The Uthmaani State [Archive]

terrorthreat

26th June 2005, 01:52 AM

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

By Shaykh Naasir ibn Hamad al-Fahd

(fakkallaahu asrahu)

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

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

To proceed:

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

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

And I have divided it into two sections:

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

THE FIRST SECTION:

THE REALITY OF THE 'UTHMAANI STATE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Rawdhat al-Afkaar, page 5 onwards.]

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

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

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

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

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

Sultaan Orkhaan the First (died 761H):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sultaan Saleem Khaan the Third (died 1223H):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section:

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

So the Imaam replied:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

terrorthreat

26th June 2005, 01:53 AM

THE SECOND SECTION:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And he said in a poem about this affair:

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

And it contains:

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

And it contains:

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

And it contains:

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

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

And he said in another poem:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He said – rahimahullaah – in one of his poems:

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

[Deewaan ibn Sahmaan, page 191.]

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

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

[Tadhkirat Ulin-Nuhaa, 3/275.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section:

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

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

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

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

c] Or he is a stubborn rejector.

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

Break The Cross

28th February 2007, 11:27 AM

Salam Alaykum

I need to know if these posts are authentic? Like did anyone check the history background and stuff?

Student_of_Knowledge

28th February 2007, 12:10 PM

Asslamo Allaikum,

Anyone who visits Turkey and takes the time to tour the Islamic sites and museums will be left in no doubt that Ottoman Empire was NOT exactly a bastion of Qur'aan & Sunnah.

However, that doesn't and never will absolve the people who directly colluded with Non-Muslims to bring about its downfall.

The role of Saudi robbers [Actually should I say rulers, Sorry] (backed by scholars) is clear as daylight in demolishing the Khilaafah.

I am neither from Hizbut-Tahrir, nor a Sufi or a blind follower of any Madhab; however sometimes you just have to call a spade a spade.

During the critique of any reasearch you have to ascertain its bias & its funding and I have read many studies/articles and talks given by "Scholars" trying to defend the actions of people of Najd (it wasn't part of the Khilafah & so on); and frankly if you trust these I pity you.

Nevertheless Khilafa was demolished & the Ummah has been suffering ever since!

Shame on Muslims who contributed to our collective sufering and no amount of post-justification, fatawa and scholarly opinions can erase history!

Shame on all who collude with the Kuffar against the Muslims!

Abuz Zubair

28th February 2007, 01:36 PM

Excuse me bro... how and when did the Saudi rulers, backed by their scholars, collude with the Kuffar to destroy the Khilafa?

aboosafar

28th February 2007, 01:46 PM

I'm not clear on these issues either.

I think he's referring to some historical events surrounding world war 1 and the aali sa'ood making some deals with the british to fight the 'uthmani's but I could be confusing to things here, one of which might involve Palestine, wallahu a'alam.

I could really use some clarification on this issue though.

The research of some Saudi's does seem to be stretching things in their favour a bit judging by what I've read from other sources but I'm not sure either way.

aboosafar

28th February 2007, 01:53 PM

I think I have a clearer picture now. I was confusing some issues. This is from wikipedia, about the formation of Saudi Arabia:

Loss and reclamation of power

Abdul Aziz was born in Riyadh, Arabia in 1876. In 1890, at the age of fourteen, Saud followed his family into exile in Kuwait following the conquest of the family's lands by the Rashidi. He spent the remainder of his childhood in Kuwait. Abd al-Rahman had a stipend from the Turkish government of 60 Turkish pounds a month and Abdul Aziz went on several profitable raids in Nejd as he grew to adulthood. He attended the daily majlis of the emir of Kuwait, Mubarak al Sabah, from whom he learned much about the world. However, the family's home in Riyadh was of the simplest and cramped by five sons and at least one daughter.

In the Spring of 1901 Ibn Saud and some relatives, including a half-brother Mohammed,and several cousins, set out on a raiding expedition targeting for the most part tribes associated with the Rashidis. As booty was abundant, with many camels stolen, the raiding party grew to around 200 as tribesmen loyal to the Sauds joined the party. In the Fall, with Ramadan approaching, the group, reduced in number by defections, holed up in the Jabrin Oasis. It may have been only then that Ibn Sa'ud decided to attack Riyadh and regain his family's heritage. On the night of January 15–16,1902, together with a party of some sixty, including seven relatives and some slaves, he recaptured Riyadh with only twenty; the rest were guarding the camels in an isolated oasis. They had been told to escape if the venture failed. The Rashidi governor of the city, Ajlan, was killed as he fled the attack by Ibn Sa'ud in front of the fort gate. Ibn Sa'ūd was considered a "magnetic" leader, and following the capture of Riyadh many former supporters of the House of Saud once again rallied to its support

In the two years following his dramatic seizure of Riyadh, Ibn Sa'ūd recaptured almost half of Nejd from the Rashidis. In 1904, however, Ibn Rashid appealed to the Ottoman Empire for assistance in defeating the House of Sa'ūd. The Ottomans sent troops to Arabia, setting Ibn Sa'ūd on the defensive. The armies of the House of Saud suffered a major defeat on June 15, 1904, but his forces soon regrouped and returned to the offensive as the Turkish troops left the country due to supply problems.

Ibn Sa'ūd finally consolidated control over the Nejd in 1912 with the help of an organized and well-trained army. In that year he founded the Ikhwan, a militant religious organisation which was to assist in his later conquests. More broadly, he revived his dynasty's traditional alliance with Wahhabism. During World War I the British government attempted to cultivate favor with Ibn Sa'ūd via their Political Agent Captain William Shakespear, but this was not seriously continued after Shakespear's unexpectedly early death at the Battle of Jarrab. Instead the British transferred support to Ibn Sa'ūd's rival Sherif Hussein ibn Ali, leader of Hejaz, with whom the Sa'ūds were almost constantly at war. Despite this, the British entered into a treaty in December 1915 which made the lands of the House of Sa'ūd a British protectorate. In exchange, Ibn Sa'ūd pledged to again make war against Ibn Rashid, who was an ally of the Ottomans.

Ibn Sa'ūd did not, however, immediately make war against Ibn Rashid, despite a steady supply of weapons and cash (£5,000 Sterling per month) from the British. He argued with the British that the payment he received was insufficient to adequately wage war against an enemy as powerful as Ibn Rashid. In 1920, however, Ibn Sa'ūd finally marched again against the Rashidis, extinguishing their dominion in 1922. The defeat of the Rashidis doubled the territory of the Ibn Sa'ūd, and he was able to negotiate a new treaty with the British at Uqair in 1922, abolishing the 1915 protection agreement in return for Ibn Saud's agreement not to attempt to expand his state's borders into British protectorates on the Gulf Coast. British subsidies continued until 1924.

In 1925 the Sa'ūds captured the holy city of Mecca from Sherif Hussein ibn Ali ending 700 years of Hashemite tutelage of the Islamic holy places. On 10 January 1926 Ibn Saud was proclaimed King of the Hejaz in the Great Mosque at Mecca.

In 1927, following the defeat of Husayn, the British government recognized the power of the Saud family, led by Ibn Saud, over much of what is today Saudi Arabia. The Treaty of Jedda was signed on May 20. At this point he changed his title from Sultan of Nejd to King of Nejd. Initially the two parts of his dominians (Nejd in the east and Hejaz in the west) were administered seperately.

From 1927 to 1932 Ibn Saud continued to consolidate power throughout the Arabian Peninsula. In March 1929 he defeated elements of the Ikhwan, which had disobeyed his orders to cease raiding and had invaded Iraq against his wishes, at the Battle of Sibilla. In 1932, having conquered most of the Peninsula, Saud renamed the area from the lands of Nejd and Hejaz to Saudi Arabia. He then proclaimed himself King of Saudi Arabia. End quote

This shows, unless I'm missing something, shows that they had nothing to do with dismantling the khalifah, unless there is missing info, wallahu a'alam.

miskeen

28th February 2007, 10:53 PM

as salaamu alaykum

just a reminder about Wikipedia--it is not a reliable source. If I wished, I can log on to it re-write history any which way I want to. This is not to say that the above selection is inaccurate, but I would argue that we should seek information from specialists in fields (such as history, for example) that we are not knowledgeable about. Wikipedia contributors are not a body of scholars nor anything close to it. I am not a specialist either, but I have somewhat researched this topic and would like to share the little that I know.

