Most of the following information has been borrowed from Mir’ât-ul haramayn, (Written by Eyyûb Sabrî Pâsha, d. 1308 [1890 A.D.]):

The founder of Wahhabism is Muhammad bin Abdulwahhab. He was born in the town of Huraymila in Najd in 1111 A.H. [1699 A.D.], and died in Darr’iyya in 1206 A.H. [1791 A.D.]. Formerly, with a view to travelling and trading, he went to Basra, to Baghdad, to Iran, to India, and to Damascus, whereabouts he happened to find Ahmad ibni Taymiyya’s books, which were against the Ahl as-sunnat. He read them and, being intelligent, clever, and strongly convincing, he became famous as the “Shaikh-i Najdî.” In 1125, he was ensnared by the British spy Hempher and was exploited by the British in their activities carried on to demolish Islam. Our Book Confessions of A British Spy expound on the events that contributed to the establishment of the Wahhabite heresy. In order to increase his fame, he received an education from the savants of the Hanbalî Madhhab in the blessed city of Medina and then in Damascus. Then he went back to Najd, where he wrote books. His heresies deceived the villagers, particularly the inhabitants of Dar’iyya and their chief Muhammad bin Su’ûd. People who accepted his ideas, which he termed Wahhabism, are called Wahhâbi or Najdî. It being easy to deceive the ignorant, Wahhâbis increased in number, and he introduced himself as the Qadî and Muhammad bin Su’ûd as the Amîr and Governor. He had it established that they would be succeeded only by their progeny. When the book Mir’ât-ul-haramayn was printed in 1306 A.H. [1888 A.D.], the Amîr of Najdîs was ’Abdullah bin Faisal.

Muhammad’s father, ’Abdulwahhâb, was a good Muslim. He and the savants in Medina had sensed from his words that the son of ’Abdulwahhâb was going to take a heretical course and advised all people around them not to talk with him. But he declared Wahhabiism in 1150 A.H. There are too many wrong ideas to be tallied in the books which he wrote, especially in Kitâb-ut-tawhîd, which is the worst of them, and in Fath-ul-majîd, an explanation of the former prepared by his grandson, ’Abdurrahmân bin Hasan. Yet Wahhabism is based upon three doctrines:

1— Wahhâbîs state that deeds and worships are part of îmân; he who does not perform one fard action, e.g. a person who omits one namâz, though he believes that it is fard, becomes a disbeliever; he should be killed and his property should be shared among the Wahhâbîs. This misinformation is written in pages 17, 48, 93, 111, 273, 337, and 348 of Fath-ul-majîd.

2— They state that he who asks for shafâ’at (intercession) from souls of Prophets or of Awliyâ, or who visits their graves and invokes (Allâhu ta’âlâ) through their intermediation, becomes a disbeliever. It is written in the five hundred and third page of the Wahhabite book entitled Fath-ul-majîd: “When Rasûlullah was alive it would be permissible to ask him to invoke a blessing on you. In fact, any pious person who is alive may be asked to invoke a blessing on you. As a matter of fact, when Hadrat ’Umar was about to leave for Mekka to perform ’umra, Rasûlullah said: ‘O ’Umar, don’t forget us in your invocations.’ Also, it is permissible for the living to send invocations to the souls of the dead that are buried or that will be buried. But it is not permissible to ask for invocations from those who are in graves. Allâhu ta’âlâ has declared that it is shirk (to attribute a partner to Allâhu ta’âlâ) to ask for invocations from those who do not hear or answer. The dead and living people who are absent, far away, will not hear or answer you. They cannot be useful or harmful. None of the Sahâba or people who succeeded them asked anything from Rasûlullah’s grave. If it had been permissible to ask something from the Prophet after his death, Hadrat ’Umar would have asked him for rain. But he did not visit his grave or ask him for help. He asked for invocations from Hadrat ’Abbâs, who was alive and present.” It is written on its seventieth (70th) page: “Asking something from a dead person or from a person who is absent means to make him a partner to Allâhu ta’âlâ.”

These slanders of the Wahhâbîs are contradicted first of all by their own book. It is written in the two hundred and first page of Fath-ul-majîd: “’Abdullah ibni Mas’ûd stated in Bukhârî: ‘We heard the food which we ate praise and laud Allâhu ta’âlâ.’ Hadrat Abû Zar said: ‘Rasûlullah took some pieces of stone in his hand. We heard them praise and laud Allâhu ta’âlâ.’ The report stating that the wood which Rasûlullah leaned upon as he made a speech moaned, is true.” This means to say that not only Rasûlullah but also some other Believers could hear the sounds which not everybody could hear. It is declared at the end of the  same report that these stones were heard to praise and laud Allâhu ta’âlâ while they were in Hadrat Abû Bakr’s hand, too. Many books (of Islam) relate that while Hadrat ’Umar was making a speech called Khutba in Medina, he saw Sâriya, the commander-in-chief of the army, making war in Iran and said to him: “Sâriya, beware of the enemy on the mountain!” and Sâriya, hearing him, captured the mountain. Wahhâbîs try to prove their words right with âyats which have descended for idolaters. However, Believers, [that is, the Ahl as-sunnat], do not worship Prophets ‘’alaihim-us-salawâtu wa-t-teslîmât’ or Awliyâ ‘’alaihi-rrahma’. But they believe that these people are Allah’s beloved slaves and that Allah will pity His other slaves for their sake. They say: “He, alone, creates harms and benefits. No one except Him has the right to be worshipped.” They visit graves and invoke Allâhu ta’âlâ through the exalted persons in the graves.

Ibni ’Âbidîn states in the last page of the (chapter about) the contract of a Nikâh: “It is not permissible to marry by saying that Allah and Rasûlullah are witnesses. In fact, there are (savants) who say that it would be kufr to say so. ‘For, it would mean to say that Rasûlullah knows the ghayb. He who says that someone other than Allâhu ta’âlâ knows the ghayb becomes a disbeliever,’ they say. But it is written in Tâtarhâniyya,[1] in Hujja,[2] and in Multaqit[3] that it is not kufr. For, Allâhu ta’âlâ intimates everything to His Messenger’s soul. Prophets know many things that are unknown to others. The hundred and twenty-sixth âyat of Sûrat-ul-Jîn purports: ‘Of the things from the ghayb, which Allâhu ta’âlâ knows, He intimates some only to those Prophets He chooses.” However, it is written in the books of ’aqâid that one of the karâmât of Awliyâ is their knowing many things of the ghayb. The Mu’tazila group [and their followers, the Wahhâbîs,] base themselves on this âyat as they say that Awliyâ cannot know the ghayb. In answer to them, we say that this âyat informs us that only the angel bringing the Wahy is informed with the ghayb directly. The ghayb are intimated to Prophets and to Awliyâ through the angel or by some other means. There is detailed  information about the karâmât of Awliyâ in the book, Sell-ulhisâm- il-Hindî li-nusrat-i sayyidinâ Khâlid-i Naqshibandî.[4] Please read the book! You will learn many facts in answer to the Wahhâbîs.” Tafsîr-i Mazharî states in the explanation of this âyati kerîma: “Allâhu ta’âlâ lets His Awliyâ know without any means as well. He revealed Sâriya to Hadrat ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhumâ’. He states that He told Hadrat Mûsâ’s mother to put her son into the sea and intimated to her that He would send him back and make him a Prophet. He states that He informed the Hawârîs (Apostles) by means of something similar to Wahy, and that He said to Hadrat Maryam (Jesus’ blessed mother): ‘Shake the date log. There shall be fresh dates. Eat them!’ These people were not Prophets. They were Walîs.” This is discoursed in detail in the book entitled Usûl-ul-erbe’a fî terdîd-il wahhâbiyya, in Persian. The book was reproduced by Hakîkat Kitâbevi in 1395 A.H. [1975]. A short passage from the book has been translated into English. Please see the sixty-second page of the eighteenth (2007) edition of The Sunnî Path, which is available from Hakîkat Kitâbevi in Istanbul.

It is written in the hundred and twenty-sixth page of the second volume of the book Hadîqa: “It is permissible to invoke Allâhu ta’âlâ through Rasûlullah, through the As-hâb-i-kirâm, or through the Tâbi’în even after their death. To pray through them means to ask for their shafâ’at. The savants of the Ahl as-sunnat stated that this was permissible. But a group of Mu’tazila denied it. The admission of the invocation of the one who asks for shafâ’at is the karâmat of the intercessor. That is, it is the latter’s karâmat after death. Holders of bid’at, heretics, did not believe this. Imâm-i Manâwî answers these ignorant people in his commentary to Jâmi’us-saghîr. Imâm-i Subkî stated: “To invoke through Rasûlullah means to ask for his shafâ’at (intercession), which is something beautiful. None of the earlier and later Islamic scholars said anything against doing so. Only Ibni Taymiyya rejected it. Thus he dissented from the right way. He made up a bid’at which had been said by none of the savants preceeding him. Because of this bid’at of his, he became the topic of Muslims’ indignant remonstrations.” Ibni ’Abdussalâm explains detailedly that it is permissible to ask for something from Allâhu ta’âlâ by saying, “For Rasûlullah’s sake.” Also, it is communicated by  Ma’rûf-i Karkhî and also written in the booklet Qushayrî that it is permissible to invoke (Allâhu ta’âlâ) through Awliyâ, who are Rasûlullah’s inheritors. It is written in its hundred and fifty-first page that a person who does something which has been said to be permissible by any mujtahid should not be prohibited from doing it. For, it is permissible to follow one of the four Madhhabs. For this reason, people who visit graves, those who bless themselves with the graves of the Awliyâ and those who vow something through their souls so that their sick relatives may be cured or so that what they have lost may be found, should not be prohibited from doing so. When vowing, to say, “I intend this votive offering for this Walî,” is figurative, and it means, “I intend it to those who serve the grave.” It is similar to saying that you are only lending it when you are giving the alms called zakât to the poor; savants of Fiqh have said that it is permissible to say so. Here, the tenor, not the vehicle, is important. Likewise, a present given to the poor becomes alms. And alms given to the rich becomes a present. Hadrat Ibni Hajar-i Haytamî has given a fatwâ stating that when vowing at the graves of Awliyâ, it is sahîh to vow with the intention of another qurbat, that is, another useful deed such as alms to their children or disciples, or to other poor Muslims who are there. Things determined during the vow should be given to the persons intended. All the vows made at graves today bear this kind of intention. This should be understood from the expression “Intended for the Walî.” It is harâm to speak ill of deceased Awliyâ, or to say that they are ignorant, or to infer meanings disagreeable with Islam from their words, or to deny that they will manifest karâmats after death, or to think that they are no longer Awliyâ when they are dead, or to prevent those who bless themselves with their graves. It is also harâm to think ill of Muslims, or to oppress them, or to take away their property, or to envy or slander them, or to lie or talk behind their backs.”

It is written in the hundred and eighty-eighth page of Hadîqa: “A hadîth-i-sherîf, which Bukhârî quotes on the authority of Abû Hurayra ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’, declares: “Allâhu ta’âlâ declared: My slave cannot approach Me through anything as much as he approaches Me by doing fard actions. When My slave does supererogatory acts of worship, I love him very much, so much so that he hears with Me, sees with Me, holds everything with Me, walks with Me. I give him whatever he asks from Me. When he trusts himself to Me I protect him.” As this hadîth-i-sherîf indicates: he who does the supererogatory acts of worship together with the fard ones will earn Allah’s love. The invocations of such people will be accepted. Sa’îd bin Ismâîl Abû ’Uthmân Khayrî Nishâpûrî ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaih’ said that this hadîthi- sherîf means: “I immediately give him all his wishes such as to see, to hear, to go, and to hold.” See the last part of the chapter “Final Word of Se’âdet-i Ebediyye” in the first fascicle of Endless Bliss. Also, the hadîth-i-sherîf “When you have trouble in your work, ask for help from those who are in graves!” reveals that Allâhu ta’âlâ gives this power to His beloved slaves when they are dead as well.

Imâm-i Birgivî quotes the hadîth-i-sherîf, “When visiting a Believer’s grave, if you say, ‘O Allah, don’t torment him for Hadrat Muhammad’s sake,’ Allâhu ta’âlâ will stop his torment until the end of the world,” in his booklet Atfâl-ul-Muslimîn. Rasûlullah commands us to say this prayer. But Wahhâbîs say that he who prays so will become a disbeliever.

There are many hadîth-i-sherîfs stating that a Muslim is conscious in the grave. The Sahâba and the Tâbi’în used to visit the Qabr-i Sa’âdat and bless themselves with the Prophet’s soul. There are many books written about this.

While explaining how to pray in a due manner, the book Hisnul- hasîn states: “Admission of a prayer requires that you put Prophets ‘alaihim-us-salawâtu wa-t-teslîmât’ and pious Muslims as intermediaries. It is declared so in a hadîth-i-sherîf in Bukhârî.”

Hadrat ’Alî Râmitanî said: “Pray with a tongue that has not sinned so that it will be admitted!” That is, humiliate yourself in the presence of Allah’s beloved ones, beg them so that they will pray for you. This is the meaning of invoking through a Walî.

The son of ’Abdulwahhâb and those ignorant people who have been deceived by him deem the Ahl as-sunnat as disbelievers who worship idols and graves, and say that it is halâl to kill the Ahl as-sunnat and to take away their property; this is because they misinterpret the nass [i.e. âyats and hadîths]. In a hadîth-i-sherîf in Bukhârî, our master the Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ declares: “The disbelievers impute the âyats that have descended for disbelievers to Muslims.” He declared in another hadîth-i-sherîf: “Of those who bear the name Muslim, the ones for whom I fear the most are those who change the meanings in the Qur’ân.” These hadîth-i-sherîfs foretell that Wahhâbîs will appear and that they are heretics.

If a person who invoked through Awliyâ by visiting their graves would become a disbeliever, then our Prophet could not be asked to intercede. In fact, he has always been asked to intercede, before he came to the world, as he was alive in the world, and after his death. In a hadîth-i-sherîf quoted by Ibni Mâja and written in the hundred and fifty-third page of Shawâhid-ul-haqq, our Prophet used to invoke: “Allâhumma innî es’eluka bi-haqqis- sâ’ilina ’alaika,” which means: “Yâ Rabbi! I ask of Thee for the sake of those people whom Thou hast given whatever they wanted whenever they asked of Thee!” And he used to command his Companions to invoke likewise. Tabarânî, Ibni Hibbân, Hâkim and Suyûtî report that he said: “Ighfir li-ummî Fâtimata binti Asad wa wassi’alayhâ madkhalahâ bi haq-qi Nabiyyika wa’l- Anbiyâ-illazina min qablî innaka arham-ur-râhimîn,” when he intered Hadrat Alî’s mother Fâtimayi with his own blessed hands. As ’Uthmân bin Hunayf, one of the greatest Sahâbîs, reports, he ordered a blind man, who had asked him to pray so that he might recover, to make an ablution, to perform two rak’ats of namâz and then to say: “Allâhumma innî as’aluka wa atawajjahu ilayka bi-Nabiyyika Muhammadin Nabiy-yir-rahma, yâ Muhammad innî atawajjahu bike ilâ Rabbî fî hâjatî-hâzihî, li-taqdiya-li Allâhumma shaffi’hu fiyya.” This prayer is written at the end of the chapter entitled Salât-ul-hâjat in Marâq-il-falâh and its annottion by Tahtâwî and in their Turkish version Ni’mat-i Islâm, and also in Shifâ-us-Siqâm, in Nûr-ul-islâm, and in ad-Durar-us-Saniyya. The Sahâba often used to say that prayer. It is declared in a sahîh hadîth-i-sherîf quoted by Hâkim that when Âdam ‘’alâ Nebiyyinâ wa ’alaihissalâtu wassalâm’ was taken out of Paradise, he prayed fervently. But his repentance would not be accepted. When at last he said: “Yâ Rabbî! Have mercy upon this father for the sake of my son Muhammad!” His prayer was accepted, and he was told: “O Adam! If you had asked for anything with the name of Muhammad, I would give it, whatever it were. If it had not been for Muhammad, I would not have created you.” This hadîth-i sherîf is also written at the beginning of the books Mawâhib and Anwâr. This fact is detailedly explained in the hundred and ninth page of the book Ghâliyya by ’Âlûsî. The word ‘haqq’ in these prayers means ‘sake, value.’ The phrases that contain them mean: ‘for the sake of the valuable grades which He has given those whom He loves.’ For, no creature has by any means any haqq (right) upon Allâhu ta’âlâ.

Question: At that time, Muhammad ‘’alaihis-salâm’ was not in the world. He would honour the world with his presence three hundred and thirteen thousand years later. How did Âdam ‘’alaihis-salâm’ know him?

Answer: When Hadrat Âdam was in Paradise, he saw the writing “Lâ ilâha il-l-Allah Muhammadun Rasûlullah” everywhere in Paradise and also on the ’Arsh. So he knew that Rasûlullah was Allah’s most beloved slave. This was written there in Islamic letters. This means to say that those letters are not man-made. Those letters existed long before the world and Âdam ‘’alaihis-salâm’ came into existence. All the heavenly books and pages were sent in Islamic letters.

These prayers show that it is permissible to ask Allâhu ta’âlâ by advancing His beloved ones as intercessors and to invoke for their sake.

