No Wahabism consequences?

To add onto what John said, the Hanbalis were the most intellectually active group of scholars shortly before the Ottoman takeover and subsequent collapse of independent thought. The established ulema of the Mamluk & Ottoman era can be in part blamed for the stagnation of the Muslim world. One of their most shameful acts was imprisoning Ibn Taymiyyah solely for his opinion on divorce, making it much easier on the wife in the given situation. His offense was disputing past rulings on the matter, and they would have none of that.

The division of Islam into traditional, Sufi and violent, Wahhabi branches shows a deep-rooted orientalist understanding and could not be further away from reality. Ahmed ibn Hanbal and Ibn Taymiyyah are entirely seperate from the development of Wahhabism. Attempting to connect the two is equivalent of attributing Southern Baptism to Martin Luther.
 
Ahmed ibn Hanbal and Ibn Taymiyyah are entirely seperate from the development of Wahhabism. Attempting to connect the two is equivalent of attributing Southern Baptism to Martin Luther.

Before I say this, I feel the need to say that I am not a Muslim and I don't pretend to be a expert on Islamic history or theology, however...

When your beliefs influence the creation of a even more extreme ideology, then I don't see how you can be totally 'separate' from that ideology. Wahhabis exclusively promote the Hanbali school of Sunni Islam and see others as heretical or non-Islamic. Hanbali is said to have had divergent opinions from what would become the Wahhabi movement (visiting the Prophet's grave, believing that he could be blessed through relics, etc), but he laid the groundwork for what became their ideology.

Ibn Taymiyyah described Shias as 'religiously bankrupt', wrote a detailed book refuting Christian doctrine and endorsed martyrdom through jihad. One of the only differences is that I could find between Taymiyyah and Wahhabists is that Taymiyyah had no problem with the veneration of walis or 'helpers' (For some reason, Western sources call these people 'saints' which is not a Islamic term) while in Wahhabism, venerating walis is considered blasphemy.

Mohammad ibn Abd-al Wahhab drew upon these two people for inspiration for his ideology, but then added his own beliefs to the ideology.
 
... described Shias as 'religiously bankrupt', wrote a detailed book refuting Christian doctrine and endorsed martyrdom through jihad.

Almost every major Sunni scholar has written polemical pieces or condemned the Shi'a in some manner. Malik ibn Anas, founder of the Maliki school, held that it wasn't even allowed to pray behind a Shi'ite, which was a way to censure them and indirectly designate their beliefs as heretical. Note that today, Malikis are now considered part of the 'traditional, Sufi' branch in the false dichotomy I mentioned earlier. Attacking other religions isn't a sign of extremism or intolerance by any measure either, just as Thomas Aquinas or New Atheists did. Ibn Taymiyyah certainly wasn't the first to do so, as again, almost every Sunni scholar engaged in this. Trying to paint him or Ahmed ibn Hanbal as divergent and detached on these topics wouldn't be accurate.
... visiting the Prophet's grave, believing that he could be blessed through relics, etc

Disagreement with these practices or condemning them as non-Islamic is not necessarily an indicator of adherence to the Wahhabi ideology. Some of the most modernizing, western-oriented scholars, such as Muhammad Abduh or Rashid Rida from Egypt were against these practices. They identified these practices as part of the reason behind Islam's stagnation in thought and development. They instead advocated a return to the Salaf (first three generations of Islam, without any additional superstition or unneeded tradition), which is how they came to be labeled as Salafi, despite holding antithetical views to Wahhabism. During the Islamic Golden Age, Islamic scholars were the same people writing about mathematics and astronomy. By the time of Abduh and Rida, the Islamic world had been reduced to a shell of its former self, obsessed with mysticism instead of devotion to the sciences and development.

Wahhabis also don't promote the Hanbali school, which is another misconception across this thread. Early on in Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab's movement, his main opponents and archenemies were entirely Hanbali scholars, who largely continued the tradition of Ibn Taymiyyah and his students. You will find that Wahhabis were, and are to this day, insistent on throwing out the madhab system entirely and will often claim that they "do not follow a madhab" as a way to come up with their own interpretations (often leading to horrible conclusions).

To go further into what distinguishes Hanbalis and Wahhabis / Salafis would take pages upon pages, but one of the most important differences is in takfir (accusing somebody of having beliefs to the extent that he is no longer considered Muslim). While Ibn Taymiyyah withheld from pronouncing this even for the scholars whom hated him most (meaning that he still considered them Muslim), Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab and his students pronounced it on entire towns, and then upon anyone who didn't agree with him on pronouncing takfir. It was the latter which produced the movements we now know today as ISIS and al-Qaeda, not the Hanbali tradition.
 
