FROM SALAFISM TO TERRORISM  

INTRODUCTION  

The killings on behalf of Islam we are witnessing in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Algeria, Libya, Mali, Nigeria, Afghanistan and so on are unheard of and astonishing: how can people apparently so committed to religion kill blithely other Muslims and claim to lead a holy war blessed by Allah that leads to paradise? I propose an investigation into the sources to decrypt their reasoning, and discover that they are not the first to boast of bloodshed of the Muslims.  

I SECTS AND SUNNIS  

The Prophet (s) said: 'Jews have divided into 71 groups, Christians in 72 groups and my community will divide into 73 groups, all go to Hell except one'. They said: ‘Which one, O Messenger of Allah?’ He said: ‘He who follows my way and that of my companions’. In a version: 'the group'. Narrated by Dawood, Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah and Alhakim, who said: authentic according to the criteria of Muslim (which means that Muslim has not reported it but the hadith meets the criteria of authenticity of Muslim).

Since the time of the sahaba (r) sects began to appear and detach from the Ummah with the khawarij (dissidents) who emerged from the ranks of Ali (r) and said that Ali and Muawiya (r) were unbelievers and then have shaped the religion according to their understanding particularly giving themselves the right to kill all those who are not part of them. One can go previously in time considering the false prophets and their followers since the time of the Prophet (s). Then came Shia who declared that Ali should have been Caliph after the Prophet (s) and cursed Abu Bakr and Umar and the companions who followed them. They also cursed the killers of Husayn (r), the responsible of this massacre, those who recognized their power and those who followed them until Day of Judgement, in other words all the Sunnis. Various groups broke from Shia, some saying that Jibril (s) erred in going to Mohamed (s) instead of Ali (the Alawis) or that Ali is God (Druze). Then came the Mutazila who believe that the Quran is a creature, and that therefore one can contradict him with his logic, that those who commit major sins are no longer Muslims, that you can rebel and take up weapons to change the evil etc. Then came the Sufis and some of them say that Allah is everywhere and so He is in us, and we are a part of Allah and we don't need to pray. Then came more and more sects and divided into more ramifications.

Here is a quotation of Quran commentary of Ibn Katheer on the verse: ‘It is he who descended upon you the book; It contains clear verses and other ambiguous. Those who have the deviance in their hearts focus on those who are ambiguous searching discord and searching for interpretation’ (3/10): ‘The first innovation (bidaa) which took place since the advent of Islam is the discord of dissidents (khawarij). Their affair began because of this world when the Prophet (s) shared the spoils of Hunayn and they considered - with their bad reasoning - that he was not just in sharing and shocked him with their words. One of them named «little behind» - may Allah bore his behind - said: 'Be fair because you have not been fair!’ The Messenger of Allah (s) replied: ‘You have lost everything! You say that I am not just? He would trust me for the fate of the inhabitants of the Earth and you don’t trust me? «When the man left, Omar Ibn Khattab asked permission to kill him and he said: 'Leave him because out of his fellow people a group will come who will impress you by their prayer and their recitation; they will come out of religion as an arrow which emerges out from the prey. Wherever you find them kill them because killing them will be a good deed for whoever kills them. « Then they appeared at the time of Ali Ibn Abu Talib (r) and he fought them at Nahrawan. Then they divided into populations, tribes, positions, aberrations, beliefs and also many various sects. Then appeared the qadariyya, then the motazila, then the jahmiya and other innovations announced by the truthful (s): ‘And this community will be divided into 73 groups, all in Hell except one’. They said: ‘Which one, O Messenger of Allah?’ He said: 'Whoever follows my way and the way of my companions', narrated by Alhakim’. Here ends the quotation of Ibn Katheer.  

So the sects mentioned in this hadith are all groups that have altered the Islamic belief by introducing new beliefs that do not exist in the texts of Islam and that are therefore in contradiction with the Quran and the Sunnah, even if they try to relate to verses by giving them a new interpretation that comes out of the agreement of scholars to establish their doctrine. Once the belief is distorted, major deformations of the practice of religion will follow and sometimes divisions, rebellions and wars.  

In response to the appearance, the multiplication and diversification of sects, the scholars of the Ummah have denounced their deviant behaviour and called them: ahl ul-ahwa'i wal-bida': the adepts of passions (they left Quran and Sunna for their own ideas) and innovation (they invented a new belief and changed the way of practicing the religion). Those who remained in the belief inherited from the Prophet (s) and his companions (r) were 'ahl ul-jama' means: 'people of the group’, because sects were minorities by the grace of Allah and all those who rebelled against the established power and created autonomous group deviated systematically from original Islam, so those who remain with the central Government and retain the beliefs and practices inherited from the Prophet (s) and transmitted from generation to generation are 'the group' which do not deviate. Then the name became: ‘ahl assunna wal-jama'a - the adepts of the Sunna and the group’ because others left the Sunna with their innovative doctrines. Then the name became 'Ahl assunna - the people of the Sunnah' and called: ‘Sunni’, as opposed to Shia, Kharidji, Mutazila etc.

Sunnis are directed by scholars following of course Quran and Sunna. But where is the difference with sects that cling to verses by giving them ambiguous interpretations, exactly as the verse says? The difference lies in the consensus: never the scholars of Islam, since sahaba (r) and each generation until the appearance of this group have considered this interpretation. Furthermore it contradicts many clear verses of Quran and hadiths.

Any belief or worship or law which was the subject of a consensus among the Sunni scholars becomes an immutable rule of Islam; on the other hand, whenever there is divergence between our scholars, there is no way of imposing a single position as being the position of Islam. You can be convinced of a position and it can be the opinion of the majority, but you can’t discourage people to follow any other opinion or claim that it is better to rally your position. In other words, it is not part of commanding good and prohibition of evil to defend an opinion of scholars against another: that debate can only remain between scholars and we have the duty to respect all the scholars and their positions.

Four great scholars dominated the Umma by the propagation of their teaching and founded four schools: Malik, Abu Hanifa, Shafii and Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, may Allah grants them Mercy. In conclusion: the Sunnis are the Muslims who follow the Islam taught by Prophet (s), transmitted by sahaba, formulated by the great scholars, including the 4 imams and which do not deviate from consensus; this is the saved Group mentioned in the hadith.  

II THE SALAFEES AND THE SINGLE TRUTH  

The Sunnis fought the sects and clarified the rules of Islam. The great imam Ahmad Ibn Taymiyya may Allah grant him Mercy, 1263-1328, was among those who stood to fight the sects by the strength of his religious and logical arguments as well.

On a second level, he extended the fight to any intruder in Islam, regardless of its importance and even if it does not lead to a sect or a serious deviant. The most obvious illustration of this principle is in my opinion the exegesis of Ibn Katheer, may Allah grant him Mercy. He was a direct student of Ibn Taymiyya, and applied the principle of orthodoxy to the commentary of Quran and produced his tafseer that was purified of false or very weak hadiths, dubious stories, opinions not justified by texts, and any unfounded item. It is when I studied this book in Masters degree that I discovered the scientific greatness of the book: each verse is explained by analyzing all the similar verses, then in the light of the hadiths mentioning this topic, then by the comments of the sahaba and their followers, particularly those specialized in the commentary of the Quran, and finally by quoting the top scholars of each field: in a matter of fiqh (masla) he will explain how the 4 imams established the rules, for a question of belief he will forward the arguments of the greatest defenders of the Islamic belief against sects, for a matter of language he will quote the greatest linguists and authors of dictionaries, and so on for geography, history, etc. You will understand the importance of this book by taking a look in previous tafsirs: so many unjustified opinions, weak hadiths, Jewish stories, sectarian positions…; you are forced in the end to forget everything you have learned as you can’t tell the difference between right and wrong. This is why this scientific book became a reference for the Ummah and all previous tafsirs were left by the public, and this is how the thought of Ibn Taymiyya contributed to build the understanding of Islam in our minds. But tafsir Ibn Katheer is not the last stop of knowledge, but a base after which many tafsirs came to focus on one aspect or another of the Quran, such as Attahrir Wattanweer of Ibn Ashoor, Fi Dhilâl Alqoran of Sayyid Qutb, Attafsir Almouyassir of Abu Bakr Aljazairi, Safwat Attafasir of Assabooni.

At a third level, Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya worked on fiqh (maslas), to give answers to all questions of Islamic jurisprudence, including those subject to a multiplicity of opinions (ikhtilaf) among Sunni scholars in order to seek the truth by demonstrating the correct answer in each question. There is nothing wrong with that, and any scholar also tries to answer all questions of jurisprudence and believes in his positions and would like to see all the scholars and the Ummah following him. This is what made the success of the four imams: none of them intended to found a school of thought, but their arguments were strong so that other scholars in their time accepted and followed them and large populations followed them, and they became the founders of schools of fiqh. Thus Ibn Taymiyya wanted to provide answers to all questions of jurisprudence which would take into account the positions and arguments of the previous scholars with the ambition to replace the schools of thought and unite the Muslims in a new concept: the salafiyya, following Prophet (s) and sahaba instead of the 4 schools. But it did not work, scholars of the four schools were not convinced and at most Ibn Taymiyah founded a new school or, more accurately, a branch of the Hanbali school.

The problem starts when people that are not scholars claim to be salafi. It is normal that the scholars discuss the subjects of jurisprudence and compare their arguments and possibly change position if they find that the other position has stronger arguments. But this debate has nothing to do with non-scholars: on what basis can we compare or choose the opinions of scholars when one has not studied? Besides it is not part of Dawa – preaching - to attack a position of scholars in order to rally people to another position, that is just a useless mess because any position of any imam always has an Islamic argument. I'll give you several examples in sha Allah to understand the problem of the single truth, because that is the problem: they believe the truth is unique and once you find it all others are in error.

