russians and reclaimed the occupied territories. Concurrently, relations between France and Russia soured, edging them toward war. In light of this, Russia sought to establish peace with the Ottoman Empire, leading to the signing of the Treaty of Bucharest in 1237 AH / 1812 AD. This treaty ensured that Wallachia, Moldavia, and Serbia would remain under Ottoman sovereignty. The resulting peace enabled Sultan Mahmud to pursue various reforms and address the revolts and insurrections occurring within the empire. Upon learning of the Treaty of Bucharest and their reestablished subjugation to the Ottoman Empire, the Serbians launched a rebellion. Nevertheless, the Ottoman military quelled the uprising with considerable force, leading the movement’s leaders to seek refuge in Austria. Among these leaders, Theodore Futch exhibited allegiance to the Ottomans and accepted their dominion, which resulted in him being granted special privileges by the state.

The Abolition of the Janissaries: The Janissaries experienced a decline in their character, their ethical standards shifted, and their original mission was altered, ultimately rendering them a source of disaster for the state and its subjects. They began to meddle in governmental affairs, driven by an insatiable desire for power, engaging in indulgent and illicit behaviours. They were forced to march through the harsh winter, imposed with royal tributes, and gravitated towards looting and pillaging during their military campaigns. They strayed from the foundational purpose of their establishment, succumbing to excessive alcohol consumption. Their actions led to military defeats, as they neglected religious laws, doctrines, and principles, distancing themselves from the true elements of success. They played a pivotal role in the deposition and assassination of sultans, including Uthman II. Throughout the reign of Sultan Murad IV, they persisted for a decade in their misguided ways, deeply entrenched in their oppressive rule. They were instrumental in his ascension to the throne, thereby seizing control over governance. They also suffocated Sultan Ibrahim I when he sought to liberate himself from their dominance. Their conduct plunged the state into disorder, as they eliminated sultans and placed their young heirs, such as Sultan Mehmed IV, on the throne. This chaos enabled foreign powers to seize portions of the territory, prompting the Grand Vizier and scholars to step in and remove him from power.

During the reign of Sultan Salim II, the Janissaries revolted, leading to enemy forces invading and occupying parts of the state. The Janissaries deposed several sultans, including Mustafa II, Ahmed III, and Mustafa IV, until Allah granted Sultan Mahmud II the opportunity to rid the state of their influence in the year 1241 AH. The Sultan summoned a meeting of the state’s dignitaries and high-ranking Janissary officials at the residence of the Grand Mufti. During this gathering, Grand Vizier Salim Ahmad Pasha articulated the diminished and disreputable condition of the Janissaries, while stressing the urgent need for modern military reforms. His persuasive discourse resonated with the attendees, leading the Mufti to issue a fatwa that authorised measures against the insurgents. While the Janissary officers publicly voiced their concurrence, they privately nurtured dissent. Recognising the impending threat to their privileges and the possible restriction of their activities, they began to strategise a rebellion, seeking support from segments of the general populace.

On the 8th of Dhu al-Qi’dah in the year 1241 AH, a faction of the Janissaries initiated harassment against the soldiers during their training sessions, which soon escalated into a full-scale rebellion. In response, the Sultan summoned the scholars to discuss the situation, who urged him to take decisive action against the uprising. Consequently, he ordered the artillery to prepare for engagement, balancing a conciliatory stance with concerns over the potential intensification of the rebels’ hostility. On the morning of the 9th of Dhu al-Qi’dah, the Sultan proceeded with the artillery units in tow, accompanied by scholars and students, towards the At Meydani square, where the insurgents had congregated to foment disorder.

The artillery encircled the battlefield and seized the elevated positions, targeting the Janissaries with their shells. In a desperate attempt to charge the cannons, the Janissaries encountered a relentless barrage that compelled them to take refuge in their barracks to avoid certain death. However, these shelters were set ablaze and ultimately collapsed upon them, including the Bektashi lodges, resulting in their defeat. The following day, a royal edict was issued to eliminate their ranks, uniforms, terminology, and name from the state. Those who survived and fled to the provinces faced either execution or exile. Consequently, Hussain Pasha, who was instrumental in their destruction, was appointed as the Commander-in-Chief (Serasker), signaling the onset of a new military system.

