Skip to main content

Reflections on some statements of Al-Allamah Rabee Bin Hadi Al-Madkhali [49 of 80]

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

It is important to note that some overexcited youth may study the books of the Predecessors, but not proficient in applying what is sound from the narrations, thus, they apply them in other than their appropriate place. Therefore, it is essential to consult scholars on how to implement them because if one embarks upon applying some things incorrectly, he may harm himself, harm Islam and the Muslims.

This issue occured in the past, as some overexcited youth among the new and old Haddadiyyah focused on narrations (of the predecessors), while not memorising (and understanding) the Quran. They focused on the narrations of the predecessors, while among the narrations of predecessors, there are those that are authentic and those that are unauthentic.

When they (predecessors) hold a consensus on a matter, it is obligatory to accept it; however, in cases of disagreement, their statements must be referred back to the Quran and the Sunnah of the Prophet. If a particular statement is not reliably attributed to so and so, it should not be accepted, and if it is reliably attributed to him, (but) contradicts (what is sound), it should be rejected. This is how these matters should be. They require Fiqh (sound understanding). The Haddadiyyah used to memorise the narrations of the predecessors, and Ahlus Sunnah were the first people they wage a war against, attacking them through their hysterical reading (of those narrations), turned against the scholars and sought to topple them one after the other until targeting (Shaikh Al-Islam) Ibn Taymiyyah. This trend has resurfaced through attacks against scholars and attempting to topple them while clinging to various narrations, some of which are authentic and others not, without grasping their intended meanings (or goals).

Marhaban Yaa Talib Al-Ilm 459-460

Read:

http://www.alhajuri.com/articles/aklbxkm-the-hajawirah-the-haddaadiyyah-and-the-terrorist-kharijites-of-isis.cfm

Distinguished Characteristics Of The HadaadiyyahAuthor: Shaykh Rabee’ bin Haadi al-Madkhalee

https://www.salafipublications.com/sps/sp.cfm?subsecID=GRV14&articleID=GRV140001&articlePages=1

https://www.salafipublications.com/sps/sp.cfm?secID=GRV&subsecID=GRV14&loadpage=displaysubsection.cfm

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.

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

[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/

Destructive Self-sufficiency

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

Allah, The Exalted, said:

كَلَّآ إِنَّ ٱلۡإِنسَـٰنَ لَيَطۡغَىٰٓ
أَن رَّءَاهُ ٱسۡتَغۡنَىٰٓ

Nay! Verily, man does transgress all bounds, because he considers himself self-sufficient.

[كَلَّآ إِنَّ ٱلۡإِنسَـٰنَ لَيَطۡغَىٰٓ – Nay! Verily, man does transgress all bounds]- Meaning, Abu Jahl, who used to be insolent and boastful about his clothing, riding beast and food when he earned more wealth. [1]

[أَن رَّءَاهُ ٱسۡتَغۡنَىٰٓ – because he considers himself self-sufficient]- Meaning, due to the human being’s ignorance and wrongdoing when he considers himself self-sufficient, he transgresses, rebels, haughtily turns away from guidance, forgets that he will be returned to his Lord and does not not fear the recompense; rather, he might reach such a state that he abandons guidance and calls others to abandon it and tell others not to perform the prayer which is the most virtuous deed of Iman. [2]

Allah did not (solely) state that he (this human being) became self-sufficient; rather, He indicated that tyranny arises from the perception of his self-sufficiency. But He did not mentioned this perfection in Surah Al-Layl; instead, He stated:

وَأَمَّا مَنۢ بَخِلَ وَٱسْتَغْنَىٰ

وَكَذَّبَ بِٱلْحُسْنَىٰ

فَسَنُيَسِّرُهُۥ لِلْعُسْرَىٰ

But as for he—( Umayyah bin Khalaf)—who is miserly (with respect to his wealth and Allāh’s right upon him) and considers himself self-sufficient (from his Lord). And rejects al-Ḥusnā (the statement of monotheism) (or: the obligations of prayer, fasting and charity) (or: the promise of Allāh) (or: Paradise and its reward). Then We will make easy for him (the path to) evil (or: Hellfire). https://www.thenoblequran.com/q/#/verse/92/8

This, and Allah knows best, is due to the cause of his arrogance, which stems from his perception of his own self-sufficiency.