Generally, the event(s) that I think most people associate with the fall of the khilfah (in the context of Saudi involvement) was ibn Saud's (d. 1930's) involvement with the British to overtake the Hijaz. As we can recall, ibn Sa'ud, originating from Najd, managed to unite a large part of Northern Arabia through a series of raids and diplomatic measures. Britain had vested interest in Middle Eastern land and were already involved in domestic disputes on the Iraqi/Saudi border (I use those terms anachronistically obviously). What is important here is that ibn Sa'ud faced internal opposition from some of his own followers. He eventually crushed them and entered into a series of deals with the British that ended up with the Saudi's taking control of the Hijaz from the Hashim clan (in the mid 1920's), who are the rulers of modern-day Jordan. I can't recall what Britain got out of this deal, but it did have something to do with exclusive rights to searching Saudi land for oil.

So in sum, and correct me if I am wrong, the conception that Saudi's had something to do with the fall of the khilfah originates with ibn Saud and his implicit (or intended?) cooperation with the British that resulted in the destabilization of the peninsula from the Ottoman empire viewpoint which led to thier eventual downfall. What did arise out of this is a somewhat independant Saudi state (they had problems with Yemen) and the proliferation of the 'Wahhabi' doctrine that remains the dominant school of thought in the peninsula to this day.

To conclude that 'Wahhabis' had something to do with the fall of the empire would be inaccurate at best. It is true that, from what we know, ibn Saud and his family were proponents of Wahhabism, but he was more concerned with solidifying the peninsula while the more 'religously' minded followers were concerned with something entirely different. So while it may be said that a 'Wahhabi' took political action that eventually helped contribute to the downfall of the Khilafah, it cannot be said that 'Wahhabism' caused the Ottoman empire to fall. Wallahu 'alam

gag order

1st March 2007, 12:20 AM

suhail

1st March 2007, 12:32 AM

Break The Cross

1st March 2007, 12:58 AM

Brothers u really need to learn ur history if you think Shaikh Ibn Abdul Wahab came in 1900's. Really getting a book of history and reading the seerah of Shaikh Ibn Abdul Wahab would help.

And why are the non-muslims writings accurate while muslims are not trusted with history. Some muslims really need a mental checkup.

Jazakallaj Khair
Suhail

No one mentioned anything about Shaikh ibn Abdul Wahab. He died I think 200 years before the fall of the Ottamans anyways. What the bros said was that some people who claimed to be Wahabis were fighting, but this was not the actual Dawah movement.

Its hard to find legit history books, you dont even know who to take from and who not to since there are so many lies going around and everyone hates each other lol

I guess we'll just have to rewrite history on our own inshAllah by rectifying ourselves :)

Break The Cross

1st March 2007, 01:05 AM

Asslamo Allaikum,

Anyone who visits Turkey and takes the time to tour the Islamic sites and museums will be left in no doubt that Ottoman Empire was NOT exactly a bastion of Qur'aan & Sunnah.

However, that doesn't and never will absolve the people who directly colluded with Non-Muslims to bring about its downfall.

The role of Saudi robbers [Actually should I say rulers, Sorry] (backed by scholars) is clear as daylight in demolishing the Khilaafah.

During the critique of any reasearch you have to ascertain its bias & its funding and I have read many studies/articles and talks given by "Scholars" trying to defend the actions of people of Najd (it wasn't part of the Khilafah & so on); and frankly if you trust these I pity you.

waAlaiykum Salam
I guess from whatever has been posted, your right about the Saud being part of the downfall of the Ottamans. But What Im more interested in is the beginning of the Ottaman Empire.

- Did Muhamad al Fath change the hudud?

- Did shirk prevail more under the Ottamans than any other before them?
* This one I think is true.

- What about the Janisaries, were they upon shirk also?

- How much of collaboration did the Ottamans do and what let the actual downfall?

Etc.. Similar to these, even though this is all history and doesn't matter now, but its still good to know the correct over view.

Brother_Mujahid

1st March 2007, 01:55 AM

I had a discussion with a Soofi-oriented individual about this topic about a week ago. He was adament that Ahl al-Saud and the "Wahhabi" scholars were united with T. E. Lawrence against the Uthmani state, and that he was their "guide" and other such sectarian nonsense. At the time of World War I Ahl al-Saud didn't fight the Uthmani state, but did fight the pro-Uthmani al-Khalidi tribe and later the Hashimite tribe, which was an ally of Lawrence and the British. So the claim that the "Wahhabi" movement overthrew the Uthmani state is bogus and farcical historical revisionism in its most cynical form.

miskeen

1st March 2007, 03:48 AM

salaam

^^ Right.

If any one individual or family played a key role in the destablization of the then Ottoman peninsula, it is the Saud family headed by abd al aziz. I do not think you can blame the fall of the Empire ibn Saud, there were several other determinative factors. I believe the proliferation of nationalism amongst the laity corresponds with Muslim intellectual stagnation. It is true that Western propaganda initiated secular mass movements, like nationalism, socialism, etc. But it was Muslims who ate this theories up and ran with them. The same is happening today under the guise of vague, undefined ideals such as 'modernization', democratization and such. This generation of Muslims are eatign those up as well.

aboosafar

1st March 2007, 06:18 AM

"Brothers u really need to learn ur history if you think Shaikh Ibn Abdul Wahab came in 1900's. Really getting a book of history and reading the seerah of Shaikh Ibn Abdul Wahab would help.

And why are the non-muslims writings accurate while muslims are not trusted with history. Some muslims really need a mental checkup.

Jazakallaj Khair
Suhail"

And some muslims really need to learn not to have soo adh dhann for their brothers and accuse others of being in need of what they themselves need.

I only quoted wikipedia because it was the only source I could find on the topic and the only one I could think of that was likely to be the most acceptable to both salafis and non salafis because they usually present both sides of the story and just because it's wikipedia doesn't mean it's a non muslim author.

I apologise if I offended you by that, and if I was mistaken I have no problem being corrected with knowledge and good manners. (edited by yousef, I read into your post and misunderstood it's tone, if you arleady read the original post, pardon me for my manners)

But I suggest you try and learn some manners and make excuses for your brother instead of assuming the worst next time and where in the world did I write anything saying the Shaykh ul Islam Muhammad ibn 'Abdil Wahhab was alive in the 1900's?

I was only trying to touch on the accusation that his da'wah was the cause for the fall of the khilafah, and the khilafah didn't fall until the 1900's regardless, and that's what I think the thread was about.

Ma'as salamah.

Student_of_Knowledge

1st March 2007, 11:10 AM

aboosafar

1st March 2007, 11:48 AM

Asslamo Allaikum,

Some of the brothers seem to be unaware of the principles of cause & effect & seem to neglect that there may be a "delay" between cause & effect!

1) I didn't accuse Shaykh Ibn Wahab (RA) of any direct conspiracy or involvement in the downfall of the Khilafaa? How dare anyone accuse me of something that I have not said?

2) Do you Brothers think that events in history happen continously without delay; Khilafaa went down because it was weakened, there were many reasons for its weakning with Saudi rulers & scholars being one of them....Not the sole reason but a reason

When someone has shut their mind to reality no amount of reason or daleel can penetrate it!

Some Brothers/Sisters are ABSOLUTELY convinced of the purity of Saudia, its regime, its rulers, its scholars and there is NOTHING in the world that can change that view. They will go to any lengths to defend it & reject any daleel put forth against it.