It is written in the five hundred and twenty-fourth page of the fifth volume of Ibni ’Âbidîn: “It is good to invoke Allâhu ta’âlâ through Rasûlullah’s intercession. None of the early savants or the later ones said anything against this. Only Ibni Taymiyya would not accept this. He invented a bid’at by saying what nobody had said. Imâm-i Subkî explains this fact well.”

Ahmad bin Sayyid Zaynî Dahlân ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaih’ was the Muftî, the Raîs-ul-’ulamâ, and the Shâfi’î Shaikh-ul- Khutabâ of Mekka. He wrote quite a number of books. his books, Khulâsat-ul-kalâm fî bayân-i umarâ-il balad-il-harâm, Firradd-i ’alal-wahhâbiyyat-i-atbâ-i madhhab-i ibni Taymiyya, and Ad- Durar-us-saniyya firradd-i ’alal-Wahhâbiyya, he divulges the Wahhâbîs’ real intentions and proves with âyats and hadîths that they are zindiqs, heretics and idiots. In his Khulâsât-ul-kalâm, he explains how they deceive the unlearned ones of Muslims, and answers (their dogmas) one by one. He proves that their words are mendacious and slanderous, and states as follows:

It is sahîh and permissible to pray through the mediation of Rasûlullah after his death, as it was when he was alive. Likewise, hadîth-i sherîfs state that it is permissible to pray through the mediation of the Awliyâ or pious Muslims. [The statements in pages 167, 170, 191, 208, 248, 353, 414, 416, 482, 486, and 504 of the Wahhabite book Fath-ul-majîd are slanders against Muslims.] The savants of the Ahl as-sunnat say that Allâhu ta’âlâ, alone, gives effectiveness, creates, invents, gives benefit and harm, and annihilates. He does not have a partner. Prophets, all the living, and the dead cannot create effectiveness, benefit or harm. Nor can they effect anything. Only, because they are the beloved slaves of Allâhu ta’âlâ, we get barakat through them. Wahhâbîs believe that the living have effectiveness but the dead do not have effectiveness. It is written in the 70th, the 77th, the 98th, the 104th, the 239th, the 248th, the 223rd, the 503rd and the 504th pages of the Wahhabite book Fath-ul-majîd: “A person who asks for something from a dead person or from a living person who is absent will become a polytheist. Man can be asked to do things that are within his power. It is not permissible to ask him to do things which only Allah can do.” It is written in its 70th page: “The living person will pray for the thing asked of him. Allah will accept the prayer and create that thing. But to ask for it from a dead or absent person means to ask for something which is not within his power, and this, in its turn, is polytheism.” It is written in its 136th page: “To try to get barakat through the graves of pious people is polytheism, identical with worshipping the idols called Lât and Manât.” It is written in its 208th page: “It is polytheism to ask for your needs from the dead or to do istighâsa through the dead. It is ignorance to ask the dead to intercede for you. Without Allah’s permission, he cannot intercede for anyone. Doing istighâsa through him or asking him to intercede has not been created as the cause for his being permitted to intercede. The cause for intercession is îmân. He who does istighâsa is a polytheist. He prevents permission.” The book contradicts itself. For, it is written in its 200th page: “The Heavens fear Allah. Allah has created sense in the heavens. They perceive. It is intimated in the Qur’ân that the earth and heavens make tasbîh. The Sahâba heard the pieces of stone which Rasûlullah took in his hand make tasbîh; a pole called Hannâna in the mosque moaned, and food made tasbîh.” [Their asserting that Prophets and Awliyâ do not have any sense while saying that mountains, stones and poles have sense and perception exposes that they are drivelling idiots.] Wahhâbîs become polytheists by saying that ‘you can pray through the living but not through the dead.’ For, this statement means to say that the living hear and effect but the dead do not hear or effect. It means to believe that beings other than Allah effect. They themselves say that those who believe so are polytheists. In fact, both the dead and the living are causes. Allâhu ta’âlâ, alone, effects and creates. The statement in Tafsîr-i ’Âlûsî which states that Imâm-i a’zam prohibited praying through the intermediation of Rasûlullah is not true. For, not a single savant has conveyed such a report from Imâm-i a’zam. They have said that it is permissible (to pray through Rasûlullah’s intermediation). Tawassul, tashaffu’, istighâsa and tawajjuh have the same meaning. They are all permissible. A hadîth-i-sherîf in Bukhârî states: “On the Day of Rising people will first make istighâsa through Âdam ‘’alaihissalâm’.” Bilâl bin Hâris ‘radiy- Allâhu ’anh’, one of the greatest Sahâbîs, came to Rasûlullah’s grave and said: “O Rasûlallah! Pray on behalf of your Ummat so that it will rain.’ Upon this, it rained. Disbelievers who said that idols would intercede for them worshipped idols. But Believers, who ask for intercession, do not worship Prophets or Awliyâ. It is written in the two hundred and ninth page of the book Fath-ulmajîd: “It is declared in the Qur’ân al-kerîm: ‘Intercession will be done only with His permission,’ and ‘Only people He likes will be interceded for.’ How does the person who asks for shafâ’at know that the Prophet will be allowed to intercede for him? How does he know that he is one of those who are liked and then asks for shafâ’at?” With these statements he contradicts both hadîths and himself. For, he says in the two hundred and eighth page of the same book: “Îmân is the cause of being interceded for.” It is said in a prayer, which we are commanded to say after the adhân, that Allâhu ta’âlâ has promised our Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ the grades of fadîla and wasîla. He said that he will intercede for those who say this prayer, for those who say the salawât, and for those who visit his grave. These hadîths and many others reveal that he has been permitted to intercede for those he likes. The hadîth-i sherîf: “I shall intercede for those who have grave sins,” proves that he will be permitted to intercede for anyone who has îmân. The thirteenth of the forty hadîths in the hundred and thirtieth page of Shawâhid-ul-haqq declares: “On the Day of Rising I shall intercede. I shall say, ‘O my Allah! Put those who have îmân as big as a mustard seed in their heart into Paradise.’ Consequently, they shall go to Paradise. Then I shall say to those with something little in their heart: Go into Paradise.” This hadîth-i sherîf is quoted in Bukhârî. Istigâhasa means tawassul, that is, to make (someone) a wasîla, to ask for (his) help and prayers. To ask for his intercession means to invoke Allâhu ta’âlâ through his intermediation and to beg for death with îmân. It is written in many parts of the Wahhabite book Fath-ulmajîd, especially in its three hundred and twenty-third page: “It is polytheism to make istighâsa through absent or dead people or to ask for their help. Allah commands us to war with polytheists.” On the contrary, Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ used to say: “O Muhammad, I turn to thine Allah through thine intermediation.” After his decease the Sahâba used to say this prayer. A hadîth-i sherîf, quoted by Tabarânî, declares: “If a person left alone in a desert loses something he should say, ‘O Allah’s slaves, help me!’ For, Allâhu ta’âlâ has slaves that you do not see.” Ibni Hajar-i Makkî wrote in his annotation to Îdhâh-ul- Manâsik that this prayer has been utilized many times. In a hadîth-i sherîf, quoted by Abû Dâwûd and others, one evening during an expedition Rasûlullah said: “O my Allah’s earth! Against thine villainy I trust myself to Allah.”

Sayyid Qutb, one of the leaders of lâ-madhhabî people called the Ihwân-ul-Muslimîn, writes in his explanation of the third ayât of the Sûra Zumar: “A person with tawhîd and ikhlâs does not want anything from anyone, except from Allâhu ta’âlâ. He never trusts any creature. Men left the tawhîd shown by Islam. Today, in all countries, Awliyâ are being worshipped. People ask for intercession from Awliyâ, exactly like those Arabs who worshipped angels and statues before Islam. According to the tawhîd and Ikhlâs revealed by Allâhu ta’âlâ, no intercession or means exists between Allâhu ta’âlâ and His creatures.” With these words, he announces that he is a Wahhâbî. [To worship a creature means to believe that a creature, such as a stone, a tree, the sun, a star, a cow, a human being, an icon, or a picture, has the attributes of ulûhiyyat, and to supplicate to it in a submissive manner. Attributes peculiar to Allâhu ta’âlâ alone are called the attributes of ulûhiyyat. This sort of belief is called shirk (polytheism), and a person who holds such a belief is called mushrik (polytheist). These objects of worship are called sherîk (partner), or ma’bûd (the worshipped), or put (idol). Most of today’s Christians, Buddhists, Brahmins and magians are polytheists. Muslims do not deitize any Walî. They know that Prophets and Walîs are beloved slaves of Allâhu ta’âlâ. They believe that Allâhu ta’âlâ informs these blessed people about their visitors as well as about those people who invoke through them. They beg these darlings of Allâhu ta’âlâ to pray for them.]

3— (According to Wahhâbîs), “it is not permissible to build tombs over graves, to perform namâz at tombs, to burn candles for those who worship and serve in the tombs, or to vow alms for the souls of the dead!.. The inhabitants of Mekka and Medina have been worshipping domes and walls until now. For this reason, Muslims called the Ahl as-sunnat and also those who are called Shiite or Alawî are polytheists.” They say that it is halâl to kill them, to plunder their property, and the animals which they kill become carrion, (and therefore cannot be eaten).

The fact that it is permissible to perform salât in tombs is detailedly written in the fourteenth chapter of our book entitled Advice for the Muslim. Turba (tomb) means room. If it were not permissible to build tombs, the Sahâba ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum ajma’în’ would not have buried our Master Rasûlullah, Hadrat Abû Bakr and Hadrat ’Umar in a room. A tomb is not built in order to worship the dead person. It is built in order to express love and respect towards him and to protect those who visit him so that they can say prayers for his soul against rain and sun. It is written in the five hundred and fifty-second page of the second volume of the book Majmâ’ul-anhur: “When Muhammad bin Hanafiyya interred ’Abdullah bin ’Abbâs, he set up a tent over his grave. The visitors prayed in this tent for three days.” As is seen, a person who follows the Sahâba will not demolish tombs, but he will build tombs.

It is written in Kashf-un-nûr: “Building tombs over the graves of savants and of the Awliyâ is intended to protect them against the insults of the ignorant. It is written in Jâmi’ul-fatâwâ and in Tanwîr that it is not makrûh to build a dome on a tomb. Their statement, “We have been demolishing tombs for fear that the ignorant might think of the Awliyâ as creative,” is disbelief. Pharaoh also said so. He attempted to kill Mûsâ ‘’alaihis-salâm’ by saying that he had been causing fitna. Allâhu ta’âlâ loves His Awliyâ. He creates whatever they ask for. But Wahhâbîs think ill of Allâhu ta’âlâ, of the Awliyâ and of all Muslims. It is harâm to think ill of Muslims. The Awliyâ do not create anything while alive or when dead. They are causes for Allâhu ta’âlâ to create. The souls of the Awliyâ have a connection with their bodies in the graves. It is stated in a hadîth-i-sherîf quoted by Daylamî: “When I am dead I will understand as I do when I am alive.” To receive fayd and to benefit from a Walî who is dead or alive, it is necessary to love and to respect him. The ignorant, when seeing the dead without any movement under the soil, consider them lower than themselves. When they see the tomb, the sarcophagus, and that everybody visits them with respect, they become respectful, too. That is, the tombs are not built for the dead, but in order for the living to be respectful and to benefit from the Walîs. The savants of the Ahl as-sunnat declare that it is harâm to build tombs over graves with the intention to decorate and to boast. It is makrûh when it is built for the sake of not being forgotten. Yet it is not makrûh when it is intended to protect the dead against beasts and thieves. It is permissible to inter a dead person in a tomb that has been built before. Rasûlullah sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ built his son Ibrâhîm’s tomb a span above the ground and had it plastered. One day, as he was passing by Ibrâhîm’s grave, he saw that a small part of it was open; so he covered it. This fact is written in Khulâsa.[5] None of the Islamic savants likened tombs to idols; the ones who wrote most excessively said that it would be harâm to build them. Muslims who visit graves and invoke through the Awliyâ have not been spoken ill of or slandered by any of the savants except Wahhâbîs. It is written in the two hundred and forty-second page of the Wahhabite book Fath-ulmajîd: “Ibni Hajar-i Makkî states in his book Zawâjir that it is a grave sin to build domes over graves, that it is wâjib for Muslim rulers and governors to demolish such domes, and that it is necessary to demolish Imâm-i Shâfi’î’s tomb first.” The fact is quite the opposite; Hadrat Ibni Hajar-i Makkî does not say, “It is a grave sin to build domes over graves” in his book Zawâjir, which is mentioned above. He says, “It is necessary to demolish the tombs in the public cemetery of waqf, where everybody is buried, for they occupy too much ground to enable other Muslims to be buried.” But he does not say that it is harâm or disbelief to build tombs, or to visit graves. This slander made against Hadrat Ibni Hajar-i Makkî is another obvious document proving that Wahhâbîs, who are not ashamed to change the meanings of âyati- kerîmas and hadîth-i-sherîfs, have been attempting to deceive Muslims by changing and misquoting the information in the books of the savants of the Ahl as-sunnat, too.

Ibni Hajar-i Makkî writes in the hundred and twenty-fifth page of his book Fatâwâ-i fiqhiyya: “It is sahîh to perform namâz at the tombs of Prophets. It is not even makrûh. Prophets are alive in their graves. However, their lives are different from our lives in every respect. They worship in order to enjoy its taste, for they perceive Allâhu ta’âlâ in the life of the grave better than they do in the world.”

Tâhir Muhammad Suleymân Mâlikî, an Islamic scholar in Sudan, states as follows in his book Zahîrat-ul-fiqh-il-kubrâ: “Shaikh Adwî said that building a tomb over a grave is permissible when the following four conditions are fulfilled: The place where the grave is must be the dead person’s property. No act of fesâd or bid’at must be practised at the tomb. The tomb must not be turned into an object of pleasure or boasting. It must be built as a sign to indicate that there is a Walî lying there. Ibni Taymiyya’s heretical comments bear no value.”

Scholars of Ahl as-sunnat wrote many books for the purpose of refuting the Wahhâbîs. The names of forty of them are as follows:

1— The very valuable book entitled Fatwâ, by Muhammad ibni Suleymân ‘rahmatullâhi ’alaih’, a Shâfi’î savant of the blessed city of Medina.

2— The book ad-Durarussaniyya firraddi ’alal-wahhâbiyya, by Ahmad Zaynî Dahlân-i-Shâfi’î, chief of the savants of the blessed city of Mekka, exists in the City Library in Istanbul, at No. 1079. It has been reproduced by photocopy by Hakîkat Kitâbevi in Istanbul.

3— The book entitled Risâlat-ussunniyyîn firradi ’alalmubtadi’în by Mustafâ Qirîmi ‘rahmatullâhi ’alaih’. It exists in the City Library, at number 992.

4— The book entitled Minha-tul wahbiyya, by Hadrad Dâvûd bin Suleymân Baghdâdî ‘rahmatullâhi ’alaih’, who is registered in the entry Khâlidî in the book Munjid. The latter exists at No. 292 in the City Library. It has been reproduced by photocopy by Hakîkat Kitâbevi in Istanbul.

5— In his book entitled Târîh-ul-Madhâhib-il-Islâmiyya, Muhammad Abû Zuhra describes Wahhâbîs and informs in detail that they are ahl-i bid’at.

6— ’Allâma Ibni ’Âbidîn ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaih’ says in the three hundred and ninth page of the third volume of his annotation to Durr-ul-mukhtâr: “The lâ-madhhabî people call themselves Muslims and those who do not believe as they do polytheists or disbelievers. They say that it therefore brings thawâb to kill the Ahl as-sunnat and their savants. In 1233 A.H. the Ahl as-sunnat overcame them, and they became grieved and distressed.” A photocopy of the aforesaid quotations has been published within the book entitled Kitâb-ul-aymân by Hakîkat Kitâbevi.

7— The Muftî of Zabid, Sayyid ’Abdurrahmân said: “To refute Wahhâbîs and to explain that they are heretics, it will be sufficient to quote the following hadîth: Our Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ stated: “Some people will appear in eastern Arabia. They will read the Qur’ân al-kerîm. Yet the Qur’ân al- kerîm will not go down their throats. They will leave Islam as an arrow leaves a bow. Their faces will always be shaved.” One of the most important ritual duties of most of them is to shave their heads. They shave their cheeks and wear sharp beards only on their chins. This hadîth-i-sherîf demonstrates that they have dissented from the right path.”

8— In the books es-Sayf-us-saqîl by Zâhid-ul-Kawtharî ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaih’, the ideas of Ibni Taymiyya and Ibni Qayyim are explained and refuted.

9— The book entitled Wahhâbilere Reddiyye by the ninetysixth Shaikh-ul-Islâm Sayyid Muhammad Atâullah Bey is famous.

10— The book entitled Advice for the Muslim is originally in Turkish. Passages are quoted from the Wahhabite book Fath-ulmajid, and each of these passages are given responses from books written by Islamic savants. Its first edition was prepared by Hakîkat Kitâbevi in Istanbul in 1970. It has been published also in English by Hakikat Kitâbevi.

