What is a Khariji and Who are the Khawarij?

Khariji or Kharijite: a follower of the Khawarij, or the attribute of following the Khawarij.

Khawarij: the group that expels people from the fold of Islam upon innovated principles and revolts against the rulers, causing much turmoil throughout the land

The original Khawarij were the descendents of a man named Dhul-Khuwaysarah, as prophesied by the Messenger of Allah (may Allah raise his rank and grant him peace). They are the sect that were responsible for the killing of many of his companions. They differ from the followers of the Salaf (the Prophet and his companions) in that they do not restrict themselves to the understanding which the Salaf had when applying texts related to takfir (excommunication). Hence, they use textual evidences, but fall short in understanding them. This is why the likes of Osama Bin Laden make unrestricted takfir.

Regarding the Khawarij, Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzaan, one of the great Salafi scholars of this time, said: “So having enthusiasm and an over-protective love for the religion is not sufficient. They must be founded upon knowledge and understanding of Allah’s religion.”

- abridged from the book: The ‘Wahhabi’ Myth

 

Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzaan, Lamha ‘an-il-Firaqid-Daallah

What is a Sufi and What is Sufism?

Sufi: a follower of Sufism

Sufism: a sect that has introduced many innovated practices and beliefs into the religion of Islam while claiming to be mystical

Sufism was not known in the time of the Prophet (may Allah raise his rank and grant him peace) or his Companions, nor was it well known in the first three generations after them. It first appeared in Basrah in Iraq, where some people went to extremes in worship and in avoiding the worldly life, something which is admonished in the Quran:

“The Monasticism which they invented for themselves; We did not prescribe it for them.”

Sufis belong to the Illumist school of philosophy which holds that knowledge and awareness is brought about in the soul by spiritual exercises. Orthodox Islam holds that one can achieve true knowledge and awareness through the acts of worship that exist in the Quran and Sunnah.

Sufis believe that their teachers are also a source for legislation in worship, as they will order them to carry out acts of worship that have no basis in either the Quran or the Sunnah. The extremists from amongst them often claim that Allah dwells within His creation (i.e. in people’s hearts, internal organs etc.). Consequently, they ascribe to their Sufi teachers attributes and powers which only belong to Allah, such as the knowledge of the unseen.

They often claim that the texts of the Quran and the Sunnah have an outer, apparent meaning, and as well, an inner, hidden meaning. They hold that the outer, apparent meaning is known to those who practice orthodox Islam, while the inner and hidden meanings of the Quran and Sunnah are known only to their teacher and order. These teachers will often claim that since they have advanced to the inner and hidden meaning of Islam, they no longer need to pray or fast, something that not even the Prophets were excused from.

- from a footnote in the book: The ‘Wahhabi’ Myth

 

Quran 57:27

Who was Hasan Al-Banna?

Hasan al-Banna (1906-1949) was a Sufi thinker and political activist, and the founder of al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun (The Muslim Brotherhood).

Hasan Al-Banna himself narrates that he used to visit the graves and shrines on a weekly basis at which greater acts of polytheism were being performed. In his book Muthakkiraatud-Da’wah, Al-Banna disclosed his fascination with Sufism, how he would accompany the Hasafiya Sufi order and how he would spend long periods of time at the shrines in Diminhoor.

Note: Hasan al-Banna, Abu Alaa Maududi, Sayyid Qutb and all of their followers are clearly not “Wahhabis”.

Hasan al-Banna, Muthakkiraatud-Da’wah, pp. 24-30

 

Who was Abu Alaa Maududi?

Abu Alaa Maududi (1903-79) was the founder of an Islamic sect in Pakistan called Jama’at-i Islami.

Maududi was what is now being termed a “contemporary Islamic revivalist thinker.” After originally opposing the formation of the nation state of Pakistan, he eventually accepted it during the 1940s, when he began a decades-long effort to dominate it.