Some Brothers/Sisters are ABSOLUTELY convinced of the exact opposite there is NOTHING in the world that can change that view. They will go to any lengths to defend it & reject any daleel put forth against it.

There is NO DOUBT that the Al-Saud were a bunch of robbers who usurped the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia by the explicit & implicit help of the Kuffar!

I am sure that there are Brothers/Sisters who can/will deny the blatant truth stated above! This is a FACT; not even denied by Al-Saud themselves.

Akhi, I won't deny any truth that's presented to me if you could show me some references for what you just said, but on the same token, what you said indicates that they apparently indirectly weakened it.

I think a big distinguishing factor is whether they did it purposely or not which apparently they didn't as well as whether the did it directly or not.

A lot of things that aren't bad in and of themselves can indirectly lead up to bad things.

I dont' know a lot about this topic, I'm just going by what you just said, but could you please show the evidence that they were robbers and plunderers and show the evidence for your claims, from historical sources? Also, please show where they collaborated with the british.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I haven't been very informed on this issue and from what I've seen thus far, aali sa'ood seems a lot less blameworthy then I was formerly thinking they were, wallahu a'alam.

A lot of this seems to come down to passing judgement on peoples intentions which none of us are able to do.

Abd al-Haqq Marshall

1st March 2007, 10:43 PM

The most worthy of blame in bringing down the Uthmaanis are the Young Turks, who dragged Turkey into WWI, then abolished the Khilafah and established the secular Republic of Turkey. The most responsible for the Arab revolt are the Hashemites and the British. The ahli Sa'ud were actually rather minor players in the Arab revolt, and they certainly didn't "bring down the Khilafah".

gag order

2nd March 2007, 12:00 AM

the uthmanis involved themselves uneccassarily in eropean affairs insomuch they fell into debt and wasted their resources by becoming the canon fodder of european rivalries.

in the end, it was the modernists/nationalists of sufi extraction that dismantled the already morally and academically bankrupt state from within and not from external attacks from wahhabis.

why do you think the uthmani khilafah was bieng referred to as the sick man of europe? becos of an arab revolt? no, it was for two reasons; debt to european banks and involvement in secular wars.

also we should not confuse the later sauds at the turn of the century, when they became a nation, with those of earlier generations who carried the dawah as it was meant to be carried.

miskeen

2nd March 2007, 02:04 AM

I do not comprehend the infatuation with the Saudi state thats been shown by some brothers in this thread.

What does the integrity of the Saudi royal family mean to you all? Are they not subject to objective criticism?

What does it mean for your deen and/or akhira to support the Saudi state or at least protect them from legitimate criticism?

Why is an honest historical assessment of their involvement with the British subject to circular methods of interpretation until a satisfying conclusion is made?

What in the world has the Saudi royal family done for you, your deen or your family?

Abd al-Haqq Marshall

2nd March 2007, 02:45 AM

gag order

2nd March 2007, 07:51 PM

we should not confuse the current generation of saudi royals with that of the generation that existed at the time of muhammad ibn abdul wahhab.

Abu_Abdillah2000

3rd March 2007, 02:47 AM

The wars that took place between the Wahhabiyyah and Uthmani Dawlah happened in the 1800's, and had nothing to do with the topic people are discussing on this thread.

What happened was that the Sa'udi tribe and the mashayikh of Al ash-Shaykh had established a state based on tawhid in the east of the Arabian Peninsula, and the Uthmaniyyin sent an army of Turks and Egyptians against them.

At that time, don't forget that Britain was pretty much in control of Egypt and had a fairly major role in this affair. What people perhaps don't realise is that at that time, the British were in fact allied with the Ottomans. The British government official in fact congratulated the Ottomans on their victory over the Wahhabis in Najd. Also, at that time, the British ships in the gulf were always being attacked by the Wahhabi pirates operating out of what is now the area of the UAE. You also have some instances of the Wahhabi-Sa'udi ulama of that time calling the people to do jihad against the British, who were trying to extend control over parts of the Arabian Peninsula. (This is all recorded in ad-Durar as-Saniyyah fil-Ajwibah an-Najdiyyah.)

The British were concerned that the Wahhabi da'wah would revitalise and reawaken the Ummah. It was even spreading to India, an dthe British used the term "Wahhabi" as a label against anyone opposing them in India, and they successfully manipulated the masses of the Muslim population of India against the "Wahhabis", so successfully that even today, many of them consider the Wahhabis to be the worst of deviants and heretics.

Anyway, the Uthmaniyyin - who were by that time heavily under the influence of modernist munafiq types - were led to launch a military offensive against the Wahhabis in Najd. At this time, the 'Uthmaniyyin had already introduced the tandhimat reforms under which the shari'ah was abolished, and this was long before the "khilafah" of the Uthmaniyyin was officially ended.

To add to that, the general state of the army that was sent to Najd (the Turks and the Egyptians) was one of moral and religious bankrupcy. If you remember, at that time Egypt and many of the lands under Uthmani rule were "hard-core" grave-worshipping quburi sufi types.

So you have a state in terminal decline, ruled by weak sultans almost entirely under the sway of secularists, munafiqun, kuffar, and corrupt ulama, in which the shari'ah has been abolished, in which the general population is sunk in grave-worship, heresy, disobedience to Allah, imitation of the kuffar and so on, and this includes the soldiers in the army of that state, an army that was beocming being westernised (and all that goes with that) thanks to the tandhimat reforms, and so on...

And after all of this, some people still don't understand why the Wahhabiyyah considered the Turkish-Egyptian army (who were the aggressors and invaders in this case) as mushrikun?

Abu_Abdillah2000

3rd March 2007, 02:54 AM

As for the current situation of the Saudi state, then they are another prime example of Ibn Khaldun's socialogical thesis, that states begin from simple bedouin-type origins, with an intelligent and capable ruler, and then after a couple of generations, after the wealth and luxury starts increasing, corruption sets in until the state is weakened and falls into decay, to be replaced by another group.

I think that the modern Saudi state is moving towards the end of its time, and what we are seeing now (very widespread sin and corruption, open westernisation and liberalism coming in) is a clear indication of that. But I think they still have probably a few decades left before they finally fall apart completely and are replaced. And they will only be replaced if there is a strong enough group or power capable of effectively replacing them (i.e. not just a handful of shabab setting bombs off, killing a few security forces here and a couple of foreigners there).

Abu_Abdillah2000

3rd March 2007, 03:21 AM

Some of the comments in this thread remind me of a statement made by a certain sufi-quburi mubtadi' so-called "scholar" from the subcontinent calling himself "Abu Ammar" who wrote a book called "Traditional scholarship and modern misunderstandings" which is nothing but a defense of shirk, bid'ah, and his own fanatical ta'assub to the hanafi madhhab, and slander and misrepresentation of the ulama of the salafi da'wah.

At the end of this book, this "scholar" makes the ridiculous and laughable claim that Muhammad ibn 'Abdil-Wahhab was one of those who were influenced and brainwashed by the nationalist propaganda of the British spy "Lawrence of Arabia"!

I wonder how someone who died in the 1700's could possibly be influenced by someone who was not even born until a whole century after he had died.

abu hafs

3rd March 2007, 03:33 AM

Dear Abu Abdillah ,
When i read ur first post ,it reminded me of this quote from Zarabazo's book

Al-Jabarti, from al-Azhar, describes the Egyptian army that
fought against the “Wahhabis” in the first decades of the 1800s:
Some commanders, who were considered pious and devout, told me,
‘How can we win when most of our soldiers belong to different
confessions and some of them do not believe in anything and profess no
religion? We are carrying boxes containing alcoholic drink, the azan
(Muslim call to prayer) is never heard in our camp, the (Islamic)
prescriptions are not fulfilled or even remembered, our people have no
idea of religious rites. As for our enemies [the Wahhabis], as soon as a
muezzin’s call sounds, they perform their ablutions and line up behind
their single imam humbly and obediently. When the time for prayer
comes during a battle, they timidly perform the “fear prayer” (a shorter
prayer) – one detachment goes forward and wages the battle while the
others pray behind it. Our soldiers are astonished; they have never heard
of it, not to mention seeing it.5

Abu_Abdillah2000

3rd March 2007, 03:54 AM

Allahu akbar, they were performing salat al-khawf even in the midst of battle, in a time when the religion had become gharib and its people ghuraba'...