A scholar told me about his teacher who learned Quran by heart in one month. The old professor told them during a talk outside the course that when he was a student in Islamic knowledge, he returned to his village during the holidays that were in Ramadan. He proposed to the imam of the mosque to learn Quran every day to lead the tarawih with what he had learned, then imam will complete the remaining rakaat. And he was able to finish the taraweeh every night until the end. This story is off topic but I wanted so much to mention it to motivate you to learn Quran. This old Professor gave them a four-hour course on the question of raising hands before and after the Ruku - genuflecting. He meticulously exposed the positions of all scholars, all their arguments, the authenticity of all stories, the differences on their authenticity, replicas of each scholar on the positions of the other... he exhibited all there is to say on this subject during four hours of time to conclude that the Hanafi position is correct: not to raise hands before and after the Ruku. This example proves that it is impossible to reduce this issue to a few Hadiths and that if you have not studied you haven't the right, yes indeed you haven't the right to give a personal opinion on a religious subject, because religion cannot be invented or discussed as we appreciate dishes or clothes, but we follow the guides who are scholars and when we don’t know we must refrains from talking and ask about what religion says.

A second example is the greeting prayer of the mosque before maghrib. This issue is linked to the nafila after Subh, after asr, just before dhohr, as well as the prostration in the reading of Quran. The four imams (Malik, Abu Hanifa, Al-Shaafa'i and Ibn Hanbal) have four different positions on this point in interpreting and composing differently the hadiths on this subject, but it is the same hadiths they all know. Subhan Allah, until today the same arguments are used by those who debate on this issue. But what do we look like discussing the same topic during ten centuries by repeating the same arguments? First this debate is sterile: what can the Ummah win if we all decide to do the greeting of the mosque before maghrib or not to do? Then this debate is inappropriate: anyone who acquires an absolute minimum of knowledge thinks he has all the elements of the subject and he is unbeatable on this topic. Moreover this debate creates animosity, division and contempt because they look at others as ignorants and then they exaggerate to consider them as sinners and astray , without any reason since they follow imams who have their arguments. Finally this debate diverts the Ummah away of the real challenges and prevents it from advancing.

A third example. During a religious celebration in the neighborhood, a young brother asked whether ablutions should be repeated after eating camel assuring me that he is just seeking to know and learn. There's actually a hadith that orders to repeat ablutions after eating camel, but scholars say it is mansookh - cancelled - by other texts. I didn’t go into the details of the issue because I had never eaten camel and I had never seen any in France. Anyway, the position of a scholar or some scholars is enough for me, what need do I have to investigate all scholars to choose my position? I confess that when I'm in a difficult position, I'll choose a solution among many scholars, such as for example to avoid a divorce that will break a family and prevent the woman to return with her husband unless she marries another and divorces again: as there are scholars who say that the divorce in anger does not count or three divorces together are worth only one I will take this answer to save the family with a fully Islamic solution, and to those who say that I did not have the right to change of madhab I say: I'm still in Islam and this solution is as Islamic as the other. So I answered that there is a hadith asking to redo the ablution if we ate the camel but it is mansookh. He exclaimed: «No, it is not mansoukh! Scholar so and so said so and so…” What do you conclude? These people are specialists of sterile controversy. Rather than taking advantage of the meeting to offer useful information that brings closer to Allah, improves worship, increases brotherhood and helps to advance the cause of Islam, he launched a discussion in the form of a trap just to demonstrate that he knows better than everyone else, whereas it just proves his stupidity and ignorance in addition to his bad faith and arrogance.

Example 3: I was walking to the mosque with a tasbeeh in hand when a young man called: “Shaykh! Tasbeeh is bidaa!” I said: “Tasbeeh is bidaa (blameworthy religious innovation)? Who said tasbeeh is bidaa?” He said: “The scholars said!” I said: “All the scholars said?” He said: “The true scholars said!” I said: “Aah! The true scholars! And how did you know the real scholars of the fake scholars?” He kept silent. Here things become much more serious. Someone who has less than the minimum knowledge to follow Islam allows himself to classify the real scholars and the false scholars? On what criteria? This is the great discord Salafees have brought: discredit scholars with their claim to hold the unique truth; generate followers who see no further than the end of their noses because they have never studied anything else than «their true scholars» and who believe they are better that the rest of Muslims. What will be the next step? The definition I give of Salafees is clear: people claim to follow the «salaf»: Prophet (s), companions and followers, while they are not scholars and therefore do not have the means to deduce the laws; so they reject the scholars that they want and follow who they want and it is the disorder without limits.

The Salafee brothers in France asked their «true scholar» in Saudi Arabia - because in France there are only 'false scholars' - if the mixed school was halal, and the scholar said it is haram, so they all left school. Here we are in full delirium, at the edge of dementia. What will become this community in France if we abandon studies and refuse to educate our children? But why don’t these dear Saudis come to open schools for us in France with all the money we pay for petrol for our cars? Why don’t these dear Saudis open the doors of their country to save us from these countries of unbelievers? Why don’t they say that mixed transport is haram, supermarkets and hospitals? Shouldn’t a scholar questioned on a situation in a country send back the person to the scholars of his country who are facing this situation for years? Or does this scholar believe that there is no real scholar in that country and that he had ability to settle the problems in all countries? Just see if he was able to solve the problems of his country.

It is not finished. Salafees fight the Tabligh. In England, they hardly did anything. I asked a brother why? He said: we have established Islamic schools in England that have produced a generation of scholars born and trained in England. The Salafee wave came at the same time when the scholars trained in England replaced the first generation of imams from the country. And when the youth turned to their imams to ask about this issue, they gave them the answers and the case was closed. Which ignorant Salafee can discuss with a scholar imam and say Tabligh is bidaa? Even if he remains on his position he will have no followers in that mosque. In France it was carnage. The youth Tabligh gathers in years are ripped away by the Salafees in a few weeks. When we go for «jawla - gusht» - public preaching tour to bring people to the mosque, they say it's a bidaa and go play football. When I take youth in jamaat - stay in the mosques to learn religion and preach the others - for vacation, they say it's a bidaa and go spend holidays skying. The Tabligh youth bring other youth to the mosque to introduce them to prayer, and the Salafees rise them against the Tabligh so the new youth flee the mosque and prayer. Yes, the Salafees have become the enemies of Islam. It is the culmination of their ignorance and their pride. They fight any activity which is not theirs. They destroy much and rarely build. They are a danger to Islam and the worst is yet to come. What is the difference between Tabligh in France and England? As far as Salafees are concerned, the difference is the Islamic knowledge. In England, the Tablighs have plenty of scholars, especially among their children; and anyway all Muslim children follow Islamic couress every day after school when our children in France are in leisure centers (school daycare). The error we commit in France is to take young people who know nothing about religion and teach them Tabligh without teaching them religion. But it is not the fault of the Tabligh if the community in France is ignorant, but the Tabligh did not solve this problem. Can you blame these uneducated immigrant workers once returned to Islam and committed to revive Islam in their community through Tabligh for not launching bases of learning of Islam in France, when they never received that teaching and know nothing about how to organize it? Indian Muslims live in a country where the official religion is Hinduism and since a long time they have learned to survive in non-Muslim environment by teaching Islam to their children, training their imams, establishing professional networks and voting, and that is the frame they reproduce wherever they settle, regardless of whether or not they are Tabligh. We could blame the leaders of Tabligh in France for not following the model of the Indians, but mentalities at the time were very far from accepting that, for example, in the early days, the Shaykhs in India told the brothers in France to take French nationality, and the Arabs responded: «We are not kafir (unbelievers)!» Imagine how the situation of Islam in France would be different if all Arabs from the first migrants had citizenship and voted? But we Arabs are not docile and obedient, and this is what made us late. So no use to blame anyone and let's struggle to make things better.

Another example: a Salafee leader in a town in France said that going to the mosque is necessary when one hears the adhane called by the voice of a man; but if you are far away from the mosque so that you may not hear the appeal of a man who shouts the adhane, you don't have to go there. Of course, this is an excuse to pray at home. But you see the result of: «one should follow the Quran and the Sunna, and any scholar whose opinion contradicts the hadith, throw his opinion and take the hadith?” This word concerns scholars, but when you haven't learned how can you judge that the word of this scholar contradicts the hadith? And this is what happened: the masses have taken the right to judge religious questions, to criticize and contradict scholars to the point that anyone would declare himself mufti and interpretate the hadiths as he wants. After that, anything can happen.

As a result of this situation the Salafees refuse to submit to any scholar, since it is necessary to follow the Quran and the Sunnah and not human beings who are fallible. This is part of an aberrant understanding of the word of the 4 imams: If you see that my word contradicts the hadith, take the hadith and let my word; but these are only the scholars who can judge which contradicts the hadith and what to change in the words of the first imam. So when Abu Bakr Aljazairi was asked in France about the Tabligh group and said: «It is a good thing», the Salafees said: «Abu Bakr Aljazairi is a Shaykh but not a scholar!» When Albani said that the niqab is not compulsory they say: Albani is right in everything he said except for this point where he is wrong!

So to resume the Salafiyya: Ibn Taymiyah, may Allah cover him with His mercy, put forward this concept to remove all non-founded elements from Islam. The first category is the sects, and that work was done before and Ibn Taymiyya enhanced it. The second is the Islamic knowledge or say culture and he did a great job on that, as the example of tafseer Ibn Kathir. The third is the fiqh and that failed because other scholars did not leave their positions to follow Ibn Taymiyya. But now we have these people that are not alim and claim to be Salafees; so they follow ulama they claim to be closest to Sunna, they reject whatever ulama say that doesn’t suit them and finally they go making their own rules according to their understanding.  