Surah Al-Layl elucidates the factors contributing to his downfall and the lack of ease in his affairs, stemming from their belief that they do not need their Lord by abandoning obedience and servitude. Had they genuinely relied on Allah, they would have endeavored to draw nearer to Him through the prescribed acts of worship, akin to a servant who cannot do without his Lord even for a moment and adhering to His orders. For this reason, this is linked to his miserliness, which reflects his failure to fulfill his obligations in speech, actions, and wealth, as well as his rejection of Al-Husna [Footnote a] which is promised those who perform good deeds, as stated by Allah: [لِلَّذِينَ أَحْسَنُوا الْحُسْنَى وَزِيَادَةٌ – For those who have done good is the best (reward, i.e. Paradise) and Ziyadah]. [Footnote b]

The purpose of this discussion is that the perfection of not needing Allah is the cause of the downfall of a servant of Allah and is the root of all difficulties. His perfection of not being in need of his Lord is the cause of his transgression and downfall, both of which stand in stark contrast to the dependence on Allah and servitude (to Him). [3]

The creation find themselves within two types of neediness. The first type of neediness is inevitable. It is a type of neediness which every everyone (cannot do without) – the righteous and the wicked. It neither necessitates praise nor dispraise, and neither reward nor punishment; rather it is solely due to the fact that the creation are created beings [i.e. absolutely in need and completely dependent on their Creator in every way].

The second type of neediness is one based on choice from which emanates two noble aspects of knowledge. The first one is the servant’s knowledge and awareness of his Lord and the second is knowledge and awareness of oneself in reality. As soon as one acquires these two types of knowledge, it brings about a type of neediness that becomes a person’s distinguished and most precious source of wealth, and the means to success and happiness in (this life and the next). The people’s different stations in this type of neediness depends on their different stations in these two affairs of knowledge.

The one who knows that his Lord (Allaah) is the Self-Sufficient One [absolutely free from all wants and to Whom everyone and everything depends, and none can do without Him in the twinkling of an eye], then he will know that he is completely in need.

The one knows that his Lord (Allaah) is alone the Possessor of Perfect Ability [possessor of All-Encompassing Ability and able to do all things], he will know that he is completely unable [cannot do anything in the twinkling of an eye without the help of] his Lord.

The one who knows that his Lord (Allaah) is The All-Mighty, he will know that he is one completely in a state of [complete poverty, weakness and want unless his Lord provides for him etc]. The one who knows that his Lord (Allaah) is the possessor of All- Encompassing knowledge and Wisdom, he will know that he is ignorant.

Allah brought the person out of his mother’s womb while he knew nothing- not able to do anything and owned nothing; neither able to give nor take, and neither able to harm nor benefit. This state of neediness – until he reached a more perfect state – is something witnessed and tangible for everyone (to see), and it is well known that this is the very essence of the human being and he remains upon that state. He does not move from this state and enters into a state of Lordship – a state in which he becomes absolutely self-sufficient and not need of anyone and anything; rather he does not cease being a slave, a needy one to his Rabb [Allah the Creator, All-Provider and the Only One Who Controls and Sustains Everything] and His Fatir [Allah, The Originator and Creator of Everything].

However, after the human being was granted blessings, shown mercy, granted the means to reach a more perfect state, and Allah -out of His Perfect Kindness and Generosity- granted him apparent blessings [i.e. to recognize the Messengers who were sent with Islamic Monotheism, granted him the lawful pleasures of this world, including health, good looks, etc.] and the hidden blessings [i.e. granted him the innate disposition to recognize his Lord when the Messenger calls him to Iman, and granted him knowledge, wisdom, guidance for doing righteous deeds, and also the pleasures and delights of the Hereafter in Paradise, etc.], granted him hearing, sight and a heart, and taught him [i.e. gave him the means to knowledge], granted him ability, subjugated things to him, granted him [the desire and enthusiasm to pursue what is beneficial, and take action], enabled him to receive the service of those of his kind [i.e. gave him authority over other humans], subjugated to him horses and camels, gave him the ability to capture the animals in the sea, drop birds from the sky, subjugate wild animals, dig wells [irrigate water etc.], plant trees, dig the earth, learn how to build, acquire the things that are of benefit to him, guard against and protect himself from that which is harmful to him; then the Miskin [i.e. this absolutely poor, dependent human being] thinks that he has a share of authority and claims – for himself – a kingship [or authority] similar to that of Allah [Glorified be Allah and free is Allah from all imperfections, partners, coequals, similarities etc.], and begins to see himself in a manner other than what he was at first, forgets his (prior) state of non-existence, poverty and neediness, until he becomes as if he was not that poor and needy thing. [4]

