( 2 ) : The Emergence of Wahabism in Najd and Its Spread in Egypt. Authored by: Dr. Ahmed Subhy Mansour.Tran
The whole book

The Emergence of Wahabism in Najd and Its Spread in Egypt. 
Authored by: Dr. Ahmed Subhy Mansour.
Translated by: Ahmed Fathy
 This book is the PART TWO of our trilogy titled "A Historical Overview of the Emergence and Development of the Earthly Religions of the Muhammadans". It will be followed by PART THREE about our intellectual jihad against Wahabism in Egypt. We discuss here how Wahabism has emerged in the Arabian Najd region within the Ottoman Era and how it has spread gradually in Egypt during the 20th century.
PART I: The Emergence of Wahabism during the Ottoman Era as an Alternative to the Sunnite Sufism 
CHAPTER I: The Savagery of Wahabism Smashes the Equation in the Last Decades of the Ottoman Era 
CHAPTER II: A Reading within the Book Titled "The Glorious History of Najd" by the Wahabi Historian Othman Ibn Bishr 
PART II: The Third Current Saudi State Has Spread Wahabism in Egypt 
CHAPTER I: The Role of Rasheed Reda: An Overview of the Savagery of Wahabism during the Establishment of the Third Current Saudi State
CHAPTER II: The Role of Hafiz Wahba
CHAPTER III: The Role of Moheb-Eddine Al-Khateeb in Spreading Wahabism in Egypt 
PART III: The Terrorist MB Organization 
CHAPTER I: The Terrorist MB Organization Has been Created by the Wahabism of the Saudi State 
CHAPTER II: The Political Divorce between the Terrorist MB Organization and the Saudi State 
CHAPTER III: The Terrorist MB Organization Applies its Wahabi Sharia Laws within the Liberal Epoch of Egypt
CHAPTER IV: The Wahabism/Salafism in Egypt 
1- This BOOK is PART TWO of another book titled "A Historical Overview of the Emergence and Development of the Earthly Religions of the Muhammadans: PART ONE: From the Pre-Umayyad Caliphs to the Ottomans ", found in English on this link: (http://www.ahl-alquran.com/arabic/book_main.php?main_id=107). It will be followed by another book which will form PART THREE about our intellectual jihad against Wahabism in Egypt. This BOOK which you are reading now is about what we see in our era of degeneration and moral bankruptcy: the worst of all religions of the Muhammadans; i.e., the Sunnite religion of Satan, has re-emerged and returned with a vengeance in its Wahabi version of extremism and fanaticism; Wahabism combines between disbelief in terms of faith (because of its polytheism) and disbelief in terms of behavior (because of its urging aggression, terrorism, violence, intimidation,  and committing massacres). It is a shame that this blood-thirsty Wahabi Sunnite religion still exists in the era of democracy and human rights. 