III THE WAHABIYYA AND THE RIGHT TO KILL  

Muhammad Ibn Abdelwahhab, may Allah grant him mercy, was born in 1703 and died in 1792 in the region of Riyadh in Arabia. He fought the shirk in its most apparent form at that time: the cult of the saints. Worshipping the saints is invoking them, slaughtering for them and making them promises: if you realize my wish I will offer you a sheep. Furthermore, there isn’t in Islam good action is called “visiting graves of saints”. You can visit the graves of relatives to pray for them and maintain their graves or visit the graves generally to remember death, but there is no reward or particular blessing to visit the grave of a pious man would he even be a prophet or even of the Prophet Muhammad (s). You could visit the grave of a famous person as a visit to a historic site for the lessons of history like the cave of Hira for example or any place in the world that you would like to visit. But it is only in the practice of the roqya that I realized the Satanism that is behind this: in Tunisia there is virtually no village without one or several tombs of saints. People practice the most blatant shirk there and demons hurry to help solve their problems or give them the illusion of a result, and they come in their dreams under the images of the saints and block their children's lives until they come to perpetuate the cult of their ancestors. So many of our patients suffer from shirk that their parents or grandparents did and in which the Jinns want to keep them. But others are simply going to «read a Fatiha» for the saint. However if one believes that a dead person is pious why offer him our own good deeds that we need more than them? And why go to the grave? If you visit the graves of your parents, and you read Yasin to offer them and implore Allah's mercy for them, this will do them as much good as if you did it in your house; going there is a good deed for you and a reminder. Those who go to the tombs of the saints hope to gain something, it is undeniable even if they say they are only going to read soorat Fatiha; but Islamically speaking there is nothing to gain. What their predecessors have won is the action of the Jinns in their lives: this is what makes the reputation of tombs and the “blessings” that one gets. So whoever simply goes there to enjoy a blessed place is venerating the demons that have made the fame of the place. In conclusion, anything related to visiting the tombs of the saints is shirk.

I refer you to my article on Qitmir. This man, Muhammad Ibn Muhammad Ibn Nomane Ibn Shibl, invented the hadith of Qitmir as the name of the dog of the people of the cave to make talismans, and is one of the first founders of the shirk in the Ummah; he also invented the hadith: “Whoever goes for pilgrimage and does not visit has turned back to me”, to make the visit to the grave of the Prophet (s) a good deed, and he also narrated a story where a nomad came from the desert to visit the grave of the Prophet (s) and pray Allah, then Muhammad fell asleep and saw the Prophet (s) in his dream and he told him that Allah has granted the nomad. This incident narrated by this liar is used to justify the visits to the tombs of the saints.

If many of us today have understood the error of the veneration of tombs, I am convinced that this is a result of the effort of Muhammad Ibn Abdulwahhab and his followers, because in those days it was fine for everybody.

This struggle led Muhammad Ibn Abdelwahab and his followers to be rejected by the majority of scholars and the emirs who clung to the traditions and the Sufi brotherhoods which honoured the tombs of the saints. But of course the struggle of Muhammad Ibn Abdelwahab was not limited to this because he followed the “Salafiyya” concept of Ibn Taymiyya that rejects any novelty as for example the celebration of the birth of the Prophet (s) and not only the deviations of belief. This is where the confusion arises: the group saved in the hadith is the Ahl Assunna Wal-Jama'a, the Sunnis, which do not deviate from the belief of the Prophet (s) and his companions. But the salafiyya is a branch of the Sunnis who reject logical arguments and limits to the arguments by the texts and rejects new elements regardless of their degree of importance. Therefore the “Wahhabiyya” fights: 1) shirk 2) legal opinions from other schools 3) innovations than other scholars agree of, and the result is that the majority of scholars are against this school of thought and the very noble struggle against shirk combat is misperceived because of other questionable elements.

Another form of shirk widespread in the Umma is talismans. Just a few days ago I removed a talisman to a Turk who assured me that it was a great scholar very pious that gave it to him and it only contained Quran. Unfortunately after a page and a half of Quran there was half a line of symbols of Jinn. He was desperate: «But everyone here wears it! But all our scholars do it! «

To the previous elements of Salafiyya Muhammad Ibn Abdelwahab added two new items. First is the assertion that only a tiny minority of Muslims guard the pure faith and the right way, whereas previously it was said that sects were minorities and that the bulk of Muslims remained in the original belief without additions or deviations. Since so many Muslims practice the worship of tombs, scholars are encouraging them, others are not opposed and no one stands up against this new polytheism... In addition they celebrate the birth of the Prophet (s) and many other innovations... In addition they do not pray in accordance with Hadith but rules of such and such scholars... So all of the Ummah is astray and we are the saved group, including scholars are astray except ours. It is at the limit of the takfir: declare all others disbelievers.

The second novelty of Wahhabism is armed combat. After destroying the dome of the tomb of Zayd Ibn Alkhattab (r) the brother of Caliph Omar (r) who died as a martyr in the battle of Yamama with the help of the emir of the city with his troops, the emir of the region was angry and Muhammad Ibn Abdulwahhab went to another province where he met the emir Muhammad Al Saud who was convinced of his teaching. They then united around 1743 to extend the new Wahhabi Emirate through weapons and conquests: fighting and annexing the cities and provinces whatever wars and deaths it implies, destroying domes and buildings around the tombs, taking Mecca and Medina and destroying many vestiges of Prophet (s) and sahaba. From 1803 and throughout the 19th century the Ottoman empire sent armies to fight them and several times they killed the King and put an end to the Kingdom, but in the beginning of the 20th century the Ottoman Empire collapsed and Saudis allied with Great Britain who provided them with weapons and they conquered Mecca and Medina and founded the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia that we know today, but it is only in 1932 by the alliance with the USA: oil against stability, that the Kingdom was stabilized.  

IV THE REJECTION OF THE UMMAH  

Towards the end of his life Muhammad Ibn Abdelwahab wrote letters to scholars and leaders of all the countries he could to call them away from shirk and to follow him. The response of the mufti of Tunisia remained famous. It seems that this text was never translated into English so here is for the first time in sha Allah its full translation.

Saud Ibn Abdelaziz Ibn Saud, deceised in 1816 sent a letter to the North Africans (some call it the Wahhabi letter and others say it's written by Shaykh Ibn Abdelwahab himself) explaining the preaching of Shaykh Mohammad Ibn Abdelwahab and inviting them to follow his way. When the letter arrived in Tunisia, the Bey Abu Mohammad Hamdan (1759-1814) sent it to the scholars of his time and asked them to explain the truth to the people. The great scholar specialized in authenticity of hadith Aboul Fida Ismail Attamimi, may Allah grant him mercy, wrote in response a long book which he entitled: «The divine gifts to crush the Wahhabi lure» and the great scholar specialized in authenticity of hadith and judge Abu Hafs Umar (died 1807) son of the great scholar and Maliki mufti Abul Qasim Mahjub replied by an admirable letter.  

THE WAHHABI LETTER  

In the name of Allah Most Merciful and Compassionate. We implore his help and forgiveness, we ask protection from our shortcomings and our bad deeds. No one can misguide the one Allah guides and no one can guide the one Allah sends astray. We certify that there is no God but Allah alone without partner and we testify that Muhammad is His servant and Messenger. Anyone who obeys Allah and his Messenger has done well and anyone who disobeys them is lost; he will harm himself and will in no way harm Allah.

Allah says: “Say: here is my way I call to Allah with foresight me and those who follow me. Glory and purity of Allah and I am not of the idolaters” (12/108). And Allah says: “Say: If you love Allah, follow me and Allah will love you and forgive your sins” (3/31). And Allah says: “Whatever the Messenger brought you take it and what he has forbidden leave” (59/7). And Allah says: “Today I completed for you your religion, I completed My favor to you and I have approved for you Islam as religion” (5/3). Thus Allah has informed that He has completed and perfected religion through his Prophet (s) and ordered us to stick to what he brought us from our Lord and leave innovations, division and divergence. Allah says: “Follow what was revealed to you from your Lord and follow no other masters, but you understand little” (7/3). And the Most High said: “And here is My straight path, follow and do not follow the paths because they will scatter you out of His way. Thus He makes recommendations so that you are pious” (6/153). The Messenger (s) has also informed us that his community will do what previous nations made step by step. He informed in the hadith that his community will divide into 73 groups, all to Hell except one. They said: “Which one, O Messenger of Allah?” He said: “Those who follow my way and that of my companions”. If you understand this, the widespread catastrophe is evident: innovations and the most serious is the association to Allah, the resort to the deceased, asking their help against enemies, the realization of the wishes and the resolution of the misfortunes, all these things that only the Lord of the Earth and Heaven can achieve; even seeking the favors of the deceased through pious wishes and sacrifices of beasts, asking their help to repel the woes and attract benefits, as well as other kinds of worship which are appropriate to Allah only. Diverting a category of worship to another than Allah is like diverting them all because Allah the very pure is the partner who has need of associates and he accepts what is sincerely for Him. He informed that the idolaters invoke angels, prophets and saints to get closer to Allah’s favors and that they intercede with Him and He informed that he does not guide anyone who is liar and miscreant. Allah says: “They worship besides Allah what cannot harm or help them and say: these are our intercessors with Allah. Say: do you inform Allah of what he does not know in the heavens or in the Earth? He is Pure and High above what they associate” (10/18). He said that anyone who puts between him and Allah intermediaries to intercede has worshipped them and taken them as shareholders, because the intercession is entirely to Allah the most High: “Say: intercession is entirely Allah” (39/44) and “Who will intercede with Him except by His permission” (2/255) and Allah says : “That day the intercession will not serve except to whom the Gracious allows and accepts his word” (20/109). He the Pure accepts only unity as says the Highest: “They intercede for whom he agreed” (21/28). Intercession is therefore a reality but we cannot ask it in this life to Allah as says the Highest: “Mosques are only for Allah, so don’t invoke anyone with Allah» (72/18) and Allah says: “Do not invoke besides Allah who cannot help or harm you; if you do so you are in the number of the wrong-doers» (10/106). If the Messenger of Allah (s) which is the best intercessor and has the praised position, Adam and all Prophets are under his banner and only intercede by His permission, and he does not intercede spontaneously, but he prostrates to Allah and praises Him by praises that He teaches him then tells him: “Rise your head, ask and I will give you, intercede and you'll be accepted” then he is given a group and he makes them enter Paradise. So what to say about other prophets and saints? What I just mentioned is not contradicted by any Muslim scholar, better yet the pious predecessors, companions, followers, four imams and others who have followed their path are agreed on it. Asking intercession of prophets and deceased saints, sanctifying their graves by building domes, introducing lighting, praying there, devoting alms and pious wishes, this is all part of the innovations announced by the Prophet (s) and which he ordered to be wary in his word: “Before the end of the world a part of my community will join the idolaters and some will worship fetish”.