Sultan Mahmud subsequently acquired the autonomy to enhance his military forces, aligning with the principles of Western military. He replaced the traditional fez with the turban and adopted European clothing, mandating this style as the official uniform for all military and civilian state personnel. Additionally, he instituted an order known as the Order of Distinction, becoming the first Ottoman sultan to do so. The measures implemented by Sultan Mahmud, including the replacement of the fez with the turban and the enforcement of European attire among military ranks, signify his deep sense of psychological defeat. We will examine the underlying reasons for this, InShaAllah.

Muhammad Ali Pasha, the Governor of Egypt:

Muhammad Ali was a figure known for his infamous reputation, characterised by his brutality and stern disposition. The Ottoman Empire sent him to enforce discipline in villages that were slow to fulfill their financial responsibilities. He would establish his camp with his punitive troops around the village, partaking in acts of plunder, theft, and instilling terror among the defenseless inhabitants. As a result, the villagers frequently determined that it was more advantageous to pay the required amounts, despite the considerable strain it placed on them. His fixation on opulence approached the realm of insanity. He entered Egypt leading a group of Rumelians with the objective of driving out the French troops. Utilizing his astuteness and strategic thinking, he successfully earned the confidence of the Egyptian scholars. He resorted to underhanded and deceptive tactics to remove his competitors for the governorship of Egypt, ultimately achieving the title of Wali on the 20th of Rabi’ al-Awwal in the year 1220 AH, corresponding to June 18, 1805 CE.

Muhammad Ali showed strong eagerness to act as a devoted servant to the Sultan, frequently articulating sentiments of submission and respect towards both the Sultan and his rulership. Nevertheless, the Sultan began to grasp the potential consequences of these declarations, which raised his concerns about this new governor. As a result, he commanded Muhammad Ali’s transfer from the governorship of Egypt. However, the intervention of scholars prompted the Sultan to issue a subsequent decree reaffirming Muhammad Ali’s authority in Egypt on the 24th of Sha’ban in the year 1221 AH, which corresponds to November 6, 1806 CE. He began to strengthen his personal position and consolidate the authority within his own lineage. This raises numerous questions that require answers, such as: What was the true nature of Mohamad Ali’s role in serving French and British interests? Who was responsible for the downfall of the First Saudi State and the annexation of the Levant to Egypt? These are inquiries we seek to address through a thorough historical study.

The historian Abdur Rahman Al-Jabarti describes Muhammad Ali: Al-Jabarti described Muhammad Ali “as a deceitful individual, characterised by dishonesty and false oaths. He is depicted as unjust, devoid of integrity and accountability, and filled with malice, all while exercising oppression and tyranny under the guise of promising justice. Consequently, some have likened Muhammad Ali to Machiavelli or suggested that he was influenced by Machiavellian principles, which assert that the ends justify the means”. He was intent on enhancing his image in the eyes of the West and followed their lead in modernisation, even claiming to think with a “European mind while wearing the Ottoman cap.” On behalf of France, Britain, Russia, Austria, and other European nations, Muhammad Ali dealt significant blows to the Islamic direction in Egypt, the Arabian Peninsula, the Levant, and the Ottoman Caliphate. These actions contributed to the preparation of the Islamic world for Western ambitions. After consolidating his power, he surrounded himself with a cadre of advisors, including Greek and Armenian Christians, as well as scribes from the Copts and Jews. He also recruited Mamluks to serve as governors of the provinces. Al-Jabarti described this situation by stating, “He opened his doors to the Christians from the Greeks and Armenians, allowing them to take the lead, while the lower classes were elevated. He had a penchant for control and dominance, showing little tolerance for opposition.” He confiscated land from farmers, imposed a tax known as the “shakra,” or an alternative tax. He significantly increased the prices of essential goods, imposed unbearable taxes, and monopolised all economic activities. This led to widespread resentment among the people.

