Didn’t All the Hanbalis Oppose Shaykh Muhammad b. Abdul Wahhab?

The below is a translation of a section from Ustadh Alaa’ Hasan’s article, Naqḍ as-Shubuhat al-‘Ashar ‘an ash-Shaykh Muhammad b. Abdul Wahhab.

The answer to this question is twofold:

Firstly, we do not concede that all the Hanbalis opposed Shaykh Muhammad b. Abdul Wahhab. In fact, the greatest student of Ibn Fayruz, Ahmad ibn Hasan ibn Rashid al-Afalqi al-Ahsa’i al-Hanbali, joined the Salafi movement. When the armies of Ibrahim Pasha entered Mecca, they offered him the chance to leave the movement, but Ibn Rashid categorically refused. As a result, he was ordered to be tortured, and his nails and teeth were pulled out.

Secondly, Ibn Hamid, the author of “Al-Suhub al-Wabila,” claimed that Ibn Rashid agreed with the movement only to appease them. However, no evidence supports this claim, and history contradicts it. Ibn Rashid refused to abandon the movement even after the victory of Ibrahim Pasha’s armies—Ibn Hamid himself acknowledges this. Ibn Rashid al-Ahsa’i was exiled to Egypt along with the sons of Shaykh Muhammad b. Abdul Wahhab.

Shaykh Suleiman bin Hamdan, may Allah have mercy on him, said in his biography of Ahmad bin Rashid, commenting on what Ibn Hamid mentioned:

عض ما ذكره صاحب السبل الوابلة في ترجمته. ولا شك أن هذا تحامل من المترجِم، وإلا فصاحب الترجمة قد تبين له صحة دعوة الشيخ، ولذا لم يُجب الباشا إلى طلبه، ولو كان كما ذكر عنه أنه أظهر الموافقة ظاهرًا وهو بضد ذلك لكان يجيبه إلى طلبه، ويكون ذلك أحب ما إليه، ولترك مصانعة الإمام سعود ومن معه، ومداراتهم ومداهنتهم كما زعم؛ لأنه لا حاجة تدعو إلى ذلك، وهذا لا يُظن بصاحب الترجمة، بل قد شرح الله صدره للحق، ووافق ظاهرًا وباطنًا، فلهذا ناله ما ناله من الأذى في الله، فرحمه الله ورضي عنه

“This is part of what the author of ‘Al-Subul Al-Wabila’ mentioned in his biography. There is no doubt that this is a biased opinion from the biographer. This person had realized the correctness of Shaykh Muhammad’s call and did not respond to Pasha’s request. Had it been mentioned that he outwardly agreed while being opposed inwardly, he would have acceded to Pasha’s request, which would have been preferable to him. He would have abandoned the pretense of compliance with Imam Saud and his followers and the flattery and hypocrisy as claimed because there would have been no need for that. Such behavior cannot be attributed to the person in question. Instead, Allah had opened his heart to the truth, and he agreed both outwardly and inwardly. For this reason, he endured what he did in the way of Allah. May Allah have mercy on him and be pleased with him.”[1]

The conclusion is that Ibn Rashid al-Ahsa’i al-Afalqi—who was the Shaykh of the Hanbalis in his time—affirmed the correctness of Shaykh Muhammad b. Abdul Wahhab’s teachings and praised his students and sons. This indicates that the claim that all Hanbalis opposed Shaykh Muhammad is a statement marred by ignorance of the history of that period.

The second aspect concerns the common belief that the Hanbalis, and even scholars at large, opposed the Shaykh in his call. This belief is based on a well-known fallacy prevalent among both opponents and supporters. This fallacy is summarized as reducing the dispute to only two sides:

1) Those who are entirely with Wahhabism, comprising the Shaykh’s followers and students.

2) Those who are entirely against it, consisting of all traditional scholars.

In reality, this binary division is incorrect, as anyone who carefully examines the history of that era would understand. In fact, there was a third, prominent party in the equation. Some scholars who criticized certain aspects of the movement opposed the followers of Ibn Fayruz and Ibn Afaliq, among others, and refuted their arguments. They agreed with the Shaykh that invoking the deceased constitutes major polytheism that leads one out of Islam and that this view aligns with the teachings of Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim. However, this group had reservations regarding the necessity and extent of fighting, particularly due to the potential for individual accountability not being established.

Among this group are the scholars of Al-‘Arid, such as the esteemed Abdullah bin Isa, a contemporary of Ibn Fayruz who served as the judge of Diriyah before Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, and Abdullah bin Suhaim. Both explicitly stated that the Shaykh was correct on matters of creed. They and others corresponded with the Shaykh, showing substantial agreement between them. However, they disagreed with him on the matter of fighting. These scholars, also Hanbalis, opposed Ibn Fayruz and his group.

Among those who later supported the call were Shaykh al-Fakhouri al-Shafi’i, the Chief Judge of Sham, Siddiq Hasan al-Qanuji, the author of “Abjad al-Ulum,” Al-Jabarti, Al-Suwaidi, Al-Nu’man al-Alusi, Imam al-Shawkani, and others. These individuals endorsed the Shaykh’s views and refuted his opponents, though they hesitated on the issue of fighting due to conflicting reports.

When some Hanbalis hostile to the Shaykh approached Al-San’ani with certain doubts, Al-Shawkani refuted them in his book “Al-Durr al-Nadid.”[2]

Here, we consider two points:

1. Affirming the Shaykh’s correctness on issues of monotheism and creed over his opponents.

2. Judging the Shaykh’s ijtihad in matters of combat and applying the legal ruling to specific individuals.

If the opponents agree with us on the first point, they have aligned with the Shaykh on Salafi creed and disagreed with his adversaries regarding creed, which is the main objective. The second point is relatively minor; it concerns the application of legal rulings to historical events of that time, which is a matter of ijtihad specific to the scholars of those eras.

Recommending Reading:

Shaykh Muhammad b. Abdul Wahhab Discourse

---

[1] Tarajim Muta’akhiri al-Hanabilah, p. 49

[2] Al-Durr al-Nadid, p. 30