The Prophet (s) has greatly protected the principle of oneness of Allah and cut any way that leads to shirk. He forbade plastering the graves and building on them in the Hadith of Muslim according to Jabir where the Prophet (s) ordered Ali Ibn Abu Talib (r) to flatten any tomb which exceeds the Earth. For this several scholars have said: “We must destroy the domes built on the graves” because they are built in disobedience to the Messenger (s). This is the point of divergence between us and the people to the point that they have declared us unbelievers, they fought us and have desecrated our blood and our possessions, but Allah has helped us and gave us victory. This is what we call people to and we are fighting for, having established evidence of the book of Allah and the Sunna of His Messenger and the consensus of the pious predecessors of the imams, in accordance with the word of Allah: “And fight them so that there will be no temptation and the religion will be entirely for Allah” (8/39). Anyone who does not accept the call by the evidence and the explanation, we call him by the sword as the Highest says: “We sent our messengers with evidence and we sent down with them the book and the balance so that the people establish fairness and we descended the iron that contains a strong force and benefits for people” (57/25). We preach to establish prayer, to carry alms, fasting Ramadan and make the pilgrimage to the sacred House of Allah, we enjoin good and forbid evil, and the end of all affairs is in the Hand of Allah. Here is our belief and our religion; anyone who follows is our brother Muslim, he has the same rights and duties as we. We also believe that the community of Mohammad (s) does not agree for an error, and a part of his community will remain in the truth supported by Allah and those who contradict them or fight them will not harm them until the decision of Allah arrives. End  

LETTER FROM THE JUDGE AND MUFTI OF TUNISIA OMAR ALMAHJUB (DIED 1807) IN RESPONSE TO SHAYKH MUHAMMAD IBN ABDULWAHHAB  

This letter is mentioned in two books: “History of the Kings of Tunisia and the protectorate” of the Tunisian historian Ahmad Abi Dhiaf and “Replica to Wahhabis and Dhahiria” of Shaykh Ibrahim Alattar Assamduni. I will translate the letter with comments from the author in parentheses.  

“Lord, judge between us and our people with the truth and You are the best judge” (7/89), “Let us not be a temptation for the wrong-doers, and save us by your Mercy of the kafir people” (10/85-86), “O ye who believe, take care of yourselves, those who go astray do not harm you if you are guided. You will return all to Allah and he will inform you of what you were doing” (5/105), “O ye who believe, do not desecrate the rituals of Allah, the holy month, the beasts of sacrifice or the period of pilgrimage where they seek the blessing of their Lord and satisfaction. After the pilgrimage you can hunt. Anger against people who you have prevented access to the Holy Mosque should not push you to injustice. Help each other for the good and piety and do not help one another for sin and aggression” (5/2).

After this introduction, you wrote us claiming that you are committed to support religion, that you preach the message of the Master of the Predecessors and Successors with foresight, that you incite to follow and imitate and that you are opposed to division and innovation; you have pointed out in your Epistle the prohibition of divergence and the division of men, you are therefore as Allah says: “There are among the people some who seduce you by his words in this earthly life and takes Allah as a witness on the content of his heart but he is the worst opponent. And when he goes he crosses the Earth to cause harm and destroys the goods and people and Allah loveth not the destruction» (2/204-205). You affirm that people have invented things in Islam and have massively taken the dead as partners to Allah pleading on behalf of the tombs of the saints for their misfortune, pleading on their behalf for their needs, by dedicating wishes to them and offerings as well as other types of worship, and all this is an association to the Lord of land and skies, and a disbelief that allows you to kill and break the sacredness of the banned. By Allah! You're lost and you have lost! You have followed the path of banditism allowing this to yourself, after having criticized and exaggerated. You have thrown the anathema on the predecessors and followers! We will judge you by the perfect words of Allah and the authentic Sunna of the Prophet (s).

For having fought Muslims, terrorized the inhabitants of the Holy Land, and attacked those who take refuge in the double shahada and for turning on the war's steadily among Muslims you sold your eternal life for this vile existence, you have committed countless sins, you disunited the Muslim and you've rebelled against the constraints of the submission and the religion. Allah says: “O you who believe, when you fight in the path of Allah check and do not say to who launches the salam: you are not a believer, searching for the gain of this world, because Allah has lot of loot” (4/94). And the Prophet said: “I was ordered to fight the people until they say: there is no God but Allah [and Mohammed is the Messenger of Allah]; their bloods and their property are then protected from me except by the right, and Allah will judge them” (narrated by Bukhari and Muslim). Since you refer to the book of Allah and the Sunna, how after these words - unhappy! – can you allow yourself to shed the blood of people who say this word and who believe in the message of the Prophet (s), who respect the pillars of Islam, who protect the land of Islam, who fought the idolaters and struggle for monotheism? How have you fallen into the abyss of deviance, gone out of the ranks and become the sowers of disorder?

You have declared them unbelievers for visiting saints and pious and having intermediaries between them and the Lord of the worlds, and you assert that it is the resurgence of the age of ignorance. I therefore answer you: may Allah not allow that a Muslim love these places and glorify them as a worshiper and submit as people submitted to idols before Islam and worship them by bowing, bending or fasting. If an ignorant did that the officials and responsibles would have prevented him, ulama and scholars would have disapproved it and would have clarified to the ignorant the right way.

Your interpretation you are using: going to the dead asking them to victory against enemies, realization of the needs, solution to the woes, things that only the Lord of land and skies can do, and so on, this argument by which you have lit the fire of division and fragmentation, you have committed a grotesque error and you have taken a religion other than Islam because begging Allah by the value a creature is legal: it is mentioned in the Saheeh Sunnah and is neither inadvisable nor prohibited. Hadiths are numerous, the evidence are many and strong and it would be exhausting to count them and look for all but it is sufficient to mention the supplication of the companions and followers by the value of Abbas during the Caliphate of the chief of believers Omar Ibn Alkhattab when they did the prayer for rain and to stop drought and poverty. Drought was rife at the time of Omar (r) to the point that the wind spread dust like ash and it was called the year of ashes. Omar Ibn Alkhattab went out with Abbas Ibn Abdul Muttalib to pray for rain, and took Abbas by the arms, placed him standing in front of him and said: “O Allah we implore your mercy by the uncle of Your Prophet as you say in your truthful words: “As for the wall, it belonged to two orphaned children in the city, there was a treasure under it belonging to them and their father was pious”. As you protected it for the piety of their father, for the uncle of your Prophet protect us because we implore you by him and we beg your forgiveness”. Then he turned to people and said: “Ask forgiveness of your Lord because He is forgiving”. Abbas was crying and said: “O Allah you are the shepherd who does not abandon the lost animal and does not leave the animal whose leg is broken where it would perish! Youngsters are hungry, elderly are weakened, complaints are raised, and You know the secrets and what is more hidden! O Allah save us with your rain and don’t let them despair and perish, because only the disbelievers despair of your mercy! O Allah save them with Your rain because they craved mercy by my link with your Prophet (s)!” A cloud suddenly formed and accumulated and a wind blew causing a storm and a heavy rain. People began to caress his clothes and say: “Congratulations, you have watered the Holy lands” (Narrated by Ibn Alathir).

Tell me then - brother of the Arabs – do you declare that with this supplication the Amir of Believers Omar Ibn Alkhattab was kafir and all companions and followers present because they put a human as an intermediary between them and Allah and they asked Allah by the value of Abbas? In doing so did they give a partner to Allah and none of them got angry and defended the religion? No, by Allah, and I swear again by Allah, it is rather the one who calls them unbelievers who is kafir, he deviated from their way and he is hypocritical and unholy. They are in the right way and their words are true, and the Prophet (s) said: “Follow those who are after me: Abu Bakr and Omar” (Hadith Hasan narrated by Tirmidhi and Ibn Maja).

If you criticize this group of companions including Othmane Ibn Affane and Ali Ibn Abu Talib and others, then where have you learned this religion? Who else has brought you the teaching of the Master of the Messengers? What do you say about the other authentic hadith narrated by Muslim where the Prophet (s) informs that Uways is a sign of the prophecy and advises Omar to ask him to pray for his forgiveness, and he actually asked him and he prayed for his forgiveness? Almighty Allah says of the brothers of Yusuf (s): “Father, request Allah to forgive our sins because we were in error” (12/97). So whoever visits the saints and pious will pray Allah for his needs and beg on behalf of the secret of this saint to realize his vow as did Omar asking rain or even ask the support of the visited saint interceding in favor and praying for him as in the hadith of Uways Alqarni because the saints and scholars are like living martyrs in their graves; they left the ephemeral life for eternal life (Muslim martyrs in the battles are alive with their Lord, their bodies do not spoil and the earth doesn’t absorb them; this is established in the texts and the experience). Furthermore it is authenticated in the hadith narrated by Bayhaqi and Ibn Hajar that the Messenger of Allah (s) said: “Prophets are alive in their graves and pray». Apart from Prophets this can happen to saints but it is not general as it happened to the honorable follower Thabit Albunani: he was seen after his death praying in his grave (narrated by Ibn Rajab Alhanbali). So what problem is there, O you defender of the religion, to visit the saints and pious? What disturbes you to the point you create rebellion and war? Maybe you are part of the innovators who deny several types of intercession and limit them to the righteous, because it seems in your Epistle that you deny the miracles of the saints and the usefulness of invocations, and all those beliefs are away from the Sunna and the right path. Your assertion that no Muslim contradicts what you have advanced is an outrageous invention and a deviation in religion because the supporters of the Sunna and the Group recognize the intercession for others than the prophets, as scholars, pious and ordinary believers: some intercede for a tribe and others for entire populations as it is reported as Uways Alqarni intercede for as much as the tribes of Rabia and Mudar (narrated by Ibn Asakir).