The implementation of this policy resulted in a profound animosity among the peasants towards him and his associates, leading many to abandon their agricultural lands and flee their villages in response to the oppressive measures. Consequently, there was a notable reluctance to enlist in his army, with reports indicating that in the year 1831 alone, approximately six thousand peasants had escaped. In urban areas, particularly in Cairo, al-Jabarti notes that when Muhammad Ali tasked the populace with the reconstruction of the city, ten vices emerged among the people. These included sorcery, exploitation, labour costs, humiliation, degradation, the tearing of garments, monetary demands, the gloating of enemies, disruption of their livelihoods, and the fees for public baths. Al-Jabarti was a contemporary of the oppressive policies enacted by Muhammad Ali against the Muslim population in Egypt, who suffered the loss of their rights and resources. He opened the doors wide for European traders to enter Egypt and dominate its economy, transforming the country into a farm that supplied European markets with agricultural products. This led to a significant cultural and commercial connection between Egypt and Europe. The emerging merchant class in Egypt became economically and politically dependent on European markets, while proponents of European culture gained control over intellectual life, effectively stifling advocates of Islamic ideals. This shift was further exacerbated by the cessation of religious-based educational curricula, a move aligned with Napoleon’s Masonic policies. This situation was corroborated by the English historian Arnold Toynbee, who stated that Muhammad Ali was a dictator capable of turning Napoleonic ideas into effective realities in Egypt. European colonialism achieved its objective of exploiting the facilities and material reforms instituted by Muhammad Ali. Meanwhile, the Muslim population of Egypt was engulfed in despair, paying a heavy price that far exceeded the extent of any reforms, namely the destruction of its cultural identity shaped by Islam, which had distinguished its role throughout the Islamic eras. The call for nationalism and patriotism was initiated, while simultaneously imposing restrictions on advocates of Islam among scholars. This approach aligned with efforts aimed at achieving independence for Egypt, thereby distancing it from the ties to the Islamic Caliphate. This direction received support from Masonic lodges, which viewed this movement as integral to their objectives.

Salafi Call By (Imam) Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab, masy Allah have mercy upon him:

Shaikh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab Ibn Sulayman Ibn Ali Ibn Muhammad Ibn Ahmad Ibn Rashid al-Tamimi was born in the year 1115 AH / 1703 CE in the town of Al-Uyaynah, located approximately seventy kilometers north of Riyadh, or roughly that distance to the west. He grew up with a passion for knowledge, pursuing it from a young age, and exhibited remarkable talent and distinction. He memorised the Quran and studied Hanbali Fiqh, Tafsir and the science of hadith. He was greatly influenced by the works of (Shaikh Al-Islam) Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy upon him, in jurisprudence, creed, and opinions, and he held them in high regard. Additionally, he was inspired by the writings of (Imam) Ibn al-Qayyim, Ibn Urawah al-Hanbali, and other prominent figures from this Salafi fountain. In his quest for knowledge, he traveled to Makkah, Madina, Basra, and Al-Ahsa, where he faced numerous trials when he openly expressed his views in Iraq, before eventually returning to Najd. Upon his return to Huraymilah in Najd, he commenced his mission by promoting virtue and prohibiting vice, engaging in scholarly pursuits, education, and advocating for the pure creed of Islamic monotheism. He cautioned against polytheism, its dangers, and its various forms. He faced an assassination attempt from certain individuals in Huraymilah. Subsequently, he moved to his hometown of Al-Uyaynah, where the local ruler welcomed him and encouraged his efforts in the call to faith. He established Islamic law, enforced legal penalties, and dismantled shrines. His stay in Huraymilah was brief due to pressure from the Amir of Al-Ahsa on the Amir of Huraymilah to eliminate Shaikh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab, prompting him to leave on foot to Al-Dariyah.

