What do Wahhabis Think About 9/11?

“…The terrorist attacks that took place and what occurred of general (mass) killing; this is not permissible and Islam does not allow it in any form whatsoever. Islam frees itself from this action…”

- Shaykh Saalih as-Suhaymee, Saudi Arabia

Shaykh Saalih as-Suhaymee is one of the more senior scholars of the city of Medina, Saudi Arabia. Shortly after the events of September 11, he was asked by a group of Salafi youth in Toronto, Canada, to advise the Muslims as to what their position should be regarding the terrorist attacks. After a short preliminary speech, the lecturer at the Islamic University of Medina recited the following verse from the Quran:

“Thus We have made you a just and most balanced nation, that you may be witnesses over mankind (on the Day of Judgement), and the Messenger be a witness over you.”

“Hence, Islam is a balanced and moderate way, and it does not enter into negligence on the one hand, nor exaggeration or extremism on the other. It is balanced in between (these two extremes)… In addition, Islam encourages equity and justice amidst both Muslims and non-Muslims.

“Verily, Allah enjoins justice, the doing of good, and giving to kith and kin; He forbids all shameful and prohibited deeds, and oppression. He admonishes you, that you may take heed.”

Continuing in his address, Shaykh Saalih as-Suhaymee spoke about the Prophet Muhammad (may Allah raise his rank and grant him peace), saying: “And he also forbade those fighting in jihad from killing women, children, the elderly and the ascetics who are devoted to worship, as well as forbidding the cutting down of trees and so on – despite the fact that the associates of these categories of people may be involved in fighting with the Muslims.

Based upon what has preceded, then we say; that which we believe and hold as our religion concerning what happened to the World Trade Centre in America – and in Allah lies success – is that the terrorist attacks that took place and what occurred of general (mass) killing; this is not permissible and Islam does not allow it in any form whatsoever. Islam frees itself from this action…

So Islam does not allow them (these deeds), nor do Muslims perform them, and the true followers of Islam – which is balanced and moderate – they free themselves from these actions and from those who performed them…

In this centre, there were nothing but innocent non-Muslims and Muslims from all the various parts of the world, of different races. They had material possessions and assets in these buildings, and so all of this is impermissible; this is oppression upon both Muslims and non-Muslims. Even if people (who were responsible) claim that they had valid reasons for perpetrating this; this is not the correct way.

It is obligatory upon the Muslims in this country and elsewhere, and upon the students of knowledge, to explain that this action is free from Islam, and that Islam is free from these actions. I request them to make clear this issue, with certainty – and to be truthful when they explain this issue – without compromising the religion of Islam, and without giving a bad impression of Islam.

And we say, to whomever has justice and fairness amongst the non-Muslims, that they should reflect upon this matter, and not take it out on innocent Muslims and Arabs, for there are millions of them in the United States. They should also not accept everything from the media without question. It is desirable for the American people to understand that Islam does not support these affairs, and that they should not use the media in order to ascribe these actions to Islam. And the Muslims in those areas should participate in explaining that these affairs are not from Islam…

May Allah guide us to what He is loved and pleased with, and may He raise the rank of the Prophet, and that of his family and companions, and grant them peace.”

- abridged from the book: The ‘Wahhabi’ Myth

 

Quran 2:143

Quran 16:90

Shaykh Saalih as-Suhaymee on the WTC Attacks, taken from: www.salafipublications.com, Article ID: CAF020008. Originally from a recorded tele-link from www.troid.org.

Do ‘Wahhabis’ Support Acts of Terrorism?

“…Hijacking airplanes and kidnapping children and the like are extremely great crimes, the world over. Their evil effects are far and wide, as is the great harm and inconvenience caused to the innocent…”

- Shaykh Abdul-Aziz Bin Baz, Saudi Arabia

The late Shaykh Abdul-Aziz Bin Baz, the former Mufti (verdict giver) of Saudi Arabia, made the following comment about acts of terrorism: “From that which is known to anyone who has the slightest bit of common sense, is that hijacking airplanes and kidnapping children and the like are extremely great crimes, the world over. Their evil effects are far and wide, as is the great harm and inconvenience caused to the innocent; the total effect of which none can comprehend except Allah.

Likewise, from that which is known is that these crimes are not specific to any particular country over and above another country, nor any specific group over and above another group; rather, it encompasses the whole world.

There is no doubt about the effect of these crimes; so it is obligatory upon the governments and those responsible from amongst the scholars and others to afford these issues great concern, and to exert themselves as much as possible in ending this evil.”

In specific reference to the Egyptian Qutbist group which eventually saw some of its members become associated with al-Qaeda, Shaykh Abdul-Aziz Bin Baz was asked, “What is the verdict concerning Jamaa’atul-Jihaad (The Jihad Party of Egypt) and co-operation with them?”

He answered, “…They are not to be co-operated with, nor are they to be given salutations (salaam). Rather, they are to be cut off from, and the people are to be warned against their evil, since they are a tribulation and are harmful to the Muslims, and they are the brothers of the Devil.”

In his book al-Irhaab (Terrorism), Shaykh Zayd al-Madkhali spoke about the iniquity of those who spread corruption in the earth: “And certainly, I say without doubt, that these kinds of people, May Allah guide them, divert people from the path of truth in the way they act towards people. And no one is safe from their evil in their lands, except those who are a part of their party of which destroys, and does not build, corrupts much, and does not rectify.”

- abridged from the book: The ‘Wahhabi’ Myth

 

Kayfa Nu’aalij Waaqi’unal-Aleem (p. 113, 114), from: www.salafipublications.com Article ID: MNJ140002.

From the cassette (no. 11) recorded in the month of Thul-Hijjah 1409H (1987CE) at at-Taw’iyyatul-Islaamiyyah.