——————————————————–

Footnote a: al-Ḥusnā (the statement of monotheism) (or: the obligations of prayer, fasting and charity) (or: the promise of Allāh) (or: Paradise and its reward). Then We will make easy for him (the path to) evil (or: Hellfire). https://www.thenoblequran.com/q/#/verse/92/8

Footnote b:

“‏زيادة‏”‏ وهي النظر إلى وجه الله الكريم، وسماع كلامه، والفوز برضاه والبهجة بقربه، فبهذا حصل لهم أعلى ما يتمناه المتمنون، ويسأله السائلون

The word Ziyadah in this verse means to see Allah’s face, hear His Speech, attain His pleasure etc, (on the Day of Judgement). [Tafsir Sadi]


[1] An Excerpt from Zaadul Maseer Fee Ilm at-Tafseer. By Imam Ibnul Jawzi [may Allaah have mercy upon him]
[2] An Excerpt from Tafsir As-Sadi
[3] An Excerpt from Tariq Al-Hijratayn 13 By Imam Ibn Al-Qayyim, may Allah have mercy upon him.
[4] An Excerpt from Tariq Al-Hijratayn. pages 9-10

A case illustrating how poisonous ideas permeated minds of certain people within the Ummah.

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

Shaikh Shamsuddeen Al-Afghaanee As-Salafi, may Allah have mercy upon him, said:

The books of Greek Philosophy, which encompassed notions of grave and idol worship, were translated into Arabic, thus, many who identified with Islam, such as Al-Farabi, (a) Ibn Sina Al-Hanafi, (b) and Nasir at-Tusi, an advocate of disbelief and shirk, (c) and others among who played tricks Islam, akin to how Paul manipulated the tenets of Christianity, busied themselves with these books. They were influenced by the ideas of the Greek philosophers, particularly the veneration of graves, transforming them into proponents of such practices. The practices of these people were rife amidst the ranks of the proponents of theological rhetoric among the Hanafi Maturidiyyah (d) and the Ash’ariyyah Kullabiyyah, as they immersed themselves in the writings of these philosophers, thus, influenced by the creed of grave worship. They emerged as advocates for grave worship and the creed of the Jahmiyyah at the same time, exemplified by the likes of Taftazani Al-Hanafi, a philosopher of the Maturidiyyah and a proponent of grave worship, alongside Jurjanee Al-Hanafi, who was a caller to superstition.

[a] Al-Faraabee said that Philosophy is more perfect than Prophet hood. Shaikh Al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy upon him, said about him: “Misguided, a disbeliever”. Ibn Sina adopted his books and ideas of disbelief. [For further details concerning Al- Faraabee, See Majmoo Al-Fataawaa 2/67—86] [Dar At-Ta’aarud 1/10] [Ighaathatul Luhfaan 2/372-373].