Subhanallah, the more you read about the early Saudi state (in the 1800s), the more you wish that you could have been there to witness directly how it really was.

gag order

3rd March 2007, 02:01 PM

I wonder how someone who died in the 1700's could possibly be influenced by someone who was not even born until a whole century after he had died.

that is laughable! but as you rightly surmized, the sequence of events when placed in chronological or historical order point to the collusion of the uthmanis with the british against the wahhabis and this is kufr on the part of the caliph.

unfortunately the house of saud is treading the same path as the uthmanis.

Break The Cross

4th March 2007, 03:21 AM

Break The Cross

4th March 2007, 03:22 AM

Barakullah feek for everyone explaining more. Alhamdolillah

Salahudin

12th March 2007, 09:07 PM

The Causes Of The Islamic State’s Weakness

The Islamic State is based on the Islamic ideology and derives its strength solely from that ideology. It is its main cause of progress and prosperity and the basis of its existence. The Islamic State came into existence and established itself in a powerful fashion due to the strength of Islam. It conquered wide areas of the world in the space of less than a century despite the fact that horses and camels were its only means of communication, and all its conquered peoples, countries and nations embraced Islam within a short period of time despite the fact that its means of spreading the Message were limited to the word of mouth and the pen. Islam made all this possible by being the driving force behind the State.

The enemies of Islam realised this and knew that the weakening of the Islamic State would be impossible as long as Islam remained strong and deeply rooted within the hearts and minds of the Muslims, and as long as the understanding of Islam remained sound and its implementation accurate and comprehensive. They therefore resorted to finding the means which would weaken the Muslims’ understanding of Islam and their implementation of its rules.

The methods which the enemies of Islam used to weaken its understanding were numerous. Some were related to the texts and others to the language used in conveying and teaching it, still other methods used were related to Islam’s conformity with reality. They set about adding false narrations to the ahadith of the Messenger of Allah (saw) which were never said, and they managed to fabricate and include in them non-Islamic meanings and concepts that contradicted Islam in the hope that these would be adopted by the Muslims thus deviating them and alienating them from Islam. Indeed, they managed to do just that, and they spread these false ahadith among the people. The Muslims came to be alarmed by this and they in turn divulged the evil schemes of those zanadiqah. The Muslims smashed their evil ring and aborted their conspiracy. Scholars and hadith experts then rose to the challenge and began gathering and listing the hadith by relating each hadith to the narrator, his qualification, and the date each hadith was narrated, underlining each hadith and classifying it into its correct category. The hadith was then classified as sahih (genuine) and da’if (weak) and they then came to be protected. The narrations of the hadith were restricted to the three generations after the Sahabah and no other narration reported after them was accepted. The narrators were all identified individually and the books of ahadith were also classified accordingly until the Muslims were able to relate the genuineness of any hadith or the weakness or falsehood of any other by relating to its evidence and its narrator. The Islamic State dealt harshly with those zanadiqah and most of them were actually executed for their part in falsifying the ahadith of the Messenger of Allah (saw). Overall then, the conspiracy did not have any damaging effect on Islam nor on the State. The enemies of Islam then resorted to attacking the Arabic language as this is the language by which Islam is conveyed and they attempted to separate it from Islam. They did not succeed at first because the Muslims went forward in their conquests armed with the Book, the Sunnah and the Arabic language and they would teach the people all three. The people embraced Islam and became fluent in Arabic and some of them actually became distinguished mujtahideen like Imam Abu Hanifah, others became exceptional poets like Bashshar ibn Burd and some became eloquent writers like Ibn al-Muqaffa’. The Muslims devoted a great deal of attention to the Arabic language. Imam Shafi’i disallowed the translation of Qur’an and disallowed praying other than in Arabic. Those who did endorse the translation of Qur’an, like Imam Abu Hanifah, in any case did not call the translated text Qur’an at all. Arabic remained the focus of attention because it is the fundamental part of Islam and a necessary precondition of ijtihad. The understanding of Islam from its sources does not come about but in Arabic and the extracting of the Divine rules cannot be accomplished except in Arabic. However, the attention, care and importance given over to the Arabic language diminished by the end of the sixth century Hijri when the rulers, who did not appreciate and realise the importance of the Arabic language, came to power. They therefore neglected that area and as a result ijtihad was stalled as the exertion necessary to deduce the Divine rules became impossible due to the lack of fluency in the Arabic language. At this stage the Arabic language became separated from Islam and the State’s understanding of the Divine rules became blurred and blurred and as a consequence the implementation of the rules also became blurred. This contributed a great deal towards the ailing of the State, it diminished its ability to understand and tackle new issues thus leading to its failure to solve the problems that arose or to solving them in an erroneous way. As a result, problems accumulated in the face of the State and this caused it to wane and to dwindle.

This was as far as the Islamic texts and the language were concerned. As for the applicability of Islam to the realities of life, the trend of merging Indian philosophy with Islam emerged. This was translated into asceticism and the seeking of the Hereafter and this led to many young people turning away from life’s pleasures and to their adopting a passive life. They renounced their role of being active members of society and consequently this resulted in a big loss to the Islamic State and Muslims in general. As a result of this the State lost many talented young men who could have devoted themselves to the Message of Islam instead of resorting to asceticism and self punishment. Later the cultural invasion by the West brought with it a culture alien to Islam, the West duped the Muslims by claiming that they took this culture from them and that the systems which it brought did not contradict with the Islamic rules. The West had brought legislation which contravened the Divine laws and still it managed to persuade Muslims that they did not. This affected the Muslims a great deal and led to the Western culture creeping in and influencing the Muslims. The Muslims began to see life as being based on benefit. During the ‘Uthmani rule some Western laws were adopted, a Western banking system was established, riba justified, and the penal codes stalled and replaced by Western penal codes. Despite the fact that fatawa were issued to justify the lawfulness of such acts they had a disastrous effect on the State and led her astray from the Islamic rule. This deviation from Islam extinguished the strong Iman Muslims once had, took the State away from the right path and subsequently led to its weakness and disintegration.

This was as far as understanding Islam was concerned, as for its implementation, many factors contributed to the maladministration of the Divine laws. One such factor was the political parties, each in turn wanted to impose their own opinion and they resorted to military means in order to seize the authority and rule, in order to implement that opinion. The Abbasids did just that by seizing Persia and Iraq and using them as a platform until they had managed to seize total power and restrict the ruling clan of Bani Hashim. Then came the Fatimids, they took over the wilayah of Egypt and established a state there so as to use it as a support point with the ultimate aim of transferring the rule of the Islamic State to the sons of Fatimah daughter of Allah’s Messenger (saw). Their action caused a setback to the Islamic State and stalled the Islamic conquests, whilst it resulted in the establishment of a second power vying for control over the Khilafah despite the fact that the Islamic State is a state of unity and it is forbidden for the Muslims to have more than one Khaleefah at the same time. The Messenger of Allah (saw) said in reference to this, "If a pledge of allegiance is taken for two Khaleefah’s, kill the latter of them." These factors contributed greatly to the weakening of the State, as well as leading to a suspension of the conquests and thereby resulting in neglect towards conveying the Message of Islam. However, what in fact led those political parties to resort to that type of methodology in order to seize power, was as a result of what took place during the rule of the Ummayads. The Ummayads introduced the method of handing over the Khilafah to the heir apparent, who was then given the bay’ah. This turned the bay’ah into a mere protocol and killed the hope of reaching the position of ruling by its means. Mu’awiyah for instance passed on the authority to his son and took the bay’ah for him later. Then every Khaleefah followed in the same trend, taking an oath for their heirs and then asking the people to give them the bay’ah. The people were restricted to giving the bay’ah to whoever the Khaleefah had nominated, rarely did they give the bay’ah to anyone else. This method pushed those political parties to resort to force in order to seize power. Despite the fact that Abu Bakr adopted the method of nomination, its maladministration by the Ummayads led to those problems arising. Abu Bakr had in fact consulted the Muslims over this issue and as a result ‘Umar and ‘Ali emerged as the two candidates. Nomination was then given to ‘Umar and he was elected as Khaleefah after the death of Abu Bakr and took of the bay’ah from the Ummah. This was actually in accordance with the Divine rules. The Khulafa’ of Bani Umayyah instead maladministered this rule and nominated their sons, brothers or relatives. In some cases they even nominated more than one person. Such maladministration led to the deprivation of the Muslims from giving the bay’ah to whoever they wished and this in turn led to the weakening of the State because of the alienation that it entailed. At first though this did not have much effect on the State because it was so powerful, but the signs soon emerged when the State weakened.