2- The Sunnite religion is the worst one among the earthly/terrestrial, man-made religions of the Muhammadans, because of its violence and compulsion in religion. In contrast, the Sufi religion contains more quantities of myths in comparison with the Sunnite religion; this means that Sufism is worse in terms of polytheism and of disbelief in terms of faith, but Sufism urges peaceful behavior and non-violence; the Sufi religion makes ample room for human freedom, and Sufis in general never practice coercion/compulsion in religion at all. This means that Sufis adopt peaceful behavior with all Sufi and non-Sufi people. The Sufi faith tenets are polytheistic of course (like the Sunnite and Shiite ones); the Shiites do not resort to violence because they adhere to overt peaceful behavior especially to avoid being persecuted by the Sunnites (who are the majority of the Muhammadans, whereas Shiites are a minority). Yet, the Shiites become as violent as the Sunnites once they reach power in any country; they sometimes compete with the Wahabi Sunnites in violence, savagery, tyranny, and authoritarianism. The Shiites managed on very rare occasions in history to create caliphates, and this is why the Shiite religion is apparently less dangerous or harmful when compared with the Sunnite religion, which combines between disbelief in terms of faith (i.e., polytheism) and disbelief in terms of violent, aggressive behavior. The Sunnite polytheism is manifested in the belief in the Taghut/tyranny (or devilish revelations) of books of narratives, fiqh (i.e., religious jurisprudence), exegeses or interpretation, and hadiths ascribed falsely and forcibly to God's Religion and to Muhammad; it is as if such lies and falsehoods were part of the Divine, Celestial Revelation; it is as if the Sunnite sharia laws of Satan authored by countless authors and fiqh scholars in several eras were part of Islam. The Sunnite scholars call such man-made sharia as God's revered and honored sharia! Nothing could be further from the truth. The Only True sharia legislations of God's Religion are found exclusively in the Quranic text. The Sunnites consider their Sunna hadiths and fiqh views/edicts/fatwas as above the Quran; i.e., they replace and supplant or annul and nullify the Quranic verses that contain God's sharia legislations. The Sunnite scholars have their own countless books of the so-called branches of 'Quranic' sciences or branches of 'knowledge' and 'study'; such books undermine and contradict the Quranic verses, and we have proved this in our previous writings. The Sunnites deify, venerate, and sanctify tens of thousands of mortals: Muhammad, his contemporaries (or the so-called companions), all prophets/messengers, authors of Sunnite books, imams/sheikhs of fiqh and hadiths, etc. Hence, if one would undermine and refute Al-Bokhary-book hadiths using the Quran, the Sunnites who worship the Persian author named Al-Bokhary would declare one as an apostate/infidel and this means one might get killed or incarcerated and forced to divorce his wife! This disbelief in terms of faith (by sanctifying mortals and their books) leads to the disbelief in terms of aggressive, violent behavior as Sunnites practice compulsion in religion against free thinkers and they may murder those 'heretics' who dare to use their minds to refuse books of ancient notions and traditions. This means the Sunnites would readily issue fatwas (i.e., religious edicts or views) to authorize the murder of those Sunnites who adopt views deemed as heretic, those Quranists who refuse to believe in Sunna hadiths and all types of hadiths/narratives besides the Quran, those Shiites/Sufis who have different faith tenets, and those who reject the Sunnite religion to embrace any other religion or atheism. The Sunnites divide the whole world into two camps or territories: the territory of peace and that of war. The territory of peace is where Sunnites live anywhere in the world and form a Sunnite community/society. The territory of war means any non-Sunnite areas that contain 'infidels' and 'disbelievers' who must be fought and invaded in order to be forced to convert to the Sunnite religion! This means that the dangerous Sunnite faith tenets consider the non-Sunnite world (especially Jews and Christians) as the enemies that should be fought, robbed, invaded, murdered, etc. continuously worldwide until the end of days!        
3- Because of certain social and political circumstances in history (tackled in detail within our previous writings on Sufism), the Sufi religion spread among the masses of the Muhammadans and it never posed any threat to the rulers/caliphs at all. This led later on to deliberate and successful endeavors to mix the (supposedly moderate) Sunnite notions with the Sufi ones; this resulted in the hybrid religion known as Sunnite Sufism, which has emerged and dominated for several centuries among the vast majority of the Muhammadans in Egypt and elsewhere. This religion known as Sunnite Sufism (a.k.a. the Sufi-Sunnite religion) has raised the motto/banner of combining the "Sharia" and the "Truth". Both terms have no link whatsoever to the Quran, of course. The term "Sharia" here means to adhere to Sunnite fiqh regarding acts of worship, as for the so-called "Truth", this Sufi term refers to Sufi tenets (of theoretical Sufism) such as God's manifestation in human beings and in other creatures, the unity of existence (i.e., universe is God or part of God, or pantheism), and union or communion with God (i.e., contacting Him in visions, holding conversations with Him, or one's soul being part of Him or reaching Him in the Upper Realm of Heaven). It is noteworthy that theoretical Sufism is a type of philosophy which was confined to few men/authors; the masses never thought of it as nobody cared about theoretical Sufism when the masses gradually converted to Sunnite Sufism in throngs and in multitudes. Thus, theoretical Sufism dwindled gradually and was no longer of any interest to anyone; it fell into disuse, and instead of it, the masses deified, sanctified, revered, and worshiped at mausoleums attributed to the so-called companions, the followers of these companions in later generations, the descendants of the household members of Muhammad and Ali, imams/clergymen and authors of Sunnite/Sufi books, and male and female Sufi saints. Of course, Sufi Sunnites venerated and worshiped living saints or Sufi imams/sheikhs of the Sufi orders and celebrated their birthdays in Sufi festivals of eating and dancing, just as the case with dead, entombed saints. Thus, Sunnite Sufism combined performing the five daily prayers (and other acts of worship) and the worship of mausoleums and the supplications addressed to the so-called saints who were supposedly buried in such mausoleums.        