Maududi wrote much about society, economy, and politics. He was a free thinker who helped introduce the dividing ideology of hizbiyyah (strict loyalty to a particular group or party) to the common masses. Concentrating on issues of social justice, Maududi promoted un-Islamic revolutionary modes of thought which led him to have a distorted view of Islam as being primarily a political system. Overlooking Islam’s fundamentals such as teaching tawhid (true monotheism) and the pillars of the religion such as understanding the realities of the testimony of faith, praying, giving charity, fasting and making Hajj, Maududi spoke in an exaggerated manner concerning the aspect of rulership in Islam.

Speaking about desiring authority in the land, Maududi said, “So without the desire for authority, there is no meaning for calling to a particular philosophy, and there is no meaning for what is lawful and what is forbidden, nor for the prescribed laws.”

Maududi said this, even though the Prophet of Islam (may Allah raise his rank and grant him peace) clearly forbade desiring positions of authority, because craving after authority corrupts absolutely. He said, “Do not ask for leadership, since if you are given it having requested it, then you will be left alone to discharge it, but if you are given it without requesting it, you will be helped (by Allah) in it.”

Maududi even went a step further by claiming that the principal goal of all of the Prophets was to establish a state: “Therefore the goal aspired for in the messengership of the Prophets in this world did not cease to be the establishment of the Islamic government upon the earth.”

Although orthodox Islam considers this to be an important matter, it does not consider this to be from the pillars of Islam that were mentioned in the source texts of the religion. Hence, it is a great error to overlook the true call of the Prophets while making the false claim that the principle goal which they aspired for was to establish an Islamic state.

Maududi used to base his conclusions upon intellectual and political analogies and deductions as opposed to returning to the textual sources of the religion understood by the early Muslims as a source of guidance. Consequently, he was oblivious to the polytheism, religious innovations and superstitions that were rampant in his political party and native homeland. Furthermore, he fell into the grave error of reviling some of the Prophets and the righteous companions of the last Prophet (may Allah raise his rank and grant him peace).

His extremism in those things related to politics led him to compare the Prophet Joseph to Mussolini! Disregarding the honour of the Prophets of Allah, Maududi said the following about Joseph:

“This (his request to become the custodian of Egypt) was not a demand to be the Minister of Finance only, as some people understand, this was not a demand of the ministerial office of finance only, but a demand for dictatorship. As a result, this position which Sayyidinaa Yusuf (Joseph) got is almost the same which Mussolini enjoyed in Italy in these days.”

- abridged from the book: The ‘Wahhabi’ Myth

 

Abu Alaa Maududi, Tajdeedud-Deen, p. 32-33.

Muslim (no. 4692)

Abu Alaa Maududi, Tajdeedud-Deen, p.34.

Tafheemaat, Part II, p.122, 5th edition.

 

Who was Sayyid Qutb?

“Sayyid Qutb had no knowledge of the fundamental or subsidiary matters of Islam.”

- Shaykh Muhammad Naasir ad-Deen al-Albaanee

Sayyid Qutb (1906-66) was born in a small town in Upper Egypt and moved to Cairo as an adolescent in order to further his education.

Qutb began to write in the late 1920s as a poet and literary critic, writing about social and political matters from a secular standpoint. By 1948, Qutb changed his mode of writing, and began to write from a more Islamic perspective, according to the limited knowledge of Islam that he had. Social Justice, his first Islamic book, was published in 1949.

After his return from a two-year study tour in the United States that ended in 1950, Qutb joined al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun (the Muslim Brotherhood), becoming one of their leading spokesmen. After the movement openly opposed the government of Jamal Abdul Nasser, Qutb essentially spent the rest of his life in prison after 1954, except for a brief period in 1964-65. After being temporarily released, Qutb was re-apprehended, tried and executed for treason in 1966.

Qutb’s lack of knowledge in Islam coupled by his jailing led him to change his understanding of Islam according to the circumstances he was faced with. Consequently, his writings became more and more radical as time went by. Eventually, his revolutionary ideology of takfir (excommunication) and setting out against the authorities became ingrained in the minds and hearts of a new generation of youth who were looking for something greater than the failed way of al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun. To this day, Qutb is considered to be the head of this ideology for all insurrectionary groups.

