Wahhabis: a sect of Islam and their negative influence

There is no need to debate with the Salafi/Wahhabis on ideological grounds.  It's their history that condemns them most effectively.  Until now, it had been difficult to get precise details on Saudi history.  However, I read an excellent book recently by David Cummins, called the Wahhabi Mission and Saudi Arabia.  It is the only comprehensive study of the history of SA and Wahhabism that I know of. 

In any case, it's nearly impossible to pin the Salafi down on any one particular principle.  They have mastered the ability of denying everything and blaming any wayward ideas on false representatives of their movement.

They will usually even deny that they are "Wahhabis" and or that any such name even means anything.  And yet, they follow closely the reformation proposed by Abdul Wahhab

This is what is sneaky about this group.  They basically insinuate themselves as merely a devout segment of the general Muslim population.

But, a reading of their history reveals very clearly that they are most definitely a sect, and have deviated from the body of the Muslim population since their founder.

This is the fact that becomes very clear in reading the book.  It also helps to explain a lot about the Wahhabis and their ignorance, as well as their political inclinations.

Because, from the beginning, the relationship between the Saudis and Wahhabis has been one of tacit compromise.  Monarchism, we know, is an affront to traditional Islamic practice.  But from the beginning, the Wahhabi clerics agreed to overlook the ruler's poor implementation of Islamic law, as long as they could continue to concentrate on "reforming" the masses.  This is of course egregious hypocrisy, but it helps to explain the relationship that persists into our time.

What I try to point out in my book is that what the world has completely failed to recognize is that the real "axis of evil" is Britain, the US and Saudi Arabia.  And that SA has not only played a pivotal role in the conspiring of the last half of the 20th century, but has been a willing participant, in what is evidently a long-term strategy against the Islamic world, or all part of the creation of a "Clash of Civilizations", between Islam and the West.

So SA is in blatant collusion with the enemies of Islam in an attempt to undermine it.  And much of the Muslim world is completely unaware of that, due primarily to the massive propaganda campaign that the state has maintained over the century, through the monopolization of Islamic literature.

But that is only part of the problem.  The central aspect of this problem is the fact of that the so-called "Ulema" are a state-sponsored religious establishment (likely the only one of its kind in the world).  So throughout the century they have acted to excuse the actions of the ruling family.

This explains the narrow conception of Islam that they propagate.  Because they are not able to address the guts of the matter, which is the corruption of the royals, they have to compensate to by trying to appear strict in other less substantial matters.  But the contradiction is that, and as controversial as this may sound, Islam is a political ideology.  It's a complete system of politics, offering an alternative to capitalism, communism or anarchism.  The more trivial details were never meant to be emphasized to the extent they are by the Wahhabis.

This is how they fail to communicate the true meaning of Islam.  I would say this is the reason why the Muslim world as a whole is plagued with hypocrisy.  Ask a Muslim what Islam is, and he will list you the "five pillars", but he doesn't understand the political responsibilities that it imparts to him, and that are the true essence of the religion.

This is compounded by another fact.  Essentially, Wahhab denounced the Islamic world, except for his small band of followers, as "Kaffirs", or apostates, who had fallen outside of Islam, and therefore that it was legal to fight and kill them and seize their property, and enslave their women and children.  Conveniently, the modern Wahhabis never refer to this aspect of their history.

And, to protect their ignorant citizenry from learning the true Islam from other parts of the world, they produced prohibitions against fraternizing with the "infidels".  They managed to keep this quarantine on the country essentially ever since.  Through this exclusion, and by rejecting traditional Islamic scholarship, they have created a manner of dialogue on Islamic jurisprudence that is completely unique to themselves.

The problem is that the Muslim world is unaware of that.  Because when the Wahhabis say "this scholar said" or "that scholar said...", they are not referring to the centuries of Islamic legal opinion, but to their own Wahhabi tradition.  However, Islamic legal thought had developed strict processes for formulating opinions.  The development of several schools is testament to the tolerance that was perceived necessary in the interpretation of such laws.  While the Wahhabis, on the contrary, do not have to resort to precedence, or support their arguments by past decisions, and are therefore free to distort the religion at their whim.