[b] Ibn Sina: Imam Ibnu Salah, may Allah have mercy upon him, said: “He was a devil amongst the human devils”. [See Fataawaa Ibn Salaah 1/209] [Also see: ‘Ar-Radd Alal Mantaqiyyeen’ by Shaikh Al-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah 278-279] [Ighaatha Al-Lahfaan’ by Imam Ibn Al-Qayyim 2/373-380] [Al-Bidayah Wan-Nihaayah’ by Imam Ibn Kathir12/43]

[c] Nasir at-Tusi: He was a magician and a minister of the Tartars. He rejected the ‘resurrection’. For further details, see: As-Sawaa-iq Al-Mursalah of Imaam Ibnul Qayyim (rahimahullaah) 2/790; 3/1077-1078]

[d] Al-Maturidiyyah: Followers of the Jahmi Abu Mansur Al-Maturidi Al-Hanafi [Al-Maturidiyyahby Shaikh Shamsuddeen Al-Afghani 1/205—376] [1]

Revival of The Authentic Sunnah Every Hundred Years

The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “Allah will raise for this Ummah at the end of every hundred years the one who will revive its religion for it”. [2]

“Allah will raise for this Ummah”- Meaning the Ummah Ijabah [i.e. the Muslims]. “At the end of every hundred years”- Meaning at the end of every hundred years when there is little knowledge of the Shariah and the authentic Prophetic Tradition, whilst ignorance and religious innovation is rife. “One who will revive its religion for it”- Meaning a scholar who is alive and well known. He will clarify the authentic Prophetic Tradition and distinguish it from the religious innovations. knowledge will be abundant again and its adherents will be aided, and the proponents of religious will be overcome and degraded. This reviver is non else but a scholar who has sound understanding of the religious sciences that deal with acts of worship, the underlying wisdoms of the religion and the texts that deal with beliefs of the heart. [3]

Imam Ibn Kathir, may Allah have mercy upon him, said, “A group amongst the scholars- including Ahmad Bin Hanbal – stated that Umar Bin Abdul Azeez was alive at the end of the first hundred years and he is more worthy and entitled to be entered into this category of people due to his leadership and striving to establish truth”. [4]

There will not cease to be a group of people upon the Truth and Sunnah’ – Sharhus-Sunnah al-Barbahārī by Shaikh Abu Khadeejah, may Allah preserve him.

https://www.salafisounds.com/there-will-not-cease-to-be-a-group-of-people-upon-the-truth-and-sunnah-sharhus-sunnah-al-barbahari-by-abu-khadeejah/https://www.salafisounds.com/there-will-not-cease-to-be-a-group-of-people-upon-the-truth-and-sunnah-sharhus-sunnah-al-barbahari-by-abu-khadeejah/


[1] An Excerpt from Juhud Ulamaa Al-Hanafiyyah Fee Ibtal Aqa’id Al-Quburiyyeen. 1/ 19-25

[2] Sahih Sunan Abee Daawud. Hadeeth Number 4291.

[3]An Excerpt from Awnul Ma’bood Sharh Sunan Abee Daawud. Vol 11. Pages 259-260. Publisher: Daaer Al-Kutub Al-Ilmiyyah. 1st Edition 1419AH (Year 1998). Slightly paraphrased]

[4]Al-Bidaayah Wan-Nihaayah. 9/303-309. Publisher: Maktabah Al-Ma’aarif and Daar ibn Hazm. 9th Edition. 1414 AH (1994)

Self-destruction

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

Imam Ibn Battah, may Allah have mercy upon him, said:

Know, O my brothers! I have pondered over the reason that expelled a people from the Sunnah and the Jama’ah, compelled them to bidah and ignominy, opened up a door of trial to their hearts and prevented them from the light of truth that enables a person to make good judgements; thus, I found that (coming) from two angles: (Unnecessary) research and debate, asking too much concerning that which is of no benefit- (matters that are) neither harmful to an ignoramus nor beneficial to the believer’s understanding. The other (reason) is sitting with (a person) whose Fitnah one is not safe from and (is a cause of) corrupting the heart of the one who accompanies him.

Al-Ibanah Al-Kubra 1/390

Ruling on the statement of a person: “Yaa Rasulal lah”

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

Question: A Muslim testifies that none has the right to be worshipped except Allah and that Muhammad, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him,  is the Messenger of Allah, but when standing up or sitting down, he says, “Yaa Rasulal lah -O Messenger of Allah!” or “Yaa Abal Qasim – O Abu Qasim!” or “Yaa Abdal Qaadir- O Abdul Qadir!” or what similar to these statements related to Al-Isti’anah [i.e. seeking aid and assistance]. What is the ruling on this?