Last edited:
Almost every major Sunni scholar has written polemical pieces or condemned the Shi'a in some manner. Malik ibn Anas, founder of the Maliki school, held that it wasn't even allowed to pray behind a Shi'ite, which was a way to censure them and indirectly designate their beliefs as heretical. Note that today, Malikis are now considered part of the 'traditional, Sufi' branch in the false dichotomy I mentioned earlier. Attacking other religions isn't a sign of extremism or intolerance by any measure either, just as Thomas Aquinas or New Atheists did. Ibn Taymiyyah certainly wasn't the first to do so, as again, almost every Sunni scholar engaged in this. Trying to paint him or Ahmed ibn Hanbal as divergent and detached on these topics wouldn't be accurate.


Disagreement with these practices or condemning them as non-Islamic is not necessarily an indicator of adherence to the Wahhabi ideology. Some of the most modernizing, western-oriented scholars, such as Muhammad Abduh or Rashid Rida from Egypt were against these practices. They identified these practices as part of the reason behind Islam's stagnation in thought and development. They instead advocated a return to the Salaf (first three generations of Islam, without any additional superstition or unneeded tradition), which is how they came to be labeled as Salafi, despite holding antithetical views to Wahhabism. During the Islamic Golden Age, Islamic scholars were the same people writing about mathematics and astronomy. By the time of Abduh and Rida, the Islamic world had been reduced to a shell of its former self, obsessed with mysticism instead of devotion to the sciences and development.

Wahhabis also don't promote the Hanbali school, which is another misconception across this thread. Early on in Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab's movement, his main opponents and archenemies were entirely Hanbali scholars, who largely continued the tradition of Ibn Taymiyyah and his students. You will find that Wahhabis were, and are to this day, insistent on throwing out the madhab system entirely and will often claim that they "do not follow a madhab" as a way to come up with their own interpretations (often leading to horrible conclusions).

To go further into what distinguishes Hanbalis and Wahhabis / Salafis would take pages upon pages, but one of the most important differences is in takfir (accusing somebody of having beliefs to the extent that he is no longer considered Muslim). While Ibn Taymiyyah withheld from pronouncing this even for the scholars whom hated him most (meaning that he still considered them Muslim), Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab and his students pronounced it on entire towns, and then upon anyone who didn't agree with him on pronouncing takfir. It was the latter which produced the movements we now know today as ISIS and al-Qaeda, not the Hanbali tradition.
Interesting, so instead of being hanbali, the takfiris are antisystemic against the whole madbah system. I wonder what is the place of the hanbali madbah in nowadays Saudi Arabia, being Wahhabism the oficial state ideology.
 
@Averrhoes It should be remembered, Ibn Taymiyyah even if he said Shi’a scholars and establishment are infidels; his view was that one could pray behind, say salaam to and treat Shi’a as Muslim until you hear from them a word that is blasphemy. Thus, a Shi’a says he believes in Allah and Muhammad is His messenger, but says nothing else; he is a Muslim. However, if he then says one of such (as a Shi’a):

-Ali and his descendants are infallible masters of all atoms in the universe

-All the companions aside from 3-5 are infidels

-Ayesha killed Muhammad by the poison

- Say that Ali or an imam is Allah or likened to Allah

If they do not say this, then Ibn Taymiyyah said, treat them as Muslim. For instance, even most Saudi clerics say, that it is not blasphemy for Shi’a to say Ali was more deserving than Abu Bakr, but stop at this point. It is even seen as permitted, yet dangerous, to curse many of the later caliphs of Islam, as many Shi’a indulge. However, if one says items similar to what I mentioned, then all Sunni scholars regardless of school say to dissociate from the person and that they become like the Jew or Christian and one cannot pray behind them certainly. Partly why there may be some more radical views against Shi’a among other schools of fiqh, such as in Egypt, is that many of these schools take less lightly insults to the companions. Even disagreeing with the idea that Abu Bakr was the most worthy person to succeed Muhammad can become blasphemy to some Sufi sects. The case of Hasan Shehata in Egypt is an example, wherein his views against the varied companions led to his being lynched by Sunni Muslims in Egypt, who were ultimately tied to Maliki-Shafi’i madhabs.
 