His new-fangled way of understanding Islam is evident in his attempt to write a tafsir (explanation) of the Quran called Fi Thilalil-Quran (In the Shade of the Quran). Qutb was not interested in following the traditional approach of explaining the Quran, which is to firstly refer to the Quran itself for other verses which clarify the meaning, then the Haadeeths of the Prophet (may Allah raise his rank and grant him peace) which deal with the meanings of specific verses, or if this does not exist, to refer to the explanations of his companions. Hence, it cannot be referred to as a tafsir in the conventional sense.

Referring to the explanations of the companions is a legislated matter in Islam, because they witnessed the revelation of the Quran and were taught its understanding and application by the one to whom it was revealed. Consequently, they were commissioned to transmit the texts of the Quran and Haadeeths that we read today and were also charged with the responsibility of retaining the explanations of the texts as well as their causes and occasions of revelation. Instead of referring to these important sources, Qutb used his own opinions to explain the Quran – over and above these sources. Consequently, this tafsir contains numerous errors which the Salafi scholars have already clarified for the people.

Because of his ignorance of the orthodox system of Islamic belief, Qutb came up with a hodgepodge of statements collected from all of the various Islamic sects which have sprung up since the earliest years of Islamic civilization. Far from being upon the creed of the “Wahhabis”, Qutb was influenced by the Mu’tazili/Sufi philosophical school of thought which prevails in that area of the Middle East. This system of belief runs completely contrary to the so-called “Wahhabi” creed.

Since he abandoned the methodology of returning to the understanding of the Prophet (may Allah raise his rank and grant him peace) and his companions when approaching the texts of the Quran and Sunnah, Qutb became engrossed in the faults and sins of those around him, particularly those of the rulers.

As the Islamic groups such as al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun sought to usurp the authority of the Egyptian rulers, the government responded by clamping down on them, sometimes in brutal ways. This environment caused Qutb to form a particular outlook of the world, and his absence of proper grounding in the methodology of the early rightly-guided Muslims caused him to fall into the dangerous orientation of expelling people from the fold of Islam due to their sins…

Sayyid Qutb’s ignorance of the fundamentals of Islam led him to utter the following statements of perilous excess, “Today, we are in jahiliyah (the days of ignorance), like that which was prevalent at the dawn of Islam, in fact more severe. Everything around us is jahiliyah…”

Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzaan, one of the great scholars of this time, was asked whether it is permissible to use the term jahiliyah in an unrestricted manner upon the present-day Islamic societies, to which he answered:

The general jahiliyah went away when the Messenger of Allah (may Allah raise his rank and grant him peace) was sent. So it is not permissible to employ it upon the Islamic societies in a general sense. As for applying something from its affairs upon individuals or upon some groups and societies, then this is permissible and allowed. Indeed, the Prophet (may Allah raise his rank and grant him peace) said to one of his companions, “Verily you are a man who has jahiliyah in him.”

And he (may Allah raise his rank and grant him peace) said, “My nation will not leave off four affairs of jahiliyah: Pride in noble descent, cursing the lineage, seeking rain through the stars, and wailing over the dead.”

Elsewhere, Qutb said, “The time has reverted back to its original form on the very day this religion came to mankind with the phrase ‘There is no deity worthy of worship other than Allah.’ For mankind has apostatized and gone to the worship of the servants…”

This extreme belief led Qutb to conclude that “the (Islamic) Nation has ceased to be in existence and has not been perceivable for a very long time.”

In fact, Qutb went to such lengths of extremism that he refused to pray the obligatory Friday congregational prayer, believing that its obligation was no longer binding due to the fact that there was no Caliph ruling over the Muslim lands. In his book “The Secret History of al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun, Ali Ashmawi said, “And the time for the obligatory Friday congregational prayer arrived so I said to him (Qutb), ‘Let us leave and pray,’ and it was a surprise that I came to know – and for the first time – that he did not use to pray the Friday prayer.”

