Shaykh Abd al-Wahab [r] and the Fall of the Ottoman Caliphate

[JayshAllah]

The critics of Salafis accuse Shaykh Abd al-Wahab [r] of rebelling against the Ottoman Caliphate. This rebuttal by Shaykh Salih al-Munajjid (http://www.islamicawakening.com/viewarticle.php?articleID=1100&) denies this claim by saying that the Ottoman Caliphate simply did not exist in the Najd where the Saudi state was first established.

I took out a map of the Ottoman state, and yes it does confirm that the Ottoman rule was only over Mecca and Medinah (i.e. the Hijaz), not over the Najd.

So is this really how simple it is to refute people when they accuse Shaykh Abd al-Wahab [r] of betraying the Ottoman Caliphate?

Almost every single history book I have read says that the British armed and trained the state of Saud in order to overthrow the Ottoman Caliphate. Is this just a blatant lie? Did the British aid the "Wahabi" movement or not? Is this true or is this a lie?

And was the Saudi/"Wahabi" state opposed to the Ottoman Caliphate? Did the latter see it as a threat, and why didn't the Saudi/"Wahabi" state pledge its Baya'ah to the Ottoman Caliph?

Can anyone elaborate on the reply by Shaykh Munajjid Al-Salih?

Also, somebody here on this forum said that the initial Saud family was not corrupt like it is today? Can somebody elaborate on this?

[Brother_Mujahid]

Well the Sufi groups love to distort the history to serve their own sectarian agenda and to paint ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab, Imam Muhammad bin Saud, and those with them as khawarij, bandits, and dupes of the British government.

What our Sufi friends often fail to mention is when the Ottoman empire sent their agent Ibrahim Pasha (the son of Muhammad 'Ali Pasha, the governor of Egypt) to attack the Najdi Muslims he razed their villages to the ground and enslaved their women and children. Furthermore, Imam Muhammad bin 'Abd al-Wahhab and Imam Muhammad bin Saud were never involved directly with fighting the Ottoman empire. The war between the Najdi Muslims and the Ottomani Turks did not begin until sometime after their deaths (may Allah have mercy on them). This was all during the period of the so-called First Saudi State.

During the period of the second and third Saudi states, the battles were between Bani al-Saud and al-Rashid family (which were allies of the Ottoman empire). There was also fighting between al-Saud and the Hashemite tribe (the family of Abdullah of Jordan) in which both received support from the British, but this was well into the 20th century. As for the Arab revolt against what was left of the Ottoman state during World War I the Saudi state played little role in this, rather the Hashemites would be the major ally of the British and T. E. Lawrence.

The Sufi groups love to beat this dead dog because they have nothing else to go with. There is no major Sufi revivalist group to return Islamic rule to the Muslim lands, rather they are just jealous of the Salafi groups that are actually trying to do something.

[JayshAllah]

Hmmm...interesting...thanks...

Anyone care to elabore even more?

Sorry, just want to get an even more clearer image of what happened...

And what do you mean by first, second, and third Saudi states?

[Abu_Abdillah2000]

The first Saud state was the one established in Najd by ash-Shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdil-Wahhab and al-Imam Muhammad ibn Su'ud (rahimahumallah) some time during the 1700's (I don't know the exact dayes). It fell in the first half of the 1800's when the Egyptian-Turkish army led by Muhammad Ali Pasha defeated the Su'udi army.

The second state was established some time after that, but it was much weaker than the first. I think it fell after a fitnah between two of its amirs, but Allahu a'lam. I think it was related to the conflict with the local Ottoman governer, but probably the other brothers here have more info about that.

The third state was established by king 'Abdul-'Aziz al-Faysal Al Su'ud in the 1920's, and it is still existing today.

[JayshAllah]

Gosh darn it, I wish I could read more on this topic! But thanks!

[Al-Fateh]

feel free to read this....coming from a source that has nothing to do with Islam.

this is a neutral appraoch from people who know history and have no inclination to any group

http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=6704&PN=1

[suhail]

Assalaam Alykum,

Brother Fateh. Neutral source doesnt mean that they are correct. Also biases is not have to do anything with a person is a muslim or not. Actually the non muslims have coined the term wahhabi without even thinking twice about it. It is such a sorry state that muslims even use this word as a insult on brothers. Wahhabi was derived by the non muslims from the name of Allah Al-Wahab and the father of the Shaikh Muhammad bin Abdul Wahab.His name was Muhammed not Abdul Wahab. A mulims who has a right mind would never use such a term but alas people jump on the wagon too fast without thinking. Also one more thing muslims dont know is what did Shaikh Muhammad bin Abdul Wahab called for. They have no clue what he said and what he wrote. They just hate because a local imam in there masjid throws these labels. Really sorry state of Ummah whatelse a person can say.

In the same thread the guy who posted was given some good answers by a brother there.

Jazakallah Khair
Suhail