11— The book entitled Shawâhid-ul-haqq, by Yûsuf-i Nabhânî, refutes Ibni Taymiyya and the Wahhâbîs through strong documents. A section of the valuable writings in this book exists in Arabic in the book ’Ulâmâ-i Muslimîn, which was printed in 1972. Part of its translation is written at the end of the Turkish book, Ashâb-› Kirâm, in entry Yûsuf-i Nabhânî, No. 253.

12— The book entitled es-Sihâm-us-sâhiba, by Yûsuf Nabhânî, again, refutes Wahhâbîs by providing evidence from âyat-i-kerîmas.

13— Ahmad Dahlân answers the slanders of the Wahhâbîs with documents in his books entitled Khulâsa-tul-kalâm and al- Futûhât-ul-Islâmiyya. The second part of the former book has been offset by Hakîkat Kitâbevi in Istanbul.

14— Imâm-i Subkî proves in his book entitled Shifâ-us-siqâm that it is permissible to visit Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ and the Awliyâ and to invoke (Allâhu ta’âlâ) through their souls. It was printed in Bulaq Printhouse in Egypt in 1318 A.H. [1900 A.D.] It has been offset several times by Hakîkat Kitâbevi in Istanbul.

15— Shaikh Suleymân, the brother of Muhammad bin ’Abdulwahhâb, was one of the savants of the Ahl as-sunnat. Seeing that his brother, Muhammad, opened an evil way, he wrote refutations to his corrupt books. His book entitled Sawâiq-i ilâhiyya firraddi ’alal-wahhâbiyya was published in 1306, and it was offset in 1395 [1975] by Hakîkat Kitâbevi.

16— Muhammad bin ’Alî Zamlikânî, the Qâdî of Aleppo and a Shâfi’î savant, proves in his book entitled Durra-tul-madiyya firraddi-’alâ-ibni Taymiyya that it is permissible to invoke (Allâhu ta’âlâ) through the graves of Prophets.

17— Ahî-zâda ’Abdulhalîm bin Muhammad, the Qadi-asker[6] of Thrace, proves in his book entitled Fî-ithbât-il-kamâlâti-lil- Awliyâ hâlalhayât wa ba’dal-mamât that the Awliyâ have karâmats after dying, too. He passed away in 1013 [1590 A.D.].

18— The book entitled al-’Aqâidussahîha fî tardîd-ilwahhâbiyya, by Hasan Jân Fârûqî, proves in Arabic that Wahhâbîs have been demolishing Islam from within. It has been offset by Hakikat Kitâbevi.

19— Great savant and perfect Walî, Sayyid ’Abdulhakîm Arwâsî, in his book entitled Kashkul, terminates his writings by refuting Wahhâbîs as follows: Millions of lovers, who had kashfs and shuhûds, visited Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ and received infinite blessings from Allâhu ta’âlâ. Instead of giving various examples, it will be enough to read the eulogy by Imâmul- aimma and Sirâj-ul-umma Abû Hanîfa Nu’mân bin Thâbit; he started as follows: “O Master of masters! For thee am I here. I beg thee to like me. I defend myself by taking refuge in thee,” as he visited the Prophet.

20— The book entitled Sabîl-un-najât, in Arabic, divulges the corrupt and heretical beliefs of Wahhâbîs and refutes them with documents. First published in 1394 in India, it has been reproduced by photocopy by Hakîkat Kitâbevi.

21— The book entitled el-Mathâil-ul-muntahaba, in Arabic, reports the corrupt beliefs which Wahhâbîs have been trying to spread among young people, and refutes them with documents. First published in 1391 in Pakistan, it has been reproduced by photocopy by Hakîkat Kitâbevi.

22— The book entitled al-Habl-ul-matîn, in Arabic, explains that it is necessary to adapt oneself to one of the four Madhhabs, and describes karâmât and how to reap benefits from the souls of Awliyâ. First published in Pakistan, it has been reproduced by photocopy by Hakîkat Kitâbevi.

23— The book entitled Fatâwâ-ul-haramayn was written by Ahmad Ridâ Khân Berilewî, one of the great savants of India. It answers Wahhâbîs and all lâmadhhabî people with documents. It   also explains in detail that the organization entitled Nudwat-ul ’ulamâ in Lucknow city of India is an institution harmful to Islam. The book, written in Arabic in 1317, was published in Pakistan, and was also offset in 1977 by Hakîkat Kitâbevi.

24— The book entitled al-Madârij-us-saniyya firraddi ’alalwahhâbiyya answers Wahhâbîs in Arabic and in Urdu. It has been reproduced by Hakîkat Kitâbevi.

25— The book entitled Tarîq-un-najât, written by Muhammad Hasan Jân Fârûqî, was published in 1931 in Sind Haydarâbâd city, and has been reproduced by photocopy by Hakîkat Kitâbevi.

26— Sun’ullah-i Halabî, one of the savants of the blessed city of Mekka, proves in his book entitled Sayfullah ’alâ-man-kazzaba ’alâ-Awliyâillah that Awliyâ are honoured with karâmats after death as well. He wrote this book of his in 1117 A.H. That karâmât and tawassul (intercession) are permissible is written also in the book entitled Fatâwâ-i-Khayriyya, (by Khayr-ad-dîn Remlî ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaih’, 993 [1585 A.D.] – 1081 [1670].)

27— Hadrat Shâh Ahmad Saîd-i Dahlawî, in his book entitled Tahqîq-ul-haqqil mubîn, answers forty misleading statements of the Wahhâbîs in India with documents. He states in the fortieth answer that ’Abdul’ ’Azîz-i Dahlawî said in his explanation of the Fâtiha: “When asking for help from somebody, if one trusts him only without thinking that he has been honoured with Allâhu ta’âlâ’s help, it is harâm. It will be permissible if one trusts Allâhu ta’âlâ only and thinks that the person has been honoured with Allah’s help, that Allah creates everything through causes, and that the person is one of such causes. Prophets and the Awliyâ, too, have asked for help from others with this belief in their minds. Asking for help from somebody else with this belief in mind is the same as asking for help from Allâhu ta’âlâ.” He says in the tafsîr (explanation) of the ’Abasa Sûra: “To cremate the corpse is to divest the soul of its place. To bury the corpse is to supply a place for the soul. It is thereby that we reap benefits from buried Awliyâ and other pious Muslims. It is thereby, again, possible to help the dead. Not so is the case for the dead that are cremated.” Hadrat ’Abd-ul-Haqq-i-Dahlawî writes in his commentary to Mishkât: “Most of the great shaikhs and the majortiy of the savants of Fiqh said that it was permissible to ask for help from Prophets and from the Awliyâ after their death. People of kashf and perfection communicated that this was correct. Most of them were promoted by receiving fayd from souls. They called those who were promoted by this way Uwaysî. Imâm-i Shâfi’î said that the grave of Imâm Mûsâ Kâzim was like a theriac for him for the acceptance of his prayers, and that he had experienced it a number of times. Imâm-i Ghazâlî said that a person who was made an intermediary and thereby enabled to give gave faid could be made an intermediary and could give fayd after his death, too. One of the superior great shaikhs said that he had seen four great Awliyâ who were active after death as well as when they had been alive; two of them were Ma’ruf-i Karkhî and ’Abdulqâdîr Geylânî. Ahmad bin Zarrûq, one of the great Western savants and a Walî at the same time, said: Abul-’Abbâs-i Hadramî asked me, ‘Who helps more, a living Walî or a dead Walî?’ I said, ‘Everybody said a living Walî, but I say that a dead Walî helps more.’ ‘You are right, for he is among the people when alive, but he is in the presence of Allâhu ta’âlâ when dead.’ he said. ’Ahmad bin ’Uqba Abul-’Abbâs Hadramî is a great Walî. His biography is written in the entry ‘Demirdash’ in the book Jâmi’-u karâmât-ul-Awliyâ. He explains clearly through âyat-i-kerîmas and hadîth-i-sherîfs that man’s soul does not die when he dies. He adds that the soul is conscious and notices the visitors and what they do. The souls of the perfect murshîds and the Awliyâ are in high grades when they are dead as well as when they are alive. Spiritually they are close to Allâhu ta’âlâ. Karâmats happen through the Awliyâ both in the world and after death. It is their souls through which karâmats happen. And the soul does not die with man’s dying. Allâhu ta’âlâ, alone, makes and creates the karâmats. Everything comes into being with His power. Every person, both when alive and when dead, is nothing before Allâhu ta’âlâ’s power. For this reason, it is not surprising that Allâhu ta’âlâ sends blessings to a slave of His through one of His beloved ones. We always see that He creates many things and sends them through the living ones. Man cannot create anything when he is alive or dead. Only, he serves as a a cause, a means for Allâhu ta’âlâ’s creating.”

Hadrat Mawlânâ ’Abdulhakîm-i Siyâlkutî says in the book entitled Zâd-ul-labîb by taking excerpts from the Arabic explanation of Ashi’at-ul-lama’ât by ’Abd-ul-Haqq-i-Dahlawî: “Many people deny the fact that it is possible to get help from people in graves. They say that visiting graves is intended for invoking (Allâhu ta’âlâ) on behalf of the dead, for invoking blessings on them. However, the majority of the great men of Tasawwuf and the savants of Fiqh said that help from people in graves was an established and experienced fact. Also, the Awliyâ who have kashf communicated this unanimously. In fact, many people reported that they were making progress (spiritually) by receiving fayd from souls. They called such people Uwaysî.” After this Hadrat Siyâlkutî adds: “I do not understand the real purpose of those who say that the dead cannot help. He who prays asks for help from Allâhu ta’âlâ. He utilizes a beloved slave of Allâhu ta’âlâ as an intermediary so that his prayer will be accepted. He says, ‘O my Allah! Give me for the sake of this beloved slave of Thine, whom you have blessed abundantly.’ Or, calling to a slave of Allâhu ta’âlâ, whom he believes He loves very much, he says, ‘O Allah’s Walî, intercede for me!’ Allâhu ta’âlâ, alone, gives the wish and we ask from Him only. The Walî is only an intermediary, a cause. He, too, is transient. He, too, will be annihilated. He cannot make anything. He does not have the energy, the power to act. If to say or to believe so were shirk or to trust in somebody besides Allâhu ta’âlâ, it would be prohibited to ask for benedictions or for something else from the living, too. It has not been prohibited by our religion to ask for benedictions or for something else from the living. On the contrary, it has been declared to be mustahab. It has always been done. If people who deny this mean to say that there is no karâmat left after death, they will have to prove this thesis of theirs. Yes, some of the Awliyâ are elevated to the ’âlam-ul-quds after death. Being in the presence of Allâhu ta’âlâ, they are quite unaware of everything else. They are quite unaware of the world, of what is in the world. They do not hear the invocations. There are such ecstatic dervishes among the living Awliyâ, who are in the world, too. If a person does not believe in karâmat at all, it does not make any difference. He cannot prove his thesis. The Qur’ân al-kerîm, hadîth-i-sherîfs, and the events that have been seen and known for centuries prove him wrong. Yes, if an ignorant idiot does not expect his wish from Allâhu ta’âlâ’s power and says that the Walî makes and creates, and if he asks from him with this thought, he should be prohibited and even punished. But this cannot be exploited as a ground for discrediting or besmirching the Islamic scholars or the ’Ârifîn. The ’Ârifs cannot be slandered with this assertion. For, Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ used to greet the dead as he visited graves. He never prohibited us from asking for something from the dead. Depending upon the state of the visitor and upon that of the one who is visited, some are prayers and others are requests for help. Every Muslim knows that Prophets ‘salawâtullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaihim ajma’în’ are alive in their graves. No one can deny this. But we have been hearing about people who deny the fact that the Awliyâ can extend help from their graves and that they can be requested for help.”

’Abd-ul-Haqq-i-Dahlawî says in his book entitled Jadhb-ulqulûb: “Ibni Shayba reported: There was a drought in Medina during the time of Hadrat ’Umar. Someone went to the Prophet’s grave and said: ‘O Rasûlallah! Pray for rain on behalf of your Ummat. Or else we’ll be destroyed.’ Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ appeared in his dream and said to him: ‘Go to ’Umar and give him the good news that it will rain.’ Ibni Jawzi relates: ‘There was drought in Medina. They went to Hadrat ’Âisha and begged her. She told them to bore a hole in the ceiling of Rasûlullah’s tomb. They did so. It rained plentifully. The blessed grave became wet.’ ” These two reports prove that they used to ask for help from graves. Even Hadrat ’Âisha ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhâ’, who was a mujtahid, ordered to ask for help from graves. Also, Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ gave the good news that there would be rain to the person who asked for help from his grave. For this reason, to deny the fact of asking for help from Rasûlullah’s grave is to deny the ijmâ’ of the Sahâba. As is reported in the book entitled Hisn-ul-Hasîn, Rasûlullah ‘sall- Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ stated: “Any person who has lost his animal should say, ‘O Allah’s slaves! Help me! And may Allâhu ta’âlâ help you!’ ” It was stated in another hadîth-i-sherîf: “At a dreadful place one should say, ‘O Allah’s slaves! Help me!’ ” This prayer has been experienced many times. It was stated in another hadîth-i-sherîf: “A person who has suffered a loss because of something should make an ablution and perform a namâz of two rak’ats! Then he should say, ‘Yâ Rabbî! I ask from Thee. Through the intercession of Thine Messenger Muhammad ‘’alaihis-salâm’, who is Thine compassion for ’âlams (all beings), I beg Thee. O Muhammad! I make thee an intercessor with my Allah so that He will accept my wish. Yâ Rabbî! Make him my intercessor!’ ” Every Muslim calls upon Rasûlullah by saying, “Assalâmu ’alaidka ayyuhan Nabiyyu,” when performing namâz. This, alone, would suffice to answer those who deny the fact. At the same time it proves the fact that it is permissible to practise râbita. Establishing râbita with the Awliyâ ‘qaddas-Allâhu ta’âlâ asrârah-um-ul’azîz’ is similar to an old person who cannot see well wearing glasses. The âyat, “Look for a wasîla,” points out that it is necessary to look for a Murshid-i-kâmil in order to receive fayd from Allâhu ta’âlâ.[7]

It is written in the book entitled Tawâlî’ul-anwâr: “When you visit Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam’ you should dispel worldly thoughts from your heart. You should only expect help from Rasûlullah. Worldly thoughts prevent the help from coming. You should keep in mind that he is alive in his grave, that he recognizes the visitors, that he has been permitted by Allâhu ta’âlâ to give what is asked from him, and that it is only through him that Allâhu ta’âlâ can be approached.”

Imâm-i a’zam Abû Hanîfa, in his book Musnad, reports from ’Abdullah ibni ’Umar: “He who visits he Prophet’s grave approaches it from the side which faces the qibla. He turns his back to the qibla. He faces the grave. Then he gives this prescribed salute: ‘As-salâmu ’alaika ayyuha-n-Nabiyyu wa rahmatullâhi wa barakâtuhu.’ ” Hadrat Ibni Hajar-i Makkî says that it is better to stand than to sit as you say your prayers. Ruknuddîn Abû Bakr Muhammad Kirmânî (d. 565 [1169 A.D.]), one of the savants of Fiqh in the Hanafî Madhhab, states: “During the visit, the right hand is put on the left hand, as is done when you perform namâz.” It is mustahab to stand approximately four dhrâ’ [two metres] from the Shabaka. This translation from the book Tahqîq-ul-haqq-il-mubîn ends here.[8]

28— The Wahhabite book entitled Fath-ul-majîd states in its 66th, 107th and 386th pages that it is necessary to do ijtihâd on every occasion. It states on its 387th and 390th pages that people who follow a Madhhab should know the proofs of their Madhhab and if they do not know them they become polytheists. In its 432nd page, it contradicts itself by stating that the ignorant cannot do ijtihâd. In its 78, 167, 183, 503 and 504th pages, it states that he who asks for shafâ’at from the dead becomes a polytheist. It says that it is shirk to expect miraculous help from the dead. In its 115, 140, 173, 179 and 220th pages, it states that Muslims have been worshipping the Awliyâ. In its 133, 134, 136, 139, 140, 484 and 485th pages it states that it is shirk to expect blessings and help from graves. In its 143, 146, 191 and 503rd pages, it states that it is shirk to ask for prayers from the dead. In its 169, 179, 416 and 503rd pages, it states that the dead do not have sense, they do not perceive anything. In its 222, 223, 234, 247, 274 and 486th pages, it states that it is shirk (attributing a partner to Allâhu ta’âlâ) to get benefits from the graves of the Awliyâ by visiting them. In its 181   and 211th pages, it states that to ask for shafâ’at means to attribute a partner to Allâhu ta’âlâ; 258, 259 and 260th pages state that it is forbidden to approach Rasûlullah’s Hujra-i Sa’âdat in order to greet him. It says in its 486th page that the Ashâb-i-kirâm ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaihim ajma’în’ used to pray turning their back to Rasûlullah’s grave.