4- This dominance of Sunnite Sufism continued for centuries and this appealed very much to both the rulers/caliphs/sultans and the masses/subjects. The Hanbali tenet of (changing vice by force) died out, though the Hanbali scholars have fabricated a hadith (ascribed falsely to Muhammad) about it; i.e., to change what is deemed as wrong or sinful using one's hand (i.e., by resorting to aggression and violence). The Hanbali extremist, fanatic scholars and imams at one point in time dominated through the streets of major cities and controlled the masses using this cursed hadith of Satan and they threatened rulers/caliphs to obey them by virtue of this hadith, as such fanatics posed as more religious people than rulers. In contrast, the imams of Sunnite Sufism established an alternative: the principle of non-protest and non-denial. This Sufi principle means that anyone is allowed to say/do anything they like and to commit sins and that those who would dare to protest against anything in life would be distanced from the Sufi group of 'true' believers. This Sufi principle appealed very much to the rulers/sultans as well as to the naïve, gullible masses who applied it within Sufi festivals, feasts, and celebrations. This Sufi principle urged, then, total submission to the will of rulers/sultans and to never protest against the injustices they typically committed and to submit to the fact that caliphs (and their men of authority) have the 'right' to monopolize killing anyone without being questioned at all. Thus, the ruled subjects who believed in Sunnite Sufism acknowledged and endorsed the myth that grave injustices, crimes, and sins perpetrated by rulers are typical part of fate and of religion!              
5- Sunnite Sufism dominated throughout the Mameluke and the Ottoman eras, but within the last decades of the Ottoman Era, Wahabism has emerged; it has been established by M. Ibn Abdul-Wahab who was greatly influenced by the ideas of the Sunnite Hanbali extremist/fanatic scholar Ibn Taymiyya (who hated, and was persecuted by, the Sufis of his era). Ibn Abdul-Wahab preached the religion of Sunnite Hanbalism, and he was persecuted like his role-model Ibn Taymiyya, but to a lesser extent. Later on, Ibn Abdul-Wahab made a pact of alliance with a less-known prince in the Najd region of Arabia; namely, M. Ibn Saud, in a little town of no consequence named Al-Dariyya, in 1745 A.D. Within such pact, Ibn Abdul-Wahab would issue fatwas to declare others as infidels/apostates who deserve to be put to a violent death (as per fatwas of Ibn Taymiyya), and this would allow Ibn Saud and his troops to fight and massacre them to invade their regions. This made Al-Dariyya a strong emirate and the capital of Najd, the region that formed the very first Saudi State, and its religion was the worst type/doctrine of blood-thirsty, violent, authoritarian Sunnite religion: Wahabism.          