Answer: A person calling [i.e. invoking] the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, or other than him, such as Abdul Qadir Al-Jaylaani or Ahmad at-Tijaani,  when standing up or sitting down, and seeking assistance in that [action], or what is similar to this, in order to receive a benefit or repel harm- is a type of Shirk Akbar that was widespread during the pre-Islamic era of ignorance. Allah sent His Messenger, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, to put an end to it, save the people from it, guide the people to single out Allah in worship and supplication. This is because Al-Isti’aanah [seeking aid and assistance] is an act of worship and whoever performs it for other than Allah is a Mushrik. [Footnote a]

Allah directed and taught His slaves to say:

إِيَّاكَ نَعْبُدُ وَإِيَّاكَ نَسْتَعِينُ

You (Alone) we worship, and You (Alone) we ask for help (for each and everything). [1:5]

Allah said:
وَأَنَّ الْمَسَاجِدَ لِلَّهِ فَلَا تَدْعُوا مَعَ اللَّهِ أَحَدًا

And the mosques are for Allah (Alone), so invoke not anyone along with Allah]. [72:18]

Allah clarified that He (alone) controls harm and benefit; He alone removes harm and bestows blessings; He alone is the one who bestows good upon His slaves and preserves it for them. None can withold what Allaah gives and none can bestow that which Allah withholds. None can prevent what He has decreed and He is able to do all things. Allah said:

وَلَا تَدْعُ مِن دُونِ اللَّهِ مَا لَا يَنفَعُكَ وَلَا يَضُرُّكَ ۖ فَإِن فَعَلْتَ فَإِنَّكَ إِذًا مِّنَ الظَّالِمِينَ
وَإِن يَمْسَسْكَ اللَّهُ بِضُرٍّ فَلَا كَاشِفَ لَهُ إِلَّا هُوَ ۖ وَإِن يُرِدْكَ بِخَيْرٍ فَلَا رَادَّ لِفَضْلِهِ ۚ يُصِيبُ بِهِ مَن يَشَاءُ مِنْ عِبَادِهِ ۚ وَهُوَ الْغَفُورُ الرَّحِيمُ

And invoke not besides Allah, any that will neither profit you, nor hurt you, but if (in case) you did so, you shall certainly be one of the Zalimun (polytheists and wrong-doers). ” And if Allah touches you with hurt, there is none who can remove it but He; and if He intends any good for you, there is none who can repel His Favour which He causes it to reach whomsoever of His slaves He will. And He is the Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. [10:106-107]

Allah said:

يُولِجُ اللَّيْلَ فِي النَّهَارِ وَيُولِجُ النَّهَارَ فِي اللَّيْلِ وَسَخَّرَ الشَّمْسَ وَالْقَمَرَ كُلٌّ يَجْرِي لِأَجَلٍ مُّسَمًّى ۚ ذَٰلِكُمُ اللَّهُ رَبُّكُمْ لَهُ الْمُلْكُ ۚ وَالَّذِينَ تَدْعُونَ مِن دُونِهِ مَا يَمْلِكُونَ مِن قِطْمِيرٍ
إِن تَدْعُوهُمْ لَا يَسْمَعُوا دُعَاءَكُمْ وَلَوْ سَمِعُوا مَا اسْتَجَابُوا لَكُمْ ۖ وَيَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ يَكْفُرُونَ بِشِرْكِكُمْ ۚ وَلَا يُنَبِّئُكَ مِثْلُ خَبِيرٍ

He merges the night into the day (i.e. the decrease in the hours of the night are added to the hours of the day), and He merges the day into the night (i.e. the decrease in the hours of the day are added to the hours of the night). And He has subjected the sun and the moon, each runs its course for a term appointed. Such is Allah your Lord; His is the kingdom. And those, whom you invoke or call upon instead of Him, own not even a Qitmir (the thin membrane over the date-stone). If you invoke (or call upon) them, they hear not your call, and if (in case) they were to hear, they could not grant it (your request) to you. And on the Day of Resurrection, they will disown your worshipping them.  And none can inform you (O Muhammad) like Him Who is the All-Knower (of each and everything). [35:13-14]

