Regarding Shaykh Muhammad b. Abdul Wahhab’s Claim That No One Understood Tawheed Before Him

Note: These arguments were mostly incorporated from Shaykh Faisal al-Jasim’s book, Ḥaqiqat aṣ-Ṣirā‘ fī Tārīkh Da‘wat ash-Shaykh Muḥammad bin ‘Abdul Wahhāb.

Shaykh Muhammad b. Abdul Wahhab said:

وأنا أخبركم عن نفسي والله الذي لا إله إلا هو لقد طلبت العلم واعتقد من عرفني أن لي معرفة وأنا ذلك الوقت لا أعرف معنى لا إله إلا الله، ولا أعرف دين الإسلام قبل هذا الخير الذي منّ الله به. وكذلك مشايخي ما منهم رجل عرف ذلك، فمن زعم من علماء العارض أنه عرف معنى لا إله إلا الله أو عرف معنى الإسلام قبل هذا الوقت أو زعم عن مشايخه أن أحداً عرف ذلك فقد كذب وافترى ولبس على الناس ومدح نفسه بما ليس فيه

“And I inform you about myself—I swear by Allah whom there is none worthy of worship but Him—I have sought knowledge, and those who knew me believed that I had knowledge, while I did not know the meaning of Lā Ilāha illa Allah at that time and did not know the religion of Islam before this grace that Allah favored [me with]. Similarly, my Shaykhs, no one among them knew that. So, whosoever from the scholars of ‘Āriḍ (i.e., region in Najd) claims that he knew the meaning of Lā Ilāha illa Allah or knew the meaning of Islam before this time or contends on behalf of his Shaykhs that someone knew then he has lied and fabricated and deceived the people.”[1]

This statement carries a rather audacious implication. Shaykh Muhammad seems to assert that before his da’wah commenced, virtually no one understood the meaning of the Shahadah. This sweeping assertion encompasses not only himself but also his Shaykhs.

Based on this proclamation, critics contend that Shaykh Muhammad essentially branded all individuals as disbelievers for their apparent lack of understanding of the Shahadah.

I do not intend to endorse or justify the phrasing of this statement in any way. Nevertheless, it is imperative to consider certain significant factors when scrutinizing Shaykh Muhammad’s assertion.

The initial point to note is that when Shaykh Muhammad employs the phrase “know the meaning of,” he is evidently not speaking in a purely literal sense. It is clear that individuals, including himself, possess a general awareness of what the Islamic Shahadah entails. What he alludes to, however, is the profound and precise comprehension of the Shahadah, along with its practical implications. In particular, he is concerned with the prevalent misconception that the Shahadah has been distorted, with an excessive emphasis on the concept of rububiyyah at the expense of uluhiyyah.[2] It is worth noting that even Ibn Taymiyyah accused certain Mutakallimeen scholars of having an incomplete grasp of the Shahadah.[3]

Shaykh Muhammad also refers to those who adopt the istiqlali understanding of Ibadah,[4] which obstructs their recognition of the fact that the widespread practice of istighatha from the deceased constitutes major Shirk. Moreover, when he mentions “Islam,” he specifically addresses Islam devoid of innovations and deviations, not the entirety of the Islamic faith. As he stated:

فإن عرفت أن الصواب معي، وأن دين الإسلام اليوم من أغرب الأشياء؛ أعني دين الإسلام الصرف الذي لا يُمزج بالشرك والبدع، وأما الإسلام الذي ضدّه الكفر فلا شك أن أمة محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم آخر الأمم وعليها تقوم الساعة

“So, if you know that the truth lies with me and that the deen of Islam today is from the strangest of things, I mean the deen of Islam that is free of being mixed with innovations and Shirk. As for Islam that is contrary to kufr, then there is no doubt that the Ummah of Muhammad, peace be upon him, is the last of the Ummahs upon whom Judgement Day will reckon.”[5]