The alliance with Muhammad Bin Saud: Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab successfully formed an alliance with Prince Muhammad bin Saud, who utilised his wealth and resources to support the call for monotheism. This partnership was established on solid foundations, enabling the Shaikh to continue his mission through education, correspondence, and preaching. He diligently taught, wrote letters, and fortified his arguments with evidence and reasoning to substantiate his claims. His efforts included advocating for the eradication of wrongdoing, the dismantling of grave structures, the prevention of idolatry, and the affirmation of servitude to Allah alone. The call remained peaceful and measured, gently reaching out to hearts and inviting people to the path of Allah with wisdom and good counsel. He continued to educate those who attended his lessons, clarifying his beliefs and explaining the principles of his call to all, regardless of their background. However, he recognised that gentleness was often met with harshness, truth with falsehood, and good counsel with conspiracies.

Consequently, it became necessary to enter a phase of Jihad and to confront wrongdoing with strength. The Shaikh, with the assistance of Prince Muhammad bin Saud, began to prepare the necessary resources, including men and weapons, to mobilise the fighters from Diriyah beyond its borders. The aim was to spread the call and solidify its foundations both within the island and beyond. The Shaikh personally oversaw the training of the men, the organisation of the armies, and the dispatch of smaller units, all while continuing his studies, teaching, corresponding with the people, and receiving and bidding farewell to guests. Allah granted him knowledge, prestige, dignity, and authority after a prolonged struggle. He possessed keen political insight and extensive experience in matters of war and governance.

The conflicts between the supporters of the call and their adversaries persisted for many years, with the proponents of the call often emerging victorious. Villages fell one after another. In the year 1178 AH / 1773 CE, Riyadh was captured under the leadership of Prince Abdul Aziz Muhammad bin Saud, while its previous ruler, Dhahham bin Dawwas, fled. Dhahham was a tyrannical ruler who repeatedly oppressed the callers to Tawhid and violated the agreements he had made with those leading the call. Following the conquest of Riyadh, the territory under the influence of the call expanded significantly, and many people willingly accepted the call to Tawhid. The obstacles that had previously hindered their acceptance were removed, leading to a period of relief after hardship, with prosperity following adversity. Wealth increased, conditions improved, and the people found security under the nascent Islamic state, which had deprived them of the blessing of safety during its absence.

Following the death of Shaikh Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab, the call ontinued, receiving strong support from the Al Saud family, who wielded significant authority. They shifted their focus to the Hijaz region, which was under the control of Sharif Ghalib bin Musaid. The Sharif initiated military and religious attacks against the Saudis. This conflict persisted until the year 1803, when the Saudis entered Makkah without facing any resistance from Sharif Ghalib, who chose to flee to Jeddah. Two years later, the Saudis captured Madina. The influence of the Salafi call extended across much of the Arabian Peninsula, prompting Britain to recognise the threat this posed to its interests. The First Saudi State established its dominance over the Arabian Gulf and the Red Sea, bringing the Qawasim in the Arabian Gulf under its control. Its influence reached into southern Iraq, affecting the overland route between Europe and the East. Moreover, the religious foundations upon which this state was built made it impossible for Britain to manipulate or negotiate agreements with it, as opposition to foreign influence in the region was one of the primary objectives of this state. The Qawasim, supported by Saudi strength, were able to deliver significant blows to the English fleet in 1806, resulting in their control over the waters of the Gulf. During the reign of Saud bin Abdul Aziz, the state reached its political zenith, extending its influence to Karbala in Iraq and Hauran in the Levant, with the entire Arabian Peninsula coming under its authority, except for Yemen.