The Mu'tazila do not recognize the intercession of another that the Prophet (s) but they recognize his great intercession at the day of judgment and the intercession of the pious believers or repented to raise levels and do not recognize the intercession to save from fire sinners who do not repent because in their erroneous school they say that sinners are unbelievers and doomed to Hell.

As for your practice to demolish the domes built above the tombs of the saints without distinction between busy and abandoned places is the absolute disaster and terrible injustice by which Allah has misguided you despite your science: “Who is more unjust than he who has prevented that Allah was invoked in His houses and undertook to destroy them? Those should only enter them frightened; they have lost in this world and will have a great punishment in the Hereafter” (2/114). It looks like you heard in a meeting the hadiths prohibiting to build on the graves and you have taken them globally without explanation, abruptly without weighing or measuring, then you have taken as your workhorse to attack and brutalize by demolishing the buildings on the tombs of saints and scholars. If you had talked to imams and requested clarification from the community guides that plunged into the depths of the Shariah, that faced the toughest questions, that have resolved the majority of the cases and who know the motivations, they would have informed you that this warning applies to construction in the cemetery made to accommodate Muslims common graves because they would not leave room for other tombs and would cause work above certain deceased, and hadiths do not concern isolated graves.

On the other hand, what Muslims build in their private properties to honor their dead, there is no disturbance or prohibition. They can freely build their properties into houses or shops and mosques, they are free to make domes, mausoleums and monuments.

Then you should once you received and understood this response ask that in the current state of things, once the construction is done should we demolish what has been illegally built? Is this demolition prohibited or legal? They will reply to you that the opinions are contradictory and that scholars and researchers differ, some say to leave them to not destroy the property acquired, because also they benefit of doubt since there is a utility for visitors, and others have dismissed them with force and required change and demolish.

If you understand this, how can you take such positions, stumble and act by demolishing any mausoleum without taking account of religion or the property? If these doors open before you and you gain another point of view in the knowledge that the evil that you thought you are changing is no unanimity among the scholars, each one having his opinion, so you see that you have no reason to fight and criticize the way you do.

Having reached this stage, reconsider the war that you have lit between Muslims, you allowed to attack the Holy Mosque and terrorize the inhabitants of the two Holy Mosques, to take lightly the curse of Allah, His angels, and all humans, you will understand that you have changed the evil according to your belief and your understanding, but you have committed several sets of wrongs and a large number of sins by which have harmed yourself as well as Muslims, you chose a different path than that of believers, you've allowed yourself to shame the saints and pious while the Prophet (s) says in the hadith narrated by Bukhari and Muslim: “Allah the Almighty and majestic said: whoever takes one of My allies as enemy, I declare war to him”; what worse danger and self-destruction than to suffer the war of Allah?

When it comes to reject the visit of the tombs, where is the evil or prohibited and what fault do you talk about as the hadith is Sahih: “I have forbidden you to visit the graves, now visit them!” (Reported by Muslim) and cancels the previous hadiths prohibiting their visits to clarify the legislation in the beginning of Islam, protecting the community of the causes of the error because they recently left a period of ignorance and worship of statues and various deities. How therefore can you prohibit their visits while the Prophet (s) establishes it and beautifully paves the way as it is authenticated according to Aisha the mother of the believers that the Prophet (s) visited Medina cemetery and prayed for the absolution of the deceased Muslims (reported by Muslim)? It is also authenticated that he visited the tomb of his mother Amina Bint Wahb and begged Allah to forgive her (what is true is that the Prophet (s) asked for Allah permission to visit her mother's grave and it was granted to him, and he asked His permission to pray for her and He refused that, narrated by Muslim, Abu Dawood, Ibn Maja and Ahmad). The companions and followers learned this practice and the scholars and predecessors continued it. It is authenticated in the narrations of the imams of the guided stars to serve as an example that Fatima the best woman in the world visited her great uncle the best of martyrs and went from Medina to the mountain of Uhud and no companion reproached it while they ruled Medina and defended the religion. Would those also be innovators or will they stay silent before an innovation? No, by Allah, we must rather follow them since their consensus is a legal proof.

Scholars have followed that in all countries, they moved to get help from the tombs of the righteous and carry out their wishes, they recorded this in their books and their works and have pointed out in their Epistles and their comments, they classified the visit into categories and clarified the rules with the legal arguments : if the visit is for morality and reminder, it is permitted without distinction for the tombs of Muslims and unbelievers; if it is to ask for forgiveness and mercy for the deceased, there is no ban except for the kafir, because the divine law informs that his disbelief will not be forgiven and so interpret the word of Allah: “Never pray on any of them if he dies and do not stay on his grave” (9/84); and if the visit is for the visitor to benefit from the visited, to seek the place whose virtue is famous and that he prays to his grave for a certain case, there is no problem or ban, instead this is recommended and meritorious and deserves making the trip. Whoever on this rule contradicts all the scholars and follows the ambiguities that are opposed to their publications, scholars have harshly repressed and criticized him and called him ignorant and lost; unanimously they reported his innovative faith and no one can guide the one Allah sends astray.Regarding the prohibition to travel to another mosque than the sacred three (narrated by Bukhari and Muslim) this concerns the pious engagement of prayer as the reward of prayer does not change (this is how scholars always explained this hadith, and it is confirmed by another hadith: “Do not go to a mosque to perform prayer besides the Haram Mosque, the Aqsa Mosque and my mosque I am in”, Hadith Hasan narrated by Ibn Hajar. It is better to explain the hadith with the hadith and leave the deformation of Ibn Taymiyah) while degrees and miracles of the mausoleums vary because of a secret in the demand of help and the ability to help that you don't know because a wall was drawn up preventing you access to that secret. The Proof of Islam (Imam Ghazali) clarified this as well as scholars and great saints who recognize his degree of true faith.

The fact that you included the tombs of the prophets in the wrong and that you declare their visitor lost and miscreant, it rips my heart and fills it with anger and rejection and I oppose you with all my strength and I throw the thunder of hatred and rage. Tell me - brother of the Arabs - have you raised to defend religion or to destroy its bases? Do you believe in the revelation to the Prophet or do you say: “It is a lie that he invented?” What do you do about the hadith: “Whoever visits my grave, my intercession is due to him” (Hadith Hasan narrated by Daraqotni and Bayhaqi)? Tell me was Sulayman son of Dawud lost by building over the tomb of Ibrahim the intimate friend of Allah and other prophets of the sons of Israel? And what do you say - unfortunate – about the hadith narrated by major narrators and authenticated by the loyal reporters: the Prophet (s) said: “when I was taken to the mosque in Jerusalem, Jibril made me pass in front of the tomb of Ibrahim (s) and told me: go down and pray two rakaat here because here is the tomb of your father Ibrahim (s)” (the single narration that exists is the prayer of the Prophet (s) at the place of birth of Issa (s) reported by bayhaqi)? In another hadith, the Prophet (s) said: “Who cannot visit me should visit the tomb of my father Ibrahim the Close Friend (s)” (This hadith does not exist, the only story that defines the location of the tomb of a prophet is the grave of Musa (s): “At the Red dune”). What do you say after that? Do you now have an issue or a salute? Where will you flee after calling all the prophets lost? “Lord do not deviate our hearts after having guided us and grant us a mercy from Yourself because You are the Donor» (3/8).

You quote the Hadith that you hear about without studying their analyze and understanding and you wander in the ways of perdition and only see flashes of ignorance, seeking for their meaning without a guide, and you open the doors without reflection or confrontation. The hadith: “Don't make my grave a mosque” (in the Muslim version: do not take the tombs for places of prayer) is explained by Al-Bukhari: do not make it a place of prayer to preserve monotheism and protect the unaware worshipper because those who pray to a direction seem to pray to this thing and the Prophet (s) has taken precautions against this error (among the innovations of the wahhabiya there is the fact that they prohibit praying in a masdjid where there is a grave based on the hadith of Bukhari: “May Allah curse the Jews and the Christians, they have taken the graves of their prophets as places of prayer”, and Aisha adds: “Would it have not been this they would have highlighted his grave (of the Prophet)”. The answer to this argument is that the hadith concerning those who pray in the direction of the grave to glory it, and this applies only if the tomb is prominent and visible otherwise there is no ban. But the mere presence of a grave in a mosque to which the believer has no intention to pray, this is not affected by the hadith. So Hanbalis say that prayer at the cemetery is discouraged but not prohibited and Wahhabi claim to be Hanbalis but they often contradict them in the foundations and the details. The word of Aicha: “Would it not have been this they would have highlighted his grave” is enough to show the non-prohibition of prayer in a mosque where there is a tomb. No predecessors or successors has contradicted this and they prayed in the mosque of the Messenger on the four sides of the grave: West front, East and North. One who prays North of the tomb is like if he prays to the grave but the ban and the disliked character disappears because the tomb is hidden. The Wahhabis by the absolute ban contradict the consensus of Muslims and therefore have declared the community lost, but scholars like Qazi Iyadh and others say: “Whoever says a word that leads to declare the community lost is miscreant by the consensus of the scholars”. Another proof of the absence of prohibition or disliked character if it is not salient there is the authentic story: 70 Prophets are buried in the mosque Khif; a version even says that the tomb of Adam is close to the mosque; mosque where Muslims pray since the time of the Messenger of Allah (s) up to now, narrated by Ibn Hajar, Abu Yaala and Bazzar with an authentic chain. As for the hadith: “Do not pray to graves”, it does not indicate the prohibition and is interpreted as the case of the tombs we have just explained. Shaykh Albahouti Hanbali says in “Explanation of the ultimate wills”: “Prayer is discouraged in the direction of the graves because of the hadith of Abu Murshid Alghanawi: “Do not pray in the direction of the tombs and do not sit on them” reported by the two Shaykhs, if there's no separation; but if there is a separation as a row of prayer this is no longer deprecated”. Further evidence is the authentic story narrated by Ibn Hibban Ubayd Allah Ibn Abdallah who said: I saw Osama Ibn Zayd praying before the tomb of the Messenger of Allah (s) when Marane Ibn Alhakam came out and said: “You pray in the direction of his grave?” He said: «I love him”. He told him humiliating words and went. Osama went and said: “Marwane, you have hurt me and I heard the Messenger of Allah (s): “Allah hates the rough who insults people” and you're a rude person who insults people”. But going to visit him, asking the intercession and support and the benefit of his blessing, and Muslims who come to him from everywhere, we can only follow it.