Shaykh Zayd al-Madkhali, al-Irhaab (Terrorism) (p. 12, 13).

Were the Sept. 11 Hijackers Salafis/’Wahhabis’?

The Innacurate Reporting of John Hooper and Brian Whitaker

On October 26, 2001, The Guardian printed a report entitled “Salafi Views Unite Terror Suspects; (the Binding Tie),” in which its authors, John Hooper and Brian Whitaker, claim that, “The diverse group of terrorists that launched the Sept. 11 attacks appear to have embraced the same fundamentalist Salafi interpretation of Islam.”

Falsely trying to link the Salafi/“Wahhabi” methodology to al-Qaeda, they reported the misleading claim that “Investigators hunting members of Osama bin Laden’s network have discovered that all the suspected terrorists arrested in Europe over the past ten months follow an extreme Salafi interpretation of Islam.”

Furthermore, they went on to link this interpretation of Islam to the creed of Saudi Arabia and its educational institutions: “The link between Salafis and Bin Laden’s terrorist web will prove acutely embarrassing to Saudi Arabia, whose royal family has invested huge sums in spreading Salafi thought abroad. The leading center for the study and export of Salafi ideas is the Islamic University of Medina, in Saudi Arabia, which was founded by the king in 1961 ‘to convey the eternal message of Islam to the entire world.’”

If only John Hooper and Brian Whitaker had researched the origins of al-Qaeda’s ideology, which was clearly formed upon the writings of Sayyid Qutb, who was Egyptian and not Saudi, their readers would have benefited many times over. Had they researched this subject carefully, they would have known that what is taught on an official basis at the University of Medina is an in-depth analysis of the falsity of the Khawarij’s system of belief.

Clearly, the problem of contemporary terrorist ideology does not lie in the creed of the Salafis, whether they be in Saudi Arabia or anywhere else. The media and Western think-tanks are failing to make the distinction between pure, orthodox Islam, and a twentieth century revolutionary movement based upon ignorance called Qutbism, a sect based upon the teachings of Sayyid Qutb.

It would have been more accurate for Hooper and Whitaker to say that all of the Islamic groups and movements of today, the violent and the non-violent of them, stem from the ideologies of Hasan al-Banna, Abu A’laa Maududi and Sayyid Qutb. None of these men were Islamic scholars, but instead, were only so-called ‘Islamic thinkers’. Furthermore, Hasan al-Banna and Sayyid Qutb were adherents of Sufism, not Salafism.

In short, Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda Qutbists have more in common with the darlings of the orientalist scholars and media, the Sufi tradition of Islam, than they do with today’s media scapegoats, the Salafis. Even if some of the Qutbists who come from the Arabian peninsula might still hold on to their claim of Salafism or quote out of context sayings from known orthodox Salafi scholars, the source of their deviation comes from the teachings of the devient sects that ascribe to Islam, through the likes of Sayyid Qutb. Salafism is actually free from the likes of Sayyid Qutb and Osama bin Laden.

- abridged from the book: The ‘Wahhabi’ Myth

What is the Definition of Terrorism?

“Terrorism is simply a word, a subjective epithet, not an objective reality and certainly not an excuse to suspend all the rules of international law.”

- John V. Whitbeck, The Daily Star

John V. Whitbeck, an international lawyer and commentator on international affairs, has cautioned people about the “notorious subjectivity of this word,” wherein he says: “For years, people have recited the truisms that “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” and that “Terrorism, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.”

Speaking about the potential danger of using this word, Whitbeck says, “It is no accident that there is no agreed definition of “terrorism”, since the word is so subjective as to be devoid of any inherent meaning. At the same time, the word is extremely dangerous, because people tend to believe that it does have meaning and to use and abuse the word by applying it to whatever they hate as a way of avoiding rational thought and discussion, and, frequently, excusing their own illegal and immoral behavior.”

Expanding on its capability of being used as a manipulative tool, Whitbeck speaks about the “overwhelming, demonizing and thought-deadening impact of the word “terrorism”, which is, of course, precisely the charm of the word for its more cynical and unprincipled users and abusers.”

“Most acts to which the word “terrorism” is applied (at least in the West),” he continues, “are tactics of the weak, usually (although not always) against the strong. Such acts are not a tactic of choice but of last resort. To cite one example, the Palestinians would certainly prefer to be able to fight for their freedom by “respectable” means, using F-16s, Apache attack helicopters and laser-guided missiles such as those the United States provides to Israel. If the United States provided such weapons to Palestine as well, the problem of suicide bombers would be solved. Until it does, and for so long as the Palestinians can see no hope for a decent future, no one should be surprised or shocked that Palestinians use the “delivery systems” available to them – their own bodies. Genuine hope for something better than a life worse than death is the only cure for the despair which inspires such gruesome violence.”

Referring to the danger of abusing the concept of terrorism, Whitbeck warns, “If the world is to avoid a descent into anarchy, in which the only rule is “might makes right”, every “retaliation” provokes a “counter-retaliation” and a genuine “war of civilizations” is ignited, the world – and particularly the United States – must recognize that “terrorism” is simply a word, a subjective epithet, not an objective reality and certainly not an excuse to suspend all the rules of international law.”

Concluding that the word “terrorism” is “fundamentally an epithet and a term of abuse, with no intrinsic meaning,” Whitbeck adds, “Perhaps the only honest and globally workable definition of “terrorism” is an explicitly subjective one – “violence which I don’t support.”

- abridged from the book: The ‘Wahhabi’ Myth

 

‘Terrorism’: The word itself is dangerous, John V. Whitbeck, The Daily Star; Fri, 07 Dec 2001.