Conspiracies Against The Salafi Call: The malevolent minds among the European descendants contemplated the consequences of the continued existence of the First Saudi State. They recognised that its persistence would undermine their interests in the East as a whole. Consequently, they deemed it essential to dismantle this state, employing various insidious methods to eradicate the influence of the Salafi call, including:

First: There was a concerted effort to sway public opinion within the Islamic state against the teachings of Shaikh Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab. Those who adhered to Bidah and superstitions, mistakenly believing them to be integral to Islam, actively opposed the Shaikh’s call. This resistance was not limited to a single faction or group; rather, it emerged from various quarters and individuals. It was particularly pronounced among scholars who relied on the influence granted to them by the general populace and the uneducated, seeking to preserve their practices rooted in Bidah and superstitions, which they erroneously considered part of the faith. These individuals included caretakers of graves and those who profited from offerings, as well as those who thrived on the food and funds provided during commemorations of the deceased. They also believed that Shaikh Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab introduced a new religion that contradicted their established customs. This opposition was widespread throughout the Ottoman Empire and across the entire Islamic world, exacerbated by the dissemination of fatwas issued by corrupt scholars, which were propagated by the English and French, adversaries of Islam, to discredit the teachings of Shaikh Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab.

Secondly: There was a campaign of intrigue and discord between the call of Shaikh and the leadership of the Ottoman Empire. The British, French, and others instilled in Sultan Mahmud II the belief that Shaikh Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab’s movement aimed for the independence of the Arabian Peninsula, a separation from the Ottoman Caliphate, the unification of the Arab world, the seizure of the banner of the caliphate, and the establishment of an Arab caliphate. Sultan Mahmud II succumbed to the malicious whispers of his adversaries, a course of action that was unwarranted. It would have been more prudent for him to question this deceitful counsel and to dispatch trustworthy officials to investigate the matter. The Sultan of the Muslims failed to recognise the peril of believing this fabricated news regarding a genuine Islamic call and acquiesced to the enemies’ suggestions to eliminate it before it could gain strength, resulting in significant expenditures of both resources and manpower to suppress it.

The Ottoman Empire devised a strategy to combat the First Saudi State, intending to delegate this responsibility to the governors of neighboring regions. This approach aimed to achieve two objectives: first, to eliminate Saudi expansion in the Arab East, and second, to weaken these governors and deplete their resources, ensuring their continued subservience to the Empire. Initially, the focus was on the governor of Baghdad, as he was the closest to Najd. However, this governor was preoccupied with local disturbances in his province, and his military forces were too weak to confront the Saudis effectively. He faced multiple failures in repelling their incursions along the Iraqi borders. Consequently, the Empire turned to the governor of Syria, hoping he would succeed where the governor of Iraq had failed, but his outcome was even more disastrous. After losing faith in the capabilities of the governors in Baghdad and Syria, the Empire directed its attention to Egypt, requesting Governor Muhammad Ali in 1807 to launch a campaign against the Arabian territories to reclaim the holy sites from Saudi control and restore the Empire’s authority, which was waning in the Arabian Peninsula. However, Muhammad Ali did not respond to the Empire’s request until 1811, after he had dealt with the Mamluk beys in the Citadel massacre.

The followers of the Salafi call did not seek the caliphate, nor did they express any objections to its authority. However, the disagreement was confined to two main issues. The first was the Salafis’ insistence on the necessity for pilgrims to adhere to the principles of Islam and to refrain from any actions that would contravene them. The second issue was the Ottoman Empire’s sense of embarrassment and vulnerability in light of the control over the holy cities in Hijaz by the helpers of Shaikh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab, as they recognized that this situation undermined their prestige and political standing. Al-Jabarti indicated that the stance of the helpers of Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab regarding the pilgrims from the Levant was that they should only come under the conditions they imposed, which included arriving without the palanquins, drums, flutes, weapons, or any other items that contradicted Islamic law. Upon hearing this, the pilgrims returned without performing the pilgrimage and did not abandon their objectionable practices. He also noted a similar position regarding the Egyptian pilgrimage procession.