Even the heads of al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun, such as Dr. Yusuf al-Qaradawi, bear witness to the menace of Qutb and his followers:

“And it was in this period that the books of the martyr, Sayyid Qutb appeared, the books that represented his final thoughts (in ideology, before his death). Those which justified the takfir (excommunication) of (whole) societies… the breaking of all sentimental attachments to society, breaking off ties with others, and the announcement of a destructive jihad against the whole of mankind. And showing contempt against the inviters who call for lenience and softness, accusing them of idiocy, and being defeatist… He made this manifest, in the most clear manner in the tafsir (explanation of the Quran), Fi Thilalil-Quran, in the 2nd edition and in Ma’alim fit-Tariq (Milestones), and the bulk of it is taken from Thilal and Al-Islam wa Mushkilatil-Hadharah and others.”

The senior Salafi scholars have clearly alerted the Muslims to these mistakes, which are far from limited to issues of takfir (excommunication). When asked for his opinion about whether or not it was correct for people to keep a copy of Qutb’s commentary of the Quran in their houses, Shaykh Muqbil Ibn Haadee al-Waadi’ee, the great Yemeni scholar replied:

“As for the book ath-Thilal and the writings of Sayyid Qutb – may Allah have mercy upon him – then we advise that they not be read at all, because some people from Jamaa’atut-Takfir and some of the youth who were conceived by Jamaa’atut-Takfir were a direct product of the writings of Sayyid Qutb, may Allah have mercy upon him. And Sayyid Qutb was merely considered a writer, he was not considered a mufassir (explainer of the Quran).”

The late Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Saalih al-’Uthaymin, one of the leading scholars of this century, was asked about the books of Sayyid Qutb, particularly Fi Thilalil-Quran (In the Shade of the Quran) and Ma’alim fit-Tariq (Milestones), wherein he replied:

“My statement – may Allah bless you – is that whoever is sincere to Allah, His Messenger, and his brother Muslims, then he should encourage the people to read the books of those who have preceded us, from the books of tafsir (explanation of the Quran) and other than (the books of) tafsir. These books contain more blessings, are more beneficial and are much better than the books of the later ones. As for the tafsir of Sayyid Qutb – may Allah have mercy upon him – then it contains great calamities, however we hope that Allah pardons him. It contains great calamities…”

Evidently, the senior Salafi scholars have clarified the overabundance of calamitous errors which are contained within Sayyid Qutb’s books. They have spoken about the subjects which have been mentioned in this book, and they have spoken about other areas of creed which Qutb fell into error in, which have not been mentioned in this book. Anyone who still insists on hanging on to certain personalities from amongst the Islamic “thinkers” such as Sayyid Qutb, Abu Alaa Maududi, and Hasan al-Banna, and refuses to reject the deviation of the contemporary groups and movements, has removed themselves from the methodology of Salafism, even if they attempt to ascribe themselves to it.

- abridged from the book, The ‘Wahhabi’ Myth

Al-Ikhwan Al-Muslimun

(The Muslim Brotherhood)

Al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun (The Muslim Brotherhood) was founded in Egypt in 1928 by Hasan al-Banna (1906-1949), a Sufi revivalist thinker and activist.

Following Britain’s military occupation of Egypt, al-Banna’s sensitivity towards Western imperialism was heightened due to his country’s economic exploitation and cultural domination. Consequently, al-Banna saw fit to create an Islamic group which would oppose the secularist tendencies and corruption of state and society which existed by asserting a return to Islamic values and ways of life. He introduced this organization into Egyptian society by relying on pre-existing social networks. The group consistently attracted new recruits and established numerous businesses, clinics and schools. Appealing to a variety of constituencies, al-Banna recruited followers from a vast cross-section of Egyptian society by addressing issues such as colonialism, public health, educational policy, natural resources’ management, Marxism, social inequalities, Arab nationalism, the weakness of the Islamic world and the growing conflict in Palestine.

Al-Banna did not begin or end his call with the basic tenet of Islam, tawhid (singling out Allah in all forms of worship), as was the way of the Prophets. Al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun have consistently overlooked the principal aspect of calling their followers to tawhid and forbidding them from polytheism, because these are matters which require time and effort to change, matters which people do not find easy to accept. Al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun were more concerned with amassing groups of people together rather than calling the people to the way of the Prophet (may Allah raise his rank and grant him peace).

