When I arrived in Basra, I settled in a mosque.
The imâm of the mosque was a Sunnite person of Arabic origin named Shaikh ’Umar
Tâî. When I met him I began to chat with him. Yet he suspected me at the very
beginning and subjected me to a shower of questions. I managed to survive this
dangerous chat as follows: “I am from Turkey’s Iðdýr region. I was a disciple
of Ahmed Efendi of Istanbul. I worked for a carpenter named Khâlid (Hâlid).” I
gave him some information about Turkey, which I had acquired during my stay
there. Also, I said a few sentences in Turkish. The imâm made an eye signal to
one of the people there and asked him if I spoke Turkish correctly. The answer
was positive. Having convinced the imâm, I was very happy. Yet I was wrong. For
a few days later, I saw to my disappointment that the imâm suspected that I was
a Turkish spy. Afterwards, I found out that there was some disagreement and
hostility between him and the governor appointed by the (Ottoman) Sultan.
Having been compelled to leave Shaikh ’Umar
Efendi’s mosque, I rented a room in an inn for travellers and foreigners and
moved there. The owner of the inn was an idiot named Murshid Efendi. Every
morning he would disturb me by knocking hard at my door to wake me up as soon
as the adhân for morning prayer was called. I had to obey him. So, I would get
up and perform the morning prayer. Then he would say, “You shall read Qur’ân-al
kerîm after morning prayer.” When I told him that it was not fard (an act
commanded by Islam) to read Qur’ân al-kerîm
and asked him why he should insist so much, he would answer, “Sleeping at this
time of day will bring poverty and misfortune to the inn and the inmates.” I
had to carry out this command of his. For he said otherwise he would send me
out of the inn. Therefore, as soon as the adhân was called, I would perform
morning prayer and then read Qur’ân al-kerîm
for one hour.
One day Murshid Efendi came to me and said, “Since
you rented this room misfortunes have been befalling me. I put it down to your
ominousness. For you are single. Being single (unmarried) portends ill omen.
You shall either get married or leave the inn.” I told him I did not have
property enough to get married. I could not tell him what I had told Ahmed
Efendi. For Murshid Efendi was the kind of person who would undress me and
examine my genitals to see whether I was telling the truth.
When I said so, Murshid Efendi reproved me,
saying, “What a weak belief you have! Haven’t you read Allah’s âyat purporting,
‘If they are poor, Allâhu ta’âlâ will make them rich
with His kindness’?[1]” I was stupefied. At last I said, “All
right, I shall get married. But are you ready to provide the necessary money?
Or can you find a girl who will cost me little?”
After reflecting for a while, Murshid Efendi said,
“I don’t care! Either get married by the beginning of Rajab month, or leave the
inn.” There were only twenty-five days before the beginning of the month of
Rajab.
Incidentally, let me mention the Arabic months:
Muharram, Safar, Rabi’ul-awwal, Rabi’ul-âkhir, Jemâziy-ul-awwal,
Jemâziy-ul-âkhir, Rajab, Sha’bân, Ramadân, Shawwâl, Zilqa’da, Zilhijja. Their
months are neither more than thirty days, nor below twenty-nine. They are based
on lunar calculations.
Taking a job as an assistant to a carpenter, I
left Murshid Efendi’s inn. We made an agreement on a very low wage, but my
lodging and food were to be at the employer’s expense. I moved my belongings to
the carpenter’s shop well before the month of Rajab. The carpenter was a manly
person. He treated me as if I were his son. He was a Shiite from Khorasan,
Iran, and his name was Abd-ur-Ridâ. Taking the advantage of his company, I
began to learn Persian. Every afternoon Iranian Shiites would meet at his place
and talk on various subjects from politics to economy. More often than not,
they would speak ill of their own government and also of the Khalîfa in
Istanbul. Whenever a stranger came in they would change the subject and begin
to talk on personal matters.
They trusted me very much. However, as I found out
later on, they thought I was an Azerbaijani because I spoke Turkish.