Maladministration was not simply confined to the State, the Wilayas came to be infected by the same malaise. The Abbasids’ silence over the action of ‘Abd al-Rahman al-Dakhil in Andalus ensured this. His action led to the amputation of a big part of the State when he ruled Andalus independently, as did the governors who succeeded him - some of them even acquired the title Amir al-Mo’mineen. Although Andalus did not declare total independence from the Islamic State, it was, nevertheless, ruled over separately and this resulted in weakness creeping into the State’s structure. Eventually this facilitated its seizure by the disbelievers while the Islamic State was at the height of its glory and at its most formidable strength. The State could do little to save Andalus’s downfall and this was due to the disintegration of Andalus’s administration. That was on the Western front; in the East the Walis were given general and wide mandatory powers which triggered their desire of leadership and authority. They therefore ran their Wilayas according to their own way and the Khaleefah agreed to this state of affairs. He was content with the praise which he received from their podiums and by the mention that decisions were taken on his behalf or by the issuing of currency bearing his name or with the continued receipt of Kharaj revenues from them. These Wilayas became, as a result like little independent statelets, this was the case with the Wilayas of Saljuqiyyeen and Hamdaniyyeen and many others. This too became a contributory factor in the weakening of the State.

Then came the ‘Uthmanis and they transferred power to themselves and united most of the Muslim land under their leadership. They took up the Islamic conquests throughout Europe and resumed the conveyance of the Message of Islam. However, this outburst in activity was only backed by the solid Iman of the first ‘Uthmani Khulafa’ and the military might of the army, it was not based on a clear understanding of the Islamic concepts and a comprehensive implementation of Islam. Therefore, these conquests did not achieve what the conquests of old had achieved, and the strength of the rulers did not embrace all areas of the Islamic State, consequently the State soon waned, then collapsed until finally it ceased to function. This was as a direct result of the factors mentioned and of the many other conspiracies woven against the State.

The contributory factors which led to the weakness of the State can thus be summarised as follows, weak understanding of Islam and maladministration of the Divine rules. Therefore, what would bring back the Islamic State would have to be the clear understanding of Islam; and what would preserve its strength would have to be the safeguarding of such a clear understanding, and the proper implementation of the Divine rules at home and the conveying of the Message of Islam to the world..."

Taken from the book The Islamic State by Hizb ut-Tahrir, 1953

Abu_Abdillah2000

13th March 2007, 08:08 AM

The Abbasids did just that by seizing Persia and Iraq and using them as a platform until they had managed to seize total power and restrict the ruling clan of Bani Hashim.

The Abbasids were from Banu Hashim. So how would they have managed to use their power to restrict themselves?????

There are so many other problematic statements and basic contradictions and inaccuracies in that article, but I really don't have time to answer all of them now. I find it amusing that people would follow and defend the ideas of the writer so blindly and fanatically as HT seem to do. La hawla wa la quwwata illa billah.

Abu_Abdillah2000

13th March 2007, 08:17 AM

The contributory factors which led to the weakness of the State can thus be summarised as follows, weak understanding of Islam and maladministration of the Divine rules. Therefore, what would bring back the Islamic State would have to be the clear understanding of Islam; and what would preserve its strength would have to be the safeguarding of such a clear understanding, and the proper implementation of the Divine rules at home and the conveying of the Message of Islam to the world..."

What about FEAR OF ALLAH and avoiding sins and avoiding following rukhsahs??? Doesn't this have any importance to HT?

And what "clear understanding of Islam" is there for a person who doesn't have a problem with accepting rafidhah, qadariyyah, mu'tazilah, jahmiyyah, sufiyyah, quburiyyah and every other new crazy bid'ah that people want to come up with, as long as they toe the HT party line???? HT obviously don't even give tawhid its due attention, how can they have a "clear understanding of Islam." I think they have a clear MISunderstanding of Islam.

Abu_Abdillah2000

13th March 2007, 08:29 AM

Although Andalus did not declare total independence from the Islamic State, it was, nevertheless, ruled over separately and this resulted in weakness creeping into the State’s structure. Eventually this facilitated its seizure by the disbelievers while the Islamic State was at the height of its glory and at its most formidable strength. The State could do little to save Andalus’s downfall and this was due to the disintegration of Andalus’s administration.

Al-Andalus was seized not when the "Islamic State" (I assume the writer is referring to the 'Abbasi dawlah) was "at the height of its glory and at its most formidable strength." Al-Andalus was lost to the crusaders over the 2-3 centuries after the 'Abbasi dawlah was wiped out by the mongol invasion. And the mongol invasion in turn was Allah's punishment upon the Muslims because they had turned away from their deen and become sunk in luxury, bid'ah and fighting each other!

And the writer is talking about "Andalus" and "the Islamic State" as if they were modern nation-states, which is ridiculous and inaccurate. For example, in his statement:

"Although Andalus did not declare total independence from the Islamic State, it was, nevertheless, ruled over separately..."

he fails to tell us what part of history he is referring to.

Is he talking about the period in which the Umawiyyun declared an independent "khilafah"? Because in doing so, they did declare total independence from the (so-called) "Islamic state" (again I assume he means the 'Abbasi dawlah).

Is he talking about the period of al-Murabitun? Because Yusuf ibn Tashfin, the chief of the Murabitun, declared his bay'ah to the 'Abbasi khalifah.

Is he talking about the rule of Ibn Tumart the fake Mahdi, and the dawlah of the so-called "Muwahhidun"? Because they pretty much declared war on anyone who didn't accept Ibn Tumart as the "Mahdi".

Abu_Abdillah2000

13th March 2007, 08:35 AM

One cannot help but notice that in this long and drawn-out HT article, the writer never once comments on the critical role that deviations in 'aqidah had on the Muslim Ummah. Notice how he does not talk about the jahmiyyah, the mu'tazilah, the rafidhah, and so on, despite the fact that it was these things which were the primary causes of the decline of the Ummah. I wonder why... it seems that in his silence about these matters there is a certain agenda...

Abu_Abdillah2000

13th March 2007, 08:47 AM

Abu Bakr had in fact consulted the Muslims over this issue and as a result ‘Umar and ‘Ali emerged as the two candidates. Nomination was then given to ‘Umar and he was elected as Khaleefah after the death of Abu Bakr and took of the bay’ah from the Ummah. This was actually in accordance with the Divine rules. The Khulafa’ of Bani Umayyah instead maladministered this rule and nominated their sons, brothers or relatives. In some cases they even nominated more than one person. Such maladministration led to the deprivation of the Muslims from giving the bay’ah to whoever they wished and this in turn led to the weakening of the State because of the alienation that it entailed. At first though this did not have much effect on the State because it was so powerful, but the signs soon emerged when the State weakened.