Consequently, they accommodate every kind of religious innovator in their ranks, giving them a platform to openly call to their various contradicting beliefs. Amongst al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun can be found followers of Sufism, the Jahmiyyah (those who deny that Allah has any Attributes), the Shee’ah, the Mu’tazilah (a philosophical school of thought that also denies Allah’s Attributes), the Khawarij (those who expel people from the fold of Islam due to their sins), modernists, and many others. This methodology of political expediency results in Islam’s clarity being replaced with something that is bewildering and blurred. Allah has said,

“You consider them to be united, but their hearts are divided. That is because they are a people who understand not.”

As the group expanded during the 1930s, it quickly transformed into an entity which would become directly active in the Egyptian political scene. Directly confronting the rulers, the organization became highly clandestine. This religious innovation of secrecy can now be found in the other more dangerous sects such as al-Qaeda and Jamaa’atul-Jihaad. After a series of back and forth assassinations between group members and the government, Prime Minister Nuqrashi Pasha disbanded al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun in December 1948. Although it has pursued a considerably more peaceful approach to its call since the 1970s, they set the stage for the other Qutbist groups that would take up where they had left off.

It is from the fundamental principles of al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun that they consider the lands, possessions and blood of the Muslim nations to be theirs, as if these nations which they preside in were places of experimentation. Accordingly, they sacrifice generations and generations of people for the attainment of rule. They believe that they can attempt to search for different ways to establish the religion of Islam, as if the texts of Islam do not actually contain an outline and divinely set method in which to do this. Directly contravening the methodology of the Prophets in calling to Allah, they have yet to experience anything resembling success.

- abridged from a footnote in the book: The ‘Wahhabi’ Myth

 

Quran 59:14

 

Is Fighting the U.S. Osama Bin Laden’s Front for a Different Objective?

“…He wants the U.S. to strike back disproportionately, because he believes that will outrage Muslims and inspire them to overthrow their governments and build an Islamic state.”

- Michael Doran, Princeton University

Like the Khawarij of former times, groups such as Jamaa’atul-Jihaad (The Jihad Party) of Egypt, some of whose members would later become associated with al-Qaeda, originally focused all their efforts on overturning the present day governments throughout the Muslim lands. However, the groups following the teachings of Sayyid Qutb, the Qutbists, failed miserably in achieving any of their goals, with most of them being jailed or forced to flee to remote lands.

It is from these lands that they restructured and changed their tactics in bringing about their ultimate goal of establishing a new government overnight. The New York Times’ Robert Worth refers to the Qutbists’ change in tactics:

“Mr. Bin Laden does seem to have deviated from the radical tradition in one sense, by focusing his attacks on the United States rather than Arab regimes. In his 1996 declaration, he went so far as to say that Muslims should put aside their own differences so as to focus on the struggle against the Western enemy – a serious departure from the doctrine of Qutb and even Sadat’s killers, who argued that the internal struggle was the one that mattered.”

“But that may be merely a shift in tactics not in overall strategy,” says Worth. Regarding this change in tactics, Worth quotes Michael Doran, a professor of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University: “Bin Laden is using the U.S. as an instrument in his struggle with other Muslims,” Mr. Doran said. “He wants the U.S. to strike back disproportionately, because he believes that will outrage Muslims and inspire them to overthrow their governments and build an Islamic state…”

- abridged from the book: The ‘Wahhabi’ Myth

 

Robert Worth, The Deep Intellectual Roots of Islamic Terror, The New York Times, 13th October 2001.

 

 

What Kind of Effect has Bin Laden’s sect (Qutbism) Had on the World?

“Bin Laden’s kind of extremism has much more in common with Stalin, Hitler, and Mao than it does with Islamic tradition. Like those state terrorists, Bin Laden is at war with his own people. And finally, I have boldly asserted that Bin Laden and his extremists are evil, pure and simple, and Islam is not.”