From time to time a young man would call at our carpenter’s
---------------------------------
[1] Nûr sûra, âyat: 32
shop. His attirement was that of a student doing
scientific research, and he understood Arabic, Persian, and Turkish. His name
was Muhammad bin Abd-ul-Wahhâb Najdî. This
youngster was an extremely rude and very nervous person. While abusing the
Ottoman government very much, he would never speak ill of the Iranian
government. The common ground which made him and the shop-owner Abd-ur-Ridâ so
friendly was that both were inimical towards the Khalîfa in Istanbul. But how
was it possible that this young man, who was a Sunnî, understood Persian and
was friends with Abd-ur-Ridâ, who was a Shi’î? In this city Sunnites pretended
to be friendly and even brotherly with Shiites. Most of the city’s inhabitants
understood both Arabic and Persian. And most people understood Turkish as well.
Muhammad of Najd was a Sunnî outwardly. Although
most Sunnites censured Shiites, — in fact, they say that Shiites are
disbelievers — this man never would revile Shiites. According to Muhammad of
Najd, there was no reason for Sunnites to adapt themselves to one of the four
madh-habs; he would say, “Allah’s Book does not contain any evidence pertaining
to these madh-habs.” He purposefully ignored the âyet-i-kerîmas on this subject
and slighted the hadîth-i-sherîfs.
Concerning the matter of four madh-habs: A century
after the death of their Prophet
Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’, four scholars came forward from among Sunnite
Muslims: Abû Hanîfa, Ahmad bin Hanbal, Mâlik bin Anas, and Muhammad bin Idris
Shâfi’î. Some Khalîfas forced the Sunnites to imitate one of these four
scholars. They said no one except these four scholars could perform ijtihâd in Qur’ân al-kerîm or with the Sunna. This
movement closed the gates of knowledge and understanding for Muslims. This
prohibition of ijtihâd is considered to have been the reason for Islam’s
standstill.
Shiites exploited these erroneous statements to
promulgate their sect. The number of Shiites was smaller than one-tenth that of
Sunnites. But now they have increased and become equal with Sunnites in number.
This result is natural. For ijtihâd is like a weapon. It will improve Islam’s
fiqh and renovate the understanding of Qur’ân
al-kerîm and Sunna. The prohibition of ijtihâd, on the
other hand, is like a rotten weapon. It will confine the madh-habs within a
certain framework. And this, in its turn, means to close the gates of inference
and to disregard the time’s requirements. If your weapon is rotten and your
enemy is perfect, you are doomed to be beaten by your enemy sooner or later. I
think, the clever ones of the Sunnites will reopen
the gate of ijtihâd in the future. If they do not do this, they will become the
minority, and the Shiites will receive a majority in a few centuries.
[However, the imâms (leaders) of the four
madh-habs hold the same creed, the same belief. There is no difference among
them. Their difference is only in worships. And this, in turn, is a facility
for Muslims. The Shiites, on the other hand, parted into twelve sects, thus
becoming a rotten weapon. There is detailed information in this respect in the
book Milal wa Nihal.]
The arrogant youngster, Muhammad of Najd, would
follow his nafs (his sensuous desires) in understanding the Qur’ân and the
Sunna. He would completely ignore the views of scholars, not only those of the
scholars of his time and the leaders of the four madh-habs, but also those of
the notable Sahâbîs such as Abû Bakr and ’Umar. Whenever he came across a
Koranic (Qur’ân) verse which he thought was contradictory with the views of
those people, he would say, “The Prophet
said: ‘I have left the Qur’ân and the Sunna for you.’ He
did not say, ‘I have left the Qur’ân, the Sunna, the Sahâba, and the imâms of
madh-habs for you.’[1] Therefore, the thing which is fard is to
follow the Qur’ân and the Sunna no matter how contrary they may seem to be to
the views of the madh-habs or to the statements of the Sahâba and scholars.”[2]
During a dinner conversation at Abd-ur-Ridâ’s place, the
---------------------------------
[1] This statement of his denies the hadîth-i-sherîf which commands us to follow the
Sahâba.
[2] Today in all the Islamic countries ignorant
and traitorous people disguised as religious people have been attacking the
scholars of Ahl as-sunna. They have been commending Wahhabiism in return for
large sums of money they receive from Saudi Arabia. All of them use the
abovementioned statements of Muhammad of Najd as a weapon on every occasion.