Consultation worked for the khulafa' ar-rashidun because of the high moral standards and righteousness and piety of the Muslims who lived during that time. The only reason things changed later on is because the Muslims changed. When the Muslims changed, they needed someone to pull them back into line.

Do you think that the Muslims today, with all of their problems and issues, could just come together nicely and have a lovely consultation and vote in a khalifah? Someone who thinks that way is simply deluded and dreaming. What the Muslims of today need is a strong and smart ruler who can drag them into line whether they like it or not. In today's climate of liberalism and secularism, and in tomorrow's climate of fitnah and confusion, only a tough and capable Muslim ruler who takes power by force will be able to achieve anything.

Take Saddam Husayn as an example. I don't necessarily mean as an example of a good or ideal Muslim leader, but just in practical terms. He ruled with an iron fist and many people who opposed him paid with their lives, but he did force the Iraqis to become one of the most powerful and advanced nations in the region. Now look at the democratic (sorry, "consultative" shura-based government) in Iraq, and you can see how (in-)effective they are at even keeping their own security.

HT really need to wake up and use their brains, and look at history and interpret it according to a view based on the Kitab and Sunnah, not on some modernist pseudo-intellectual theories adapted from the very "west" that they claim to oppose.

Salahudin

13th March 2007, 12:53 PM

What about FEAR OF ALLAH and avoiding sins and avoiding following rukhsahs??? Doesn't this have any importance to HT?

And what "clear understanding of Islam" is there for a person who doesn't have a problem with accepting rafidhah, qadariyyah, mu'tazilah, jahmiyyah, sufiyyah, quburiyyah and every other new crazy bid'ah that people want to come up with, as long as they toe the HT party line???? HT obviously don't even give tawhid its due attention, how can they have a "clear understanding of Islam." I think they have a clear MISunderstanding of Islam.

I am not sure why you are deducing such conclusions, deviod of any evidence but again mere mud slinging..Allah (swt) protect us from such cheapness!

Try to think prior to forming such conclusions....I urge you to read the book the Islamic State to get a more comprehensive idea about the State, its definition, causes of its weakness and how it shall rise again...you might appreciate what is being written..

Salahudin

13th March 2007, 01:01 PM

Al-Andalus was seized not when the "Islamic State" (I assume the writer is referring to the 'Abbasi dawlah) was "at the height of its glory and at its most formidable strength." Al-Andalus was lost to the crusaders over the 2-3 centuries after the 'Abbasi dawlah was wiped out by the mongol invasion. And the mongol invasion in turn was Allah's punishment upon the Muslims because they had turned away from their deen and become sunk in luxury, bid'ah and fighting each other!

And the writer is talking about "Andalus" and "the Islamic State" as if they were modern nation-states, which is ridiculous and inaccurate. For example, in his statement:

he fails to tell us what part of history he is referring to.

Is he talking about the period in which the Umawiyyun declared an independent "khilafah"? Because in doing so, they did declare total independence from the (so-called) "Islamic state" (again I assume he means the 'Abbasi dawlah).

Is he talking about the period of al-Murabitun? Because Yusuf ibn Tashfin, the chief of the Murabitun, declared his bay'ah to the 'Abbasi khalifah.

Is he talking about the rule of Ibn Tumart the fake Mahdi, and the dawlah of the so-called "Muwahhidun"? Because they pretty much declared war on anyone who didn't accept Ibn Tumart as the "Mahdi".

Your obviously not in tune with your history...Andalus was lost in 1492..the mongol invasion happened in 1258.....the Abbasids were ruling when the mongol invasion occured whilst the Uthmanis ruled when Andalus was lost to the kuffar!!!!
Andalus never declared total independance from the Khilafah but were separately even though theu recognised the Khalif in the Uthmani State and even printed his picture on their coins....
As for Allah(swt) inflicting a punishment on the Muslims during the Abbasid Caliphate then please tell us how you arrived at such a conclusion??? Did Allah (swt) tell you this? How have you deduced such a conclusion from the Ghayb?

Abu_Abdillah2000

14th March 2007, 04:56 AM

Your obviously not in tune with your history...Andalus was lost in 1492..the mongol invasion happened in 1258.....the Abbasids were ruling when the mongol invasion occured whilst the Uthmanis ruled when Andalus was lost to the kuffar!!!!

I know that al-Andalus was lost in 1492. i.e. 2-3 centuries after the Mongol invasion, as I said:

Al-Andalus was lost to the crusaders over the 2-3 centuries after the 'Abbasi dawlah was wiped out by the mongol invasion.

So I don't know what your point is, because you seem to agree with what I said anyway.

Also, remember that al-Andalus was not lost overnight. It began several centuries before 1492, during which al-Andalus was taken over bit by bit. By 1492, all that was left was a tiny area around Granada, which was the last city to fall ot the crusaders.

(Note: The 'abbasiyyun "khulafa'" who went to Egypt after the Mongol invasion were basically powerless figureheads.)

Anyway, back to your post:

Andalus never declared total independance from the Khilafah but were separately even though theu recognised the Khalif in the Uthmani State and even printed his picture on their coins....

Al-Andalus was around long before the 'Uthmani dawlah became a major power, so I assume that here you are only talking about the final 100 years or so. I, on the other hand, was referring to the times before the 'Uthmani dawlah, in which there were periods in which the rulers in al-Andalus not only declared their independence from the 'Abbasiyyun, but sometimes declared war on them too, like the Andalusian Umawiyyun and the Muwahhidun.

As for Allah(swt) inflicting a punishment on the Muslims during the Abbasid Caliphate then please tell us how you arrived at such a conclusion??? Did Allah (swt) tell you this? How have you deduced such a conclusion from the Ghayb?

No, habibi, I didn't deduce such a thing from the ghayb, nor did I need to. This is what is called Allah's Sunan al-kawniyyah, and He has described these matters for us in His Book and on the tongue of His Prophet, sallallahu 'alayhi wa-sallam. There are plenty of ayat and ahadith warning the Muslims of the worldly consequences of turning away from Allah's deen and His obedience, and one of those consequences is Allah allowing His enemies to conquer the believers as a punishment and a test for them.

Do you really think that the invasions happened for no reason, and that the Muslims of that time were angels or something? Do you think that Allah perhaps did injustice to the Muslims (astaghfirullah) by allowing the Mongol invasion to occur?

I think that the HTer's are so obsessed with politics that they forget these other important aspects of the Islamic understanding of the way that the world works.

Abu_Abdillah2000

14th March 2007, 05:11 AM

I am not sure why you are deducing such conclusions, deviod of any evidence but again mere mud slinging..Allah (swt) protect us from such cheapness!

OK then, let me ask you a simple question: What is your exact position towards the following deviated sects:

Mu'tazilah, Rafidhah, Qadariyyah, Isma'iliyyah, Quburiyyah, Jahmiyyah, Sufiyyah.

Because HT has proven many times in the past that it has no problems at all with accepting deviant zanadiqah like them into their hizb. Thus indicating that they do not consider unity upon the correct 'aqidah of Ahlus-Sunnah of any importance.

Try to think prior to forming such conclusions....I urge you to read the book the Islamic State to get a more comprehensive idea about the State, its definition, causes of its weakness and how it shall rise again...you might appreciate what is being written..

Typical response of all ahlul-bid'ah when their arguments are demolished. "You don't understand, you are just making claims without evidence, you are just mud-slinging, you need to read such-and-such a book by so-and-so etc. etc. etc."