All Sunni Islamic fiqh agree that the sources of Islamic law are those three things.... The Maiki to do not say that Shari'a is derived via Sassanid era legal customs or Roman legal precedence. This is a clear cut opinion. The issue was, in small scale issues, such as extent to which laws may be enforced upon newly Islamic lands and or what have you. There are also different views on minor matters, but not Hanbali thinker differs from the Hanafi in terms of where Islamic law is derived, and if someone says Islamic law is not derived ultimately via Allah, the Prophet or the companions, this person is either Shi'a/Shurha/Mu'tazila or a person like Qadaffi who disregarded non-Quranical pronouncements.

Mind you, when you say Islamic law, obviously the only source of these are those three points you mentioned. This does not preclude the allowance of other laws and legal codes as supplement, but these are not 'Islamic.' Pashtunwali for instance in Afghanistan, poses as an Islamic code, as it does in Pakistan, where certain pre-Islamic customs reign. And generally, Hanbali jurists mention, that it is permitted to have a legal custom and code that is not Shari'a, such as in Pakistan when a couple marries, the woman often moves into her husband's family home and serves her husband's mother. This custom is not Islamic and is not regulated by our Shar'i code, however it is allowed for the bride to do this duty and in fact jurists agree, that this is a positive if she herself chooses. However, Hanbali jurists say, that when the bride refuses this custom and the couple is Islamic, she may demand her rights legally within Islam to refuse this practice or make a charge against her mother in law, if she is mistreated, even if mistreatment is permitted in the custom of that land.

Regardless, Hanbali fiqh was certainly not near-extinct, it was still very popular among intellectuals such as Ibn Taymiyyah and as such was still a known school that was used locally throughout Syria, Iraq and so forth.The field of Islamic thought was more diverse and widespread than what one can typically derive via reasoning what the rulers followed. Further, there is cross-fertilization, wherein a person may use or refer to differing opinions at the same time and come to this conclusion using a different school's opinion. For instance, when asked by certain people whether Ali ibn Abi Talib sinned when he set fire to a group of people, some jurists take the opinion of another school; Hanbali fiqh says that one cannot burn another person, for this is a quality of Allah, yet some Hanbali jurists take the opinion of the Hanafi school, who says that burning a person as punishment is permissible. Also, as I pointed out, there is nothing radical about Hanbali fiqh, at least not radical compared to other major legal variations of Sunni Islam.

Don't some madhabs accept the customary law of Mecca/Medina as an acceptable source to "fill in the gaps" where the Quran and actions of the prophet do not provide a guide? I also believe that the schools differ on which Hadith are considered reliable, but I am not sure what practical difference that makes.
 
Don't some madhabs accept the customary law of Mecca/Medina as an acceptable source to "fill in the gaps" where the Quran and actions of the prophet do not provide a guide? I also believe that the schools differ on which Hadith are considered reliable, but I am not sure what practical difference that makes.

By customary law, you refer to the local customs and traditions? Almost all forms of Islamic jurisprudence accept the viability of customs in legal contexts and so forth, but they are not necessarily binding if the said custom contradicts or speaks to an issue Islam addresses. Such as the case of Pakistani marriage customs, are permitted, yet the brides do not have to follow these.

Most schools agree on which Hadith are to be utilized. The difference usually arises from scholars who term Hadith by strengths and weaknesses and their chains. This is a massive topic. Needless to say, I would not classify it as major issue in terms of which Hadith some use, only the extent to which they interpret Hadith.
 
@Averrhoes It should be remembered, Ibn Taymiyyah even if he said Shi’a scholars and establishment are infidels; his view was that one could pray behind, say salaam to and treat Shi’a as Muslim until you hear from them a word that is blasphemy. Thus, a Shi’a says he believes in Allah and Muhammad is His messenger, but says nothing else; he is a Muslim. However, if he then says one of such (as a Shi’a):

-Ali and his descendants are infallible masters of all atoms in the universe

-All the companions aside from 3-5 are infidels

-Ayesha killed Muhammad by the poison

- Say that Ali or an imam is Allah or likened to Allah

If they do not say this, then Ibn Taymiyyah said, treat them as Muslim. For instance, even most Saudi clerics say, that it is not blasphemy for Shi’a to say Ali was more deserving than Abu Bakr, but stop at this point. It is even seen as permitted, yet dangerous, to curse many of the later caliphs of Islam, as many Shi’a indulge. However, if one says items similar to what I mentioned, then all Sunni scholars regardless of school say to dissociate from the person and that they become like the Jew or Christian and one cannot pray behind them certainly. Partly why there may be some more radical views against Shi’a among other schools of fiqh, such as in Egypt, is that many of these schools take less lightly insults to the companions. Even disagreeing with the idea that Abu Bakr was the most worthy person to succeed Muhammad can become blasphemy to some Sufi sects. The case of Hasan Shehata in Egypt is an example, wherein his views against the varied companions led to his being lynched by Sunni Muslims in Egypt, who were ultimately tied to Maliki-Shafi’i madhabs.
I searched Hasan Shehata in google and I only finded an egyptian futbol coach but nothing on him getting lynched or saying anything about the companions or religion at all. Are you talking about someone else?
 

aenigma

Banned
True, but the British would most likely treat the two cities like how a mother treats a toy being argued over by two annoying children. "If you can't share it, then neither of you can have it'.