The fact is that none of the statements made by the scholars of Ahl as-sunna or
the four imâms is contrary to Qur’ân al-kerîm
and hadîth-i-sherîfs. They did not make any
additions to these sources, but they explained them. Wahhabis, like their
British prototypes, are fabricating lies and misleading Muslims.
following dispute took place between Muhammad
of Najd and a guest from Kum, a Shiite scholar named Shaikh Jawad:
Shaikh Jawad – Since you accept that ’Alî was a
mujtahid, why don’t you follow him like Shiites?
Muhammad of Najd – ’Alî is no different from ’Umar
or other
Shaikh Jawâd – Since our Prophet said, “I am the
city of knowledge, and ’Alî is its gate,” shouldn’t there be difference
between ’Alî and the other Sahâba?
Muhammad of Najd — If ’Alî’s statements were of a
documentary capacity, would not the Prophet
have said, “I have left you the Qur’ân, the Sunna, and ’Alî”?
Shaikh Jawâd — Yes, we can assume that he (the Prophet) said so. For he stated in a hadîth-i-sherîf, “I leave (behind me) Allah’s Book and my Ahl-i-Bayt.” And ’Alî, in his turn,
is the greatest member of the Ahl-i-Bayt.
Muhammad of Najd denied that the Prophet had said so.
Shaikh Jawâd confuted Muhammad of Najd with
convincing proofs.
However, Muhammad of Najd objected to this and
said, “You assert that the Prophet
said, ‘I leave you Allah’s Book and my
Ahl-i-Bayt.’ Then, what has become of the Prophet’s Sunna?”
Shaikh Jawâd — The Sunna of the Messenger of Allah
is the explanation of the Qur’ân. The Messenger of Allah said, “I leave (you) Allah’s Book and my Ahl-i-Bayt.” The phrase ‘Allah’s
Book’ includes the ‘Sunna’, which is an explanation of the former.
Muhammad of Najd — Inasmuch as the statements of
the Ahl-i-Bayt are the explanations of the Qur’ân, why should it be necessary
to explain it by hadîths?
Shaikh Jawâd — When hadrat Prophet passed away, his
---------------------------------
[1] A Muslim who has seen the beautiful, blessed
face of Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’ is called Sahâbî. Plural for Sahâbî is
Sahâba, or As-hâb.
Ummat (Muslims)
considered that there should be an explanation of the Qur’ân which would
satisfy the time’s requirements. It was for this reason that hadrat Prophet commanded his Ummat to follow the Qur’ân,
which is the original, and his Ahl-i-Bayt, who were to explain the Qur’ân in a
manner to satisfy the time’s requirements.
I liked this dispute very much. Muhammad of Najd
was motionless in front of Shaikh Jawâd, like a house-sparrow in the
Muhammad of Najd was the sort I had been looking
for. For his scorn for the time’s scholars, his slighting even the (earliest)
four Khalîfas, his having an independent view in understanding the Qur’ân and
the Sunna were his most vulnerable points to hunt and obtain him. So different
this conceited youngster was from that Ahmed Efendi who had taught me in
Istanbul! That scholar, like his predecessors, was reminiscent of a mountain.
No power would be able to move him. Whenever he mentioned the name of Abû
Hanîfa, he would stand up, go and make an ablution. Whenever he meant to hold
the book of Hadîth named Bukhârî, he
would, again, make an ablution. The Sunnîs trust this book very much.
Muhammed of Najd, on the other hand, disdained Abû
Hanîfa very much. He would say, “I know better than Abû Hanîfa did.[1]”
In addition, according to him, half of the book of Bukhârî was wrong.[2]
[As I was translating these confessions of Hempher’s into Turkish,[3] I remembered the following event: I was a teacher in a high school. During a lesson one of my students asked, “Sir, if a Muslim is killed in a war, will he become a martyr?” “Yes, he will,” I said. “Did the Prophet say so?” “Yes, he did.” “Will he become a martyr if he is drowned in sea, too?” “Yes,” was my answer. “And in this case he will attain more thawâb.” Then he asked, “Will he become a martyr if he falls down from an aeroplane?” “Yes, he will,” I said. “Did our Prophet state these,
---------------------------------
[1] Some ignorant people without a certain
madh-hab today, say so, too.
[2] This allegation of this person shows that he
was quite unaware of the knowledge of Hadîth.
[3] Hempher’s confessions were translated into
Turkish and, together with the author’s explanations, formed a book. This
version is the Eglish translation of that Turkish book.
too?”
