لطفا منتظر باشید ...
3 - Sources of Wahabi thought
The Wahabi sect classified doctrines into two categories.
The first category includes all those doctrines based on
a text in the Quran or the Prophet Tradition. They
claimed that such doctrines can be derived from these two
sources directly and without resorting to the logical
deductions of religious scholars regarding their meaning
- even if these sources happen to be the Prophet's
Companions, early Muslims or other scholars.
The second category includes all doctrines which are
not based on a Quranic or Prophetic text, and in such
cases the Wahabis claim that they defer to the teachings
and jurisprudence of Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal and Ibn
Taimia.
Regretably, they failed in both categories by falling
into contradictions and making gross errors of judgment
as the following points show:
1. They relied entirely on interpretations based on
the literal meaning of the texts, and thus they
contradicted basic tenets and ijam, the consensus
of religious scholars. This is why the Egyptian religious
scholar of the last century, Muhammad Abdo, described
them as worse than those who follow others blindly
because they "believe that the literal meanings must
be endorsed and adhered to without paying heed to the
basic tenets on which religion is based."2
2. They contradicted Ahmed ibn Hanbal clearly and
openly in pronouncing as blasphemers and heretics Muslims
who disagreed with them though none of Ibn Hanbal's
religious decrees support this. According to Ibn Hanbal,
only a Muslim who intentionally refuses to perform
obligatory prayers can be called a blasphemer or heretic.
Similarly, no support for this Wahabi belief can be
found in the works of Ibn Taimia. Indeed, Ibn Taimia
opposed such thinking. He maintained that "whoever
approved of those in agreement with him and condemned
those who opposed him, created schisms in the ranks of
Muslims, labeled those who disagreed with him regarding
points of opinion and logical deduction as heretics, and
approved waging was on them is a person who seeks to
divide and create discord." This description by Ibn
Taimia fits the Wahabis completely.3
3. If the Wahabi doctrine on visiting shrines is
endorsed then Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal and all his followers
are idolators who must be denounced and their lives and
possessions legally forfeited. This is in view of a
report by none other than Ibn Taimia that Imam Ibn Hanbal
wrote a treatise on visiting the shrine of Imam
al-Hussain ibn Ali (the grandson of the Prophet) at
Kerbala with specific instructions for visitors. Ibn
Taimia commented on this that «people at the time of
Imam Ahmed [ibn Hanbal] frequented [the shrine].»4
But the Wahabi creed considers making a journey to a
shrine for the purpose of visiting it a form of idolatry
which deserve the extreme punishment of loss of life and
possessions. In effect, they condemned Imam Ahmed, his
contemporaries and early Muslims who practiced this
ritual and condoned it as idolators who must be put to
death and their possessions confiscated. Furthermore,
this Wahabi decree must also extend to the Prophet
Companions who approved or performed this ritual. Their
claim to be followers of Imam Ahmed is thus unfounded.
The same argument applies also to their belief
regarding asking for the Prophet's intercession.
According to this, whoever asks for the Prophet
intercession after the Prophet's death is committing a
cardinal idolatry. They argue that by performing such an
act, a person treats the Prophet as an idol and worships
him instead of Allah. According, they considered killing
such a person and confiscating his possessions a
religious duty.5
This Wahabi doctrine runs contrary to the practice of
asking for the Prophet's intercession performed by a
large number of his prominent Companions and early
Muslims - whose requests, the subjects of these
intercessions, were usually granted. Ibn Taimia has
confirmed this in his book Al-Ziara on the bases
of evidence by several authorities including al- Baihaqi,
al-Tabarani, Ahmed ibn Hanbal and Ibn Abi al-Dunia.6
Nevertheless, Ibn Taimia chose to go against these
authorities by banning the call for intercession. Unlike
the Wahabi, however, he refrained from calling it a
cardinal act of idolatry.
To repeat, if the Wahabi doctrine regarding
intercession is endorsed then all the Companions and
early Muslims who practiced it must be considered
idolaters who deserve to be put to death. Not only those
are idolaters, according to the Wahabi, but also anyone
who knew about this practice and refrained from opposing
it and condemning those who performed it as heretics.
These also must be executed and their possessions
forfeited. In the final analysis, all early Muslims
deserve such a sentence leaving none whom the Wahabi
could regard as the model to emulate.