- David F. Forte, The National Review

Commenting on the effects of Sayyid Qutb’s writings in the Muslim world, the New York Times’ Judith Shulevitz writes,

“…Anyone who doubts that literary critics can play a part on the bloody stage of history should consider the example of Sayyid Qutb. Qutb, born in Egypt in 1906 and university educated, was a Western-style literary critic until he devoted himself to Islam after spending two years in the United States, exposed to what he viewed as our decadence. He died in 1966, when he was hanged along with other Muslim radicals by the government of Gamal Abdel Nasser. Qutb’s books of hard-line political theology have had a direct influence on the Saudi Arabian Muslim opposition; the Islamic Salvation Front in Algeria; the Palestinian group Hamas; the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon; Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, the Egyptian cleric jailed for several thwarted terrorist plots and linked to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing; and the Iranian writer Ali Shariati, who helped foster the Islamic revolution in Iran.”

In a National Review article entitled “Religion is Not the Enemy,” David F. Forte accurately describes the link between contemporary radical movements within the Muslim world and the writings of Sayyid Qutb:

“In other writings, I have asserted that this form of extremism has been inspired by the writings of influential modernist radicals, such as Sayyid Qutb of Egypt, who believe that virtually all Islam is in a state of unbelief and needs to be reconquered. Thus, in its modern form, Bin Laden’s kind of extremism has much more in common with Stalin, Hitler, and Mao than it does with Islamic tradition. Like those state terrorists, Bin Laden is at war with his own people. And finally, I have boldly asserted that Bin Laden and his extremists are evil, pure and simple, and Islam is not.”

Although Forte’s understanding of “Wahhabism” is rather limited, unlike many other writers, he was able to distinguish between the methodology of Osama Bin Laden and the methodology of the “Wahhabis” when he said, “Osama bin Laden’s version of Islam is different even from Wahhabism.”

- abridged from the book: The ‘Wahhabi’ Myth

 

Shulevitz has accurately identified the ideological source of those who live within Saudi Arabia and are opposed to its scholars and creed as being the ideology of Qutbism, and not the native creed of “Wahhabism”.

Judith Shulevitz, Some ideas demand rebuttal, The New York Times, 21st October 2001.

David F. Forte, Religion is not the enemy, The National Review, 19th October 2001.

Has Stephen Schwartz Spoken Justly About ‘Wahhabism’?

“…They hate the spiritual side of Islam, or Sufism, as much as Protestants grimaced at the worship of saints and miracles in the Roman church.”

- Stephen Schwartz, Terror and Islam

Exactly eleven days after the attacks of September 11, a UK based journal called The Spectator carried a cover story by Stephen Schwartz, a self appointed anti-“Wahhabi” expert, called “Ground Zero and the Saudi Connection.” In it, Schwartz states the following about “Wahhabism”: “Above all, they hate ostentatious spirituality, much as Protestants detest the veneration of miracles and saints in the Roman Church.”

In another article entitled “Terror and Islam,” Schwartz, a sufi convert to the Naqshbandi cult, is quoted as saying: “Above all, they hate the spiritual side of Islam, or Sufism, as much as Protestants grimaced at the worship of saints and miracles in the Roman church.”

It is indeed true that Salafis do not respect “ostentatious spirituality” with the meaning of pretentiousness and flamboyance. Since Schwartz has taken it upon himself to speak so much about “Wahhabism”, it is a shame he did not read some of the works written by Salafi scholars. Had he done so, he would have come across the many volumes of books they have written regarding the subject of tazkiatun-nafs (purification of the soul).

Upon reflection of these statements, one wonders if Schwartz has actually ever picked up the Quran, as the whole Quran, from its beginning to its end, contains different kinds of exhortations to understand and implement tawhid (true monotheism), and the strongest admonitions to shun polytheism. Saint worship, including calling upon dead people, as practiced by a great number of Sufi groups, is from the most obvious contradictions to a person’s belief in Islam.

Furthermore, in an article published by The National Review called “Liberation, Not Containment: How to win the war on Wahhabism,” Stephen Schwartz compared “Wahhabism” to Nazism. In the same article, he also manages to compare it to “Italian fascism.” Not to be outdone by his own self, he proceeds to compare it to “Soviet Communism” because “it recruits cadres worldwide.” Lest he be accused of minimizing the perceived condition of the “Wahhabis”, he then compares it to “Japanese militarism” because “it is utterly ruthless”!!