Secondly, setting aside the fact that Shaykh Muhammad’s adversaries seem to have also passed judgments of takfeer upon him and his adherents, [6] Shaykh Muhammad’s focus is specifically directed towards himself, his Shaykhs, and the inhabitants of the ‘Āriḍ region, rather than the entire Ummah. To illustrate this point, one may refer to a statement made by Shaykh Muhammad himself, wherein he expresses his belief that the majority of the Muslim Ummah do not engage in actions that would justify accusations of takfeer:

وأما التكفير فأنا أكفر من عرف دين الرسول، ثم بعد ما عرفه سبّه ونهى الناس عنه، وعادى من فعله، فهذا هو الذي أكفّره، وأكثر الأمة ولله الحمد ليسوا كذلك

“And as for takfeer, I make takfeer of the person who knows the deen of the Messenger, and then after he knows it, he insults it and forbids people from [practicing] it and antagonizes those who practice it. This is the person I make takfeer of. And most of the Ummah, all praise to Allah, are not like that.”[7]

Let us also consider this statement about the people in the region of Sham and their veneration of Ibn al-Arabi. He acknowledges the existence of a faction adhering to the true path:

لكن هو آت من الشام، وهم يعبدون ابن عربي، جاعلين على قبره صنماً يعبدونه، ولست أعني أهل الشام كلهم حاشا وكلا، بل لا تزال طائفة على الحق وإن قلت واغتربت

“But he is coming from Sham, and they worship Ibn Arabi,[8] erecting upon his grave an idol that they worship.[9] And I do not mean all the people of Sham, God forbid. Rather, a group will always remain upon the truth,[10] even if it decreases and becomes estranged.”[11]

Also consider this assertion by Shaykh Muhammad, wherein he expresses a high level of assurance that if one were to seek the opinions of scholars hailing from regions such as Sham, Yemen, and others regarding his preaching, they would offer their approval:

والأمر الثاني: أن هذا الأمر، الذي أنكروا علي، وأبغضوني، وعادوني من أجله، إذا سألوا عنه كل عالم في الشام، واليمن، أو غيرهم، يقول: هذا هو الحق، وهو دين الله ورسوله، ولكن ما أقدر أظهره في مكاني، لأجل أن الدولة ما يرضون; وابن عبد الوهاب أظهره، لأن الحاكم في بلده ما أنكره

“And secondly: Regarding this matter for which they have condemned me and hate me, if they were to ask every scholar in Sham, Yemen, or others, they would say: This is the truth. And this is the deen of Allah and His Messenger. However, I cannot openly express this [opinion] where I am because the state does not approve. And Ibn Abdul Wahhab openly expressed it because the ruler in his region did not condemn it.”[12]

Thus, it becomes abundantly evident that Shaykh Muhammad is not referring to the entire Ummah in his statement.

Thirdly, as previously demonstrated,[13] the region of Najd was indeed grappling with the prevalence of these deviant beliefs and practices. This tumultuous environment is the backdrop against which Shaykh Muhammad’s upbringing occurred. While Shaykh Muhammad’s statement may come across as unequivocal, it is discernible within his words that he is primarily addressing the prevailing condition in ‘Āriḍ and the overwhelming majority of its inhabitants who openly espoused these beliefs. From his perspective, it is comprehensible that he would regard those individuals as lacking a genuine and accurate grasp of the profound meaning of the Shahadah.

Fourthly, it remains uncertain whether Shaykh Muhammad literally referred to all of his Shaykhs either. For instance, let us consider Shaykh Muhammad al-Majmu‘i, who was Shaykh Muhammad’s Shaykh in Basra. Ibn Bishr, in his Tarikh Najd, vol. 1, p. 37, states that he approved of Shaykh Muhammad’s views. It is plausible to argue that Shaykh Muhammad may have persuaded Shaykh Muhammad al-Majmu‘i to alter his stance. However, this is far from definitive. Alternatively, one might interpret Shaykh Muhammad’s reference to his Shaykhs as referring to those he encountered in Najd or possibly during the initial phases of his serious study of Islam.

In summation, this is not an attempt to justify how Shaykh Muhammad phrased his statement. Nevertheless, when elucidated and comprehended accurately, it appears less ‘radical’ than one might initially perceive.