Of course, this would be annoying paternalistic and the Arabs would see it as the West talking down to them like children, but that's the way I see it happening. Though, if Mecca and Medina are in British hands, then Sharif Hussein is less likely to cooperate with the British.

could have given it to the third child who seemed more reasonable, seems to me a oman or ibadi faction uniting arabia would be better then otl
 
I searched Hasan Shehata in google and I only finded an egyptian futbol coach but nothing on him getting lynched or saying anything about the companions or religion at all. Are you talking about someone else?

Try, Hasan Shahata, if not type his full name: Hasan bin Muhammad bin Shehata bin Musa al-Anani. It is also covered in the ‘Abu Musallam incident’ where five Shi’a were mass lynched due to his arrival in a village there.
 
I Just remember ibadi from eu4 and When you Read up on them They seem more reasonable to me
As for those 2 Oman is the only ibadi country arround i believe

And are older then the other 2apearently

Ibadhi are a moderate variety of the old Shurha sect of Islam. Which believes one can make someone a disbeliever for minor sins, believes the Quran is created, believes the caliphate of Uthman and Ali are not legitimate, disbelieves in traditional Islamic modes of governance, believes that individually anyone may rebel against the ruler for minor sins, etc etc etc.

They are quite reclusive today, but their books and works exhibit that they still hold these views generally, at least their scholars. Such beliefs include condoning the assassination of Uthman and Ali and making excuses for past Shurha-Kharijite rebellions. If an Ibadhi state ruled Arabia as you say, there are either two paths; a sectarian Arabia that is worse than today or a fairly ambivalent Ibadhi ruling class that manages to hold its confederation together through non-interference.
 
believes the Quran is created,

So wait, they don't believe the Qur'an is the word of Allah? I thought that was a basic tenant of Islam.

hey are quite reclusive today, but their books and works exhibit that they still hold these views generally, at least their scholars

When you say 'reclusive', do you mean they hide away from society in monasteries or something like that?


Which believes one can make someone a disbeliever for minor sins

What is their definition of a 'minor sin?'
 
Off topic: What was the Madhab of Sunnis in Iran and Azerbaijan before Ismails conversion campaign of Persia?

@John7755 يوحنا you may have a clue

Generally in the middle ages, we may say that the following fiqh were most powerful by region:

Zahiri: Iberia (strongest in eastern Iberia, in places such as modern Portugal) and minority in Syria and Africa.

Maliki: plurality with Zahiri in Iberia, Africa, Sunni eastern Arabia, Islamic Sicily, Islamic Italy, Islamic Mallorica, Morocco, West Africa, everything west of Egypt.

Shafi'i: Egypt, Eastern Africa, Sunni sectors of Yemen, Hijaz, Cyprus, Islamic Crete (plurality with Maliki), etc...

Hanbali: Lower Sunni Iraq, parts of Syria, and minority across the eastern sections of the Islamic world.

Hanafi: Everything east, Iran, Turkic peoples and later via the Turkic people to Anatolia and the wider Ottoman Empire (the Safaviyya clan were Hanafi prior to their conversion to Twelver Shi'ism).

In the Middle ages though, say status quo of 1100, would have seen many areas still outside of this Sunni Islamic realm, including areas in modern Iran (almost always in the northern non-Persian areas).
 
So wait, they don't believe the Qur'an is the word of Allah? I thought that was a basic tenant of Islam.



When you say 'reclusive', do you mean they hide away from society in monasteries or something like that?




What is their definition of a 'minor sin?'