It seems that Schwartz’ severe hatred for “Wahhabism” has lead him away from objective journalism and into a childish frenzy of baseless insults.

Exposing his lack of understanding, Schwartz refers to “Wahhabized fringe groups like the Taliban and Hezbollah,” even though the straying Hezbollah are Iranian backed Shiites and the Taliban are Deobandi Sufis. In speaking about an “anti-Wahhabi war,” he says, “Only in a world where Wahhabism has been crushed can we hope for the survival of world peace, and of a legitimate, peaceful Islam.”

Feigning to care about the fate of Islam and the Muslims, Schwartz confirms his journalistic ineptitude and lack of integrity by firstly muddling up the creed of the contemporary Qutbist ideology of Osama Bin Laden with that of the orthodox Salafi creed, and thereafter, concluding that the “anti-Wahhabi war” should be fought in Saudi Arabia, “where the enemy is”: “The war against terrorism, too, must be fought where the enemy is, and that means the Islamic countries. Wahhabism has declared a war to the death against us, as the Nazis and Communists did. And we must fight Wahhabism to the death, to secure not only our survival but that of Islam itself as a great religion and civilization. Bin Laden and his Saudi backers threaten to bring the world of Islam crashing down in flames as Hitler did Berlin. But just as we liberated the Germans from Hitler and the Japanese from Tojo, we can liberate the world’s Muslims from Bin Laden and his Saudi accomplices.”

Due to these unbalanced statements, Schwartz can not be considered an objective critic of “Wahhabism” by any means, nor should he be reffered to as an authority on Islam in general.

- abridged from the book: The ‘Wahhabi’ Myth

 

Stephen Schwartz, Terror and Islam, CJEE (Chrétiens et Juifs Pour un Enseignement de l’Estime), September 25, 2001. (www.chretiens-et-juifs.org/JIHAD/Terror_and_Islam.htm).

Stephen Schwartz, Liberation, Not Containment: How to win the war on Wahhabism. The National Review, November 30, 2001.

It should be kept in mind that the publication which Schwartz has written for is the same National Review which called for examining the possibility of destroying Islam’s holiest city, Mecca, as a deterrent. After one of its readers suggested the nuking of Makkah, or at least Baghdad, Tehran, Gaza City, Ramallah, Damascus, Cairo, Algiers, Tripoli, and Riyadh, editor and television talking head Rich Lowry affirmed the following: “Mecca seems extreme, of course, but then again few people would die and it would send a signal. Religions have suffered such catastrophic setbacks before.” Continuing, he said, “And as a general matter, the time for seriousness – including figuring out what we would do in retaliation, so maybe it can have some slight deterrent effect – is now rather than after thousands and thousands more American casualties.” (The National Review, Rich Lowry, The Corner, 03/03/2002.)

This is also the same publication that carried an article by the same notorious Ann Coulter who said regarding the Muslims, that America had been “invaded by a fanatical murderous cult” and should therefore “invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.” (This is War: We should invade their countries, Ann Coulter (The National Review, September 13, 2001.)

Do ‘Wahhabis’ Like Osama Bin Laden?

“So my advice to al-Masari, al-Faqih, Bin Laden, and all those who traverse their way is to leave alone this disastrous path, and to fear Allah and to beware of His vengeance and His anger, and to return to guidance and to repent to Allah for what has preceded from them…”

- Shaykh Abdul-Aziz Bin Baz, Saudi Arabia

Long before today’s journalists had even heard of the word Qutbist or Khawarij, the orthodox, senior Salafi scholars throughout the Muslim lands had warned the people about the threat of ideological terrorism and what would necessarily emanate from it.

Warning about the evils of Osama Bin Laden, al-Qaeda, and Qutbism in general, Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Hadi al-Madkhali, a professor at the Islamic University of Madina said:

“Those who set off the explosions in the Kingdom admitted with their own mouths, that they were affected by the Jamaa’atut-Takfir (one of the Egyptian Qutbist groups) and that they were from the group of Osama Bin Laden and al-Masari, and they were spreading their literature. Osama Bin Laden – who taught this man? Who educated him about the Shariah (Islamic laws)? He is a businessman, this is his field of specialization… they admitted, as we said, with their own mouths, we saw it and read it in the newspapers, and I have it here with me recorded with their own voices, that they were affected by some of the people of takfir (from the Qutbist groups) of Afghanistan.