“Yes, he did.” Upon this, he smiled in a triumphant air and said, “Sir! Were
there aeroplanes in those days?” My answer to him was as follows: “My son! Our Prophet has ninety-nine names. Each of his names
stands for a beautiful attribute he was endowed with. One of his names is Jâmi’ul-kalim. He would state many facts in
one word. For example, he said, ‘He who falls from
a height will become a martyr.’ ” The child admitted this
answer of mine with admiration and gratitude. By the same token, Qur’ân
Our Prophet
‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ stated, “After me
Muslims shall part into seventy-three groups. Only one of these groups shall
enter Paradise.” When he was asked who were to be in that
group, he answered, “Those who adapt
themselves to me and my As-hâb.” In another hadîth-i-sherîf he stated, “My Ashâb are like celestial stars. You will attain hidâyat if you
follow any one of them!” In other words, he said, “You
will attain the way leading to Paradise.” A Jew of Yemen, Abdullah bin Saba’ by
name, instigated hostility against the As-hâb among Muslims. Those ignorant
people who believed this Jew and bore enmity against the As-hâb were called Shi’î (Shiite). And people who obeyed the hadîth-sherîfs, loved and followed the
As-hâb-i-kirâm were called Sunnî (Sunnite).]
I established a very intimate friendship with Muhammad bin Abd-ul-Wahhâb of Najd. I launched a campaign of praising him everywhere. One day I said to him: “You are greater than ’Umar and ’Alî. If the Prophet were alive now, he would appoint you as
his Khalîfa instead of them. I expect that Islam will be
renovated and improved in your hands. You are the only scholar who will spread
Islam all over the world.”
Muhammad the son of Abd-ul-Wahhâb and I decided to
make a new interpretation of the Qur’ân; this new interpretation was to reflect
only our points of view and would be entirely contrary to those explanations
made by the Sahâba, by the imâms of madh-habs and by the mufassirs (deeply
learned scholars specialized in the explanation of the Qur’ân). We were reading
the Qur’ân and talking on some of the âyats. My purpose in doing this was to mislead Muhammad. After all, he was trying to
present himself as a revolutionist and would therefore accept my views and
ideas with pleasure so that I should trust him all the more.
On one occasion I said to him, “Jihâd (fighting,
struggling for Islam) is not fard.”
He protested, “Why shouldn’t it be despite Allah’s
commandment, ‘Make war against unbelievers.’?”[1]
I said, “Then why didn’t the Prophet make war against the munâfiqs despite
Allah’s commandment, ‘Make Jihâd against
unbelievers and munâfiqs.’?”[2] [On the other hand, it is written in Mawâhibu ladunniyya that twenty-seven
Jihâds were performed against unbelievers. Their swords are exhibited in
Istanbul’s museums. Munâfiqs would pretend to be Muslims. They would perform
namâz with the Messenger of Allah in the Masjîd-i-Nabawî during the days. Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wasallam’ knew them.
Yet he did not say, “ You are a munâfiq,” to any of them. If he had made war
against them and killed them, people would say, “Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’
killed people who believed in him.” Therefore he made verbal Jihâd against
them. For Jihâd, which is fard, is performed with one’s body and/or with one’s
property and/or with one’s speech. The âyat-i-kerîma
quoted above commands to perform Jihâd against unbelievers. It does not define
the type of the Jihâd to be performed. For Jihâd against unbelievers must be
performed by fighting, and Jihâd against munâfiqs is to be performed by preaching
and advice. This âyat-i-kerîma
covers these types of Jihâd.]
---------------------------------
[1] Tawba sûra, âyat: 73
[2] Tawba sûra, âyat: 73
He said, “The Prophet
made Jihâd against them with his speech.”
I said, “Is the Jihâd which is fard (commanded),
the one which is to be done with one’s speech?”
He said, “Rasûlullah
made war against the unbelievers.”
I said, “The Prophet
made war against the unbelievers in order to defend himself. For the
unbelievers intended to kill him.”
He nodded.
At another time I said to him, “Mut’a nikâh[1] is permissible.”
He objected, “No, it is not.”
I said, “Allah declares, ‘In return for the use you make of them, give them the mehr you
have decided upon’.[2]
He said, “’Umar prohibited two examples of mut’a
practice existent in his time and said he would punish anyone who practiced
it.”