Allah said:
وَمَنْ أَضَلُّ مِمَّن يَدْعُو مِن دُونِ اللَّهِ مَن لَّا يَسْتَجِيبُ لَهُ إِلَىٰ يَوْمِ الْقِيَامَةِ وَهُمْ عَن دُعَائِهِمْ غَافِلُونَ
وَإِذَا حُشِرَ النَّاسُ كَانُوا لَهُمْ أَعْدَاءً وَكَانُوا بِعِبَادَتِهِمْ كَافِرِينَ

And who is more astray than one who calls (invokes) besides Allah, such as will not answer him till the Day of Resurrection, and who are (even) unaware of their calls (invocations) to them? And when mankind are gathered (on the Day of Resurrection), they (false deities) will become enemies for them and will deny their worshipping. [46:5-6]

Allah said:

وَمَن يَدْعُ مَعَ اللَّهِ إِلَٰهًا آخَرَ لَا بُرْهَانَ لَهُ بِهِ فَإِنَّمَا حِسَابُهُ عِندَ رَبِّهِ ۚ إِنَّهُ لَا يُفْلِحُ الْكَافِرُونَ

And whoever invokes (or worships), besides Allah, any other ilah (god), of whom he has no proof, then his reckoning is only with his Lord. Surely! Al-Kafirun (the disbelievers in Allah and in the Oneness of Allah, polytheists, pagans, idolaters, etc.) will not be successful. [23:117]

In these verses, Allah stated that it is disbelief and polytheism to invoke others besides Him. He informed (us) that there is none more astray than the one who invokes others besides Him.
The Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, said to Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with him and his father:

وإذا سألت فاسأل الله، وإذا استعنت فاستعن بالله

If you ask (i.e. supplicate), then ask Allah. And if you seek help, seek help from Allaah. [Sahih Al-Jami 7957]

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

الدعاء هو العبادة

Supplication is the core of worship. [Sahih Al-Jami 3407]

Fatawa Al-Lajnah Ad-Da’imah 1/163
—————-

Footnote a:

Ibn Taymiyyah on Shirk and the Excuse of Ignorance | AbuIyaad.Com
https://abuiyaad.com/a/ibn-taymiyyah-shirk-excuse-of-ignorance

Manhaj.Com | excuse of ignorance
https://www.manhaj.com/manhaj/tags/excuse-of-ignorance.cfm

http://www.manhaj.com/manhaj/articles/xwouo-takfir-and-the-excuse-of-ignorance-shaykh-ibn-uthaymeen.cfm

http://www.spubs.com/sps/sp.cfm?secID=MNJ&subsecID=MNJ09&loadpage=displaysubsection.cfm

What motivates Irfan Fard – at Jerusalem Post – to repeat his slander against the term Islamic?

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

Allah said:

وَلَا يَأْتُونَكَ بِمَثَلٍ إِلَّا جِئْنَٰكَ بِٱلْحَقِّ وَأَحْسَنَ تَفْسِيرًا

And they bring no (argument or objection by way of a) similitude (in order to criticise this Qur’ān and oppose your message) except that We bring you the truth and the better explanation thereof (through a similitude that is superior to theirs, provides detail and invalidates their objection). https://www.thenoblequran.com/q/#/search/25_33

Irfan Fard has once again embarked on his campaign of malicious defamation, linking the noble term “Islamic” with the abhorrent concept of terrorism, all while being granted a platform by those with Zionist affiliations. It is hardly surprising that such a charlatan finds support among individuals who would perceive Islam as a barrier to their own misguided beliefs and the distortion of the true path of the Prophets. Irfan’s actions stem from a desire to promote an alternative governance system, one that stands in stark contrast to that of the Rafidah. His animosity is not rooted in a quest for the establishment of Allah’s laws, but rather in a relentless pursuit of worldly power and recognition, masquerading as a commitment to justice. True justice can only be derived from the Qur’an and Sunnah, as interpreted and practiced by the Prophet’s companions. Neither the Rafidah nor the self-serving ambitions of Irfan, supported by Zionist interests, can offer a legitimate foundation for justice. Therefore, we once again present the link where Shaikh Abu Khadeejah, may Allah preserve him, eloquently and unequivocally demonstrates that terrorism can never be aligned with Islam, despite Irfan’s persistent slander. Following this, we will outline the motivations behind the actions of slanderers and deceivers, particularly those who harbour a deep-seated animosity towards the authentic Islamic terms. Read: https://abukhadeejah.com/terrorism-is-never-islamic-a-refutation-of-terrorism-based-on-the-texts-of-the-quran-and-sunnah-and-the-sayings-of-the-scholars-ebook/