Islamic savants had given answers to these slanders of the Wahhâbîs hundreds of years before they appeared. Among these answers, Shifâ by Hadrat Qadî ’Iyâd, ’At-Targîb wat-tarhîb by the hadîth savant ’Abdul’azîm-i Munzirî, Mishkât-ul-Masâbîh by Waliyyuddîn-i Tabrîzî, Mawâhib-ul-ladunniyya by Imâm-i Qastalânî, Jâmi’us-saghîr by Imâm-i Suyûtî, al-Yawaqît-waljawâhîr by ’Abd-ul-Wahhâb Sha’rânî, Khulâsa-tul-wafâ by Imâm-i Semhûdî, Jam’ul-asrâr by ’Abd-ul-Ghanî Nablusî, Taqrîb-ul-usûl by Sayyid ’Ahmad Dahlân, Matâlib by Fakhruddîn-i Râdî, Tuhfatuz- zuwwâr by Ibni Hajar-i Asqâlânî, Sharh-i Shifâ by Shihâb-uddîn Haffâjî, Mansak by ’Allâma Halîl Mâlikî, Sharh-ul-mawâhîb by Muhammad Zarkânî Mâlikî, Sharh-i shamâil by Imâm-i Manâwî, Nuqûl-ush-shar’iyya firraddi ’alal-wahhâbiyya by Mustafa Shattî Hanbalî, Nashr-ul-Mahâsin by ’Abdullah Yâfi’î, Sharh-ul-Ihyâ by Sayyid Murtadâ Hânafî, Sa’âdat-i Dârayn by Yûsuf Nabhânî, Masâlik-ul-hunafâ by Îmâm-i Qastalânî, Kitâb-uzzuhd by Imâm-i ’Ahmad, Hilya-tul-Awliyâ by Abû Muhammad Halîl, Safwa-tussafwa by Ibni Abiddunya, Karâmât-ul-Awliyâ by Lâlkâi, Fatâwâ-i hadîthiyya and al Jawhar-ul-munzam by Ibni Hajar-i Mekkî, the books Misbâh-uz-zulâm by ’Allâma Abû ’Abdullah Mâlikî and by Kilâ’î, Bugya-tul-ahkâm by Nûraddîn ’Alî Shâfi’î, Hujjatullâhi ’alal-’âlamîn by Yûsuf Nabhânî, al-Intisâr lil-Awliyâ-il-abrâr by Tâhir Sunbul Bey, Jawâhir-ul-’aqdayn by Nûraddin ’Alî Samhûdî, Nafahât-i Shâziliyya by Hasan ’Adwî Misrî, Ajwiba-tul-mardiyya and Bahr-ul-mawrûd by ’Abd-ul- Wahhâb Sha’rânî, Bar’ul-askâm and Lam’u-Barq-il-maqâmât by Mustafa Bakrî, Kashf-un-nûr by ’Abd-ul-Ghanî Nablûsî, Sharh-i- Hizb-ul-Bahr by ’Ahmad Zarrûq Mâlikî, Jilâ-uz-zulâm firraddi ’alan-Najdillazî adallal-’awâm by ’Allâma Sayyid Ulwî, Sayf-ul- Jabbâr by Fadl-i Rasûl Badâyûnî and the Turkish book Târîh-i Wahhâbiyyân by Eyyub Sabri Pasha, printed in Istanbul in 1296, have become well-known among the men of knowledge ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaihim ajma’în’.

When a grave is visited, the soul of the one in the grave is reflected on the visitor’s soul like a mirror. If the visitor’s soul is higher, his heart becomes uneasy, disturbed, and he suffers harm. For this reason visiting graves had been prohibited during the early years of Islam. Later on, when deaths took place among Muslims, too, it became permissible to visit them. The hadîth-isherîf, “He who visits my grave will have visited me when I was alive,” orders us to visit the Hujra-i sa’âdat and get blessed with it. Those who visited him (Rasûlullah) when he was alive would leave him having been blessed very much. This hadîth-i-sherîf informs us that those who visit his blessed grave will leave him having been very much blessed.

Great Islamic savants, such as ’Abd-ul-Qâdir Geylânî, Muhyiddîn-i-’Arabî, Taqiyyuddîn-i ’Alî Subkî, ’Ahmad Ibni Hajar-i Makkî and ’Abd-ul-Ghanî Nablusî had proved through documents that it was permissible to visit the graves of Awliyâ and to beg for Allah’s pardon and mercy by benefiting from them as intermediaries, long before the Wahhâbîs appeared. Hadrat Yûsuf Nabhânî, extracting long excerpts and documents from the books of those exalted savants, disgraces the Wahhâbîs in his book Shawâhid-ul haqq. Fifty pages of this Arabic book were published in the book ’Ulamâ-ul-muslimîn wa-l-wahhâbiyyûn in 1972. Some of the information therein was translated to English and appended to the book Islam’s Reformers. Wise and reasonable youngsters who read them will immediately know what people have been guilty of heresy.

Hadrat ’Alâuddîn-i Attâr writes in his book Rashahât: “A person who visits the grave of a Walî receives fayd to the extent that he has realized the greatness of the great person in the grave and to the extent of the amount of good thoughts with which he has turned towards that Walî, that is, to the extent that he has attached his heart to him. Although there are many benefits in visiting graves, distance is not a hinderance to a person who can attach his heart to Awliyâ’s souls. Hadrat Khwâja Bahâuddîn Naqshiband commanded [those who can] to attach their hearts [directly] to Allâhu ta’âlâ. Visiting the graves of the Awliyâ should be intended to turn towards Allâhu ta’âlâ. The soul of a Walî should be made a means for completely turning towards Allâhu ta’âlâ. Likewise, modest behaviour towards people should be integrated into one’s orientating one’s heart towards Allâhu ta’âlâ. For, modesty towards human beings is acceptable when it is done for the grace of Allâhu ta’âlâ.” To obtain —by attaching one’s heart directly to Allâhu ta’âlâ— one’s share from fayd-i ilâhî (Divine Grace), which showers every moment, the heart must be purged from ghaflat (forgetfulness of Allâhu ta’âlâ) and worldly interests. A heart that is not so and which has been blackened by the darkness of disbelief, bid’ats and sins cannot become attached to Allâhu ta’âlâ or receive fayd-i ilâhî. Such people, by following the hadîth-i-sherîf “Lâ-yasa’unî…,” should find a murshîd-i kâmil and mukammil who has attained Allâhu ta’âlâ’s fayd and who is an inheritor of Rasûlullah, and should sit in his presence in good manners and strive to get a share from the fayds that come to the murshîd’s heart. When a real murshîd cannot be found, one should not be taken in by false shaikhs who do not know their place and who cannot distinguish disbelief from belief.

Hadrat ’Abdullah-i Dahlawî writes in his eighth letter: “Attach your heart to this faqîr’s soul! Or, go to Mirzâ Mazhar-i Jân-i Jânân’s tomb and attach your heart to his soul! By attaching the heart to him, one can attain Allâhu ta’âlâ’s fayds. He is more beneficial than thousands of people from our time.” Mazhar-i Jân-i Jânân ‘qaddasallâhu ta’âlâ sirrahul’azîz’ stated: “Visit the graveyards of the Awliyâ and beg them to give you fayd! Recite the Fâtiha and Salawât, send the blessings to their blessed souls, and make them a means to attain Allâhu ta’âlâ’s love, which is the way of bliss for the body and the soul. However, without purifying the heart, it is very difficult to receive fayd from the hearts of the Awliyâ. That is why Khwâja Bahâuddîn ‘qaddasallâhu ta’âlâ sirrahul’azîz’ had said that it would be better to first invoke Allâhu ta’âlâ to bless you with the lot of receiving fayz from the hearts of the Awliyâ.”

Wahhâbîs and some men of religion that they have misguided say that it is sinful to perform the mawlid. By holding such a wrong belief, which they so complacently profess, they involve themselves in a grave sin. Hadrad ’Ahmad Sa’îd-i Fârûqî wrote a book majoring in the refutation of Wahhâbîs by furnishing documentary proofs, proves in the thirty-seventh letter of his Maktubât-i-Ahmadiyya that it is permissible to perform the mawlid, which is also proven in a treatise beginning in the two hundred and thirty-third page of Yûsuf-i Nabhânî’s ‘qaddasallâhu ta’âlâ sirrah-ul’azîz’ book entitled Hujjatullâhi ’alal’âlamîn fî mu’jizât-i Sayyid-il-Mursalîn, at the end of the book al-Basâir limunkirit- tawassul-i bi-ahl-il-maqâbir, and in the book an-Ni’matul kubrâ al-’âlam fî-mawlîd-i sayyid-i walad-i ’Âdam. These three books, along with the following four books, have been offset by Hakîkat Kitâbevi in Istanbul. Performance of mawlid is not itself something that is to be disallowed. What should be disallowed is its performance melodiously like singing and/or its performance in mixed groups where women show themselves to men.

29— In the book at-Ta’akkub-ul-mufîd by Abû Hâmid bin Marzûq ‘qaddasallâhu ta’âlâ sirrahul’azîz’, a Damascene savant, and in at-Tawassul-u bin Nabî wa bis-Sâlihîn, which is an abridged version of two volumes of al-Barâat-ul-ash’ariyyîn, there are answers to the ideas of Ibni Taymiyya, Ibni Qayyim, and the son of ’Abdulwahhâb.

30— The book entitled al-Fajr-us-sâdiq fir-radd-i ’alalmunkîri- t-tawassul-i wal-hawâriq, by Jamil Sidqi Efendi, a savant of Baghdâd, puts Wahhâbîs to shame. This book has been offset by Hakîkat Kitâbevi in Istanbul.

31— The book entitled Nûr-ul-Yaqîn, by Hadrat Mustafa bin Ibrâhîm Siyâmî, a savant in Thailand, was published in 1345, and reproduced by offset in 1396 [1976] by Hakîkat Kitâbevi in Istanbul. It answers Wahhâbîs with documents.

32— Muhammad ’Abdurrahmân Silhatî, a savant in India, proves with documents in his book entitled Sayf-ul-abrâr-il-maslûl that Wahhâbîs are in a heretical way. The book is in Arabic and has been reproduced by Hakîkat Kitâbevi.

33— Muftî ’Ahmad Sâhib, another savant in India, answers Wahhâbîs and teaches the way of the Ahl as-sunnat in his book entitled Raddi Wahhâbî. The book was published in the Fârisî language in Ghûr Namnad city in 1264, and was reproduced by photocopy in 1399 [1979] by Hakîkat Kitâbevi.

34— Mawlânâ Muhammad Kutty ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaih’, a professor at Fârûq Collège in the city of Calicuta in the Kerala state of India, answers Wahhâbîs with documents in his book entitled Kitâb-us-Sunnî, which is written in Malayalam and consists of three volumes.

35— Muhammad Hilmi Efendi of Darende ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaih’, in his book entitled Mîzân-ush-sharî’a Burhân-uttarîqa writes about the attacks of some people on the savants of Tasawwuf and then gives valuable answers to each. The book is in Turkish and hand-written. He had received fayd first from Ziyâuddîn Efendi of Gümüshhane in Istanbul, and then from Hâdji Ahmad Efendi in Sivas. Hâdji Ahmad Efendi is the khalîfa to ’Âshiq Efendi and ’Âshiq Efendi is the khalîfa to Hâlid-i Baghdâdî. He died in 1334 [1916 A.D.] in Mar’ash. His khalîfas, especially his sons Bahrî and ’Abdurrahmân and his son-in-law, Wahbî, and the scribe of the book, Muhammad Naf’î Efendi continued to enlighten people afterwards.

36— Principal of Madrasat-ul-irfân college in Koutiala, Mali, Africa, writes in his book al Haqâiq-ul Islâmiyya that Wahhâbîs in Africa have perpetrated subversive activities, and he gives good advice to them.

37— Mudarrîs-i ’allâma and imâm of the Hamâda Sultan Cami’î (Mosque) Muhammad Hâmid, in his book, Luzûm-i ittibâ’i madhâhib-il-eimme, explains in detail the Hanafî Madhhab and proves that it is wâjib to follow one of the four Madhhabs. The book was writen in 1388 [1968 A.D.] and was offset and appended to the book entitled Miftâh-ul-falâh in 1984 in Istanbul.

38— The book entitled Nafahât-ul-qurb wal-ittisâl bi-ithbât-ittasarrufi li Awliyâillâhi ta’âlâ wal-karâmati ba’dal-intiqal is a famous book of Sayyid ’Ahmad Hamawî, who is a Hanafî savant.

39— Ahmad Bâba, a scholar in Ghana, Africa, and the director of Madrasa-i-wataniyya, confutes the Wahhâbîs with documents in his book entitled Sayf-ul-haqq.

40— In order to annihilate Islam and to demolish it from within, the British traitors organized missionary agencies. These agencies wrote books and thereby launched ignoble and base written attacks against Islam and against Islamic scholars. Putting on these books the names of venal men of religion whom they had suborned, they dispensed the books free of charge in Muslim countries. Scholars of the Ahl as-sunnat routed the British policy by writing answers to their slanders. One of those answers was written by Habîb ’Alawî bin ’Alawî Haddâd, in his book entitled Misbâh-ul-enâm wa jilâ-ul-zulâm, which was written in 1216, and printed in Istanbul in 1325. Its page margins contain the book entitled Jawâz-ut-tawassul and written by Ahmad bin Zeynî Dahlân. Reproducing the book several times, Hakîkat Kitâbevi in Istanbul has been spreading it the worldover.

[In 1381 A.H., a Muslim who had gone on hajj from Istanbul, was praying before the Hujra-i sa’âdat, “O Rasûlallah, I have many sins. Do shafâ’at for me!” A Wahhabite khodja approached him, pulled him on the collar and said, “He is dead. He does not hear anything.” The Sunnî Muslim said, “The hundred and fiftyfourth âyat of Baqara Sûra of Qur’ân al-kerîm declares: ‘Do not say ‘dead’ about those who died in the way of Allah! They are alive. But you do not sense this.’ Since it is prohibited to say ‘dead’ about one of the Ummat of this great Prophet, how can you say dead about the Highest of Mankind?”]

The first war between the Meccans and the Wahhâbis was fought in 1205 [1791 A.D.]. In those years the Ottoman army had been warring against exterior enemies. There was chaos in the interior, too. [Although we had been at peace with France for many years, Napoleon Bonaparte had attacked Egypt with a fifty thousand strong army in 1213 [1799 A.D.]. In the battles on sea and on land, the enemy was repelled from Egypt. Russia having attacked our borders, a war upon Russia was declared in 1221. The British navy entered the country through the Dardanelles and came up to Yedikule. All the officials, soldiers and people, led by Sultan Selîm Khan III, with a great effort placed more than a thousand cannons on the coasts within three days, thus defeating the navy without a fight. Russia offered peace, but then attacked again and crossed the Danube in 1224. After long battles, the Pact of Bucharest was signed in 1227. Within the country, irreligious people had appeared here and there who had been oppressing the people and disobeying the State. Selîm Khan III, who was the Khalîfa at that time, had been training drilled soldiers on the one hand, and on the other hand, he had been building cannon factories and running them. Upon seeing the new trained soldiers, the Janissaries, particularly those at the bastions of the Bosphorus, revolted under the command of Kabakç› Mustafa. The Sultan did not want bloodshed among Muslims. All kinds of progress came to a standstill. They martyred Selim Khan. Mahmûd Khan-i Adlî II, who came to the throne after him in 1223, taught the irreligious their manners and brought them round to obedience. He made peace with Russia in 1227.]

In 1226, the Governor of Egypt was given a firman, and Mehmed ’Alî Pasha sent his son Tosun Pasha with an army corps to the Hedjaz. Yet he could not establish peace and amity. Most of what is written up to here from the beginning of the chapter has been derived from the books entitled Khulâsat-ul-kalâm and Mir’ât-ul-haramayn. No personal ideas have been added. Those who need documents for what has been written so far might read the said two books, and also our English book entitled Advice for the Muslim.

The blessed cities of Mekka and Medina were governed by the Ottomans with justice and reverence; millions were spent for the restoration and rehabilitation of the sacred places. The blessed people of the Haramayn (Mekka and Medina) lived in comfort and abundance. This time of happiness lasted until the First World War. At the end of the First World War [1332 (1914) — 1336 (1918)], the enemies, who had realized their dreams of breaking Islam’s unity, ousted the Amîr of Mekka, Sherîf Husayn bin ’Ali, and the other notables of the Ahl as-sunnat, from the Hedjaz. They announced to the whole world that he had fled. ’Abdul ’Azîz bin Su’ûd, who had been living in Najd, came to Mekka in 1344 [1926 A.C.] and established a new government.

During the time of Ottomans, Wahhabism spread in India and Africa. As Shiism settled in Minor Asia and in Baghdad, likewise the Egyptian men of the religion were gliding towards Wahhabiism. It is a shame that Muhammad ’Abduh of Egypt, who had read much and written many books, not only adopted Wahhabism, but also completely digressed from the Ahl assunnat by falling for the propaganda (of introducing irreligiousness under the false name of modernism to Islamic countries), which is the most effective weapon in the war which the masons had started for annihilating Islam. Giving âyat-ikerîmas and hadîth-i-sherîfs meanings suitable for westernization and squaring with his personal views, he deviated from the way of the Salaf-i sâlihîn. Some of his books have been translated into Turkish (and English) by men of the same way, and have been offered to the youth as the books of ’Abduh, the great Islamic savant! The fact that ’Abduh and Jamâladdîn-i Afghânî are masons is written within the entry ’Abduh’, in the biography section at the end of the Turkish version of our book. Their ideas contradictory to Islam are refuted with strong documents in the book Ifâdat-ul-akhyâr by Muhammad Arabî, which was printed in Mekka, in the book Mawqif-ul-’aql wa-l-’ilm wa-l-’âlam by Shaikh-ul-Islâm Mustafâ Sabri Bey, and in the book of articles Majallatu Jâmi’ul Azhar by Yûsuf-i Dajwî, a member of the council of advanced knowledge at the Madrasa of Jâmi’ul Azhar, which was edited in Egypt in 1966. Formerly Ibni Taymiyya, also deluded by the abundance of his knowledge, had slipped into heresy. But he had not been so excessive.