If you think my conclusions were devoid of any evidence, then I advise you to put all of the HT books to one side for a moment, forget you are HT for a while and just consider yourself another Muslim from Ahlus-Sunnah (I am assuming you ascribe yourself theoretically to Ahlus-Sunnah, if not then just tell me so I know what your real position is), and look at how all of these events were evaluated by the 'ulama of Ahlus-Sunnah over the centuries - like Ibn Kathir, adh-Dhahabi, Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn al-Qayyim, Ibn Hajr al-'Asqalani, as-Suyuti, and so on. Refer for example to al-Bidayah wan-Nihayah of Ibn Kathir, the Tarikh of Ibn Athir, the various tafsirs of the Qur'an and shuruh of books of hadith regarding ayat and ahadith relevant to the issues we are discussing, and so on. If you go over what they and others have said about these events, you just might find that my conclusions were all based on very solid evidence.

But I doubt that you will. HT are very selective in their view of nearly everything, and they will of course never step over the "party line" or differ with the opinions of their so-called "mujtahids".

Salahudin

14th March 2007, 03:52 PM

OK then, let me ask you a simple question: What is your exact position towards the following deviated sects:

Mu'tazilah, Rafidhah, Qadariyyah, Isma'iliyyah, Quburiyyah, Jahmiyyah, Sufiyyah.

Because HT has proven many times in the past that it has no problems at all with accepting deviant zanadiqah like them into their hizb. Thus indicating that they do not consider unity upon the correct 'aqidah of Ahlus-Sunnah of any importance.

Typical response of all ahlul-bid'ah when their arguments are demolished. "You don't understand, you are just making claims without evidence, you are just mud-slinging, you need to read such-and-such a book by so-and-so etc. etc. etc."

If you think my conclusions were devoid of any evidence, then I advise you to put all of the HT books to one side for a moment, forget you are HT for a while and just consider yourself another Muslim from Ahlus-Sunnah (I am assuming you ascribe yourself theoretically to Ahlus-Sunnah, if not then just tell me so I know what your real position is), and look at how all of these events were evaluated by the 'ulama of Ahlus-Sunnah over the centuries - like Ibn Kathir, adh-Dhahabi, Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn al-Qayyim, Ibn Hajr al-'Asqalani, as-Suyuti, and so on. Refer for example to al-Bidayah wan-Nihayah of Ibn Kathir, the Tarikh of Ibn Athir, the various tafsirs of the Qur'an and shuruh of books of hadith regarding ayat and ahadith relevant to the issues we are discussing, and so on. If you go over what they and others have said about these events, you just might find that my conclusions were all based on very solid evidence.

But I doubt that you will. HT are very selective in their view of nearly everything, and they will of course never step over the "party line" or differ with the opinions of their so-called "mujtahids".

Again your just spouting nonsense and falsehoods...and hiding behind the term 'Ahlus Sunnah'....anyone can claim to be from ahlus sunnah...
you've not realsied that HT is political party and not a school of thought or mujtahid...or muqallid...etc...it is a political party and takes form Islam what it needs to complete revival...it does not have an opinion on every detail related to Islam because it does not need it for its work...

I might ask you to put your 'wahabi' rhetoric to the side for a moment and not hide behind selective quotes from scholars, or blindly follow your mentors...in fact most of the arguements put forward by the 'wahabis' are generally twisted to suit their own purposes...but this is a consequence of not understanding Islam clearly...

You know over the last 1400 years of Islam there were thousands of scholars but why do you select a handful that seem to agree with your positions and give them the title 'ahlus sunnah'??

Salahudin

14th March 2007, 04:24 PM

The conspiracies of the European countries against the Islamic State

Despite the differences amongst the Kuffar over the division of the Muslims’ lands, they were in full agreement of the idea to destroy Islam. They pursued several methods for this purpose. Initially, they aroused the feelings of nationalism and independence in the European countries. They incited people against the Islamic State and they supplied them with weapons and money in order to revolt against it, as was the case in Serbia and Greece. In this way, the European countries tried to stab the Islamic State in the back. France invaded Egypt and occupied it in July 1798, then marched onto Palestine and occupied it. France wanted to occupy the rest of Al-Sham in order to deal the Islamic State the fatal blow, but was however defeated, later being forced to leave Egypt and surrender the lands she had occupied back to the Islamic State.