Individuals like Irfan engage in a systematic approach to create the illusion of reality by affirming, reiterating, and disseminating falsehoods across various contexts. This strategy, while demanding persistence, gradually influences those who either hold misconceptions about the subject or lack detailed knowledge. This tactic mirrors the methods employed by politicians advocating for their agendas, akin to the repetitive techniques used in advertising to promote products. When founded on falsehoods, such repetition can insidiously embed ideas into the subconscious, eventually morphing them into beliefs and accepted truths. Once these inaccuracies are established as truths through continuous repetition, they proliferate among the public with little scrutiny, particularly when the actions of individuals associated with a targeted group are misrepresented in relation to the distorted idea. Irfan exemplifies this when he addresses the heretical Rafidah by linking their actions to the term “Islamic” and subsequently associating it with terrorism. Similarly, some other websites present their own distortions of Islam in varied ways, conveying different narratives. Thus, while the platforms and methods may differ, the underlying goal remains consistent: a relentless effort to distort truth into falsehood without substantiation, thereby shaping perceptions of reality. This process of transforming falsehood into perceived truth through repetition poses a significant threat to societal understanding. Consequently, the vast array of media content available today, along with its varied formats, timings, and presenters, has the potential to reshape long-held convictions among individuals.

The impact of this phenomenon is particularly significant for a generation whose perspectives are molded by ideologues, demagogues, and provocateurs masquerading as journalists and commentators. The act of repetition of falsehood wields considerable power over cognitive boundaries, hindering the sound understanding or justified dissenting viewpoints. The intellect remains ensnared by this influence until it achieves liberation through a conscious detachment from its origins, thereby allowing reason to prevail: discerning acceptance and rejection based on the tenets of sound rigorous validation.

Advocates of falsehood, such as Irfan and the Rafidah, do not only seek to reshape ideas and manipulate thought processes but they also alter the very foundations of sound creed and methodology of the Prophets, which poses a serious concern. Even more alarming is the transformation of falsehood, solidified through repeated assertions over time, into doctrines, beliefs and methodologies that future generations come to accept. This results in a scenario where truth is misidentified as falsehood, leading to a distortion or misunderstanding of Islamic principles and terms. We recall a maternal uncle, may Allah have mercy on him, who was a journalist in Gambia, renowned for his eloquence and commitment to truth. His pursuit of issues significantly influenced our understanding of contemporary matters. However, after being guided to the Sunnah, we recognised the importance of grounding our judgments on the sound principles of verification and ascertainment as taught by the Salafi Scholars, may Allah have mercy on them, instead of blindly following anyone else, regardless of their eloquence and convincing arguments. Thus, when the misguided Irfan attempts to link terrorism with the term Islamic—an association as distant as the heavens from the earth—we clearly perceive the desperation within him to connect two entirely unrelated concepts. May Allah guide him or disfigure his deceitful tongue. Amin.

This article by Irfan, to which we are responding, also makes a sweeping claim that Islamic countries share a significant responsibility for fostering the harmful ideology represented by Khumeini. Irfan again uses the term "Islamic" to refer to Muslim nations in the context of Iran's actions, suggesting that these countries are also culpable. However, he fails to specify which countries support the Rafidah or which ones oppose their activities. Furthermore, it raises the question: which Muslim nation actually endorses the Rafidah's beliefs and propagates their destructive methods? Historically, scholars of Islam, both past and present, have unequivocally condemned the Rafidah, not out of a struggle for power, but due to a fundamental distinction between sound and corrupt beliefs. In contrast, Irfan's concerns about the Rafidah seem rooted in a power struggle and a desire for an alternative system that aligns with his vain desires. He has been given a platform by Zionist interests to pursue authority, driven by a lack of fear of Allah, which is what typically restrains a believer from chasing after leadership, regardless of the outcome. Read here: https://salafidawahmanchester.com/2025/01/14/a-sad-reality/