The majority of our youth that returned from the jihad in Afghanistan to our country were affected, either by the ideology of the Ikhwan (the group al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun) in general, or by the revolutionary, takfiri ideology. So they left us believing that we were Muslims, and they returned to us believing that we were disbelievers. So with that, they saw us as being disbelievers, the rulers, and the scholars, not to mention the common folk. They labeled the (Saudi) state apostate, and they rendered the major scholars apostate. They admitted this with their own mouths. They declared the scholars to be disbelievers, and mentioned specifically the two Shaykhs, Shaykh Abdul-Aziz Bin Baz and Shaykh Muhammad Bin al-Uthaymin, may Allah preserve them. They mentioned their connection with al-Masari and Osama Bin Laden. Did they get this from the scholars of Salafism? No! Rather they got it from the people of takfir.”

As such, it becomes clear for all to see that this revolutionary ideology of Qutbism was something new and imported to the lands of the “Wahhabis”, and it is a call which is in direct confrontation with the call of the Salafis/“Wahhabis”. The “Wahhabis” have been the first to be expelled from the fold of Islam by the Qutbists.

- abridged from the book: The ‘Wahhabi’ Myth

 

The British based Muhammad al-Masari (Mohammed al-Massari) was the founder of the Saudi Arabian wing of Hizb At-Tahrir (The Party of Liberation) in Saudi Arabia, one of the most light-headed of activist groups which has arisen in this century. Al-Masari set up the CDLR (The Committee for the Defence of Legitimate Rights), which was refuted by Shaykh al-Uthaymin, one of the great Salafi scholars of this century. Al-Masari reviled Muhammad Ibn Abdul-Wahhab (and thus, “Wahhabism”), calling him a “simpleton, and not a scholar” only because he centered his call around tawhid (true monotheism) and following the Sunnah (way) of the Prophet (may Allah raise his rank and grant him security), as opposed to calling people to insurgency. Ironically, al-Masari, Bin Laden and others who follow this revolutionary ideology are somehow still being linked to “Wahhabism”!

Amongst the ideological figureheads of the Khawaarij, al-Masari and his likes operate at a doctrinal level, inciting the common people against the rulers, by publicizing their faults, shortcomings and sins, in order to effect a revolution.

Al-Masari’s statement that Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhab (i.e. “Wahhabism”) “was a simpleton, and not a scholar” can be found in his declaration which he issued from London entitled, “A Clarification from the Chief Spokesman for CDLR” (23/3/1995). Refer to al-Qutbiyyah (p. 204).

Abul-Hasan Maalik, In Defense of Islam, T.R.O.I.D. Publications 2002, p. 97.

“The Qutbists of Arabia echoed the beliefs and misconceptions of Qutb and were preaching his extremist doctrines to the youth – with the claim that Saudi Arabia does not judge by the Islamic legislation. Takfir of the rulers was ripe amongst the movement’s youth – and was justified by the same doctrinal misconceptions that Qutb first propagated decades ago. Saudi Arabia is the only country that has Islamic legislation, even though it is not perfect, and is actually built upon the foundation of tawhid (true monotheism). (This is) a reality that is being denied by Qutb’s modern day disciples within the Saudi Kingdom. The Qutbists of Arabia were in fact declared “the Neo-Kharijites” (Khaarijiyyah ‘Asriyyah) by Shaykh al-Albani in 1997, and their extremist doctrines refuted by the likes of Shaykh Ibn Baz, Shaykh Ibn Uthaymin, Shaykh al-Fawzan and others, all of whom affirmed that the country does in fact rule by the Shariah – even though there may be shortcomings therein – and that it is obligatory to preserve and maintain the peace and sanctuary therein.”

From Salafi Publications’ commentary on the Guardian’s November 1, 2001 article, entitled “Is this the man who inspired Bin Laden?” www.salafipublications.com, Article ID : GRV070025