A real man of Islam who wishes to serve Islam must say and write the meanings given and the rules derived by the savants of the Ahl as-sunnat and by our Madhhab leaders; he must place the names and the greatness of the savants of the Ahl as-sunnat into the minds of people and youngsters. If the person called Sayyid Qutb had read the tafsîrs of Islamic savants, e.g. Tafsîr-i Mazharî by Hadrat Thenâullah-i Dahlawî, who was specialized in Tafsîr, in Hadîth, and in Fiqh, honoured with the grade of Ma’rifat-ullah in Tasawwuf, and who was loved most by the Ahl as-sunnat, he would perhaps realize the greatness of the Islamic savants, know his own place, and perhaps would be ashamed to put forth his own jerrybuilt writings under the name of tafsîr. The book Berîqa, in its treatment of the disasters incurred by a person’s speech, makes the following observation within its explanation of the fiftieth disaster: “One condition for being a writer of books of Tafsîr is to be an expert in each and every one of the fifteen Islamic sciences. He who attempts to read books of Hadîth and Tafsîr without having learned these branches of knowledge is like a person with a sick stomach who eats cookies and pies in order to become stronger. In fact, this person should first diet, cure himself with light food, such as vegetable juice, saltless rice, and start eating strong things not before ridding himself of the illness. If he eats meat and fat, while he is sick, his sickness will increase and drag him to death. Likewise, if we, who have not studied the main branches of knowledge, attempt to read translations of the Qur’ân al-kerîm, tafsîrs and hadîth-i-sherîfs in order to learn Islam, we cannot comprehend them. By misunderstanding them, we may lose our faith and îmân. A few educated people who lost their faith, which they had acquired from their mother homes and which they had been strictly keeping for many years, were asked how that doubt which caused their renegation had been formed in their minds. They replied that they had become so after reading the Tafsîr of Elmali.[9] Mazhar-i Jân-i-Jânân ‘quddisa sirruh’ prohibited one of his khalîfas from writing books of Tafsîr, a fact which we have read in the hundredth page of his book Maqâmât. Therefore, let us put aside those concocted tafsîrs and translations that have been written without understanding. Even the most well-known books of Tafsîr have been harmful to anyone other than those who are educated and trained so as to understand them. Understanding the Qur’ân’s translation requires a complete acquisition of the eighty branches of knowledge. He who attempts to read Tafsîr and Hadîth without knowing these branches may lose his îmân. It is stated in the twelve hundred and ninety-seventh page of the book entitled Berîqâ: “We have not been commanded to obey the books of Tafsîr. We have been commanded to obey the savants of Fiqh.” It is written in Birgivi Vasiyyetnâmesi: “Savants of Kalâm and Fiqh wrote thousands of books of Ilm-i hâl in a clear and easily comprehensible style in order to teach us who are ignorant in Islam what they had understood from books of Tafsîr and Hadîth. To learn Islam      orrectly, there is no other way than reading these books of ilmihâl, which took our ancestors their entire lives to prepare.”

Sayyid ’Abdulhakîm-i Arwâsî ‘quddisa sirruh’, who was a Walî-i-kâmil and a profound savant perfectly learned in the subtle particulars of the four Madhhabs, has said: “In the Hanafî Madhhab, the best, the most valuable book of Fiqh is the Annotation to Durr-ul-Mukhtâr by Ibni ’Âbidin. In the Shâfi’î Madhhab, it is the book entitled Tuhfa-tul-muhtâj. The best, the most valuable book of Tasawwuf is Maktubât by Hadrat Imâm-i Rabbânî, and the most valuable book of ilmihâl is the commentary to Birgivî Vasiyetnâmesi by Kâd›zâde. The book entitled Durr-ul-mukhtâr is a commentary to Tanwîr-ul-absâr.”

In order to deceive Muslims, another group of Wahhâbîs in Pakistan say: “We are Sunnî. We are in the Hanbalî Madhhab.” On the contrary, they derive whatever suits their purposes from the books of the savants of the Ahl as-sunnat. For the sake of their depraved beliefs, they hush up whatever does not suit their purposes. They change the correct meanings of âyat-i-kerîmas given by the savants of the Ahl as-sunnat. The savants of the Ahl as-sunnat did not interpret âyat-i-kerîmas according to their own understandings or ideas. They learned from the Sahâba what Rasûlullah had understood and conveyed from âyats. After learning these meanings, they wrote them in their books. But the Wahhâbîs reject these meanings, which have come from Rasûlullah. They give wrong and depraved meanings to âyat-ikerîmas with their own ignorant and stupid minds. They represent these heretical writings of theirs as the teachings of the Ahl assunnat. Since they know nothing of religious knowledge, of scientific and ethical knowledge, or of the rules of logic, they fall short of understanding the sublime and sacred subtleties of the Qur’ân al-kerîm. They say “mawdû” or “made-up” about those hadîth-i-sherîfs which grasp and explain these subtleties. They dislike the savants of the Ahl as-sunnat, who hold the hadîth-isherîfs superior to their own understandings. They try to alienate Muslims from these savants and to push them down into the fabricated way which they call religious reforms. Islamic savants have given fatwâs prohibiting the performance of namâz behind the Wahhabite imâms. One of these fatwâs exists at the end of Khulâsat-ul-kalâm, reproduced by Hakîkat Kitâbevi in 1979.

Muhammad Zihnî Bey ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaih’ says in the thirty-ninth page in the section dealing with Nikâh in his book entitled Ni’mat-ul-Islâm: “One of the twenty-five kinds of women who are harâm for a man to marry through nikâh is Wasanniya, that is, those women who worship idols. People who worship the sun, the stars, pictures and statues, those who are of the Mu’attala, of the Bâtiniyya, of the Ibâhiyya, and also the zindiqs, i.e. those who consider the things causing disbelief as fundamentals of îmân although they pretend to be devoted Muslims; they are all idolaters (Fatâwâ-i Hindiyya). The Bâtiniyya are also called Ismâ’iliyya, or Ibâhiyya. They have recently adopted the name Wahhâbî, and they are irreligious people who bear enmity and treason against Muslims under the name of Islam.” Wasan is a statue made of stone. This excerpt reveals the fact that a number of zindiqs have mixed with Wahhâbîs and that these zindiqs are disbelievers.

In our country (Turkey), people with little religious knowledge are poisoned by reading translations from the books written by Ibni Taymiyyâ, Muhammad Abduh, Mawdûdî, Sayyed Qutb, by ’Abdussalâm (a Nobel Prize winner), by Ahmad Deedad, and Hamîdullah. According to those poor people, the savants of the Ahl as-sunnat were unable to understand the Qur’ân al-kerîm and hadîth-i-sherîfs. They look on the authors of the falsely-sequinned and exaggerated writings in those books, which provoke the nafs-i ammâra, as men of knowledge superior to the savants of Ahl as-sunnat, and even to the Sahâba. People who inflicted this deep wound on Islam are particularly Ibni Hazm, Ibni Qayyim-i Jawziyya and philosopher Ibn-ir-Rushd (Averroës). Like Ibni Taymiyya, all these three are scholars and wrote hundreds of books. The savants of the Ahl as-sunnat gave them valuable answers and exposed their errors. However, some people, whose educational capacity was too narrow to realize the greatness of the savants of Ahl as-sunnat, have been allured by their books and derailed from the right way.

People who have been misguided by them want to prove that they are right, and they try to deceive others also, by saying, “When the Wahhâbîs fought the Ottomans, the Ottoman savants slandered the Wahhâbîs. The hostility towards the State and political enmity was turned into a religious disagreement by religious authorities.” These allegations of theirs are wrong from two points of view. As soon as Wahhabism appeared, the savants of the Ahl as-sunnat started amr-i ma’rûf. They wrote that the Wahhâbîs were on a wrong way. They invited them to the right course. Beaten in knowledge, the Wahhâbîs took to barbarity. They attacked Islamic cities. Only after these attacks did the Ottoman State interfere with the matter. There was no war as the savants of the Ahl as-sunnat were writing their books to refute the Wahhâbîs. Therefore, how can one say that the savants mixed religion with politics then? Furthermore, the savants of the Ahl assunnat had written about these heretical ideas and refuted them through âyat-i-kerîmas hundreds of years before the pestilence of Wahhabiism appeared, as if they had foreseen through foresight that these zindiqs would appear. Of these numerous valuable books, the ones entitled Tanwîr-ul-halak fî imkân-i ru’yatin Nabî Jihâran wa-l-malak and Tanbîh-ul-ghabî bi-tabria-ti ibn-il-Arabî, by the great savant Jalâladdîn-i Suyûtî and the book entitled Kashf-un-nûr an ashâb-il-qubûr by ’Abdulghanî Nablusî are well known. Hakîkat Kitâbevi has published these Arabic books, adding them to the second edition of the book entitled al-Minhatul- wahbiyya. People who read them will realize well that Wahhâbîs are heretical and that they are intent on demolishing Islam. It is written in the two hundred and ninety-sixth page of the third volume of Radd-ul-muhtâr: “A person who goes out of Islam by giving wrong meanings to âyat-i-kerîmas and hadîth-i-sherifs, that is whose îmân is corrupt, is called a mulhid. The mulhid thinks of himself as a Muslim. A person who does not have a certain religion and who tries to spoil Muslims’ îmân by propagating his irreligious thoughts and tries to make Muslims believe them by putting forth false and corrupt documents, in the name of Islam, is called a zindiq.” The mulhid and the zindiq each tries to demolish Islam by pretending to be a Muslim. People who, like Wahhâbîs, deviate from the Ahl as-Sunnat as a result of incorrect evaluations with weak proofs are either mulhids or heretics.

On the other hand, to say that the savants of the Ahl as-sunnat ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaihim ajma’în’ turned the hostility towards the State into religious enmity betrays one’s ignorance about Islamic savants or, even worse, a deliberate defamation of Islam. Making the religion a means for worldly purposes is a crime most incomptible with Islam. Such a heavy accusation against Islamic savants in any country would mean to attempt to slander and to demolish Islam. The savants of the Ahl as-sunnat during the time of Ottomans did not backbite any Muslim in order to ingratiate themselves with the State.

Someone who passes for an orator and a religious teacher while in point of fact he is only one of those people misguided by Wahhâbîs says as follows in his book: “By asserting that the âyati- kerîmas in the Qur’ân al-kerîm and hadîth-i-sherîfs are limited in number versus the infinite number of events with which people confront, many amendments have been added in the name of qiyâs. This is wrong. There is no qiyâs or ijtihâd.” Thus, he slanders hundreds of thousands of Ahl-i sunnat savants. For, qiyâs and ijtihâd does not mean, as this sham religious teacher supposes, “to add some amendments to the Qur’ân and hadîths”; it means “to explore the profound, covered meanings in the Qur’ân and in hadîths.” It will be shown below that the Sahâba performed ijtihâd and that they had different Madhhabs, too. The Tafsîr of Baydâwî proves that qiyâs and ijmâ’ are commanded in the 108th âyat of Sûra ’Imrân.

In another page he says: “There is nothing secret in Islam. Everything has been stated.” But, by writing, “Everything which the Qur’ân and the hadîths have not stated is mubâh,” in the following page, he indicates that everything has in been stated. His statements contradict each other. In another page, he slanders by saying, “By way of qiyâs, the religion has been increased and intensified. Many mubâhs have been made harâm.” The answer to this is written in the twenty-sixth (26) chapter of the first fascicle of Endless Bliss.

This bogus man of religion, again, says: “Because of qiyâs, in the Islamic religion there is no longer agreement on any matter, and disagreements have been on the increase.” However, there is no qiyâs on îmân, on matters pertaining to belief. Thus, a person who makes a wrong ijtihâd on such subjects becomes a disbeliever. People who perform an incorrect ijtihâd on a teaching of ijmâ which is not obligatory and unanimously informed, will not become disbelievers; they willl become holders of bid’at. They will become aberrant Muslims. Of the tenets pertaining to Islamic practices, there is no qiyâs on the ones that have been stated clearly in the Qur’ân al-kerîm and in hadîth-i-sherîfs, either. People who provoke disagreements and invent new things in such established matters, as does this self-named religious teacher, have deviated from the path guided by the scholars of the Ahl as-sunnat.

There were three kinds of people during the time of Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’: People who denied and were against him were kâfirs; deniers who pretended to believe him were called munâfîqs; people who believed him were called Sahâba. All the Sahâba held the same tenets of belief They agreed with each other in performing the acts that were declared clearly in the Qur’ân al-kerîm and hadîth-i-sherîfs. Our religion has not commanded us to believe anything which has not been declared clearly in the Qur’ân al-kerîm and hadîth-i-sherîfs. So is the case with the majority of scientific teachings. The reasonable ones of those teachings will be believed. But the case is not so with those acts that are not commanded or prohibited clearly. Allâhu ta’âlâ commands the profound savants to compare such acts to the ones that are declared clearly to see if they should be done or not. Those profound savants who are able to make this comparison are called Mujtahid. This job of comparison is called Ijtihâd. All of the information which a mujtahid has acquired through ijtihâd is called the Madhhab of that mujtahid. Each of the Sahâba was a profound savant, a mujtahid. Each of them was an ocean in religious knowledge, in politics, in administration, in the scientific knowledge of their time, and in the ma’rifats of Tasawwuf. They acquired all these branches of knowledge in a short time by seeing Rasûlullah’s blessed face, by hearing his blessed words that penetrated into the hearts and attracted the souls. Each had a Madhhab. Their Madhhabs were more or less different from each other. There were mujtahids among the Tâbi’în and the Taba-i tâbi’în, too. Only four of the Madhhabs of these mujtahids and of the Madhhabs of the Sahâba were transferred into books, and they spread all over the world. The Madhhabs of the rest were forgotten. The îmân of these four Madhhabs is the unanimous îmân of the Sahâba. For this reason, all four are called Ahl as-sunnat. There is no difference in their îmân. They deem one another as brothers. They love one another. As for practices in doing which they disagree with one another; they imitate one another when there is difficulty in following the principles of their own Madhhabs. This absence of agreement among the Madhhabs is something decreed by Allâhu ta’âlâ. That this absence of agreement is a fruit of Allâhu ta’âlâ’s Compassion for His born slaves has been stated by our blessed Prophet. For, the trivial differences among the four Madhhabs facilitate Muslims’ jobs. Each Muslim chooses the Madhhab which is easier for him with respect to his physical construction, climatical conditions and the conditions of his professional life. He performs his acts of worship and every act as this Madhhab prescribes. If Allâhu ta’âlâ had decreed, everything would have been declared clearly in Qur’ân al-kerîm and in hadîth-i-sherîfs. Thus the Madhhabs would not have appeared. Until the end of the world every Muslim, in any part of the world, would have had to live under a single command, under a single order. Muslims would have been confronted by very difficult situations.

After all the Sahâba died, the îmân of some of the new Muslims became corrupted. They deviated from the correct îmân of the Sahâba. Heretical groups appeared. These corrupt groups are also called groups of bid’at or the lâ-madhhabî, for they are outside of the four Madhhabs. This deviation of theirs did not cause them to become disbelievers, for they had based their interpretations on weak proofs. But the harm they caused to Islam was much greater than that of disbelievers. Muslims with correct îmân who did not deviate from the îmân of the Sahâba have been called the Ahl assunnat, for they have adhered completely to Rasûlullah’s sunnat. The lâ-madhhabî have quarrelled and fought with one another and with the Ahl as-sunnat. Much Muslim blood has been shed. They have disrupted the Muslims’ progress and improvement. The lâmadhhabî groups of bid’at should not be mistaken for the four right Madhhabs of the Ahl as-sunnat. The four Madhhabs say that all of them are on the right path, and they love each other. But the lâ-madhhabî groups have been undermining the unity of Muslims. Today there is no Ahl as-sunnat other than the four Madhhabs; Islamic savants unanimously communicated that these four Madhhabs could not be united together and become one Madhhab. Allâhu ta’âlâ wishes not the uniting of the Madhhabs, but He wishes that they be different. Thus, He makes the Islamic religion easier. The meaning of the hundredth âyat of Surat-u Âl-i ’Imrân is: “O Believers! Embrace the religion of Allâhu ta’âlâ. Do not be separated.” The writers of authorized books of Tafsîr, e.g. Abussuûd Efendi ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ alaih’, while explaining the âyat, says: “It means not to become like the ahl-i kitâb who split into groups, deviating from the correct îmân. And it means not to part into groups like those during the time of jâhiliyya, (i.e. pre- Islamic time of nescience.)”