I said, “You both say that you are superior to
’Umar and follow him. In addition, ’Umar said he prohibited it though he knew
that the Prophet had permitted it.[3] Why do you leave aside the Prophet’s word and obey ’Umar’s word?”
He did not answer. I knew that he was convinced.
I sensed that Muhammad of Najd desired a woman at that moment; he was single. I said to him, “Come on, let us each get a woman by mut’a nikâh. We will have a good time with them. He accepted with a nod. This was a great opportunity for me, so I promised to find a woman for him to amuse himself. My aim
---------------------------------
[1] Nikâh means a marriage contract as prescribed
by Islam. Mut’a nikâh means a contract made between a man and a woman to
cohabit for a certain period of time. Islam prohibits this type of marriage.
[2] Nisâ sûra, âyat: 24
[3] Mut’a nikâh is similar to today’s practice of
having a mistress. It is permissible according to the Shiites.
’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ did not say
so. Like all other Christians, the English spy bears hostility towards hadrat
’Umar and inveighs against him on this occasion, too. It is written in the book
Hujaj-i-Qat’iyya: “’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ said that Rasûlullah had
forbidden mut’a nikâh and that he was not going to permit a practice forbidden
by the Messenger of Allah. All the As-hâb-i-kirâm supported this statement of
the Khalîfa’s. Among them was hadrat Alî, too.” (Please see the book Documents
of the Right Word.)
was to allay the timidity he had about people. But he stated it
a condition that the matter be kept as a secret between us and that the woman
not even be told what his name was. I hurriedly went to the Christian women who
had been sent forth by the Ministry of the Commonwealth with the task of
seducing the Muslim youth there. I explained the matter to one of them. She
accepted to help, so I gave her the nickname Safîyya. I took Muhammad of Najd to
her house. Safiyya was at home, alone. We made a one-week marriage contract for
Muhammad of Najd, who gave the woman some gold in the name of Mehr. Thus we began to mislead Muhammad of Najd,
Safiyya from within, and I from without.
Muhammad of Najd was thoroughly in Safiyya’s hands
now. Besides, he had tasted the pleasure of disobeying the commandments of the
Sharî’at under the pretext of freedom of
The third day of the mut’a nikâh I had a long dispute with him over that hard drinks were not harâm (forbidden by Islam). Although he quoted many âyats and hadîths showing that it was harâm to have hard drinks, I cancelled all of them and finally said, “It is a fact that Yezîd and the Umayyad and Abbasid Khalîfas had hard drinks. Were they all miscreant people and you are the only adherent of the right way? They doubtless knew the Qur’ân and the Sunna better than you do. They inferred from the Qur’ân and the Sunna that the hard drink is makrûh, not harâm. Also, it is written in Jewish and Christian books that alcohol is mubâh (permitted). All religions are Allah’s commandments. In fact, according to a narrative, ’Umar had hard drinks until the revelation of the âyat, ‘You have all given it up, haven’t you?”[1] If it had been harâm, the Prophet would have chastised him. Since the Prophet did not punish him, hard drink is halâl.” [The fact is that ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ used to take hard drinks before they were made harâm. He never drank after the prohibition was declared. If some of the Umayyad and Abbasid Khalîfas took alcoholic drinks, this would not show that drinks with alcohol are makrûh. It would show that they were sinners, that they committed harâm. For the âyat-i-kerîma quoted by the spy, as well as other âyat-i-kerîmas and hadîth-i-sherîfs, shows that drinks with alcohol are harâm. It is stated in Riyâd-un-nâsihîn, “Formerly it was permissible to drink wine. Hadrat ’Umar, Sa’d ibni Waqqas,
---------------------------------
[1] Mâida sûra, âyat: 91
and some other Sahâbîs used to drink wine. Later the
two hundred and nineteenth âyat of Baqara sûra was revealed to declare that it
was a grave sin. Sometime later the forty-second âyat of Nisâ sûra was revealed
and it was declared, “Do
not approach the namâz when you are drunk!” Eventually,
the ninety-third âyat of Mâida sûra came and wine was made harâm. It was stated
as follows in hadîth-i-sherîfs: “If
something would intoxicate in case it were taken in a large amount, it is harâm
to take it even in a small amount.” and
“Wine is the
gravest of sins.” and “Do not make friends with a person who drinks
wine! Do not attend his funeral (when
he dies)! Do not form a
matrimonial relationship with him!” and
“Drinking wine is
like worshipping idols.” and “May Allâhu ta’âlâ curse
him who drinks wine, sells it, makes it, or gives it.”]