For all these reasons, SA has a completely unique but also very narrow and chauvinistic interpretation of Islam, which, however, they have been able to, through their fantastic oil wealth, spread to much of the Muslim world.  I hope that studies like The Hijacking of British Islam: How extremist literature is subverting Britain’s mosques will help elucidate that the current conception being propagated is one that is being monopolized by a single voice, but more importantly, that that voice comes from a very minor and corrupted sect of Islam.

Comments

I really enjoied this article… is the book you mentioned a good read so? i’l like to know more about muslim as a political alternative, any link?

Alex,

Just read Terrorism And The Illuminati.

It will tell you all you need to know.

Respectfully,

Philip

God be with you David. You are amazing mashallah, my cousin, known as whiteknite on the youtube, sent me your book, and wow! What a gift! Truly a Godsend, especially in these times. It came to me at a perfect time, there was so many questions that I had, and Alhamdolilah, Allah, the best of Guides and Protectors, has been bringing me to the right people. I am so grateful, everyone needs to read your book. You seem to be saying what I`m thinking in so many ways. Alas! There are people out there who are deaf, dumb and blind, and no matter what evidence you throw their way, no matter how simple the terms are that you use, or how much common sense you show them, it will not penetrate. I have put your name across to people whenever and wherever I can, but unless they are asking or `on the case` then, they may find it difficult to read. Do you have anything on the youtube? That seems to be the simpler way.
Have you managed to watch any of the noreagaa productions on the tube, like The Arrivals? I loved it. I have long ago disconnected the t.v, but recently knocked the Disney and Dreamworks on the head, which was hard for me, but I briefed the kids, and they seem to understand. In fact they are accusing nearly everyone of being Illuminati!
Pls feel free to keep me updated with what you are upto and you think I will be interested in, I would be honored, Thank you and I would think to say, thank the Almighty, for He is certainly guiding you.
Respect.

Hi David,

Here in Denmark, Wahhabism rules. Every Mosque I have visited in order to conduct interviews appears riddled with it, with all the books etc. coming from a Saudi Arabian source.

Few outside of Islam understand the significance of this, and that is where articles like this come in.

I'm not sure how many read your articles (perhaps you should mention a reptilian or two just to spice things up :-) but it appears to me that without an understanding of the geopolitical stressors, we are lost.

As you know, I have been following your work for a while now, and lament that researchers such as yourself who base their work on study and investigation are not getting the exposure necessary in order to inform the public as to what is really pertaining in our lives.

Thanks for taking the time to put together the articles and books which give the facts needed and the information neccesary.

Respectfully,

Philip

As salaam alaikum,
I'm from India, where all the sects and differences are available and no body truly dominates the other. So its quite easier here to assess things from different sources. The problem that I have seen as the reason for the acceptance of Wahabbism is that they confront the other innovation in traditional Islam; like grave worship. You see, here in India, there are 3 major school of thought: 1) Wahabbis or Salafis (Mostly led by Jamaat e Islamia or Islamic Research Foundation), 2) Deobandi (Traditional Islam based on madh'habs, but without the innovation of grave or saint worshipping, mostly associated with Tablighi Jamaat and Deoband's famous madarassa) and 3) Barelvi (Traditional Islam based on madh'habs with the varying degree of innovations found and includes the majority population of the Indian Subcontinent, Asia minor and south east asia). The reason why Salafis or Wahabbism is propogating so quickly is because they have a very good argument or facade that they are following exactly what Prophet and his companions did. That makes them look far more legitimate body and their stance against innovations (although what they did itself is an innovation) is far more appealing to thinking young minds in the Islamic domain. It was good that you brought about the link between British intrigue and Wahabbi movement and I've read your book, its milestone in the research on world conspiracy. However, there are some things I'd like to discuss, for example,
1. Ismailis are the assassins, we know that much. But the reason why they had to become assassins is not that devious. Because, they were a persecuted sect and they had no ability to protect themselves with the army (until later till the Fatimids arrived and after their collapse). So they were really not that devious in assassinating politically important people. Atleast, it saved people from war (which takes more life) and they never targetted civillians. Not like the terrorists we see today. So there cannot be a comparison.
2. The link between Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda is not entirely clear, besides, the Taliban are not fitting the bill. They infact stopped opium production. The world knows that it faced a crisis and had to depend too much on central and south America for Opium, till Taliban existed. Also, the Taliban is not aligned to the Wahabbi school of thought. They are traditionalist, who mostly follow Hanafi Mazhab. Then why would they be part of the Wahabbi and muslim brotherhood orchestrated conspiracies.
3. The other aspect is Sufism. Its influence is seen most vividly on all the traditional schools and wahabbi's call it a heresy. There are too many things in Sufism that either borders on innovation or heresy and sometimes go beyond the borders. The other interesting aspect is that like Kabbalists, Sufis also believe in the pantheistic aspect of Godhood, in order words, Wajibatul - Wujud (I may be incorrect in spelling it). There is also a lot of speculation that the sufism that is heretical has its root in Shia'ism, which itself was a Jewish Intrigue during the time of Caliph Usman, Ali and Muai'wiya; perpetuated by Abdullah ibn Saba. Therefore, I really am very interested in Gnostic literature of Kabbalah and Sufism as they are to some or large extent similar. And I guess the deviation or subversive movements had infiltrated Islam right from the time of Caliphs.
These are either my conclusions based on my own research or imporvement after reading your book. I guess if you have time we can discuss on this, on this blog or some forum with a new thread. I'd really appreciate it.
Thanks anyways for the wonderful book that opens a new dimension to this research. You have no idea how inspired and awe struck I am by your work.
Thanks