We are enjoined to unite around the correct îmân; therefore, we should not be divided. Our Prophet states that the correct path is the belief taught by the Ahl-i sunnat savants. Therefore, it is necessary for all Muslims to join the Ahl as-sunnat, to gather under the Ahl as-sunnat Madhhab, to be brothers and sisters, and to love one another. Those who deviate from this Islamic unity will have disobeyed this âyat-i kerîma. If we come together, by realizing that we are brothers and sisters, if we love one another, then we will be the most powerful nation on earth, as well as attain comfort and peace on earth and endless bliss in the next world. We have to be on full alert lest we should be torn asunder by believing the lies fibbed by our enemis, by the ignorant, and by those exploiters whose sole concern is their personal advantages. For more detailed information in this respect, please read the book Radd-i Wahhabî-i,[10] which is in Persian.

On another page he writes that the statement, “My Sahâba are like the stars in the sky. If you follow any one of them, you will find guidance to the right way,” is not a hadîth-i-sherîf but it is an unsound utterance. The fact, however, is that this hadîth-i-sherîf is written in the book Kunûz-ud-daqâ’iq by Imâm-i Manâwî and also in the thirty-sixth page of Tahtâwî’s annotation to (Sherblâlî’s book entitled) Imdâd-ul Fettâh, –which in turn a commentary which Sherblâlî wrote to his own book entitled Nûrul- idhâh–, who say that it has been quoted on the authority of Imâm-i Bayhakî. Also, the book Sawâ’iq-ul-muhriqa states that Dârimî, Ibni ’Adî, and others have reported that this hadîth is sahîh. There is more information on this subject several pages ahead. Too parochial to realize the greatness of the Sahâba, this man says, ‘fabricated’ about this hadîth, which has been quoted unanimously by Islam’s savants.

He writes that the statement, “The disagreement of my Ummat is a compassion (of Allah),” is not a hadîth-i-sherîf. However, Imâm-i Manâwî quotes this hadîth-i-sherîf, too, and he says that it has been quoted on the suthority of Ibni Nasr and Daylamî. It is written in the preface of Ibni ’Âbidîn that the hadîth-i-sherîf, “The disagreement of my Ummat is a compassion,” is mashhûr. (See chapter six for kinds of hadîth-isherîfs.) It is written in the book entitled Maqâsid-i hasana[11] that this hadîth-i-sherîf has been reported by Bayhakî. And Ibni Hâjib[12] writes in his Mukhtasar that it is sahîh. Imâm-i Suyûtî writes that it is given as a sahîh hadîth in the book entitled Hujja by Nasr-ul-muqaddasî and also in the book entitled Risâlat-ulash’ariyya by Bayhakî. Also, Halîmî, Qâdî Husayn and Imâm-ulharameyn [13] have stated that it is sahîh. It is written detailedly in   the fourth part of the first volume of Mawâhib-i ladunniyya, too. Khalîfa ’Umar bin ’Abdul’azîz said that if the Sahâba had not disagreed with one another, there would not have been any permission, any facility in the religion. When Khalîfa Hârûn-ur- Rashîd said to Imâm-i Mâlik, “I will produce many copies of your books and send them everywhere, and I will order everybody to follow them,” the Imâm said, “O Khalîfa! Do not do that. The savants’ disagreement is a compassion. All of them are on the right way. Each Muslim follows the savant he chooses.” It is written in the hundred and tenth page of Berîqa that this hadîth-i-sherîf exists in the book entitled Jâmi’us-saghîr. This hadîth-i-sherîf is explained in the two hundred and forty-fourth page of the first volume and in the hundred and fourth page of the second volume of the book entitled Hadîqa, which states that it has been reported by Nasr-ul-muqaddasî, Halîmî, Bayhakî and Imam-ul-harameyn. It is written also in the forty-fifth page of the book entitled Mîzân-ulkubrâ. The poor sham teacher’s mistake is to suppose that the âyat-i-kerîmas and hadîth-i-sherîfs that are intended lest there be disagreements on îmân are about the Madhhabs.

It is written in Fatâwâ-i Hindiyya: “It is written in the book entitled Nawâzil that ‘a person who reads hadîth-i-sherîfs only and who does not learn Fiqh is a mufsid in Islam.’” Abû ’Âsim ‘rahmatullâhi ’alaih’ has stated the same. Also, it is written so in the book of fatwâ entitled Tâtârhâniyya.[14]

At one place of his book he says: “Those words of the Sahâba which disagree with the Qur’ân al-kerîm and hadîth-i-sherîfs are to be rejected.” He thinks that the Sahâba would say something that would disagree with the Qur’ân al-kerîm and hadîth-i-sherîfs. He supposes that those superior men of the religion were like him. He does not know that the Sahâba ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum ajma’în’ did not say anything disagreeing with the Qur’ân al-kerîm or hadîth-i-sherîfs. Besides, it is the Sahâba who gathered the Qur’ân al-kerîm and hadîth-i-sherîfs and conveyed them to those who succeeded them. Some of the savants of Usûl, that is, of the greatest Islamic savants, stated: “Even if there had not been any witnesses to prove that Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ was the Prophet, only seeing his Sahâba could suffice to prove that he was the Prophet. This is so because each of the Sahâba was an  ocean in every branch of knowledge, in religious knowledge, in political and scientific knowledge, [that is, in the knowledge taught in high schools and universities], in all the branches of bâtinî and zâhirî knowledge. However, none of them had read any books or seen any teachers. They acquired all this knowledge by being honoured with Rasûlullah’s company a few times.” Their statements disagreeing with one another are on facts that are not stated clearly in the Qur’ân al-kerîm and hadîth-i-sherîfs.

In another page, writing, “The qiyâs and ijtihâd which mujtahids and the experts of qiyâs established were done because they did not know all the sahîh hadîths…,” he reveals that he is completely ignorant. Hence, also, it is understood that he does not know what mujtahid means.

In another page he supposes that there is ijtihâd that disagrees with the Qur’ân al-kerîm and hadîth-i-sherîfs by writing, “Those ijtihâds of the mujtahids that disagree with the Qur’ân and with hadîths are not to be followed.” With these slanderous statements he proclaims that he dislikes the savants of Ahl as-sunnat and that he is lâ-madhhabî, (i.e. he is not in any of the four Madhhabs.)

At some other place of his book he gives incorrect quotations from Imâm-i a’zam Abû Hanîfa and from Imâm-i Mâlik. He slanders these two leaders of Islam. He does not know that they would not say anything disagreeing with hadith-i-sherîfs. ’Abdullah-i Dahlawî, the murshid of Mawlânâ Khâlid-i Baghdâdî, who was a profound Islamic savant, an educator of many Awliyâ and a great leader of Tasawwuf, wrote a book entitled Maqâmât-i Mazhariyya. In it he explains the paths of Tasawwuf and then reports a few of the karâmats and letters of his master, Hadrat Mazhar-i Jân-i Jânân. The book is in Persian and contains eighteen fascicles. There are twenty-three letters in the eighteenth fascicle. Mazhar-i Jân-i Jânân says in the sixteenth letter:

My son! How should we follow the hadîth-i-sherîfs? Muhammad Hayât ‘rahmatullâhi ’alaih’ wrote a book in order to explain this. He says in this book that Huseyn bin Yahyâ Bukhârî says in his book entitled Rawdat-ul-’ulamâ that Imâm-i a’zam said to his disciples: “When you see Rasûlullah’s hadîth-i-sherîfs and the Sahâba’s statements, leave my ijtihâd aside and follow them!” And he said once: “The sahîh hadîth-i-sherîfs are my Madhhab.” If a person who is learned and specialized in the science of Hadîth, he can distinguish nâsikh and mansûkh hadîths from each other and recognize strong and weak hadîths, and if he follows sahîh hadîths he will not deviate from the Hanafî Madhhab. He will have done what the leader of the Madhhab said. In fact, if such a savant does not follow the sahîh hadîths, he will have disobeyed Imâm-i a’zam. Everybody knows that there is not a savant learned enough to know, to have heard of all the hadîth-i-sherîfs. As a matter of fact, Imâm-i a’zam’s word, “When you see a hadîth-i-sherîf leave my word aside!” indicates that he had not heard all the hadîth-i-sherîfs. Furthermore, none of the Sahâba, who were the most learned of this Ummat and who spent their lives serving Rasûlullah, had heard of all the hadîth-i-sherîfs. It is wâjib for every Muslim to follow the hadîth-i-sherifs. But it is not wâjib to follow a certain one of the leaders of the Madhhabs. Each Muslim has a choice to follow whichever Madhhab he likes [of the four Madhhabs]. As is seen, it is not permissible to follow those words which are said to be hadîths and which are interpreted without being fully understood in the books of those who are not learned in the science of Hadîth. We should follow those hadîth-i-sherîfs which the savants of the Ahl as-sunnat and our Madhhab leaders quoted and those meanings which they understood. It is stated as follows in the three hundred and seventy-seventh (377) page of the fifth volume of the book entitled Fatâwâ-i-Hindiyya: “A person who learns hadîths instead of learning Fiqh will go bankrupt, [that is, he will lose his faith.] You must acquire knowledge from sâlih (pious, devoted) Muslims.” You must read their books.

In another page of his book the abovementioned lâ-madhhabî man of religion says: “Allâhu ta’âlâ and His Messenger did not command anybody to adopt the Madhhab of somebody in this Ummat or to follow him in religious affairs.” Thereby, he slanders the Qur’ân. For, the thirty-eighth âyat of Mâida Sûra purports: “Look for a means whereby to approach Allâhu ta’âlâ!” And an âyat-i-kerîma in the Anbiyâ Sûra purports: “Learn what you do not know by asking those who know about it!” Hadîth-i-sherîfs about the leaders of the four Madhhabs are detailed in our English book entitled Sahâba ‘the Blessed’. Our Madhhab leaders ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaihim ajma’în’ are the greatest savants of Islam. The hadîth, “Savants are the Prophet’s inheritors,” is written in the book entitled Bukhârî. Our Prophet’s way cannot be comprehended through mind, through imagination, or through dreams. It is to be learned from Islamic savants. “To follow any one of the leaders of the religion” means “To follow our Prophet.” Ahî Chalabi states in his book entitled Hediyya: “He who says that Abû Hanîfa’s qiyâs is incorrect becomes a disbeliever.” Hakîkat Kitâbevi has reproduced that book.

Even ’Âlûsî, who praises Ibni Taymiyya and Ibni Qayyim very much, states as follows in his book entitled Ghâliyya: “Learning and teaching knowledge is one of the highest acts of worship. ’Abdullah ibni ’Abbâs has communicated that savants are seven hundred degrees higher than those Believers who are not learned. A hadîth-i-sherîf states: “Savants are Prophets’ inheritors.” Since there is no rank above the rank of prophethood, there cannot be any honour superior to the honour of inheriting this rank. Most of the Islamic savants reached this rank. The savants of Fiqh and Hadîth, principally the four leaders of mujtahids, are the highest of them. They revealed the concealed commandments and prohibitions of Islam. They established the basis of knowledge. They divided Islamic knowledge into classes and parts. We have been honoured with knowing a few of the high values which they had. Ahead of all of them is the flawless imâm Abû Hanîfa Nu’mân bin Thâbit. We have hadîth-i-sherîfs describing his greatness. They are quoted in Bukhârî and Muslim. ’Abdullah ibni Mubârek reports that he performed the five daily prayers of namâz with one ablution which he, (i.e. Imâm A’zam Abû Hanîfe,) made daily for forty-five years. While washing the valuable imâm after his death, Hasan bin Ammâra said, “You fasted incessantly for thirty years. May Allâhu ta’âlâ have mercy upon you.” No other savant has ever been seen to practise their knowledge as precisely as he did. No savant superior to him has been found. May Allâhu ta’âlâ honour us with following such highly valuable savants. It is these mujtahids who conveyed Rasûlullah’s utterances to us. And today, there is nobody not in need of following one of the four Madhhabs or who could be exempted from following one of them. A hadîth-i-sherîf quoted by Ibni Mâja states: “My Ummat will part into seventy-three groups, of which only one group will enter Paradise. They are those who are on my and my Sahâba’s way.” This difference is a difference which is in usûl, in îmân. It is not a difference similar to that which is between the four Madhhabs. For, a hadîth-i-sherîf states: “The difference in my Ummat is Allah’s compassion.” And another hadîth-i-sherîf states: “Get what you cannot find in Allâhu ta’âlâ’s Book or in my Sunnat from the words of my Sahâba! My Sahâba are like the stars in the sky. If you follow any one of them, you will find guidance to the right way. My Sahâba’s disagreeing with one another is Allah’s compassion.”

The books al-Insâf and ’Iqd-ul-jayyid by the great savant Shâh Waliyyullah-i Dahlawî were published in Egypt in 1327 A.H. They exist at number 525 in the Izmirli section of the Suleymaniye Library in Istanbul. It is written in the former: “There were Madhhabs during the time of the Sahâba, too. Each of them had a different Madhhab. The Tâbi’în adopted the Madhhabs of the Sahâba. Hârun-ur-Rashîd said to Imâm-i Mâlik, ‘I will hang your book Muwattâ on the wall of the Ka’ba. I will order all the Muslims to adapt themselves to this book. There shall be a single Madhhab everywhere.’ But Imâm-i Malik said, ‘Do not do that! The Sahâba parted into Madhhabs in the knowledge of Fiqh.’ This fact is communicated by Imâm-i Suyûtî.” He says in the latter book: “There are great benefits in following any one of the four Madhhabs. There are many dangers in deviating from them. I can prove this through various ways. Today there is no correct Madhhab other than the four Madhhabs. The madhhabs of Imâmiyya and Zaydiyya, [and Wahhâbîs], are heretical. ‘To go out of the four Madhhabs’ means ‘to go out of the Siwâd-i a’zam.’ Ibni Hazm’s statement, ‘Imitation is harâm. It is not permitted to follow anybody other than Rasûlullah,’ is for mujtahids. Those who cannot distinguish the hadîth-i-sherîfs should ask the leaders of the Madhhabs about them and follow them. Since the time of Rasûlullah, people who did not know have followed those who knew by asking them.”

In another page he writes altogether nonsense, stating: “To follow the leaders of the Madhhabs would mean to promote them to the grade of prophethood. This is kufr.” He accuses all Believers, those who follow their masters, of being disbelievers. He says: “The madhhabs appeared towards the end of the second century (of Islam). In which madhhab were the Sahâba and the Tâbi’în?” It is written in the book entitled Radd-i Wahhabî-i Hindî (in Persian) and in the six hundred and ninety-sixth page of the book Hadîqa: “It is not permitted to follow any Madhhab other than the four Madhhabs. This statement of ours is not intended to slight the Madhhabs of the Sahâba and the Tâbi’în, for we do not know the Madhhabs of the Sahâba or of others precisely. If we knew those Madhhabs, too, it would be permissible for us to follow one of them also, for the Madhhabs of all of them were right. Because the four Madhhabs are thoroughly known, their books having spread everywhere, each Muslim has to follow one of these four only. It is not permissible to make up a Madhhab of facilities by making research into the facilities of the four Madhhabs and gathering them together. It is called Talfîq-i Madhâhib, which is not permissible.”

A Madhhab leader is a great savant who gathered the meanings, the facts which Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ derived from the Qur’ân al-kerîm and conveyed to the Sahâba, and who transferred them into books. While explaining the disasters incurred by one’s speech, the book Hadîqa states that Rasûlullah explained all of the Qur’ân al-kerîm to his Sahâba. He who wants to understand the explanations of the meanings which Rasûlullah derived from the Qur’ân al-kerîm must read the books of a Madhhab leader and follow them. A person who reads these books and adapts himself to them enters the Madhhab. And this means to follow Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ and the Qur’ân al-kerîm. The Sahâba ‘’alaihim-ur-ridwân’ used to follow what they heard from Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’. They did not need to follow one of their disciples, that is, to be in one of the four Madhhabs. Each of them derived all the knowledge from the main source. They learned by asking one another, too. They were all mujtahids and were more learned and higher than the leaders of the Madhhabs. They had their own Madhhabs.

In another page he says: “The ijtihâds are ideas and opinions. Those books which we have now are the books of madhhabs, not books of Islam. Since there are no Turkish books of Islam in Turkey, I wrote this book.” He thinks of himself as a mujtahid. We have seen that Omar Riza Dogrul wrote a preface to this book and extolled it extravagantly. In this preface he wrote: “The century’s needs should be expected not from religion through qiyâs, but from the progressive efforts of civilization. Qiyâs does not have anything to do with the Qur’ân al-kerîm and hadîth-isherîfs, nor is it based on the fundamentals of Islam, but it is the invention of the mujtahids who want to base everything on Islam…” These words of his indicate that he is not Sunnî, either, and that he has not comprehended Islam, qiyâs or ijtihâd. People who speak ill of the savants of Islam are those who cannot reach their knowledge. It is written in the three hundred and ninetysixth page of the first volume of the book entitled Radd-ulmuhtâr: “After 400 A.H., no savant was educated deeply enough to perform qiyâs.” It is written in the forty-second page of the first fascicle of Mîzân-ul kubrâ: “After the four leaders of the Madhhabs, no savant claimed to be a mutlaq mujtahid. There were mujtahids educated within the Madhhabs. But no mutlaq mujtahid was educated. Yes, the information and the rules in the Qur’ân al-kerîm are infinite. But the four leaders have understood the rules that will be needed by all the people until the end of the world, and these rules have been written in books. If a person says that he can derive rules from the Qur’ân al-kerîm and hadîth-i-sherîfs now, we will ask him to derive a rule which does not exist in any of the four Madhhabs. He cannot do this!”