Similarly in your use of “travelling towards a mosque”, you're wrong using it for this case because the hadith relates only to mosques and not sites to visit. Also your error is evident in your quotation of the hadith prohibiting the glorification of the Tomb by the lighting and this criticism turns against you because the meaning of the hadith - if it is genuine - concerns lighting for the glorification of the grave and not for the customers utility, because if the purpose is to help visitors and residents this is allowed without any problem. The sacrificed animals and wishful that you claim and for which you exaggerate in criticism and fight, you tell lies and you caused discord and killing, saying that these animals are sacrificed for someone other than Allah is a distortion of reality and a very serious slander. We look closely to the people who make these promises and we haven't seen any of them pronounce the name of a saint when slaughtering; they do not spray the blood on the grave and not commit any act which would lead to the prohibition of these animals and these sacrifices. They intend them to these mausoleums not that it is a worship without which religion would be incomplete, but they seek healing, issues and profit in this world by a secret hidden in the alms and known by its famous results. Our duty and yours is to seek the rules of these pious visits with recognized scholars who have mastered the laws, call people to respect them, explain their utilities, seek their foundations; those who know how to rub the copper until it shines. They will guide you: “Ask those who hold the knowledge if you do not know” (16/43) “Do not stay across each path” (7/86), if you follow the truth and you consider as a crime going out of the divine law, and they will clarify this issue in detail: if the person promises a sacrifice to a given saint, he has committed a sin instead of a good action, but we haven't seen anyone go wrong or straying up to committing this error. And if these sacrifices are promised to the visited place without naming the saint it is therefore an accepted sacrifice if it is a beast that can be sacrificed in the pilgrimage, but should it be taken to him necessarily where he appointed or should he just give this charity wherever he is for the facility? In this question there is a well known divergence in the school of Malik recorded in the books. If the promised beast cannot be sacrificed in the pilgrimage, he must send it and offer it to the poor who are permanently with the mausoleum. Finally one that makes the wishful thinking and commitment to the saint must just make alms in his location.

If you understand that, where is the reason for the war and battle? Legal cases differ from the illegal only by the intentions and only the Knower of the intimacies knows them. By Allah! Allah gave us responsibility of appearances and has reserved to Himself the management of secrets; He has not appointed an observer for intentions, a guardian or controller.

If you seek to prohibit legal acts by fear of the forbidden so apply this principle in all worship in Islam where there's no difference between the Muslim and kafir except by the contents of the hearts. Those who pray at the mosque maybe worship stones like the one who sacrifices and visits the mausoleum. People fasting maybe seek self education or cure. Alms may have a wordly target or a previous deity. One who puts Ihram for Hajj or the visit of the Kaaba perhaps has an intention that makes him a kafir. If you reach these considerations you have destroyed all the foundations of Islam and confused the believers and the unbelievers; this leads to destroy all the pillars, allow to shed the blood of the Muslims, to cancel their prayers, their mosques and their minarets without exception.

You see, man, this delirium and how Satan has played with you and made you fall into loss? Leave this blatant error, say: “Lord, we made harm to ourselves and if You forgive us not and you do not grant us Your mercy we will be among the losers” (7/22).

You quoted Hadith where the Prophet (s) changed the tombs and ordered Ali (r) to raze them to the ground and you have understood them wrong because you have not received their explanation: if you had asked the scholars they would have informed you that it concerns erasing what was practiced in ignorance. When one of their great men died, they built over his grave like a fortress by pride, ostentation and glory and therefore the Prophet (s) sent to wipe off the clear marks of the age of ignorance and its pride and arrogance. If your interpretation was correct, raising the construction would be as serious as what you said. If your understanding is now clear your argument backfires now on you, and how do you use these hadiths as evidence that graves should be flushed to earth while the difference is clear between building over the graves and digging graves under construction: the first is a pre-Islamic habit blamed in the hadiths and for the second you have no argument and no one will not share your generalization in forbidding it.

Finally you threaten us and mention the verse of iron saying: “Anyone who will not agree with the argument and explanation, we will preach him with the sword and the cutting edge”, let me tell you that we are not of those who worship Allah on the edge or who flee the fighting to support his religion, nor of those who doubt their Lord or whose confidence is wavering on his word: “When their moment arrives, they will advance one hour or delay” (7/34), or those who are destabilized in dedication to Allah in privacy and appearance or who doubt the word of Allah: “Say only what Allah wrote to us will hit us” (9/51). We have no weakness or discouragement or laziness in the war, we triumph for religion and we defend its sacredness, and victory comes only from Allah.

As to your aspiration, ambition and false hopes to be among the group that opponents will not hurt and their allies, and the winning group and in truth, and that these virtues are for you deserved, certainly not, you have no share in these merits and they are not due to you for who you are or have supported. This hadith is indeed genuine (narrated by Bukhari and Muslim) but you have not studied its chain because a version mentions: “And they are in the Maghreb (the word maghrib means where the sun sets, the West, Morocco and the Maghreb)!” (Narrated by Abu Nuaym: the people of the Maghreb will be always triumphant and their enemies cannot harm them until the hour rises, who says: a safe and famous Hadith). This deprives you of these virtues and puts you away as far as the East is from the sunset! So wash your hands of what’ not yours, tend not your gaze towards what was forbidden to you for the marriage of Suhayl with the star would be less impossible.

As for the inhabitants of these lands who are its masters, this is worthy of our brothers and our allies through their good Sunni belief and their Muhammady way, through their rejection of religious innovations and their submission to the consensus and the path of the believers. You talked in this letter denouncing the beliefs of innovators who have deviated from the Sunna, who follow extreme paths and who refuse the union and agreement, then listen to this advice: throw off these false beliefs that you endorse and envelope yourself with correct beliefs! Return to Allah and believe in His meeting! Do not throw anathema for sins committed! If you repent, that is best for you, and if you turn away you will not beat Allah.

The morality of the answer and conclusion of the discussion is that if you follow - brother of the Arabs - your advice, if you repair your injury through repentance and if you clean your wound by submission to the Lord, then you will be the welcome reformer and we help each other for obedience, success, unity and forgiveness; and if you endure in the ocean of perdition, you build your building of discord and you brandish your spear with pride, then your cousins also have spears, each of them carries weapons and war will show who’s best. May Allah guide the arrows of the community struggling for Him to what he loves and approves and stifles the hostilities of the transgressor group until they return to the order of Allah. Peace be upon you! End.  

I come back (Ben Halima Abderraouf) to make the commentary on these two letters, praying Allah that this translation has enriched and eye-opening on many points.

(1) The Wahhabi letter says: “If you understand this, the widespread catastrophe is evident: innovations and the most serious is the association to Allah, the resort to the deceased”. This is the problem of the Wahhabis, the almost unique target of their struggle is the worship of the dead.

2) “Asking their help against enemies, the realization of the wishes and the resolution of the misfortunes, all these things that only the Lord of the Earth and Heaven can achieve”.

This is an exaggeration. There are some things that creatures can achieve and that are permissible to ask creatures. For this the Prophet (s) said: “Who guarantees me not to ask people and I guarantee him Paradise”. So it is permitted to ask people one thing they can do, such as money or job etc, even if it will only happen by the permission of Allah, and even if it is better to abstain, but it is not shirk to ask. So you can ask for help against enemies or to solve your misfortune without committing shirk, asking Muslim brothers or even unbelievers. So what needs to be explained is that the dead do not have this power just as anyone of us can do his best to help as long as he is alive but no more after his death. And this is where it becomes shirk: asking the dead person as if he hears all the people asking him and believing he has the power to solve all these situations, some situations that even during his lifetime he could not resolve, such as a woman wanting to have a child for example.

3) “Even seeking the favors of the deceased through pious wishes and sacrifices of beasts, asking their help to repel the woes and attract benefits, as well as other kinds of worship which are appropriate only to Allah”.

The shaykh has actually gone around all types of shirk occurring around the graves and “other kinds” are just to inflate and dramatize the situation, but it is so much better in a debate or a sermon to stick to the strict truth and even the essential to move forward instead of getting lost in unnecessary secondary debates.

4) “Diverting a category of worship to another than Allah is like diverting them all because Allah the very pure is the partner who has need of associates and he accepts what is sincerely for Him”.

Here, we have a problem. According to this statement, one that commits shirk by the cult of the saints, even once per year for example as several people who will sacrifice a beast or attend a ceremony once a year, is like one who was never worshipped Allah and spent the whole year worshipping statues? This is not correct. It is possible that Allah will not accept his worship because he committed shirk, but cannot judge people this way. They should be given the obvious evidence and without ambiguity of their shirk, proof that cannot be contradicted, and if after that they persists in their shirk Islamic law will apply on them. But without having seen them or spoken with them, taking the decision that they are identical to the kafir idolaters and draw the conclusions that apply, including the possibility to make Jihad against these people, this is an error with very heavy consequences.

5) “He said that anyone who puts between him and Allah intermediaries to intercede has worshipped them and taken them as shareholders, because the intercession is entirely to Allah the most High”.