The decree issued by the Ottoman Sultan, which called for war against the Saudis at the behest of Muhammad Ali and influenced by the letters from the Sharif of Jeddah, as well as encouragement from the British, was limited to the objectives of reclaiming the sacred cities. This request was reiterated, focusing solely on the liberation of the sacred sites. Following the military’s successful conquest of the Hijaz, after enduring several defeats against the followers of Shaikh Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab, Sultan Mahmud II sent a decree to Egypt to be read in mosques, announcing the restoration of the sacred cities. This indicates that the Ottoman Sultan’s primary aim was the reestablishment of Ottoman sovereignty over the Hijaz.

The war could have concluded at this point, as Muhammad Ali’s forces had taken control of the cities in Hijaz. Muhammad Ali appointed a new Sharif for the region, who was compelled to travel there and subsequently expelled Sharif Ghalib, who had supported his forces and facilitated their entry into Hijaz. Additionally, the leaders of the Saudi Salafi call proposed a peace agreement; however, Muhammad Ali imposed conditions that were exceedingly difficult to fulfill for the acceptance of peace. In his response to the peace request, he included a threat, as narrated by al-Jabarti, stating: “As for the peace, we do not reject it under conditions that require us to be reimbursed for all expenses incurred for the troops from the beginning of the war until this date, and to return all that was taken and received from the treasures and supplies that were in the sacred chamber, as well as the value of what was consumed. After that, he must come and meet with me, and we will formalise our peace agreement. If he refuses to do so and does not come, we will proceed to him.”

The Reality of Muhammad Ali’s Campaign in Hijaz and Najd: The conflict between Muhammad Ali and the followers of Shaikh Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab was not a war between two forces both adhering to Islam, nor was it an Arab war, as some may describe it. Rather, this conflict represented a struggle between a Saudi Islamic force, which had no political ambitions but demonstrated a fervent commitment to returning to the fundamental principles of Islam, and an opposing force sent by the governor of Egypt. This opposing force was not Egyptian in nature; it primarily consisted of Albanians, some Turks, Christians, and a few French officers. Most of its leaders bore only the name of Islam. The historian al-Jabarti illustrates the nature of this force through the account of a pious and devout observer, who witnessed the initial defeat of these troops at the hands of the followers of the Salafi call: “The question of our victory arises, especially when many of our soldiers do not adhere to our faith. Among them are those who do not practice any religion or follow our creed. They are accompanied by containers of alcohol, and there is no call to prayer in our midst, nor are the obligatory prayers performed. The faithful gather in orderly lines behind a single Imam, demonstrating humility and reverence. When the time for prayer arrives, even amidst the chaos of battle, the Mu’adh-dhin calls for prayer, and they perform the prayer of fear. One group advances to engage in combat while another remains behind to pray. Our troops are astonished by this practice, having neither heard of it nor witnessed it before. They call out in their camp, urging one another to confront the polytheists, those who shave their beards, indulge in fornication and sodomy, and consume alcohol. Upon examining many of the fallen soldiers, they discovered that they were uncircumcised. When they reached Badr and took control of it, along with the surrounding villages and territories inhabited by the best of people and learned individuals, they plundered them, seizing their women, daughters, and children, as well as their books”.

Muhammad Ali did not adhere to the Shariah in his warfare; rather, he acted in opposition to divine commandments, transgressing the boundaries set by the Almighty and showing disregard for Islamic rulings. His army engaged in killing, destruction, plundering, and violating the rights of the monotheistic Muslims. In the Battle of the Camel, Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, instructed his companions: “Do not pursue a commander, nor finish off the wounded, and whoever lays down his weapon is safe.” He also cautioned: “Beware of women, even if they insult your honor and curse your leaders, for a man may strike a woman with a stick or a club, and he will be reproached for it, as will his descendants thereafter.” Abu Umamah Al-Bahili, may Allah be pleased with him, reported: “I witnessed the Battle of Siffin, where they did not finish off the wounded, nor did they kill those who turned to flee, nor did they loot the slain.”