These facts are written more circumstantially in the books entitled al-Basâir li-munkîr-it-tawassul-i bi-ahl-il-maqâbir and at- Tawassul-u bin-Nabî wa jahâlat-ul-wahhâbiyyîn and Usûl-ularba’a fîtardid-il-wahhâbiyya. These three books have been offset by Hakîkat Kitâbevi. In the first book, there are passages taken from the book Kashf-ush-Shubuhât by Muhammad bin ’Abdulwahhab and answers to each. That book is in Arabic. The book entitled at-Tawassul-u bin Nabî is an abridged version of Abû Hâmid bin Marzûqî’s ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaih’ book entitled Barâat-ul-ash’ariyyîn, which was published in Damascus.

It is written in Sayyid ’Ahmad Tahtâwî’s annotation to Durrul- muhtâr; in its section headlined Zabâyih: “Today it is wâjib for every Muslim to be in one of the four Madhhabs. A person who is not in one of the four Madhhabs has dissented from the Ahl assunnat. And a person who is not Sunnî is either a heretic or a disbeliever.” Also, the books entitled al-Basâir, al-Mustanad, and Sayf-ul-Abrâr, which extirpate Wahhabism in India, write so and add that they derive the fact from Ihyâ-ul-’ulûm. The last two of them were written in India and the second edition of both books have been published by Hakîkat Kitâbevi.

We are not knowledgeable enough to understand the Qur’ân al-kerîm and hadîth-i-sherîfs. We read the Qur’ân al-kerîm not to understand and do as it says, but to get blessed with it, to get benefits from it. We imitators do not know the science of Tafsîr, so we learn the rules of Islam from the books of our religious guides. Our Madhhab leaders learned the meanings of the Qur’ân al-kerîm from the Sahâba and from the Tâbi’în, and they wrote them in their books in such a way as we can understand them easily. The Sûras Nahl and Anbiyâ contain âyat-i-kerîmas which purport: “Learn by asking the savants!” It is stated in a hadîth-isherîf: “Each century will be worse than the one preceding it. Thus time will go on changing from bad to worse until the end of the world.” This hadîth-i-sherîf is written in Hadîqa, in the chapter about the disasters incurred by one’s speech. May Allâhu ta’âlâ protect us from despising the books written by the best of people during the best of times and from being deceived by the bad men of the bad centuries!

Yûsuf Nabhânî was one of the greatest savants of the fourteenth century. He stayed in Medina for many years, and thereby got the opportunity of observing Wahhabism closely. In order to spread the information which he gathered, he wrote forty-seven valuable books. In his book al-Fath-ul-kebîr, there are fourteen thousand, four hundred and fifty hadîth-i-sherîfs arranged in alphabetical order. It was published in three volumes. His book Jâmi’u karâmât-il-Awliyâ, which consists of two volumes, proves that karâmat is true. It was printed in Egypt in 1329 [1911]. All his forty-seven books were printed. His Shawâhid-ul-haqq, which is well-known, was printed for the third time in Egypt in 1385 A.H. [1965]. The book consists of five hundred and seventy pages, of which four hundred and fifty pages refute Ibni Taymiyya and Wahhâbîs, and the remaining hundred and twenty pages explain the superiorities of the Sahâba, the virtues of Hadrat Mu’âwiyya and ’Amr ibni ’Âs ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhum’ and their service to Islam.

The professors of Jâmi’ul-Azhar, such as ’Allâma Shaikh ’Alî Muhammad Bablâwî Mâlikî, ’Allâma Shaikh ’Abdurrahmân Sharbînî, Shaikh Ahmad Husayn Shâfi’î, Shaikh Ahmad Basyânî Hanbalî, ’Ârif ’Allâma Suleymân Shubrâwî Shâfi’î, Shaikh ’Abdulkerîm Râfi’î, and also the Chief Muftî of Egypt ’Allâma Bakrî Muhammad Sadafî Hanafî, Professor ’Allâma Muhammad ’Abdulhayy Katânî Idrîsî Fâsî, ’Allâma Sayyid Ahmad Bey Shâfi’î, Fâdil ’Allâma Shaikh Sa’îd-i Mûjî Shâfi’î, ’Allâma Shaikh Muhammad Halabî Shâfi’î, and many another savant of the Ahl as-sunnat liked the book Shawâhid-ul-haqq and praised it by writing long articles.

In its fifth chapter it takes passages from the three books which defend the bid’ats of Ibni Taymiyya, and refutes them with âyat-i-kerîmas and hadîth-i-sherîfs. These three corrupt books are Ighâsat-ul-lahfân, by Ibni Qayyim, fi-r-Radd-i ’alas-Subkî, by Ibni ’Abdul-Hâdî, and Jilâ-ul-’aynayn fî muhâkama-til-ahmadayn, by Nu’mân ’Alûsî Baghdâdî, all of which have been written against Ibni Hajar-i-Makkî ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaih’.

The book entitled Shawâdid-ul-haqq states as follows on the authority of the Ahl as-sunnat savants: “Islamic savants unanimously state that after the fourth century of the Hegira the world no longer had any savants capable of performing ijtihâd. Today all Muslims have to follow one of the certain four Madhhabs, for there is now nobody learned enough to understand the Qur’ân al-kerîm and hadîth-i-sherîfs or to derive rules from them. The Qur’ân al-kerîm and Rasûlullah’s ‘sall- Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ Sunnat will be followed by following the leader of a Madhhab. Reporting from Ibni Hajar-i Heytamî, Imâm-i Manâwî writes: Jalâladdîn-i Suyûtî ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaihim ajma’în’, who was a very great savant, claimed to be a mujtahid. Upon this the savants of his time asked him a written question. ‘The former savants gave this question two different answers. Even a person who is at the lowest grade of ijtihâd can choose one of these. Take your choice and write it to us,’ they said. He did not dare to choose one, and he said, ‘I am too busy, I do not have any time to do this.’ Ibni Hajar says that since the lowest grade of ijtihâd is too difficult to reach, one should realize that it is impossible to claim to be a mutlaq mujtahid.

Some ignorant people now think of themselves as savants. They attempt to derive rules from the Qur’ân al-kerîm and hadîthi- sherîfs by following the example of scholars who are holders of bid’at. They say that they do not need to follow one of the Madhhab leaders. In fact, they reject the knowledge derived and understood by the ijtihâds of the Madhhab imâms, and they say that they are not suitable for the contemporary age. They are arrogant and ignorant people. They presume that they follow the Qur’ân al-kerîm. Yet in fact they follow their own nafs and the devil. And they encourage everybody to derive meanings from the Qur’ân al-kerîm and from Bukhârî. We should not believe these fools. Every Muslim must hold the Ahl-i sunnat tenets of creed and must follow one of the four Madhhabs. An eclectic method of uniting the four Madhhabs by searching and selecting the easy aspects of each is called talfîq. It is forbidden to practise talfîq out of indulgence in the desires of our nafs and the devil. [It is permissible when only one act is concerned and when there is a necessity to do so.] The difference between today’s men of religion and those savants who were mujtahids is like the difference between the earth and the sky. In fact, it is equal to the difference between the devil and an angel. But, being unaware, idiotic, and enslaved by the nafs,[15] they think of themselves as learned and perfect. Being deceived by the devil, they are reluctant to follow mujtahids. Such ignorant people are called lâ-madhhabî. They do not understand that ijtihâd is not done concerning things that have been declared clearly in the Qur’ân al-kerîm and in hadîth-isherîfs. But this does not mean that ijtihâd is done for nothing. Hadrat Abû Hanîfa, who was ahead of all in ijtihâd, would not perform ijtihâd concerning something which had been declared through a da’îf hadîth-i-sherîf. It was the habit of all the Madhhab leaders that when they met with a question they would first search for its answer in the Qur’ân al-kerîm. If they could not find its clear answer in the Qur’ân al-kerîm, they would look it up among hadîth-i-sherîfs. If they could not find it among hadîth-i-sherîfs, they would look it up in the ijmâ’-i ummat. If they could not find it in the ijmâ’ either, they would apply qiyâs (analogy) and compare it to another similar question which has an answer in the Qur’ân al-kerîm or in hadîth-i-sherîfs, or in the ijmâ’, and thus they would find its answer through ijtihâd. For a thousand years all the Muslims, the savants, the pious ones and the Awliyâ have been following one of these four Madhhabs. None of them claimed to be a mujtahid. We should not deviate from our Madhhab by believing a few ignorant and stupid men of Islam who have appeared recently. Not even to a slightest degree did the four Madhhabs ever leave aside the Qur’ân al-kerîm and hadîth-isherîfs. Islamic savants command Muslims to follow one of the four Madhhabs. Their purpose is to secure them against two grave dangers awaiting them: becoming a disbeliever or a holder of bid’at. For, if an ignorant person does not follow a Madhhab leader, he will deviate from the way, being left without a guide.

Hadrat Khwâja Muhammad Pârisâ takes evidence from Imam-i Ghazâlî and says in his book Tuhfat-us-sâlikîn: “Three people cannot understand the meaning of the Qur’ân al-kerîm. The first one is one who does not know Arabic well and who has not studied Tafsîr. The second one is one who commits a grave sin habitually. It is a grave sin to deviate from the belief of the Ahl as-sunnat. Therefore, a heretic, [e.g. a Wahhâbî or a Shi’î,] cannot understand the meaning of the Qur’ân al-kerîm. For, the zulmat of the heresy has darkened his heart. The third person who cannot understand the Qur’ân al-kerîm is one who has misunderstood one of the tenets of îmân and who does not accept what is right because it disagrees with his wrong understanding.” As is seen, a person who is not in the Madhhab of the Ahl as-sunnat, well-versed as he may be in Arabic, cannot understand the Qur’ân al-kerîm correctly. Publishing his wrong understanding, he leads others to perdition.

The statement, “Interpretations suitable with our time, with our age, are necessary,” is not right. The savants of interpretation developed the tafsîrs (explanations of the Qur’an al-kerîm) by writing the information coming from Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam’ and from his Sahâba. Their tafsîrs are suitable with and sufficient for every century. Commandments in the Qur’ân al-kerîm are the same for everybody, no matter in what age they live. A Muslim who believes the Qur’ân al-kerîm and who wants to obey it will find whatever he is looking for in the existing tafsîrs. A person who does not obey Islam will absolutely not find his corrupt expectations in these tafsîrs. It is not permissible to write tafsîrs suiting our minds and the century. Ill-willed, ignorant and stupid people claim, despite their short sights, that they can make new tafsîrs. There are many conditions to be fulfilled for being able to make tafsîrs. The first of all these conditions is to live in one of the times praised in the hadîth: “The best of times is my time. Then, the next best time is the one following my time. Next to it, is the time following it.” [A savant of Tafsîr has to know also those âyat-i-kerîmas that are nâsikh and the ones that are mansûkh. It is written in the 355th page of Hadîqa that there are hundred and nine nâsikh âyats in the Qur’ân al-kerîm.] None of the upstarts who write books of tafsîr closed off within their personal thoughts fulfil these conditions. They pollute people’s thoughts and speak against the savants of the Ahl as-sunnat. Proclaiming that they are Sunnî, they have begun to spread their corrupt beliefs far and near. Upon reading their books, the savants of the Ahl as-sunnat immediately understand that they are wrong and tell Muslims that they are not Sunnî. But the ignorant, being unable to distinguish right from wrong, are deceived.” The hadîth-i-sherîf, “My Ummat will suffer much harm from the evil men of religion,” which is quoted in the explanation of the disasters incurred by the hand in the book Hadîqa, forewarns about Wahhâbîs.

The book entitled al-Mîzân-ul-kubrâ writes at the beginning of the fifty-first page and at the end of the sixtieth page that the Sunnat, that is, hadîth-i-sherîfs, explains the Qur’ân al-kerîm. The imâms of the Madhhabs have explained the Sunnat. And the religious savants have explained the statements of the imâms of the Madhhabs. So will it be until the end of the world. Had it not been for the Sunnat, i.e. the hadîth-i-sherîfs, no scholar would have been able to look up in the Qur’ân al-kerîm and nobody would learn about different kinds of water, tahârat, the number of rak’ats of each namâz, the tasbîhs that must be said when making rukû’ and sajda and how to perform the salâts of ’Iyd and janâza, the nisâb for paying zakât, the essentials of fasting and performing hajj, or the teachings pertaining to nikâh and jurisprudence.[16] When somebody said to ’Imrân bin Husayn, “Teach us from the Qur’ân al-kerîm only!” he answered, “O idiot! Could you find in the Qur’ân al-kerîm how many rak’ats there are in each prayer of namâz?” When Hadrat ’Umar was asked, “We cannot find in the Qur’ân al-kerîm how many rak’ats of the fard namâz we should peform when we are on a journey,” he said, “Allâhu ta’âlâ has sent Muhammad ‘’alaihis-salâm’ for us. When we cannot find in the Qur’ân al-kerîm how to perform a certain act of worship, we perform it as we learn it from Rasûlullah. He used to perform two rak’ats of those prayers of namâz that have four rak’ats when he was on a journey. And so should we.” It is written in the fortyseventh page: “None of the statements of the imâms on Islamic matters is outside of Islam, for each of those blessed people is learned both in the Haqîqât and in the Ahkâm-i-islâmiyya.”

Abridging the book Fatâwâ-i Hâmidiyya,[17] Ibni ’Âbidîn gave it the title ’Uqûd-ud-durriyya. He writes in its final section that it is necessary to follow a Madhhab.

While explaining the farâid (binding rules) of an ablution, Ibni Âbîdin ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaih’ states: “A person who rejects the hadîth-i-sherîfs that have been reported by only one person or the knowledge that has been understood through qiyâs, does not become a disbeliever, but he has deviated from the right way. He becomes a bid’at holder. It is certain that he will enter Hell. He who does not practise them although he believes and accepts them becomes sinful; he has omitted the wâjib. But he who does not practise them because he has deduced another meaning from the Qur’ân al-kerîm and hadîth-i-sherîfs, does not become sinful.”

Some people have been heard to say: “Wahhâbîs have softened now. Formerly, they used to attack Muslims’ property and lives. They do not perpetrate such savagery now. They even say that they are Sunnî.” Such statements are not true. They are a sign of not seeing or knowing the truth. Yes, the sons of Su’ûd brutally killed Muslims who would not become Wahhâbîs. They do not do so now. But the sons of Su’ûd, who used to attack property and lives formerly, attack Muslims’ faith and îmân now. Formerly they   used to destroy the Muslims’ world. Now they attack their next world and eternal felicity. They try to annihilate the belief of Ahl as-sunnat by all possible means, e.g. by distributing among the hadjis a Turkish version of the book Tahqîq wa Idhâh, written by ’Abdul’Azîz Bâz, director of the madrasa in Medîna-imunawwara. On August 5th, 1990, the daily Turkish newspaper Türkiye published an article confuting that perversive book, thus protecting Muslims against the dire threat. They strive with all their forces to drift Muslims into eternal perdition. They have established a Wahhabite center called Râbitatul’âlamil-Islâmî in the blessed city of Mekka. They have opened its branch offices in every Muslim country. Spending money abundantly and suborning men of religion with precarious faith and knowledge, they use them for promulgating Wahhabism. To men of religion and students of Islam in every country they distribute Wahhabite books in their native languages free of charge. Every year, they spend millions of gold coins in this way. The world’s Muslims, who have been left without books, without knowledge in the last fifty years as a result of the British policy, are easily misled into the wrong and heretical Wahhabite beliefs. Thus the Madhhab of the Ahl as-sunnat, which is right and which has been praised in hadîth-i-sherîfs, is being forgotten, lost. Truth (right) is vanishing, and falsehood (wrong) is settling everywhere. For Muslims, and even for the entire humanity, no other calamity, no other disaster can be worse or more harmful than this.