Muhammad of Najd said, “According to some
narratives, ’Umar drank alcoholic spirits after mixing it with water and said
it
I told Safiyya about this dispute we had on drinks
and instructed her to make him drink a very strong spirit. Afterwards, she
said, “I did as you said and made him drink. He danced and united with me
several times that night.” From then on Safiyya and I completely took control
of Muhammad of Najd. In our farewell talk the Minister of the Commonwealth had
said to me, “We captured Spain from the disbelievers [he means Muslims] by
means of alcohol and fornication. Let us take all our lands back by using these
two great forces again.” Now I know how true a statement it was.
One day I broached the topic of fasting to Muhammad of Najd: “It is stated in the Qur’ân, ‘Your fasting is more
---------------------------------
[1] Mâida sûra, âyat: 91
[2] However, our Prophet stated, “If something
would intoxicate in case it were taken in a large amount, it is harâm to take
even a small amount of it which would not intoxicate.”
auspicious for you.’[1] It is not stated that fasting is fard (a plain
commandment). Then, fasting is sunna, not fard, in the Islamic religion.” He
protested and said, “Are you trying to lead me out of my faith?” I replied,
“One’s faith consists of the purity of one’s heart, the salvation of one’s
soul, and not committing a transgression against others’ rights. Did not the Prophet state, ‘Faith is
love’? Did not Allah declare in Qur’ân al-kerîm, ‘Worship thine Rabb (Allah) until yaqîn[2] comes to
thee’?[3] Then, when one has attained yaqîn pertaining
to Allah and the Day of Judgement and beautified one’s heart and purified one’s
deeds, one will become the most virtuous of mankind.” He shook his head in
reply to these words of mine.
Once I said to him, “Namâz is not fard.” “How is
it not fard?”
“Allah declares in the Qur’ân, ‘Perform namâz to remember Me.’[4] Then, the aim of namâz is to remember Allah.
Therefore, you might as well remember Allah without performing namâz.”
He said, “Yes. I have heard that some people do
dhikr of Allah instead of performing namâz.’[5] I was very much pleased with this statement of
his. I tried hard to develop this notion and capture his heart. Then I noticed
that he did not attach much importance to namâz and was performing it quite
sporadically. He was very negligent especially with the morning prayer. For I
would keep him from going to bed by talking with him until midnight. So he
would be too exhausted to get up for morning prayer.
I began to pull down the shawl of belief slowly off the shoulders of Muhammad of Najd. One day I wanted to dispute with him about the Prophet, too. “From now on, if you talk with me on these topics, our relation will be spoilt and I shall put an end to my friendship with you.” Upon this I gave up speaking
---------------------------------
[1] Baqara sûra, âyat: 184
[2] All the Islamic books agree that (Yaqîn) in
this context means (death). Hence this âyat-i-kerîma purports, “Worship till
death.”
[3] Hijr Sûra, âyat: 99
[4] Tâhâ sûra, âyat: 14
[5] Our Prophet stated, “The namâz is Islam’s
pillar. He who performs namâz has constructed his faith. He who does not (perform
namâz) has ruined his faith;” and (in another hadîth), “Perform namâz
as I do.” It is a grave sin not to perform namâz in this manner. What
signifies the heart’s purity is to perform namâz correctly.
about the Prophet for fear of ruining all my endeavours
once and for all.
I advised him to pursue a course quite different
from those of Sunnites and Shiites. He favoured this idea of mine. For he was a
conceited person. Thanks to Safiyya, I put an halter on him.
On one occasion I said, “I have heard that the Prophet made his As-hâb brothers to one another.
Is it true?” Upon his positive reply, I wanted to know if this Islamic rule was
temporary or permanent. He explained, “It is permanent. For the Prophet Muhammad’s halâl is halâl till the end of
the world, and his harâm is harâm till the end of the world.” Then I offered
him to be my brother. So we were brothers.
From that day on I never left him alone. We were
together even in his travels. He was very important for me. For the tree that I
had planted and grown, spending the most valuable days of my youth, was now
beginning to yield its fruit.