The birth of the Wahhabis and the Saudi rule

Britain had attempted through her agent Abdul-Aziz ibn Muhammad ibn Saud to strike the Islamic State from within. The Wahhabis by then had managed to establish an entity within the Islamic State, led by Muhammad ibn Saud and later by his son Abdul-Aziz. Britain supplied them with weapons and money and they moved on a sectarian basis to seize the Islamic lands which were under the authority of the Khilafah. They took up arms against the Khaleefah and fought the Islamic armed forces (the army of the Amir ul-Mu’mineen), all the time goaded and supplied by the British. The Wahhabis wanted to seize the lands ruled by the Khaleefah in order to rule these lands according to their Math’hab (school of thought), and suppress all the other Islamic Matha’ib that differed from theirs by force. Hence, they raided Kuwait and occupied it in 1788, then marched northwards until they besieged Baghdad. They wanted to seize Karbalaa’ and the tomb of Al-Hussein (may Allah be pleased with him) to destroy it and ban the visiting of it. Then in 1803, they launched an attack on Makkah and occupied it. In the spring of 1804, Madinah fell under their control. They destroyed the huge domes which used to shade the grave of the Messenger of Allah (saw) and stripped them of all the gems and precious ornaments. Having completed their seizure of the whole of Al-Hijaz, they marched on towards Al-Sham. Nearing Hims in 1810 they attacked Damascus for a second time and they also attacked Al-Najaf. Damascus defended itself bravely and gloriously. However while besieging Damascus, the Wahhabis moved at the same time to the north and spread their authority over most of the Syrian lands as far as Aleppo. It was a well known fact that this Wahhabi campaign was instigated by the British, for Al Saud were British agents. They exploited the Wahhabi Math’hab, which was Islamic and whose founder was a Mujtahid, in political activities with the aim of fighting the Islamic State and clashing with the other Math’habs, in order to incite sectarian wars with the Ottoman state. The followers of this Math’hab were unaware of this, but the Saudi Amir and the Saudis were fully aware. This is because the relationship was not between the British and Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab, but between the British and Abdul-Aziz ibn Muhammad ibn Saud and then with his son Saud.
Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab, whose Math’hab had been Hanbali, made Ijtihad in a host of matters and deemed that the Muslims who followed other Matha’ib differed with his opinion in such matters. Hence, he set about calling for his opinions, working towards implementing them and attacking the other Islamic opinions fiercely. He faced a barrage of opposition and rejection from the various scholars, Amirs and prominent figures, who considered that his opinions differed from what they had understood from the Book of Allah and His Messenger. For instance, he used to say that visiting the grave of the Messenger Muhammad (saw) is Haram and a sinful act. He even went as far as to say that whoever set off in a journey to visit the grave of the Messenger of Allah (saw), would not be allowed to shorten his prayer while travelling, since the purpose of the journey would be to commit a sinful act. He made reference to the Hadith in which the Messenger of Allah (saw) is reported to have said: "Journeys should only be made to three mosques: This Mosque of mine, the Sacred Mosque and Al-Aqsa Mosque." Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab understood from this Hadith that the Messenger of Allah (saw) had forbidden travelling to other than the three mosques. Hence, if one were to travel to visit the grave of the Messenger of Allah (saw), he would be travelling to other than the three mosques, hence, it would be Haram, and a sinful act. Other Matha’ib deemed the visiting of the grave of the Messenger of Allah (saw) as being Sunnah and a Mandub action that yields a reward, because the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: "I had in the past forbidden you from visiting the graves, but you may now visit them." By greater reason the grave of the Messenger of Allah (saw) should be included in this Hadith, in addition to other Ahadith which they quote. They said that the Hadith which Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab used as an evidence, was specific to mosques. Therefore, its subject is related to travelling to mosques and does not exceed it. The Hadith is not general, but rather specific and related to a certain subject: "Journeys should only be made to three mosques." Hence, it would be forbidden for a Muslim to specifically visit the Aya Sofia mosque in Istanbul, or the Ommayyad mosque in Damascus, because the Messenger of Allah (saw) has confined the travel of mosques to three mosques and no more. It would be forbidden to travel to other than these three mosques. Apart from this, it is permitted to travel on business, to visit family and friends, on sightseeing and tourism amongst other reasons. Hence, the Hadith does not categorically forbid travelling and restrict it to these three mosques, it rather forbids travelling with the intent to visit mosques other than the three mosques it mentioned. Likewise, the followers of other Matha’ib deemed his opinions as being wrong and contradictory to what they had understood from the Book and the Sunnah. Soon, the difference between him and them intensified and he was banished from the country.
In 1740, he sought refuge with Muhammad ibn Saud, the Sheikh of the tribe of Anzah, who was at odds with the Sheikh of Uyaynah and who lived in Al-Dir’iyyah, which was only six hours away from Uyaynah. Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab was made welcome and was met with hospitality. He started spreading his opinions and thoughts amongst people in Al-Dir’iyyah and the surrounding areas. After a period of time his thoughts and opinions gained some helpers and supporters. Amir Muhammad ibn Saud inclined towards these thoughts and opinions and started approaching the Sheikh.
In 1747, Amir Muhammad declared his approval and acceptance of the opinions and thoughts of Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab. He also pledged his support to the Sheikh and to these thoughts and opinions. With this alliance the Wahhabi movement was established and it came into being in the shape of a Da’awah and in the shape of a rule, for Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab used to call for it and teach people its rules, whilst Muhammad ibn Saud used to implement its rules upon the people who were under his command and authority.
The Wahhabi movement started to spread to the areas and tribes neighbouring Al-Dir’iyyah in both aspects, the Da’awah and the rule. The Imara of Muhammad Ibn Saud started to spread as well until he succeeded in ten years to make an area of 30 square miles submit to his authority and to the new Math’hab. However, it was an expansion achieved through a Da’awah and the authority of the Sheikh of Anzah. No person challenged him and no person opposed him, even the Amir of Al-Ihsaa’ who had expelled Muhammad Ibn Abdul-Wahhab from Uyaynah did not oppose his foe in this expansion and he did not amass his troops to fight him until 1757. However, he was defeated, and Muhammad ibn Saud seized his Imara. Consequently, the authority of Anzah, represented by the authority of Muhammad ibn Saud and the authority of the new Math’hab became the ruling authority of Al-Dir’iyyah and its surroundings, as well as Al-Ihsaa’. In this way the Wahhabi Math’hab was implemented over these lands by the force of the authority.
However, in the wake of its clash with the Amir of Al-Ihsaa and the conquest of his land, the Wahhabi movement stopped there. Little became known of whether it expanded further or carried out any activities. It rather remained confined to that area. Muhammad ibn Saud stopped at that point and the Wahhabi Math’hab stopped at the borders of this area and the movement fell into a slumber and stagnated.
In 1765 Muhammad ibn Saud died. He was succeeded to the Sheikhdom of Anzah by his son Abdul-Aziz. His son followed in his fathers footsteps and ruled the area under his control. However, he did not carry out any activities for the movement, nor any expansion into the surrounding areas. Hence, the movement remained asleep and was characterised by stagnation. Hardly anything was heard of this movement and none of its neighbours used to mention it or fear its invasion.
However, 41 years after the start of the Wahhabi movement, from 1747 till 1788, and 31 years after its stoppage and the stagnation of its movement, (from 1757 till 1787), its activity suddenly started again. The movement adopted a new method in spreading the Math’hab and it became widely and highly publicised beyond its borders and all throughout the Islamic State as well as to the other superpowers. This movement started to cause its neighbours disquiet and concern and even started to cause disquiet and concern to the whole of the Islamic State.
In 1787 Abdul-Aziz moved to establish a house of Imara and adopt a hereditary system of rule, or what is known as succession to the throne. This entailed that Abdul-Aziz would confirm his son Saud as his successor. A huge crowd led by Sheikh Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab gathered. This huge crowd of people were addressed by Abdul-Aziz who declared that the right to Imara was confined to his family and the right to succeed him was confined to his sons. He also declared that his son Saud was confirmed as his successor. Hence this huge crowd of people, headed by Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab agreed with him and acknowledged his declarations. A house of Imara for a state rather than a tribe or a host of tribes was therefore established. It seemed also that the succession to the head of the Wahhabi Math’hab was also confined to the family of Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab. Once the issues of succession to both the Amir and the head of the Math’hab were settled, the movement suddenly came to life again and resumed its conquests and expansions. It resorted once more to waging war in order to spread the Math’hab. In 1788, Abdul-Aziz embarked upon equipping and preparing a huge military raid. He attacked Kuwait, conquering it and seizing it. The British had been trying for their part to seize Kuwait from the Ottoman state but they had failed. This was because other states, such as Germany, Russia and France had opposed them, and because the Khilafah State itself resisted them. Hence, the severance of Kuwait from the Ottoman state and the advance towards the north for its protection was sufficient to catch the imagination of the major states such as Russia, Germany and France, as well as the Ottoman State. Furthermore, the characteristics of this war which was a sectarian one, used to arouse the spiritual emotions.
In this way, the Wahhabis resumed their activities suddenly, and after a lull that had lasted for several decades. They resumed this activity with a new method, which was to spread the Math’hab through war and conquest in order to remove the features of all the other Matha’ib from existence, and replace them by their Math’hab. They began their activities by attacking Kuwait and seizing it. Then they followed this activity with several attempts at expansion. Accordingly they became a cause of concern and a nuisance to their neighbours within the Arabic peninsula - Iraq, Al-Sham, and the Ottoman state in its capacity as the Khilafah State. They brandished the sword to fight the Muslims and to force them to abandon what they carried in terms of opinions alien to the Wahhabi Math’hab, and to adopt the opinions of the Wahhabi Math’hab. They fought the Khaleefah and conquered the Islamic lands. Then in 1792, Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab died and his son succeeded him in his post just as Saud succeeded his father Abdul-Aziz. The Saudi Amirs then proceeded in this course, adopting the Wahhabi Math’hab as a political tool to strike the Ottoman state (the Khilafah State), and to incite sectarian wars between Muslims.

The British conspiracy against the Islamic State

The brokerage and loyalty of Al Saud to the British was a well known matter to the Khilafah state and to the major powers such as Germany, France and Russia. It was also known that they were steered by the British. The British themselves never used to conceal the fact that they supported the Saudis as a state. Furthermore, the huge arsenals and equipment which reached them via India and the finance to cover the war effort and to equip the armed forces were but British weapons and money. Therefore, the other European countries, especially France, were opposed to the Wahhabi campaign for it was considered a British campaign. The Khilafah State had tried to strike the Wahhabis but to no avail, and her Walis in Madinah and Baghdad were unable to curb them. As a result she instructed her Wali in Egypt Muhammad Ali, to dispatch a task force to deal with them. He hesitated at first. Indeed he was a French agent, and it was France who had helped him stage the coup in Egypt and seize power, then forced the Khilafah to recognise him. So on the basis of France’s agreement and incitement, Muhammad Ali responded to the Sultan’s demands in 1811 and dispatched his son Tosson to fight the Wahhabis. Several battles took place between the Egyptian army and the Wahhabis, and the Egyptian army managed to conquer Madinah in 1812. Then in 1816, Muhammad Ali sent his son Ibrahim from Cairo, who crushed the Wahhabis until they retreated to their capital, Al-Dir’iyyah and fortified themselves there. Thereafter, Ibrahim besieged them in April 1818. The siege continued all throughout the summer until 9th September 1818 when the Wahhabis capitulated. The armies of Ibrahim destroyed Al-Dir’iyyah and razed it completely. It was said that he ploughed it so that no trace of it was left. This marked the end of the British campaign.