6- The danger of this cursed Wahabi religion lies in the fact that it magnifies and amplifies the extremism of the Sunnite Hanbali religion tenfold. Historically, when the Hanbali extremists and scholars controlled the streets of Baghdad, the capital of the Abbasids, for more than a century during the Second Abbasid Era, the number of their murdered and injured victims never reached 1/100 of the number of the murdered and injured victims of Wahabism; Wahabis are more blood-thirsty and more brutal and savage. Besides, the crimes of Hanbali extremists and their followers were typical and common within the dark Middle-Ages, the era of tyranny, violence, brutality, corruption, obscurantism, civil strife, religious wars, and inquisition. The Wahabis of the modern era have committed the same hateful crimes, multiplied tenfold as we have mentioned, and their victims worldwide until now are millions of people, though we are now in the age of human rights, democracy, and freedom. Despite the terrible terrorism of Hanbalism, Hanbali extremists never claimed that they may represent or monopolize Islam or even the Sunnite religion; they never claimed to represent God on earth; the other Sunnite doctrines (i.e., Al-Shafei, Al-Maliki, and Al-Hanafiyya) continued to thrive and they competed with the Hanbali one. The Al-Shafei doctrine dominated several regions of the Arab empire at the same time and Al-Maliki within some other regions. In contrast, Wahabism in our modern era claims to speak, exclusively, in the name of God and in the name of Islam and its so-called Umma/nation; Wahabis claim they monopolize and own 'Islam'. This means that Islam now is being victimized and wronged by the unjust, tyrannical Wahabis; sadly, most people ascribe the atrocities of Wahabis to the name of Islam, and another crime is that the Wahabi terrorists are given the wrong appellation of 'Islamists' in the media worldwide. As a Quranist thinker, we see that it is very hard to convince people in the West or in the Arab world that such terrorists and their movements never represent Islam. In fact, haters of the Quran quote atrocities and heinous crimes of Wahabis to tarnish the image of Islam, and when a Quranist reformist thinker of our caliber refutes and negates the view that Wahabism might pertain to Islam, haters of the Quran would tell us that Quranists are deemed as an unknown and unrecognized minority with no heard voice at all within the Arab world and the West countries; they would tell us that Quranists are nobodies.         
7- This horrible state of affairs has come to pass because of two factors: Wahabism had its State, whereas Hanbali extremists had no State of their own; in fact, two Wahabi-ideology Saudi states were established and then collapsed. The third, current Wahabi State, the KSA, is still there, posing as a veritable danger that threatens all nations worldwide. No one before our person ever tried to question and undermine the Wahabi ideology and to prove the fact that it contradicts Islam (i.e., the Quran). Wahabism still monopolizes the name of Islam, manipulated by Wahabis to 'justify' their massacres and evil deeds; Wahabism is still spreading everywhere while posing as if it were representing the Islamic sharia! When we have stood against Wahabism within our writings, it has already reached its zenith of expansion and spread inside the KSA and within other countries where Wahabism is the dominant religion now. Wahabism spread by the help of Saudi oil revenues, or the petrodollars, and also by using the Saudi heavy influence in the West countries and in the Arab world; thus, a gigantic media machine has propagated Wahabism worldwide among the Muhammadans, and Saudi money and influence have made the governments of many countries impose media blackout and penalties on those who desire to be outspoken within criticizing Wahabism. This is why when we have authored articles and books to undermine Wahabism using the Quran itself, the Saudi regime urged the Egyptian regime of Mubarak at the time in 1987 to incarcerate our person and to do its best so that we remain jobless; media blackout was imposed on our person and on our writings later on.        