Allah knows best.

Recommending Reading:

Shaykh Muhammad b. Abdul Wahhab Discourse

---

[1] Ad-Dorar as-Saniyyah, vol. 10, p. 51

[2] See: Ibadah Discourse

[3] Ibn Taymiyyah states in his Dar’:

والإله هو بمعني المألوه المعبود الذي يستحق العبادة، ليس هو الإله بمعني القادر علي الخلق، فإذا فسر المفسر الإله بمعني القادر علي الاختراع، واعتقد أن هذا أخص وصف الإله، وجعل إثبات هذا التوحيد هو الغاية في التوحيد، كما يفعل ذلك من يفعله من المتكلمة الصفاتية، وهو الذي ينقلونه عن أبي الحسن وأتباعه، لم يعرفوا حقيقة التوحيد الذي بعث الله به رسوله، فإن مشركي العرب كانوا مقرين بأن الله وحده خالق كل شيء، وكانوا مع هذا مشركين

There is even a report attributed to Imam ash-Shafi whereby he expressed disagreement with the Shahadah uttered by the Mu’tazilites for simply disagreeing with the fact that Allah literally spoke to Prophet Musa ‘alayhi assalam. We read in Lisan al-Meezan:

أنا أخالف ابن عُليَّة في كل شيء حتى في قول: لا إله إلا الله؛ فإني أقول: لا إله إلا الله الذي كلّم موسى، وهو يقول: لا إله إلا الله الذي خلق كلامًا سمعه موسى

[4] This is a label given to those who believe that Shirk cannot occur unless a person believes the object of veneration has some form of independence (istiqlal) from Allah, either completely or partially, by being able to influence Allah’s will against His permission.

[5] Ad-Dorar as-Saniyyah, vol. 10, p. 16

[6] See: The Antagonism and Takfīr by Muḥammad b. Abdul Wahhāb’s Opponents  

[7] Ad-Dorar as-Saniyyah, vol. 10, p. 73

[8] Al-Allamah Diya’ ad-Din Salih b. Mahdi Al-Kawkabani (d. 1108 A.H.) described a similar phenomenon and states that the people of Ta’if took Ibn Abbas as a god:

جاءني شريف من أشراف مكة، وكان يعتقد متصوفاً وأنا أنهاه عنه، فجاءني مذعوراً يقول: ذكرتُ الله ورسوله فغضب فلان وقال: لا أعرفُ الله ولا رسوله إنما أعرف شيخي.

وزار بعضُ العقلاء ابنَ عباس فرأى غلو الناس فيه، فقال لرجل من عمد مكة ومدرسيهم ومتصوفتهم: أهلُ الطائف لا يعرفون الله، قد اتخذوا ابن عباس إلهاً من دون الله، فسقط من عين ذلك المدرس، وقال: ما كنت أظنك بهذه المنزلة من الجهل والغفلة، هم لا يعرفون الله، ولكن تكفيهم معرفة ابن عباس، وهو يعرف الله.

One of the Sharifs of Makkah came to me. He used to be a Sufi, while I used to reprimand him for it. When he came, he was in a state of shock, saying: I mentioned Allah and His Messenger to someone, and he responded to me angrily:  I do not know Allah and His Prophet; I only know my Shaykh!

Some intelligent people visited Ibn ‘Abbas and saw how people went to extremes about him. He said to one of the principals, teachers, and Sufis of Makkah: The people of At-Ta’if do not know Allah; they have taken Ibn ‘Abbas as a god besides Allah! He immediately lost face with that teacher, who reprimanded him, saying: I did not think you were this ignorant and heedless! Even if they do not know Allah, it is sufficient that they know ibn ‘Abbas because he knows Allah! (al-Abhath al-Musaddadah fi Funun Muta‘addidah, pp. 158-159)

[9] Imam Ahmad b. ‘Abdul Qadir ar-Rumi Al-Hanafi (d. 1041 A.H.) also talks about how the graves of saints were taken as idols. He authored the book, Majalis al-Abrar wa-Masalik Al-Akhyar wa-Mahaiq Al-Bida‘ wa-Maqami‘ Al-Ashrar Al-Fujjar. In describing the motivation for writing the book, he says on pp. 2-3:

وأُبيّن فيه من الاعتقادات الصحيحة والأعمال الآخرة، وأحذر عما فيه من استمداد القبور وغيره من فعل الكفرة، وأهل البدع الضالة المضلة الفجرة، لما رأيت كثيراً من الناس في هذا الزمان جعلوا القبور كالأوثان، يصلون عندها ويذبحون القربان، ويصدر منهم أفعال وأقوال لا تليق بأهل الإيمان، فأردت أن أبين ما ورد به الشرع في هذا الشأن، حتى يتميز الحق من الباطل عند من يريد تصحيح الإيمان والخلاص من كيد الشيطان، والنجاة من عذاب النيران، والدخول في دار الجنان. والله الهادي وعليه التكلان

I will be explaining in it the correct creedal positions and the deeds necessary for felicity in the Hereafter. I will also warn against seeking help and support from graves and other related actions similar to that of unbelievers and misguided innovators. This is driven by what I have observed of many people in these times who have made the graves of the pious like idols. They observe their Ṣalāh at such grave sites and slaughter animals therein. Their actions and words do not align with those who have faith. Accordingly, I have decided to relate aspects of the Sharī‘ah on such issues. By doing so, truth becomes clear and distinct from falsehood for whosoever wishes to correct his faith and escape from the plots of Shaytan, attain safety from Hell, and make it to the abode of Paradise.  Verily, Allah is the one who guides, and on Him, we place our trust.

[10] One might interpret Shaykh Muhammad's words as insinuating that a significant portion of the population in Sham was engaged in the worship of Ibn Arabi. It is conceivable that this is the point he was trying to convey, and it wouldn't be unprecedented in the history of scholarship to encounter a scholar leveling such an accusation.

Imam Qasim b. Qutlubugha (d. 879 A.H.) says:

وأمّا النَّذْرُ الَّذِي يُنْذِرُهُ أكْثَرُ العَوامّ عَلى ما هُوَ مُشاهَدٌ كَأنْ يَكُونَ لِإنْسانٍ غائِبٌ أوْ مَرِيضٌ، أوْ لَهُ حاجَةٌ ضَرُورِيَّةٌ فَيَأْتِي بَعْضَ الصُّلَحاءِ فَيَجْعَلُ سُتْرَةً عَلى رَأْسِهِ فَيَقُولُ يا سَيِّدِي فُلانٌ إنْ رُدَّ غائِبِي، أوْ عُوفِيَ مَرِيضِي أوْ قُضِيَتْ حاجَتِي فَلَكَ مِن الذَّهَبِ كَذا، أوْ مِن الفِضَّةِ كَذا، أوْ مِن الطَّعامِ كَذا، أوْ مِن الماءِ كَذا، أوْ مِن الشَّمْعِ كَذا، أوْ مِن الزَّيْتِ كَذا فَهَذا النَّذْرُ باطِلٌ بِالإجْماعِ لِوُجُوهٍ

مِنها أنَّهُ نَذْرُ مَخْلُوقٍ والنَّذْرُ لِلْمَخْلُوقِ لا يَجُوزُ؛ لِأنَّهُ عِبادَةٌ والعِبادَةُ لا تَكُونُ لِلْمَخْلُوقِ ومِنها أنَّ المَنذُورَ لَهُ مَيِّتٌ والمَيِّتُ لا يَمْلِكُ ومِنها إنْ ظَنَّ أنَّ المَيِّتَ يَتَصَرَّفُ فِي الأُمُورِ دُونَ اللَّهِ تَعالى واعْتِقادُهُ ذَلِكَ كُفْرٌ

As for vows that most of the laity make, as is observed, in which case a person has a missing or a sick loved one or urgent needs, he then proceeds to some of the acclaimed saints. He puts his vest on his head and says: “O my master so and so, if you return my missing person or cure my sick, or resolve my need, I promise to give you a charity of such and such gold or silver or food or water or candles or oil. This vow is void by the consensus of scholars for several reasons:

Among these is that this is a vow for a creature, and a vow to creatures is not permitted because it is an act of worship. Acts of worship are not meant for other than Allah. And [another reason] is that the vow is given to a dead person who does not possess anything. And [another reason] is that if he thinks that the dead can do things without Allah’s Will, then his belief is kufr. (Ibn Nujaym (d. 970 A.H.) cites it from Ibn Qutlubugha’s Sharh ad-Durar in his al-Bahr ar-Ra’iq, vol. 2, p. 320.)

Likewise, Imam Ahmad b. ‘Abdul Ahad As-Sirhindi al-Hanafi (d. 1034 A.H.), deemed by some to be a mujaddid, states:

التبرِّي من الكفر هو شرط الإسلام، والاجتناب عن شائبة الشرك توحيد، والاستمداد من الأصنام والطاغوت في دفع الأمراض والأسقام كما هو شائع فيما بين جهلة أهل الإسلام - عين الشرك والضلالة .... ونشكو إلى الله تعالى شكاية عن حال أهل الضلال يريدون أن يتحاكموا إلى الطاغوت وقد أمروا أن يكفروا به.. وأكثر النساء مبتليات بهذا الاستمداد الممنوع عنه بواسطة كمال الجهل فيهن، = يطلبن دفع البلية من هذه الأسماء الخالية عن المسميات، ومفتونات بأداء مراسم الشرك وأهل الشرك....، كما أنّ جهله أهل الإسلام خصوصًا طائفة نسائهم - يؤدون رسوم أهل الكفر وكل ذلك شرك وكفر بدين الإسلام، قال الله تعالى: {وَمَا يُؤْمِنُ أَكْثَرُهُمْ بِاللَّهِ إِلَّا وَهُمْ مُشْرِكُونَ}، وما يفعلونه من (( ذبح الحيوانات عند قبور المشايخ المنذورة لهم)) جعله الفقهاء أيضًا في الروايات الفقهية داخلًا في الشرك ((ومثل ذلك يصُمن بنيتهم.. ويطلبن حوائجهن منهم بواسطة هذا الصيام، ويزعمن قضاء حوائجهن منهم!!)) ، *وهذا الفعل إشراك للغير في عبادة الله تعالى وطلب لقضاء الحوائج من الغير بواسطة العبادة إليه "

Dissociating from Kufr is a condition for the validity of Islam. So also is avoiding any taint of Shirk on Tawhīd (Islamic monotheism). Seeking help and protection from sickness and diseases from idols and Ṭāghūt has become prevalent among the ignoramuses who ascribe themselves to Islam; this is the very essence of Shirk and misguidance… unto Allah we complain about the situation of misguided people who strive to resort to the judgment of the very Ṭāghūt they were told to disbelieve in…most women are afflicted with this type of prohibited seeking of assistance because of the presence of complete ignorance in them. They seek prevention from calamity with these empty names that apply to no real entity. So severely are they afflicted by the people and practices of Shirk… just as some ignoramuses among those who ascribe themselves to Islam –particularly women- who carry out practices of the people of Kufr. And all of these constitute Shirk and Kufr in Islam. Allah says: And most of them do not believe in Allah except they still commit Shirk (Qur’ān, 12:102)

Their slaughtering of animals vowed to the graves of their shaykhs is also deemed Shirk by jurists in various juristic views.  Examples of these: they fast for them … and they seek their needs from them with these fasting, and they claim such shaykhs resolve their problems! This action is Shirk in worshiping Allah and seeking help from another creature in resolving a need by offering them worship. (Al-Muntakhabat min al-Maktubat, vol. 3, p. 45)

[11] Ad-Dorar as-Saniyyah, vol. 2, p. 45

[12] Ibid., vol. 1, p. 90

[13] See: Did Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhāb Falsely Attribute a Kufri Belief to Others? and  ‘Wahhabism’ and the Arab Bedouins’ Lack of Commitment to Islam