Thanks for the detailed answer.  It's tragic the degree to which these deviations have so penetrated Islam in both Pakistan and India.  But I believe this is attributable to those 2 countries being among the first to be so fully dominated by the British.  In fact, there was a spread of "revivalism" across the MIddle East starting in the middle of the nineteenth century.  But particularly, aside from Egypt, in India and Pakistan.

In fact, of these various splinters, the one that was most closely associated with Wahhabism from the very beginning was the Deobandis.  This continued into the 20th century, and it was Saudi Arabia who financed the proliferation of "madrassas" along the border with Afghanistan, run by Deonbandis, where the Taliban were indoctrinated.

The one point the Wahhabis have always used is "saint worship".  It is a questionable practice, and so yes they have had success is luring other Muslims into their brand of fanaticism.  But they themselves bring far worse innovations, particularly the abandonment of the traditional schools of jurisprudence (Mathhabs).

Free from these traditional constraints, they are able to re-invent Islam at will.  And this is the Taliban version of Islam.  It's an absurd caricature of Islam.  It's a very terrible shame.  But the fact is, they were a tool of the Pakistani government to colonlze Afghanistan.  in fact, the only reason the Islamic rebel groups in Afghanistan had any success at all was for the windfall of billions of aid and military equipment poured on the "mujahideen" by Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the CIA. (often funded through drugs).  But when the various groups started to bicker, Pakistan and Saudi Arabi (and the Americans) saw the Taliban as an opportunity to unify the country, and stabalize it for trade with the rest of Central Asia.

The Taliban did not stop drug production.  They did for a while.  But some say, like Masood, only to corner the market.  It's well documented that they then monopolized the massive drug trade in the country (with the excuse that it was allowed if sold to non-Muslims).

Now to answer your questions:

1. Ismailis and Assassins were Gnostics, and taught the worship of Lucifer in their highest grades.  I don't think their "persecution" justifies their resorting to terrorism.

2. The entire CIA project, following the suggestion from Brzezinski (himself influenced by Bernard Lewis) was to employ the MB in Afghanistan against the Russians.  Of the proliferation of rebel groups, it was all MB affiliated groups which they chose to support, particularly Hekmetyar.  This was all coordinated with the assistance of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.  And bin Laden was the one to deliver funds.  He's made out to have been a warrior in Afghanistan, but he did not fight.  Mostly, he was carrying funds there on behalf of his sponsors, like Saudi intelligence.  It was only later that the Americans began to build up his reputation as a "leader".  But you look at the entire architecture of terrorism financing, and it is internationally integrated with all MB affiliated organizations, and fully supported by Western interests.  It's too convoluted for al Qaeda to extricate itself from it.

3. Yes, it's a tragic irony that the only articulate opponents to Wahhabism these days are the Sufis.  But the Sufis themselves only represent the appropriation of the occult into Islam.  In fact, their sources were mostly the occult and pagan Sabians of Harran, who are the bridge for the transfer of occult knowledge from antiquity to the European Middle Ages.