The Ottoman Sultan was primarily concerned with the submission of the Hijaz to his rule, and the attack on Dariyah was not an urgent or necessary demand for the Ottoman state. Muhammad Ali was inflexible in his terms for peace, indicating his desire to prolong the conflict; his objective in this war was to further his expansionist ambitions within the framework permitted by British political goals in the region. The Saudi state had become a significant threat to British interests across the entire area, including the Red Sea, the Arabian Gulf, and the overland route through Iraq. Consequently, Britain felt a genuine threat to its interests in the East, which justifies the characterisation of this campaign as a crusade cloaked in Islamic guise.

When Tosun Pasha, under Muhammad Ali, was defeated by Prince Abdullah bin Saud, resulting in the destruction of half his army, Muhammad Ali personally ventured to the Hejaz in 1813. He apprehended Sharif of Makkah Ghalib bin Musaid, accusing him of conspiring with the Saudis. Muhammad Ali confiscated all of Ghalib’s possessions, including his wealth, furniture, and belongings, effectively making the Sharif an employee of Muhammad Ali in the Hejaz. Subsequently, in January 1815, Muhammad Ali achieved victory over Saudi forces, a conflict regarded by some as one of the most significant events and a crucial battle in the military history of Egypt.

Muhammad Ali did not remain in the Arabian Peninsula to oversee the victory he had achieved; instead, he returned to Egypt, leaving his son Tosun in Hijaz. Soon after, Tosun succeeded in inflicting a new defeat on the Saudis for the first time and quickly advanced into the northern region of Najd, reaching the city of Al-Rass. He then occupied Al-Shabiyah, thereby opening the route to Al-Dariyah. In response, Prince Abdullah hastened to request the initiation of negotiations to prevent bloodshed and protect the towns and villages. Negotiations commenced between the two parties regarding a peace agreement under the following condition

1 – The occupation of the Egyptian forces in Diriyah. 2 – Prince Abdullah is to place himself at the disposal of Tosun Pasha, traveling to the location he deems appropriate. 3 – Prince Abdullah must ensure the safety of the pilgrimage routes and remain subject to the governance of the city by Muhammad Ali until an agreement on the peace terms is reached.

These conditions, if agreed upon, shall not take effect until they are ratified by Muhammad Ali. However, these conditions were not accepted by Prince Abdullah, who decided to send a delegation to Egypt to negotiate directly with Muhammad Ali regarding the terms of peace, but the delegation’s efforts were unsuccessful due to the pasha’s rigidity, and the Saudis prepared for war and combat. Consequently, Muhammad Ali dispatched a new campaign in 1816, led by his son Ibrahim Pasha.

Ibrahim Pasha advanced his forces from Hijaz towards Najd, successfully capturing the cities of Unayzah, Buraydah, and Shuqra, thereby subjugating the entire Qassim region. In his campaign, Ibrahim employed a conciliatory approach towards the tribes, a strategy that endeared him to many in Najd. He frequently convened councils and distributed gifts to the populace, initially adopting a method that appealed to the tribes by prohibiting looting and pillaging. With the assistance of his French military advisors, he continued his advance until he laid siege to Dir’iyyah, which was known for its strong defenses. This siege lasted from April 6 to September 9, 1818, culminating in the surrender of Prince Abdullah bin Saud and Ibrahim’s entry into Dir’iyyah. From there he dispatched the Saudi prince under heavy guard to Egypt, who was subsequently sent from Cairo to Istanbul. In Istanbul, Prince Abdullah was publicly displayed for three full days before being ordered to be executed by hanging. The truth of his execution will be revealed on the Day of Judgment. He had called for peace among the people of the island through a message sent by Shaikh Ahmad al-Hanbali to Tosun, in which they acknowledged the authority of the Ottoman Sultan and affirmed their loyalty to the caliphate. Therefore, why was there a persistent insistence on directing forces to the Arabian Peninsula? Thus, the lives of Muslims were lost at the hands of one another, a consequence of the machinations of their enemies. The inhabitants of the island supported the Muslims of Egypt during the French occupation; therefore, what is the reason for this deliberate aggression? Muhammad Ali was able, through the leaders associated with Islam, to persuade many ordinary people that their actions were in compliance with the orders of the Caliph of the Messenger of Allah to whom they owed their obedience and allegiance. However, the issue of loyalty and disavowal was entirely absent in the actions of Muhammad Ali. This is evidenced by his allegiance to the enemies of Islam, allowing them to lead him and guide the nation towards its demise.