The upright Scholars of Islam and their students effectively counter the claims of the Rafidah from and their affiliates. [Footnote a] Rather than resorting to vague and misleading generalizations, an honest and fair-minded individual would clearly differentiate between those who endorse the actions of the Rafidah and those who challenge and denounce them. Additionally, it is important to recognise that all Muslim nations maintain diplomatic relations with other countries, regardless of the situation. This practice was established by the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, to promote the common good and mitigate the threats posed by adversaries. [Footnote b]

Political opportunism will not earn one the pleasure of Allah in the afterlife. True success comes from dedicating oneself to singling out Allah in worship and following the Sunnah of His Messenger. What makes Irfan’s actions even more troubling is his disparagement of the term Islamic in his quest for selfish worldly gains and a desperate grab for power. At the very least, Irfan should hold back from attacking the term Islamic, as we cannot prevent him from his conflict with the Rafidah, which is driven not by genuine faith but by an unquenchable thirst for authority. The Messenger, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, said: “If Adam’s son had a valley full of gold, he would like to have two valleys, for nothing fills his mouth except dust. And Allah forgives him who repents to Him”. [Al-Bukhari 6439]

Previous posts:

Irfan Fard, with his insidious rhetoric, once more uses Zionist platform to link the term “Islamic” with terrorism

Defiling the term Islamic – A bone to pick with Erfan Fard

—————————————————–

Footnote a:
https://salafidawahmanchester.com/2025/01/05/sunni-shia-divide-a-brief-rebuttal-to-david-ben-basat-at-the-jerusalem-post/

Footnote b:
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/

Only the most wicked remain on the earth at the end of time

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

Imam Muhammad Ibn Salih Al-Uthaymeen, may Allah have mercy upon him, was asked:

We are seeking an answer for this question regarding how to reconcile the hadiths: “There will not ceased to be a group amongst my Ummah upon the truth – manifest; neither harmed by those who forsake them nor by those who oppose them until Allah’s Command comes to pass” and the hadith “The hour (i.e. day of Judgement) will not be established except in the midst of the most evil people”.

Response: All praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds, and may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon our Prophet Muhammad, and all his family and companions. Neither is it possible for the Qur’an to contradict itself nor is it possible for the authentic Sunnah that was reported from Allah’s Messenger, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, to contradict itself, nor is it possible for the authentic Sunnah to contradict the Qur’an vice versa. Neither is it possible for the Qur’an and the Sunnah to contradict (what the true reality is and should be) nor is it possible for the Qur’an and authentic Sunnah to contradict sound intellect. This is because the Qur’an is the speech of Allah, and Allah [The Exalted] said:

 أَفَلَا يَتَدَبَّرُونَ ٱلۡقُرۡءَانَ‌ۚ وَلَوۡ كَانَ مِنۡ عِندِ غَيۡرِ ٱللَّهِ لَوَجَدُواْ فِيهِ ٱخۡتِلَـٰفً۬ا ڪَثِيرً۬ا

Do they not then consider the Quran carefully? Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much contradictions]. [An-Nisaa. 82]

This is because Allah’s speech is (perfect) truth and truth can never contradict itself. Also, the same applies to the authentic Prophetic Sunnah, it is (perfect) truth and can never contradict itself. Thus, based on this principle, we proceed to answer the question. The Messenger’s statement, “There will not cease to be a group amongst my Ummah upon the truth- manifest; neither harmed by those who forsake them nor those who oppose them until Allah’s Command come to pass”, and in another report, “Until the hour (i.e. Day of Judgement) is established”. The intent behind the phrase Amrullaah (Allah’s Command) in this hadith is when the believers and pious friends of Allah pass away- when the day of Judgement is very close. (As for the hadith), “The hour will not be established except upon the most evil people”, this means that when the believers and the pious die, only the most evil people will remain, and upon them the Hour will be established.

[Nur Ala a Ad-Darb. Number 272]