Here again is an exaggeration, and the author himself has corrected later explaining the intercession of the Prophet (s). The exaggeration is to consider two different situations as equal. The first situation is the unbelievers who worship the statues or the angels or Jesus (s) saying that they have a great value for Allah and that by worshipping them we are getting closer to Allah; this Allah refuses any intermediaries that people worship instead of Allah thinking it will bring them closer to Allah. The second situation is to go to the tomb of the saint (assumed) and ask him to intervene for us beore Allah. However we can always ask a living person to pray for you hoping that his prayer will be answered more than yours, or asking many people to be more likely to be granted, but the deceased does not hear you and cannot pray for you. And believing that he has the power to influence the decisions of Allah and promise him a beast or other gift is obviously a return to fetishism; but it is not equal to willingly worshipping him and believing that this worship brings us closer to Allah. Furthermore “intercession is entirely to Allah” does not mean it does not exist, because it exists. The Prophet (s) recommends us to pray for others in their absence, do we not intercede before Allah in their favor? Similarly when we ask someone to pray for us, which is also commendable and recommended. The last day, the Prophet (s) will intercede for his community and Allah promised him: “Certainly your Lord will give you until you are satisfied”. But the other prophets also, martyrs, scholars, and once in heaven all believers will intercede as long as they remember their relatives or acquaintances who are still in Hell because in Heaven all wishes are granted. Of course all these intercessions only lead by the will of Allah because He has the last word to accept or reject; this is the meaning of “Intercession is entirely to Allah” and not that it doesn't exist. The mistake is to believe that someone else that Allah has the power to decide or that his intercession is guaranteed and another error is to ask this to a dead person that does not hear you.

6) “What I just mentioned is not contradicted by any Muslim scholar, better yet the pious predecessors, companions, followers, four imams and others who have followed their path are agreed on it”.

If the Shaykh had merely pointed out what is obvious and indisputable, he could invoke the consensus, but with all of these inaccuracies, exaggerations and hasty conclusions the lifting of shields is inevitable.

7) “Asking intercession of prophets and deceased saints, sanctifying their graves by building domes, introducing lighting, praying there, devoting alms and pious wishes, this is all part of the innovations announced by the Prophet (s) and which he ordered to be wary in his word: “Before the end of the world a part of my community will join the idolaters and some will worship fetish”.

And this is the total confusion: asking the deceased is shirk, build domes is a detail that does not deserve to be mentioned here because it will distort the debate, lighting also, prayer: what would be reprehensible is to take the tombs as qibla or directly pray for the saint instead of Allah, but otherwise praying in a place where there is a grave is not blameworthy. Devoting alms by saying for example: “If Allah heals me I will offer food to the poor in such place”, is not a problem unless it is a place of sins and we are going to help encourage those sins. It's all part of the innovations: this assertion is too easy, each point should be detailed and analyzed. We are therefore mushrikeen and idolaters? It would have been much better to stay on the debate of Aqida and shirk rather than mixing all those details that kill all the interest of the message.

8) “This is the point of divergence between us and the people to the point that they have declared us unbelievers”.

The Shaykh explained his mistake without understanding it himself: he said that some scholars request demolition of domes, which means that others don’t; how then can one be allowed to destroy them against the wishes of their keepers? And what to expect but the anger of the scholars and people? And people accuse them of hating the sahaba (because in Saudi it was mostly graves of companions), the saints and the prophets and of bringing a new religion since these constructions are ancestral. And what to do now that this discord has broken up?

9) “But Allah has helped us and gave us victory”.

Against whom?Against people who were angry that they demolished the domes? Is this worth a war? Does this allow to kill, snatch land and power, attach provinces and continue the war endlessly? As if they were fighting vulgar idol worshippers without even taking the time to preach them, their lives and their property have become so paltry. This is completely outrageous and far from being Islamic, it is rather a terrible danger for Islam.

If one speaks of a conqueror who took power by force of arms, the position of the Sunnis is to disapprove his crimes but to recognize his authority if he comes to power. Sunni scholars have adopted this position since the seizure of power by Yazid Ibn Muawiya: several companions refused to submit to his authority and rebelled: Husayn Ibn Ali and Abdallah Ibn Handhala and Abdallah Ibn Zubayr (r), and the armies of Yazid wiped them all out, including Husayn was killed in Karbala the day of Ashura with 70 members of the family of the Prophet (s), Abdallah Ibn Handhala was killed in Medina and 500 virgin girls of Medina became pregnant, raped by the soldiers of Yazid. The result of rebellions was great Muslim leaders killed, the community suffered greatly and the evil people remained in power. For this reason, the priority for Sunni scholars (unlike the Shia who revere the martyrdom and prefer dying to bid) is to maintain the order and security and avoid killing: so we condemn anyone who uses violence to seize power; but once he took power, we recognize his authority. The result is that we condemn the recourse to weapons of the Wahhabis to expand their territories in fighting Muslims, but once their Kingdom established we recognize this power; but the argument of identifying Muslims to idolaters who refused the preaching by reason and the only solution now is to fight them to bring them to Islam, this argument is unacceptable and what they call Jihad is only crimes and the argument of the cult of the saints is not enough to justify the killings.

10) “This is what we call people to and we are fighting for, having established evidence of the book of Allah and the Sunna of His Messenger and the consensus of the pious predecessors of the imams, in accordance with the word of Allah: “And fight them so that there will be no temptation and the religion will be entirely for Allah” (8/39)”.

He does not want to call these people Muslims because it will not be possible to do Jihad against them; so there is no doubt, the Wahhabis justify their jihad by using verses to fight idolaters. If those people are were Muslims who commit an offence against the laws of Allah, there are laws to be applied; the death penalty would apply to one who denies the faith and leaves Islam, but even then one is given the choice to change his mind and return to Islam.

They claim to call people to consensus, we saw and we will see in sha Allah with the response of the mufti of Tunisia that their positions are far from consensus, and concerning the fact that they have established the evidence this is absolutely wrong because you'll see the answer of the mufti who refutes each and every argument of the Wahhabis and gives his evidence against their words.

I now pass on to the response of the mufti for my comments.

1) “We will judge you by the perfect words of Allah and the authentic Sunna of the Prophet (s)”.

The mufti has begun with the conclusion: you have called Muslims unbelievers and you have fought them; you have therefore created a discord and committed numerous major sins. He will then give the arguments and evidence of what he said. Even if some arguments are questionable or partial, what is sure is that the Wahhabi letter was not convincing and the mufti seems as much attached to Islam and to following the texts as the Wahhabis. However the mufti adopts the same position exactly like the people that the Wahhabis fight; therefore the Wahhabis have no right to condemn and fight them.

2) “may Allah not allow that a Muslim love these places and glorify them as a worshiper and submit as people submitted to idols before Islam and worship them by bowing, bending or fasting. If an ignorant did that the officials and responsibles would have prevented him, ulama and scholars would have disapproved it and would have clarified to the ignorant the right way”.

This is what the mufti is in agreement with the Wahhabis: not to worship other than Allah. By going from common points and discussing calmly, it would have perhaps led to a mutual understanding and a compromise.

3) “You have committed a grotesque error and you have taken a religion other than Islam because begging Allah by the value a creature is legal”.

Here's a first disagreement that deserves clarification. The Wahhabi letter speaks about asking the death the realization of wishes and the mufti replies that it is permissible to ask Allah on behalf of the value of a person or creature. It would have been wise to sit calmly to clarify things instead of creating more and more distance between one another, because the mufti draws major conclusions on the ignorance and misguidance of the Wahhabis with this point whereas I don’t see this in the Wahhabi letter.

4) “Or even ask the support of the visited saint interceding in favor and praying for him as in the hadith of Uways Alqarni because the saints and scholars are like living martyrs in their graves”.

We have a real problem: visit a deceased saint and request him to intercede for us and pray for us? Because he is alive and hears us as in his lifetime? That is a cult and must be called shirk and Kufr. That is why I say we must acknowledge the Wahhabis the merit of having changed the attitudes of Muslims on this point.

5) “It seems in your Epistle that you deny the miracles of the saints and the usefulness of invocations”.

Another exaggeration, the Wahhabi letter does not say this, what a pity to deviate from the real debate.

6) “As for your practice to demolish the domes built above the tombs of the saints without distinction between busy and abandoned places is the absolute disaster and terrible injustice”.

So this is the breakpoint between Shaykh Mohamed Ibn Abdul Wahhab and those who did not accept his ideas: moving to a practical stage by destroying all the elements related to the cult of the saints since one cannot destroy the shirk itself. This act can be legal if it is the decision of the authority, but how can one attack property of others and destroy it because it is used for haram? Could we not remain in the stage of preaching by sending for example groups to preach and explain everywhere where there are gatherings for the tombs, and debating with scholars to make them aware of the evil that is in these practices and reconcile the points of views? Moving to the stage of action is a breaking point in Daawa where mercy for people is replaced by condemnation and hatred and therefore it is exiting the way of the Prophet (s) who suffered in Mecca with the Muslims during long years of persecution and torture during which Allah forbid them to replicate and ordered them to respond to evil with good and continue to preach them and pray by night Allah to save the unbelievers from their error. It is only in Medina that the war was allowed, only defensive in the first five years, then when the power balance changed the Muslims took the initiative to launch campaigns.

So followers of Mohamed Ibn Abdul Wahhab consider that they have transmitted the message in a clear and irrefutable way to the point that those who refuse their sermon - the majority of the Ummah - have chosen the Kufr knowing perfectly it is Kufr and can thus be regarded as unbelievers or apostates. Therefore Jihad may be proclaimed against them to convert them to Islam or make them renounce their apostasy. You see how this attitude puts an end to preaching, exchange and debate and generates incomprehension, rejection and opposition.

7) “What Muslims build in their private properties to honor their dead, there is no disturbance or prohibition”.