The joy in Britain was immense upon learning of the fall of Dir’iyyah, the capital of the First Saudi State, to the forces of Ibrahim Pasha. This state was a Salafi entity that had supported the Qawasim in their struggle against British interests in the Arabian Gulf, which posed a threat to British interests in India. It is pertinent to consider, particularly in light of the events that unfolded in the Islamic world during its modern history, what might have transpired had the armies of Muhammad Ali and the Ottoman Empire collaborated with the First Saudi State instead of opposing it. Together, they could have stood against European ambitions in general, and British interests in particular. Such a collaboration could have altered the course of history, especially since the Saudi state was a Muslim entity founded on the correct Salafi principles, which the Islamic world desperately needed at that time. Regardless, Britain recognised the potential benefits of this situation and quickly extended congratulations to Ibrahim Pasha, motivated by its own self-interests. Captain George Forster Sadler was dispatched to convey these congratulations to Ibrahim Pasha for his conquest of Dir’iyyah while also seeking to establish a framework for coordination between Pasha’s land forces and the British naval forces for a joint military operation against the Qawasim, followers of the First Saudi State.

The relationship between Britain and Muhammad Ali is longstanding. At the onset of his rule, he engaged in negotiations with them that lasted four months, during which he demonstrated his seriousness and sincere desire to establish a connection with them. He even requested to place himself under their protection. This is corroborated by the report from Fraser, who was responsible for the negotiations. Their eventual acceptance of his proposal led to their abandonment of their alliances with the Mamluks. The report prepared by Fraser, who negotiated with Muhammad Ali’s envoys and sent to General Moore on October 16, 1807, outlined the key aspects of these negotiations. It stated: “I hope you will allow me to clarify for you the essence of a conversation that took place between the Pasha of Egypt, Major General Shryock, and Captain Philows during their mission with His Excellency. I have reason to believe that this conversation, along with many other private communications I had with him, indicates that he is earnest and sincere in his proposals. Muhammad Ali Pasha expressed his desire to place himself under British protection, and we promised to relay his suggestions to the leaders of the British forces, so they could present them to the English government for consideration. In return, Muhammad Ali committed to preventing the French, Turks, or any army from another state from entering Alexandria by sea, and he pledged to maintain Alexandria as an ally.”

The French consul, Drugeti, commented on the information he received regarding the agreement between Muhammad Ali and the British, suggesting that this treaty represented a type of agreement that, if concluded, would fulfill the objectives the British sought by sending their campaign to Egypt. However, its impact might exceed what they anticipated from this military expedition. The British chose not to disclose all the terms of this agreement following its signing, the evacuation of Alexandria, and its handover to the Pasha of Egypt. Britain deemed it necessary to exercise caution in this regard due to the explicit declaration of hostility towards the Ottoman Empire contained within the agreement, as it supported a ruler seeking independence at a time when British diplomacy had significant interests with the empire and aimed to benefit from its new ally to extend its influence in the region, if possible. [An Excerpt from “Ad-Dawlah Al-Uthmaaniyyah Awamil An-Nuhud Wa Asbab As-Suqut 6/375-400]

Read: The State of the Region of Najd, Arabia in the Time of Ibn Abdul-Wahhāb and the First Saudi State- By Shaikh Abu Khadeejah, may Allah preserve him. https://abukhadeejah.com/the-state-of-the-region-of-najd-arabia-in-the-time-of-ibn-%CA%BFabdul-wahhab-and-the-first-saudi-state/

Did Shaikh Muhammad bin Abdul-Wahhāb rebel? The First Saudi State. https://abukhadeejah.com/did-shaikh-muhammad-bin-%CA%BFabdul-wahhab-rebel-the-first-saudi-state/