By minor sin, we refer to if a person drinks alcohol or so forth. A major sin is one within Sunni Islam that takes one to hell if they do not repent, this includes but not limited to:

-Cursing God
-Cursing the Prophet Muhammad
-Cursing the companions of the Prophet (you can disagree over some of their issues, as the Zayydi do, but not curse them)
-Cursing other Prophets, such as Jesus, Moses or so forth
-Cursing one of the Holy women of the Quran, such as the Virgin Mary
-Cursing the Quran or anything it speaks about
-Believing that the Quran is created by man and not by Allah (most Twelver scholars, Mu'tazila, Shurha believe this or believed it traditionally)
-Making permissible what God has made forbidden, such as you say it is permissible to drink alcohol. However, this does not mean the action of drinking alcohol is a major sin, if you admit that it is wrong within Islam to do so, and you do so out of weakness or addiction. (you are a Muslim still, but a sinful one if you do the latter, if the former, you become an apostate)
-Saying that God has partners or so forth, even if they are not literal gods, but are likened to God in any respect (especially in power)
-Refusing to condemn what God has condemned

etc...

A minor sin is something that is not contained in this sort of grouping. They are usually actions one takes out of weakness or lack of knowledge. Such as, some Muslim may wear the Christian crucifix as a style symbol or a custom, this is a sin according to Islam, but the person has not left Islam if he does this. If he did so out of custom or out of ignorance in his style, than this is sin but not major. Now, if he lives near other Muslim, and they come to him and say 'brother, remove this cross let me show you wear this is not allowed' and they give him evidences, and he responds with, 'I do not care, it is permitted for me' than this person is said to have committed a major sin. The Shurha were/are more radical, they say that even putting the cross on in ignorance, was a major-mortal sin and if not repented of, sends one to hellfire, Sunni reject this viewpoint. In some ways, the Shurha were puritanical when it came to sins and how we look at them. They hated corruption of any kind and any sort of abuse.

An evidence of this is, there was a man who was from a tribe called the Qurra (who would join Ali ibn abi Talib and became the first tribe that was fully Shurha) who was at a meeting between the Muslim army with the Prophet. There, the booty was being split, and the man mentioned that the splitting of the spoil was not fair as he had contributed more than some other person. The Prophet responded that Allah commands the spoil to be distributed evenly, when to the man from the Qurra responded that 'you, O Muhammad, are an unfair (and corrupt) person,' when he said this, he stormed off. Some of Muhammad's bodyguards pulled their swords and vowed to take his head, Muhammad simply said 'no leave him be.' In other words, the Shurha, like this man from the Qurra, have no issue in even telling a Holy Figure, that they are unjust.


----

Reclusive, I mean that they are not extremely vocal in their views. Historically, the Shurha and Ibadhi practiced a deception practice called Kitman, which is an offensive deception (different from Taqiyyah, which is almost like deceptive defense, that is more impactful than simply avoidance), wherein the idea is that one can actively conceal their beliefs and intentions for the sake of gaining long term benefits or power. In the past, certain Shurha militants utilized this stratagem to create massive rebellions in the Islamic world, such as the Zanj revolt, began through its vanguard group using a combination of Kitman and Taqiyyah to create their rebellion. It is also partly reclusive in that, the Ibadhi are known to be the quietist version of the Shurha, who believe in containing the true Islam to themselves and not indulging in radicalism as their more classically common comrades do.

Shurhism is also known, as I have discussed, to arise in various forms without necessarily being linked to a tradition. In other words, some Shurha acquire their views naturally through interpretation of issues and develop the ideas independently and then discover the sect and learn it this way. In 2016, there was a case, where a dozen soldiers in ISIS were beheaded for being Shurha and having created a conspiracy to take over the leadership and install their version of Islam upon the militant groups controlled regions.

----

The Shurha say one of two points:

1. Allah created the Quran, therefore it is a creation.

- According to all Sunni schools, this is blasphemy. As, what Allah creates is eternal lest He wills it not to be and according to the sayings of Muhammad and other points, the Quran is the eternal words of Allah, not simply a creation as a human book is. Histocially, the Mu'Tazila were the advocates of this idea that the Quran is like a man-made book, simply a truthful one created by Allah and not eternal. To them, making the Quran eternal, is polytheism, however, Sunni assert that the Quran is among the attributes of Allah, aka his words, thus it is eternal, just as Allah's attribute of kindness is eternal.

2. The current Quran is tampered with and is the creation of the unrighteous caliph Uthman ibn Affan and other corrupt scholars of the time. This view, corresponds to the idea that when the Quran was put to paper in full compilation, that the scribes and rulers intentionally removed points and added texts or changed wordings.

-According to Sunni schools, this is blasphemy and is more clear-cut than the previous. This view is found in two flavors, one of the Shurha, who believed that the Umayyad caliphate compiled the Quran and wrote away their sins and used it to empower their own rule. The other flavor, is that of many Shi'a scholars who believe that only Ali ibn Abi Talib possessed the Quran and what we have today, is either not the Quran or an incomplete version; while the final Imam holds the true Quran in its untouched version.
 
Top