This point of divergence illustrates the difference of approach between Salafees and other scholars: the Salafees prefer a literal reading without any context and any criteria to limit the effect of the hadith while other scholars operate several routes: linguistics, contextual, legal, etc. to restrict or refocus the scope of hadith. What counts at the legal level is that these various interpretations fall into the beam of the possible interpretations of the hadith in linguistic, logical and legal levels. Provided those interpretations are possible one can no longer refuse any even if one has a preference. This is where that Salafis fall in contradiction with the 4 schools since they only accept the single truth that is necessarily theirs. And here they are demolishing the domes and mausoleums that are sins for sure and certainly not a shirk in itself.

Same thing for the following point: even if the domes have been built in sin, should we now destroy them or leave them, there is a difference of opinion between scholars but the Salafees don’t care about it.

8) “When it comes to reject the visit of the tombs”.

May Allah forgive mufti exaggeration because the question is not condemning the visit of graves in general, but those of saints especially. The recommendation of visiting the graves or cemeteries is evident in Islam to remember relatives and pray for them or to remember the death in general and it would be a grotesque ignorance to deny this, but what is questioned is the visit of the saints that the mufti defends in these terms :

9) “If the visit is for the visitor to benefit from the visited, to seek the place whose virtue is famous and that he prays to his grave for a certain case, there is no problem or ban, instead this is recommended and meritorious and deserves making the trip”.

Here is at last a clear subject of disagreement and this is the place to exchange and compare the evidence, because in my view “the visitor to benefit from the visited” is impossible, “the place whose virtue is famous” alas it is the demons that deceptively help those who commit shirk who made the famous place, “and he prays to his grave for a certain case” that does not exist in Islam, prayer at the tomb of a saint has no difference with one made at home, “there is no problem or ban, instead this is recommended and meritorious and deserves making the trip” that is actually the practice prevalent among the Sufis and the dominant culture at the time and I can only thank Allah that thanks to the action of the Wahhabis this practice has diminished and nowadays we cannot hear an official and recognized scholar say such things.

10) “Degrees and miracles of the mausoleums vary because of a secret in the demand of help and the ability to help that you don't know because a wall was drawn up preventing you access to that secret”.

Now we have stepped out of the field of reason and evidence into the field of secrets and opacity where the Devils drive people away cheerfully.

11) “The fact that you included the tombs of the prophets in the wrong and that you declare their visitor lost and miscreant”.

Now the mufti is taken by rage and flame and delivers his false dalils and we have a beautiful example of using invented hadiths (mawdu') or non-existent to justify a non-Islamic act that relates to shirk. The only hadith that really exists among those he mentions is: “Whoever visits my grave, my intercession is due to him” (Hadith Hasan narrated by Daraqutni and Bayhaqi)

12) “Don't make my grave a mosque”. On this subject the mufti’s position is clear and convincing: one should not take a grave as qibla; but if there is a grave somewhere inside the mosque or that ancient tombs are beneath our feet, it is not a problem and not shirk. Banning it as a precautionary measure is an exaggeration and condemning those who do it is an unjustified attack. The long comment by the author of the book which I translated is a solid and clear argument. Once more the Wahhabis by treating equally shirk and questionable practices distort the debate and lose their credibility.

13) “Going to visit him, asking the intercession and support and the benefit of his blessing, and Muslims who come to him from everywhere, we can only follow it”.

We condemn this and fight it.

14) “Travelling towards a mosque”, as well as the question of lighting are more secondary and side issues that prevent the progress of the debate.

15) “We look closely to the people who make these promises and we haven't seen any of them pronounce the name of a saint when slaughtering; they do not spray the blood on the grave and not commit any act which would lead to the prohibition of these animals and these sacrifices”.

I can't believe the mufti because many people that have attended these places describe the obvious and revolting shirk loads of people do. Yet this is a positive point because there is an agreement on what is shirk and from there one can consider a solution such as controlling what happens around the tombs and preachers will only face the shirk issues that are unanimous and report them to the authorities. This solution would be a first step to progress together and a serious hit to shirk because I think that the blood offered to Jinns is 80% of the shirk.

16) “They intend them to these mausoleums not that it is a worship without which religion would be incomplete, but they seek healing, issues and profit in this world by a secret hidden in the alms and known by its famous results”.

Alas dear Mufti the hidden secret is none other than the Jinn and demons who hurry to give people the illusion that they have been fulfilled when adored encouraging them to shirk.

17) “If the person promises a sacrifice to a given saint, he has committed a sin instead of a good action, but we haven't seen anyone go wrong or straying up to committing this error” Subhan Allah I can't believe the mufti because the practice is so prevalent. Yet, we agree to condemn it.

18) “And if these sacrifices are promised to the visited place without naming the saint it is therefore an accepted sacrifice if it is a beast that can be sacrificed in the pilgrimage, but should it be taken to him necessarily where he appointed or should he just give this charity wherever he is for the facility? In this question there is a well known divergence in the school of Malik recorded in the books”.

So we can decide to prohibit the sacrifices around the mausoleums and tell everyone to make his sacrifice at home and give the poor because scholars say that sacrifice have the same value and that will be a big part of shirk removed.

19) “If you seek to prohibit legal acts by fear of the forbidden so apply this principle in all worship in Islam”.

See how the debate is false because of the details and exaggerations and what a pity that people of science and good will go into opposition until reaching war just because of poor communication.  

I took the time to fully translate these letters and make the comment because they represent the disagreement between the Wahhabis and the Ummah. My conclusion is that there are (1) points of important disagreement (2) but consensus on the fundamental points (3) and many marginal unnecessary issues. The good procedure was (1) to record the points of agreement and establish a common strategy to combat the shirk everybody agrees of (2) then continue the dialogue for the points of disagreement. But the radicalization of the Wahhabi position led to the radicalization of others and only weapons could end the discussion. But the weapons didn’t lead to an end since the wars didn’t stop throughout the 19th century and only the fall of the Ottoman empire and the alliance of Saudi Arabia with the British and then the Americans put an end to wars.  

V THE REBEL CHILDREN OF WAHHABISM  

The phenomenon of the modern Jihad appeared in Afghanistan with the Soviet invasion in 1981. At this time, the Ummah was behind the Afghan Mujahideen and Gulf countries supported them financially, but the main military support came from the United States. Then we were all astonished after the Russian withdrawal and the fall of the Soviet empire to see those same mujahideen killing each other for power. The Pashtun from before are very attached to Islam and very focused on the use of weapons. I was surprised to discover when travelling to Pakistan in 1987 these people with beards, turbans and purda and their own Kalashnikov factories and who kill each other for a cow. But the Algerian crisis came to demonstrate that afghans were not alone in happily kill Muslims in the name of Allah. Then the wars or guerrillas in Bosnia, Chechnya and the Philippines led to the creation of the international Al-Qaeda Jihad nebula, which reached the peak of its fame with the attacks of September 11. You know what happened next: American invasion in Iraq made it a land of permanent instability, northern Mali Tuareg rebellion allied himself with the Algerian jihadists, the Arab revolutions threw Syria and Libya into chaos and Yemen to a lesser extent and Boko Haram took advantage of the power vacuum in Nigeria to proclaim its State. But what link does this have with the Wahhabis?

When a national cause calls the people to take weapons and fight, everyone rises to defend his country, but people more attached to religion are faster to sacrifice because more attached to the general interest and more believers in martyrdom. The most radical who already carry hatred against the majority of the population engage fully in the fight and have no hesitation to kill Muslims and dream of a Caliphate where they will impose their radical ideas as it happened in Saudi. So as soon as a war breaks out, they flock around and constitute a new group that has no interest for the first cause of the conflict but who simply wants a land to live their ideology. That is why that Wahhabi Salafist automatically form the bulk of the jihadi troops and are quickly incompatible with others and form their own group. We have here two new developments from the Wahhabism we already know. Firstly this Jihad is not done from a State. But Jihad can only be proclaimed by a Caliph at the head of a State. It is as simple as this, Islam does recognize any form of guerrilla or civil war or terrorist group. Mohamed Ibn Abdelwahab was allied with the prince Mohamed Ibn Saud who was emir of a province and even if we disapprove the way he called Muslims apostates and launched war against them, but at least he departed from a State and they were conventional wars. The guerrillas lead to suicide attacks and summary executions without distinction between Muslims and non-Muslims and between civilians and warriors, and now they even target children, all that is totally condemned by Islam.

The second is the cut with the scholars. The young Salafees - because they are very young in majority - have no qualms to reject all ulama that contradict them whereas they know so little about Islam, so they end up with a State: Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, rejected by all scholars in the world. What strange return to the situation of the khawarij who declared all sahaba with Ali and Mouawiya unbelievers while there is not a single sahabi among them! I ask Allah that all those who read these lines will be convinced of the error of all the jihadists on Earth. But I have to talk about the Palestinian case because of all conflicts it is the more legitimate or the less illegitimate. I've always been against suicide attacks. In Islam it could be the only solution if we are surrounded and we are expecting to all be killed, so if I can explode myself killing some enemies I might as well do it, especially if it can provide a solution to the survivors. A brother told me: but this is the only solution they have. Unfortunately it is not a solution, it only makes the situation worse, and Islam is clear in prohibiting what leads to more misfortune than benefit. They'll say: but what solution then for the Palestinian people? Be sure that it is better to do nothing than do something that will worsen situation. Then the solution is as follows: the strength of the Jews comes from their unity throughout the planet despite the diversity of their nationalities; and we Muslims fail to unite; even in a mosque or a family it is very difficult; we therefore need to rework our purpose in life and our brotherhood. This does not stop us trying to do all what we can to help the Palestinian cause.

And I pray to Allah that all who read my lines will stop acting like scholars and discussing religious matters and engulf the Ummah in sterile debates. I pray Allah to ceases the wars between Muslims, to show us the way of his Prophet (s), to unite our hearts and bring the Umma back to its purpose which is to continue the message of the Prophet (s) of mercy for humanity.