Hey David,
I'm the same guy who asked the very first question on this article. Those 3 questions and also the guy who requested you the ebook of "The Dying God". I really need help that pertains to this article and the previous questions I've asked. I want to concentrate on the Wahabbis, Deobandis (semi sufis) and Barelvi (total sufis). And in the regard, I'd like to know where to get unbiased and verifiable information on the subject. Some book or some research done on these three topics would really help. Especially, Deobandis. According to my information, they have always stood on moderate level. Things that are specific to deobandis are :
1) Freedom struggle against british in India (1857). Many of the ulemas died fighting against british, during the 1857 revolt in india and Maulana Qasim Nanadvi (Founder of deoband madarassa) started it to ensure hindrance to the secularisation of muslim ummah by the british.
2) They are against Wahabbism by being traditionalist.
3) They stand against Barelvis (or total misguided sufism) by dividing the line between innovation and traditional islam
4) They support the Tablighi Jamaat movement (non political, revivalist movement), which is currently the only movement that is not politicized and is only concentrating on following the deen-ul-islam, by adhering to each and every sunnah of Prophet Muhammed (SAWS).
They couldn't have been supported by Wahabbis during the its early stages, because Arab nationalism was unknown at that period. Its only during the early 20th century, the British were able to defeat Turkey in World War I and empower the Saudi government. Before that, current Saudi government was fighting for its survival and the deoband madarassa was already famous by then.
Also, Indian government has special regards for this madarassa, due their support for the freedom struggle and their stance against partitioning of India and diaspora of India muslims. They also have release Fatwa against terrorism. They have vehemently opposed the philosophy of Maududi (jamaat -e islami) as well as muslim brotherhood.
In light of all of this, it becomes inappropriate to think that they were working along with the conspiracy of Wahabbism. The only place Deoband and Wahabbis stand together is against innovations like grave worship. Those are the doctrinal matters.
I'd really like to know where to look for information. I've just started studying alternative and world history. I currently want to focus the world of Islam and Indian subcontinent from historical, religious influence and development of thought perspective
Sorry for such a long post. But it's important.
Thanks
Arshad

Dear Arshad,

I highly recommend reading Cummins' The Wahhabi Mission.  It would have better if such a book were written by a Muslim, but it's symptomatic of the sorry condition we are in that Muslims today could not write such a book.  In fact, his book is not even critical of Wahhabism.

Rather, it is the history of Wahhabism itslef that is the most incriminating.  And Cummins also explore the various relationships that the Wahhabis maintained, and that with the Deobandis was the most long-lasting and pronounced.  But their modern relationship was even more intimate.  The CIA's strategy was to create a generation of Afghani  and Pakistani Islamic militants who could serve their purposes.  This was accomplished by the establishment of numerous Deobandi maddrasses along the Afghan border in Pakistan, all funded by Saudi Arabia.  The product was the Taliban.

But don't look at the political leanings of this or that group to determie if they are rightly guided.  This is how a lot of Muslims were fooled by al Quaeda and other Jihadi organizations, because they are seemingly the only group standing up to the excesses of Zionism.  This is always how we have been fooled.  And our enemies know how to fool us this way.  Judge each organization by their beliefs.

The Qur'an says, when you are asked to say who you are, say you are "Muslim".  That is, "those who submit to Allah".  We are not supposed to have names in Islam, like Salafi, Wahhabi, Deobandi, Tablighi and so on.  We are only Muslim.  And the right guidance is to follow a Mathhab. And a Mathhab is not a sect.  We know that all the Mathhabs are equally regarded as belonging to Sunni Islam.

There is not a lot of literature to refer to in our time, espcially not in English.  That's part of our punishment for having let things slide to this extent.  But as Muslims, and basically any other human being, we have to learn to decide matters for ourselves.  On the Day of Judgement, you will not be forgiven because you did something because so and so told you so.  Like belief in Islam itself, it's something you hve to decide for yourself that you believe.  And that's what the Qur'an means when we are told to say we are "those who submit themselves to God."