I was sending monthly reports to the Ministry of
the Commonwealth in London. The answers I received were very
encouraging and reassuring. Muhammad of Najd was
following the path I had drawn for him.
My duty was to imbue him with feelings of
independence, freedom and scepticism. I always praised him, saying that a
brilliant future was awaiting him.
One day I fabricated the following dream: “Last
night I dreamed of our Prophet.
I addressed him with the attributes I had learnt from hodjas. He was seated on
a dais. Around him were scholars that I did not know. You entered. Your face
was as bright as haloes. You walked towards the Prophet,
and when you were close enough the Prophet
stood up and kissed between your both eyes. He said, ‘You are my namesake, the
heir to my knowledge, my deputy in worldly and religious matters.’ You said, ‘O
Messenger of Allah! I am afraid to explain my knowledge to people.’ ‘You are
the greatest. Don’t be afraid,’ replied the Prophet.”
Muhammad bin Abd-ul-Wahhâb was wild with joy when he heard the dream. He asked several times if what I had told him was true, and received a positive answer each time he asked. Finally he was sure I had told him the truth. I think, from then on, he was resolved to publicise the ideas I had imbued him
with and to establish a new sect.[1]
---------------------------------
[1] The book Al-fajr-us-sâdiq, written by
Jamil Sidqi Zahâwî Efendi of Baghdâd, who was a muderris (professor) of
Aqâid-i-Islâmiyya (Islamic creed) in the Dâr-ul-funûn (university) of Istanbul
and passed away in 1354 [C.E. 1936], was printed in Egypt in 1323 [C.E. 1905]
and reproduced by offset process by Hakîkat Kitâbevi in Istanbul. It is stated
in the book, “The heretical ideas of the Wahhabi sect were produced by Muhammad
bin Abd-ul-Wahhâb in Najd in 1143 [C.E. 1730]. He was born in 1111 [C.E. 1699],
and died in 1207 [C.E. 1792]. The sect was spread at the cost of a considerable
amount of Muslim blood by Muhammad bin Su’ûd, the Emîr of Der’iyya. Wahhabis
called Muslims who would not agree with them polytheists. They said that all of
them (non-Wahhabis) must perform the hajj anew (even if they had performed it),
and asserted that all their ancestors as well had been disbelievers for six
hundred years. They killed anyone who would not accept the Wahhabi sect, and
carried off their possessions as booties. They imputed ugly motives to Muhammad
‘alaihis-salâm’. They burned books of Fiqh, Tafsîr, and Hadîth. They
misinterpreted Qur’ân al-kerîm in accordance
with their own ideas. In order to deceive Muslims, they said they were in the
Hanbalî madh-hab. However, most Hanbalî scholars wrote books refuting them and
explaining that they were heretics. They are
disbelievers
because they call harâms ‘halâl’ and because they belittle Prophets and the
Awliyâ. The Wahhabi religion is based on ten essentials: Allah is a material
being. He has hands, a face, and directions. [This belief of theirs is similar
to the Christian creed (Father, Son, and Holy Ghots)]; 2- They interpret Qur’ân al-kerîm according to their own understanding;
3- They reject the facts reported by the As-hâb-i-kirâm; 4- They reject the
facts reported by scholars; 5- They say a person who imitates one of the four
madh-habs is a disbeliever; 6- They say non-Wahhabis are disbelievers; 7- They
say a person who prays by making the Prophet and the Awliyâ intermediaries
(between himself and Allâhu ta’âlâ), will become a disbeliever; 8- They say it
is harâm to visit the Prophet’s grave or those of the Awliyâ; 9- He who swears
on any being other than Allah will become a polytheist, they say; 10- A person
who makes a solemn pledge to anyone except Allah or who kills an animal (as a sacrifice)
by the graves of Awliyâ, will become a polytheist, they say. In this book of
mine it will be proved by documentary evidences that all these ten credal
tenets are wrong.” These ten fundamentals of the Wahhabi religion are
noticeably identical with the religious principles Hempher prompted to Muhammad
of Najd.
The British published Hempher’s confessions as a means for Christian propaganda. In order to mislead Muslims’ children they wrote lies and fabrications in the name of Islamic teachings. Therefore, with a view to protecting our youth from this British trap, we publish this book, which is a correction of their lies and slanders.