Some people say about Wahhâbîs: “They have some wrong beliefs, but they have deduced them from âyat-i-kerîmas and hadîth-i-sherîfs. Perhaps they are bid’at holders, but it is declared in hadîth-i-sherîfs that bid’at holders are in this Ummat. They are Muslims, too. They are ahl-i qibla. Mustn’t we love Muslims and deem Wahhâbîs as brothers?” There is no doubt about the soundness of this reasoning. However, loving holders of bid’at entails giving them good counsel. A person who reads with reason and understands the thirty-nine books we have named above will not have any hesitation or doubt about the truth which our statement bears. For example, Hadrat Ahmad Ridâ Khân Barilawî, one of the greatest savants of India, wrote in his book Fatâwâ-ul-Harameyn: “A hadîth-i sherîf, quoted by Tabarânî and others, states: ‘A person who respects a bid’at holder has helped Islam’s destruction.’ Our religion commands us to censure and abhor bid’at holders. It is harâm to respect them. Islamic savants state in their books, e.g. in Sharh-i maqâsid: ‘It is necessary to bear hostility towards bid’at holders, to abhor them, to refute and to degrade them.’ Muhammad Ma’thûm-i Fârûqî, in his book Maktûbât-i Ma’thûmiyya, in the second volume, 110th letter states: “Don’t be together with bid’at holders! Save yourself from inattentive religious men, from fawning hâfizes and ignorant shaikhs of takka! Don’t be close to those religious men who are slack in obeying Islam. [For instance, people who do not have the Ahl-i sunnat itiqâd, who condone their wives’ and daughters’ going out without covering themselves properly, those who consume drinks containing alcohol, those who play musical instruments, and those who are lâ-madhhâbî or corrupt.] Don’t hear their words! In fact, leave the city where they live, so that your heart later may not incline towards them! They should never be followed. They are not men of religion, but thieves of religion. They are traps of the Satan. You should never be deceived by their gilded and touching words, and should run away as if a lion were stalking you.” When the bid’at is rife and its harm is on the increase, it is fard to refute it and to let Muslims know its harm. In fact, there is ijmâ’i ummat on the fact that it is one of the most important fards. The Salaf-i sâlihîn and their successors always did so. A person who omits this fard will have disobeyed the ijmâ’. A hadîth-i sherîf states: “When fitna and bid’at spread, when my Sahâba are slandered, a person who knows what is right should let Muslims know what he knows! If people who know the right way do not announce it to Muslims, may Allâhu ta’âlâ, angels and all people curse them! Allâhu ta’âlâ will not accept their fard or supererogatory worships.” This hadîth-i sherîf is quoted at the beginning of as-Sawâ’iq-ul-muhriqa and is reported to exist in al-Jâmi’ by Khatîb-i Baghdâdî. [Ahl-i bid’at, i.e. a bid’at holder is somebody who is trying to spread his bid’ats to spoil the beliefs and religious practices of Muslims. Instead of not loving those who perform bid’at, since they were deceived by the ahl-i bid’at, we should pity them and give them advice.] [Today there are four major groups of Muslims all over the world. The first group are true Muslims who have been following the way guided by the Sahâba. They are called the Ahl as-sunnat or the Sunnî (Sunnite) Muslims or the Firqa-i-nâjiyya, which means the firqa (group) who have been saved from Hell. The second group are those who are inimical towards the Sahâba. They are called Shi’î (the Shiites) or the Firqa-i-dâlla, i.e. the group who have deviated from the right path. The third group are holders of bid’at, (i.e. heretics,) who are inimical both towards the Sunnites and towards the Shiites. They are called Wahhâbîs or Nejdîs (or Najdîs). They are called this latter name after Nejd, (a province in Saudî Arabis,) where they first appeared.[18] They are called Firqâ mel’ûna, an epithet that they incurred on account of their calling Muslims ‘disbelievers’. A person who says so was called ‘mel’ûn’ (accursed) by the blessed Messenger of Allah. It is the Jewish and British traitors who caused Muslims to be torn into three groups.]

Adilla-i shar’iyya consists of four sources. The first one is the Qur’ân al-kerîm. The second one is the hadîth-i sherîfs. Each one of these two is either “definite” or “conjectural.” Ibni ’Âbidîn, while explaining the bâghîs (rebels), says: “People called Khawârij make a wrong ta’wîl of those religious sources, [i.e. âyats and hadîths,] which are conjectural and dubious, [i.e. which can be given several meanings.] In other words, they attach wrong, unclear, and unusual meanings to âyat-i-kerîmas that cannot be understood clearly and to hadîth-i-sherîfs that fit into the category termed ‘mutawâtir’.[19] People who left Hadrat ’Ali’s army and fought against him were so. They said that the only hâkim (judge) is Allah and that Hadrat ’Âlî, by relinquishing the Khilâfat to Mu’âwiya and following the judgment of the two hakams (arbitrators), committed a grave sin. One who commits a grave sin will become a disbeliever.. This erroneous understanding of theirs caused them to fight against him. When other people did not join them in this belief of theirs, they called them ‘disbelievers’. Nowadays, people who follow Muhammad bin ’Abdulwahhâb, who appeared in Nejd, call themselves ‘Muslim,’ and they call those who do not have the same belief as theirs ‘mushrik.’ They say, ‘It is halâl to kill them and to plunder their possessions and women.’ These people are called Wahhâbî, and Nejdî.”

As Wahhabism was manufactured and distributed by the British, likewise it was the British, again, who captured the Hedjaz from the Ottomans and established the Sa’ûdî government. It is written in al-Munjid: “By supporting the Wahhâbî amîr Faisal, the British spy Lawrence assisted him to disengage his country from the Sublime Porte in 1914.” Islamic scholars who had attained the grade of ’ijtihâd’ in the science of Fiqh did not say ‘disbelievers’ about people who misinterpreted the ambiguous dalîls (prooftexts), a misunderstanding which caused them to dissent from the  Sunnî creed. They said that they were ’âsîs (sinners), bâghîs (rebels) and bid’at-holders. In English, they are called deviants. People who deny (any one of the) dalîls with one definite [clear] meaning become disbelievers. An example of this is not to believe in the annihilation of the universe, or not to believe in the rising of the dead. Those who say, ‘’Alî is a god’ or ‘the angel Gabriel made a mistake while bringing the wahy’ become disbelievers, too. For, these misstatements are not among the meanings deduced through ijtihâd as a result of misinterpreting the ambiguous dalîls. They are the consequences of following the nafs. Likewise, a person who commits the slander called ‘qazf’[20] against Hadrat ’Âisha or who denies the fact that her father was a Sahabî becomes a disbeliever. For, each of these cases involves the denial of a dalîl declared clearly in the Qur’ân al-kerîm. Not so is the case with blaspheming against Hadrat Abû Bakr and Hadrat ’Umar or denying their caliphates; a person who does so will not become a disbeliever if he can provide a te’wîl (interpretation, explanation). When a definite and clearly stated harâm is in question, such as attacking Muslims’ property and lives, a person who employs te’wîl and asserts that it is halâl will become a disbeliever. He will not become a disbeliever if the te’wîl he employs is on an ambiguous dalîl from the Book and Sunnat.”

As is seen, if a person who claims to be a Muslim and observes the acts of worship, i.e. a person who is said to be an ahl-i-qibla, holds a belief disagreeable with that of the Ahl as-sunnat and at the same time contrary to a definite dalîl with a clear meaning, this belief of his is kufr (disbelief), even if it is deduced by way of te’wîl. This person is called mulhid. If this belief of his runs counter to the clear and well-known one of the various meanings of an unclear and ambiguous dalîl and if he can provide a te’wîl (explanation, interpretation), his (erroneous) belief is not kufr. It is a bid’at. If he is unaware of te’wîl and holds that wrong belief merely in imitation of some heretical scholars or as a result of yielding to the temptations of his nafs or for obtaining worldly advantages, that belief is kufr.

Regardless of whether a person is a Sunnite or a holder of bid’at, if he is ignorant enough to use his faith as an instrument for worldly advantages, or to sacrifice his faith for obtaining some worldly means, he is called a yobaz (an impostor in the name of  Muslim). If a person does not believe in any religion but pretends to be a Muslim and deliberately misinterprets the dalîls in order to substantiate the sources of disbelief and thus to mislead Muslims, extinguish their belief and demolish Islam from the interior, he is called a zindiq or a fake scientist. Holders of bid’at, mulhids and their ignorant imitators are called lâ-madhhabîs. Lâmadhhabîs and thieves of faith who are called zindiqs appear as religion reformers.

Those who say that ijmâ’ is not a dalîl do not become disbelievers. They are bid’at-holders. Khârijîs, Shi’îs and Wahhâbîs are in this category. Their statements contradicting ijmâ’ are not a source of disbelief. Yet they become disbelievers on account of their other beliefs which cause disbelief.

Ibni ’Abidîn ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaih’, while explaining the salât-ul-witr, states: “People who deny the essence of the salât-ulwitr, i.e. the fact that it is an act of worship, become disbelievers. If they deny it by doing te’wîl of the dalîl or by doubting about the dalîl, they do not become disbelievers. [They become ahl-i bid’at.] So is the case with all the wâjibs and sunnats. For, the salât-ul-witr is an act of worship which is an established religious fact inexorably known by every Muslim, and that it is so has been determined by way of Ijmâ’-i ummat. According to the Hanafî scholars, it is disbelief to deny an act of worship which has become an established religious fact inexorably known (by every Muslim) and conveyed through ijmâ’-i ummat. An act of worship’s being ‘an established religious fact inexorably known’ means its being ‘widespread’ enough to be known as a religious fact even by the unlearned Muslims. Examples of this are to believe in the oneness of Allâhu ta’âlâ, the Prophethood of Muhammad ‘’alaihissalâm’ and that the five daily prayers of salât are fard. Anybody who denies a religious teaching which is known only by the religious scholars does not become a disbeliever. An example of this is to deny that the jadda (grandmother) will inherit one-sixth of the heritage.”

Ibni Malak, in his commentary to Manâr[21] states that ijmâ’ means consensus. It is the consensus reached on a certain judgment by mujtahids living in the same era. The consensus may have been reached on a certain statement or on a certain act. Muslims of the same era have to agree over matters which do not need ijtihâd. Consensus in this sense means to make the same statement on a certain matter or to perform a certain act in the same manner. If some of the mujtahids of an era agree on a certain statement or act whereas the other mujtahîds keep their mouths closed and do not object to it when they hear it, this also is consensus according to the Hanafî Madhhab, but it is not called consensus according to the Shâfi’î Madhhab. Being among the scholars making up the people of ijmâ’ requires (having attained the grade of ijtihâd, i.e.) being a mujtahid. Ijmâ’ in matters that do not need ijtihâd, such as in teaching us the Qur’ân al-kerîm, the number of rak’ats in each prayer of namâz, the amount of zakât to be paid, how to borrow bread, and how to go to public baths, does not require being mujtahids. In matters of this sort, ijmâ’ on the part of non-mujtahids as well is acceptable. However, Muslims making up the group of ijmâ’ should not be holders of bid’ât or fâsiq Muslims, (i.e. Muslims who are known by the public to have been openly and habitually committing one of the acts that are definitely harâm, such as consumption of alcoholic beverages, condoning one’s wife’s and/or daughters’ going out without covering themselves in a manner prescribed by Islam, not performing the daily five rayers of namâz, and so forth.) [Hence, heresies written in Shiite and Wahhâbîte books cannot be categorized as ijmâ’. They cannot be taken as tenable sources concerning halâls, harâms, and fards.] They do not necessarily have to be Sahâbîs or deseendants of the Ahl-i-Beyt. Nor do they have to be residents of Medîna. According to the majority of Islamic scholars, if the Salaf (earliest Islamic scholars) have not reached a consensus on a certain matter, it is permissible for scholars of the following era to employ ijtihâd on that matter. If a single mujtahid votes against the ijmâ’, it becomes null and void. Ijmâ’ is practicable on a hadîth-i-sherîf that has been reported by way of a habar-i-wâhid (or habar-i-âhâd. Please see the tenth kind of hadîth-i-sherîfs in the tenth chapter), and on a rule that has been established by a single mujtahid’s qiyâs. Ijmâ’ is not valid on rules that have been understood clearly from âyat-i-kerîmas or from those kinds of hadîth-i-sherîfs called mashhûr, which are dalîls on their own. If the ijmâ’ of the Salaf-i-sâlihîn, i.e. the Ashâb-i-kirâm ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum ajma’în’ has reached us through a chain of ijmâ’s throughout centuries, it is identical with a mutawâtir hadîth. In other words, we have to learn and act upon such ijmâ’s of the Ashâb-i-kirâm. Examples of this are the fact that the Qur’ân al-kerîm is the Word of Allah and the fact that it is fard to perform namâz, to fast, and to pay zakât. On the other hand, their ijmâ’s that have been reported by one pious Muslim are like those hadîth-i-sherîfs transmitted through habari- wâhid. It is wâjib only to act upon them; it is not wâjib to know [or believe] them. An example of this is to perform four rak’ats of sunnat namâz before performing the early afternoon prayer.

There are grades of ijmâ’. Clearly stated ijmâ’s of the Ashâb-ikirâm ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum ajma’în’ which have reached us through the ijmâ’ of each era are as strongly authentic as âyat-ikerîmas and hadîth-i-sherîfs called mutawâtir. He who denies one of them becomes a disbeliever. Also, an ijmâ’ on which some of the Ashâb-i-kirâm were unanimous while the others remained silent is a definite dalîl; yet a person who denies it does not become a disbeliever. The ijmâ’ of the third grade involves a rule on which the Ashâb-i-kirâm did not disagree and on which there has been unanimity throughout the later centuries. It is identical with a habar (report) termed mashhûr. Next comes the ijmâ’ of the later scholars on a matter on which the Ashâb-i-kirâm were not unanimous; it is similar to a hadîth-i-sherîf reported through a habar-i-wâhid. It is wâjib to act upon it, yet it is not wâjib to believe it. When the Muslims of a certain century give various reports disagreeing with one another on a certain matter, it is bâtil (invalid) for their successors to reach a conclusion that would not agree with one of these various disagreeing reports. It is, therefore, impermissible for them to pronounce judgments contradictory to (all) those reports.

Qiyâs means to compare something to something else. In (the Islamic branch of science termed) Fiqh, it means: “When there cannot be found an Islamic solution to a problem because it cannot be understood from the Nass (i.e. âyat-i-kerîmas and hadîth-i-sherîfs with open meanings), to solve it by comparing it to another similar problem (whose solution is prescribed clearly in the Nass).” That qiyâs is a dalîl, (i.e. an Islamic source) is a traditional fact as well as a logical issue. The âyat-i-kerîma which declares: “O ye who have reason! Take lessons!” purports, “(Compare and) deduce what you do not know from what you know!” For the word “i’tibâr”, (the Arabic word used in the âyati- kerîma and which we rendered into English as “take lessons”), means “to compare”. When Mu’âz ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ said (to Rasûlullah) that he wanted to perform qiyâs when in Yemen – because he was going to be sent out to Yemen-, the Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ accepted and paid hamd  (praise and thanks to Allâhu ta’âlâ;) this shows that qiyâs is a hujjat (Islamic source, document). Qiyâs has sharâit (conditions to be fulfilled for being allowed to perform qiyâs), rukns (conditions to be fulfilled while doing qiyâs), hukm, and def’. A mujtahid has to fulfil all these conditions. This is the end of our translation from the commentary to the book entitled Manâr.

[1] A book of fatwâ, also known with the title Zâd-ul-musâfir, which was written by ’Âlim bin ’Alâ ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaih’ (d. 688 [1289 A.D.]).

[2] Written by Nasr bin Ibrâhîm bin Nasr Muqaddasî ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaih’ (d. 490 [1097 A.D.]).

[3] Written by Abul Qâsim ’Ahmad Saffâr (d. 336).

[4] Written by Ibni ’Âbidîn Sayyid Muhammad bin Amîn bin ’Umar bin ’Abd-ul-’Azîz ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaih’.

[5] Khulâsa-t-ül-kalâm, by Ahmad bin Sayyid Zeynî Dahlân ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaih’ (1231 [1816 A.D.], Mekka – 1304 [1886], Medina).

[6] Chief Judge.

[7] Please see the sixtieth chapter of the first fascicle, the twenty-fifth chapter of the fourth fascicle, and the twenty-fifth chapter of the sixth fascicle, of Endless Bliss.

[8] Not Shams-ud-dîn Muhammad Kirmânî, who passed away in 786 [1384 A.D.]

[9] Written by Muhammad Hamdi bin Nu’mân ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaih’ (1294, Elmalı, Antalya, Turkey – 1361 [1942 A.D.], Istanbul).

[10] The book was printed in Delhî in 1264 A.H., and reproduced in Istanbul in 1415 A.H.

[11] By Shems-ud-dîn Muhammad bin ’Abd-ur-Rahmân Sehâwî ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaih’ (830 [1427 A.D.], Egypt – 902 [1496], Medîna-i-munawwara).

[12] Ibni Hâjib ’Uthmân Mâlikî (d. 646 A.H.).

[13] Husayn bin Hasan bin Muhammad bin Halîm Jurjânî (338-403 [1012 A.D.]; and Qâdî Husayn Shâfi’î (d. 462 A.H.); and Imâm-ul-harameyn ’Abd-ul-Melîk bin ’Abdullah Nishâpûrî (419-478 [1085 A.D.].

[14] Written by ’Âlim bin ’Alâ ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaih’ (d. 688 [1289 A.D.]).

[15] A recalcitrant creature innate in man’s nature. All its desires and wishes are against itself and against man’s own good. Please see the forty-third chapter of the current book, and also the twenty-sixth and the twenty-seventh and the fiftieth chapters of the third fascicle, and also the thirty-eighth chapter of the sixth fascicle, of Endless Bliss

[16] These terms and matters are explained in detail throughout the six fascicle of Endless Bliss.

[17] Written by Hâmid Konevî.

[18] How they appeared is dealt with in detail in Confessions of a British Spy, available from Hakîkat Kitâbevi, in Istanbul, Turkey.

[19] Please see the sixth chapter for kinds of hadîths.

[20] Please see the third kind of punishments applicable to various sins in the tenth chapter of the sixth fascicle of Endless Bliss.

[21] Written by Abulbarakât Hâfizuddîn Nasafî ’Abdullah bin Ahmad ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaih’ (d. 710 [1310 A.D.], Baghdâd).