Assalam-u-Alaikum,

First I would like to thank brother David for such excellent information all which is intelligently written and deeply researched! Only wahhabis will disagree with that :O)

In regard to the book 'The Wahhabi Mission and Saudi Arabia' by David Commins, I also recommend all to read it, and have just found the pdf vesion online... I do hope this links works:

http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/Z5212T.pdf

Jazak ALLAH Khair

The best to follow islam is not stricly on following a Madhab. The best way to follow Islam is based on the Qur'an and Hadith (Sahih). Even all the imams of the four major madhabs stated in their books NOT to follow their fatwas BLINDLY without investigate the source (Quran and Hadith), and pre-warned us should their fatwas contradicted the Quran and Hadith, their words should be discarded.

Wahhabi and Salafi is just LABELS. It's the manhaj of you devote yourself to God matters. People can label me anything for all I care, what I know is I practise my religion based on the Quran and Hadith, and avoid innovations and shirk!

Please do more research i beg to all my muslim brothers here. Those are labels. Learn more what 'wahabbis' are actually and "salafis".. are they really a 'SECT" like most people think they are?

Please do make more research on what is 'wahhabi' and/or 'salafi' especially the muslims here. With the intent to find truth, make MORE and MUCH MORE thorough research on this. May Allah Guide us From Misguidance and Fitnah.

I would suggest that you do your research.  Do a more careful study of the Wahhabis/Salafi, their history and what they stand for.  What you mention here is just typical Wahhabi/Salafi propaganda.  It's merely a disguise of the truth, and only works on those who are ignorant of the greater subtleties of the issue you mentioned.  Study also the context out of which they emerged, and continue to thrive in our time.  The obvious should then reveal itself to you.

 

 

 

Dear David, I have immense gratitude for your work on the illuminati and their role in fomenting global terror by creating , nurturing and protecting wahabism, salafism, and its local Indo Pak version known as deobandism. I have been arguing with the new converts to these heretic ideology for more than 15 years through the orthodox point of view. I have been successfully repelling and demolishing their non sense claims of being the true followers of Quran or hadees by showing how they have been deceiving the simple muslims with their out of context use of selected Quran or hadees. Here in the north west of Pakistan, i have helplessly watched as Saudi money, with the active connivance of USA has been funlled through wahabi religious schools to win over and convert the destitute and simple sunni muslims and to turn them into fanatic radical tools for the illuminati design of using them as catalysts for a wider regional conflict.

You have taken us to the heart of the matter by showing with historical documents how these heretic ideas were instilled through the british agent Humpher into the mind of ibn-i- Wahab. I have been quoting youknow in addition to my usual orthodox assault on these heretics who have only brought us shame and misery. I am writng this letter out of genuine gratitude for the additional insights you gave me on this vital topic. I beseech my muslim brothers not to quit the orthodox islam of FOUR schools that have a consensus (ijma) of 1400 years behind it and not throw away their faiths for these few dollars of Saudis. This way they will not only do favour to Islam but also to the whole world by contributing to peace through defeating the plan of the illuminati.

Dear sir, please carry on the good work on exposing these collective enemies of all religions and humanity.

regards

without the Sunnah Hadith does not mean much, they go hand in hand. From your comment alone it is safe to say you are Ahle Hadith. Salafi/wahabi is the correct term for they have created biggest fitnah in Islam. Going over board and sanction killing of Innocent orthodox sunni in Arabia. Followers of Wahab need to take a long look in the mirror and see who and what they are following.

As-Salaamu 'Alaykum David,

I find your works fascinating and believable but to call Sufism a heresy into Islam is very unscholarly and inaccurate. Tasawwuf is a science in Sunni Islam that deals with the purification of the heart and soul and character refinement. I mean the vast majority of Sunni scholars, luminaries, and mujahdieen where Sunni Sufis. All of the major Sunni Caliphates such as the Ottomans and Sunni institutions of learning taught and practiced Sufism. Its unfortunate and sad that you have adopted the Salafi attitude towards Sufism.

You need to differentiate between innovative heretical Sufism vs. more of the orthodox Sunni Sufism. But other then that, your works are amazing!

I recommend that you read these articles:

The Place of Tasawwuf in Traditional Islamic Sciences:
http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/sufitlk.htm

How would you respond to the Claim that Sufism is bid'a?:
http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/sufism.htm

Thanks for the kind comments, and very glad you appreciate the book.

As for Sufism, I've read several interpretations about its history.  A popular one is that Sufism began as a sincere discipline and was later corrupted.  If I'd believe in any one theory, I'd believe in that one.

I was hoping for a little more insight from the articles you provided links to, but I don't think they were substantial.

This tends to be the dilemma I've found within Islam in our time.  The only critics of the Salafis are Sufis, and the only critics of Sufism are Salafis (of course the Salafi conveninently forget that Ibn Taymiyyah was a member of a Sufi order as well).

I cannot speak for the origin of Sufism, but as soon as it began to gain any momentum within Islam, it was already very corrupted.  I have heard as well that the Ottoman Sultans were Sufis, as was Mehmed Fateh.  So God knows best.  There is an aspect of Sufism which is dedicated to self-purification.  That's always been it's attraction.  But for the most part, the doctrines of Sufism are highly polluted with ideas from mysticism, like those of Ghazzali, and with Ibn Arabi, they are pure Platonism in Islamic language.

Historically speaking, there have been corrupt scholars in all of the Islamic sciences, one of these sciences being Sufism, however there were always orthodox scholars that have defended and kept the faith pure from many of the innovations that crept into the religion throughout the centuries. Lets say If we were to find corruption amongst some hadith scholars then do we condemn and reject the science all together? Of course not, the scholarly approach would be to purify the science if any corruption were to have contaminated it. The same goes for Sufism and the other disciplines of Sunni Islam.

As for your views on Ghazali and Ibn Arabi I would disagree. I think Ghazali and Ibn Arabi are greatly misunderstood, and a part of the reason why is due to the many orientalist studies of these respected luminaries, and the orientalist translations of their works. As well in order to understand and see the orthodox nature of tasawwuf one would have to study underneath orthodox masters of the science rather then to take more of a "do it yourself" approach of study which can lean to misguided conclusions.

I hope the following links will help in your research:

The Defense of the Sunnah An Analysis of the Theory and Practices Of Tasawwuf (Sufism) :
http://www.livingislam.org/k/defs_e.html
http://mac.abc.se/home/onesr/d/defs_e.pdf

What do the scholars say about Ibn `Arabi?:
http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=3&ID=3865&CATE=262

Shaykh Muhyi al-Din Ibn 'Arabi:
http://www.abc.se/~m9783/n/iarabi_e.html

Wahdat al-Wujud - The Oneness of Being:
http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=7&ID=10240&CATE=3206

Was Sufism in Disarray until Ghazali Came?:
http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=3&ID=4654&CATE=366

Those Who Attack Imam Ghazali:
http://www.livingislam.org/n/atgz_e.html

Imam Al-Ghazalî:
http://www.livingislam.org/ghaz_e.html

The Way of Sunni Islam:
http://www.sunnipath.com/library/Articles/AR00000168.aspx

David,
Sufism is based on spiritual cleansing and having pure love of Prophet Muhammad in your heart. I hope you check out the website of my Pir/Shiekh.. I think you will find it very fascinating. Sufism can't be explain or understood through reading books it is felt in the heart and through help of a spiritual teacher.

http://yamurshid.com/

whoah this weblog is wonderful i love studying your articles.
Stay up the good work! You recognize, lots of people are hunting around for this information, you could help them greatly.

So only David Livingstone knows the truth?Theres no doubt the Salafis are blind followers of ibn Abdul Wahab ,The barelvis are stuck in innovation and superstition. Whats the evidence against the Deobandis?The Saudis threw a few dollars their way?Why dont you present reasonable ,logical and testable proof against their aqeeda and sufi practices instead of painting whimsical ideas about them that have no basis. Produce proof from the deobandis kitabs that they are wrong.

But here's an excellent article by an Indian scholar who has been a Post doctoral Fellow at Royal Holloway, University of London, and the International institute for the Study of Islam in the Modern World at the University of Leiden, in the Netherlands.

Ulema Rivalries and the Saudi Connection

It is this kind of recognition to have the possiblity to become a member of the actual debate of this wonderful blog! I must extend my many thanks for this specific.

Great post,, its really informative and useful.

Add new comment