8- Wahabism has changed the equation formulated by Sunnite Sufism for centuries from the Second Abbasid Era to the last decades of the Ottoman Era; this equation was as follows: to allow the masses the freedom to commit immoralities and to lead a promiscuous lifestyle in return for allowing the rulers the freedom to commit injustices, atrocities, acts of torture, killings, thefts, and as many violations as they like as part of the 'divine right' of kings. The new equation introduced by Wahabism is formulated based on the two notions of (1) changing vice by force and (2) declaring others as infidels/apostates or heretics, and both notions are derived from the Sunnite Hanbali sharia laws of Satan, its devilish hadiths/narratives, its illogical fiqh, and its erroneous fatwas. The notion of changing vice by force gives Wahabis the 'right' to interfere in the freedoms/liberties of individuals and to 'reform' people by force if necessary as per what is deemed 'fit' and 'true' by the Wahabi rules and tenets. The notion of declaring others as infidels/apostates gives the Wahabis the 'right' to murder and kill those deemed by them as infidels/apostates or disbelieving heretics and to enslave their children and women after appropriating and stealing their money/possessions/property. Hence, the Wahabi religion of Satan is all about might, power, and authority of rulers and their cronies and men who impose their control over the masses or subjects. Even opposition figures or foes and enemies of Wahabi rulers use the same Wahabi notions to rebel and/or fight against them and they consider such Wahabi rulers as vice that must be removed/changed by force. Hence, Wahabism is a devilish tool of total control/submission used by those who monopolize might and power or by those who seek to ascend to the throne and to impose their ideas on others. This means that Wahabism inevitably leads to the epidemic of bloodshed and bloodbaths inside and outside any given Wahabi country or State in the name of 'Islam'; i.e., while shouting Allahu Akbar! or (God is the Greatest!) while assuming they are doing the 'best' and most 'religious' deeds ever! Wahabism allows both the Wahabi rulers and their rivals/enemies to commit massacres, to declare others as infidels, and to seek to change anything they dislike by force. Hence, both rulers and rivals in the Wahabi State compete in evildoing, massacring others, and committing atrocities and grave injustices. Secular or non-religious murderers might repent one day and feel the pangs of conscience; in contrast, the Wahabi murderers commit cold-blooded murders and massacres while assuming that as if their heinous crimes were 'pious' acts of worship that would be rewarded in Paradise where they would enjoy incessant sex with houris waiting for them!                          
PART I: The Emergence of Wahabism during the Ottoman Era as an Alternative to the Sunnite Sufism 
CHAPTER I: The Savagery of Wahabism Smashes the Equation in the Last Decades of the Ottoman Era
Problem No. One: the change of the equation: 
 How and why was the equation changed from total submission to the savagery of theocratic rulers to savagery of both the rulers and the subjects in the name of religion? We try in this CHAPTER to discuss this topic; the first question raised here is as follows: why did the Mameluke sultans monopolized committing grave injustices and heinous crimes and killings in the name of 'divine right' of kings as per the Sunnite Sufi religion?
 The Sunnite Sufism that dominated the Mameluke Era introduced new social norms/values which were deemed as part of religion; such norms included the Sufi principle of non-protest and non-denial. This led inevitably to total submission in silence to the cruelty, tyranny, injustice, and whims of rulers in general and to deem their heinous crimes committed against the subjects and ordinary people as part of 'divine' penalties inflicted on them (by God!) to expiate their sins. Hence, rulers/sultans practiced their grave injustices as part of religion or within quasi-religious justifications, as per the religious tenets/notions that dominated for centuries. We provide some more details in the points below.
The Sufi principle of non-protest and non-denial: 
1- To advise about goodness (i.e., good deeds) and to advise against vice (i.e., sins or evil deeds) is among the principal Quranic values; this mission is undertaken by all members within any given Islamic society or Quran-based country. Real Muslims offer written or verbal pieces of advice to one another about adhering to patience and to what is right and part of the Truth. This is not the mission or job of a specific group of people who intimidate others (such as the tyrannical, terrible religious police inside the KSA). Such pieces of advice are offered without inquisition, watching others within surveillance, or compulsion in religion. Even in the case when stubborn ones insist on never accepting or taking heed of the pieces of advice, God says the following in the Quran: "O you who believe! You are responsible for your own souls. He who has strayed cannot harm you if you are guided. To God is you return, all of you, and He will inform you of what you used to do." (5:105). Anyway, one is to disown and to verbally protest against the bad deeds and not to disown the persons themselves; God has said the following to Muhammad: "And warn your close relatives. And lower your wing to those of the believers who follow you. And if they disobey  you, say, "I am innocent of what you do."" (26:214-126).
2- The extremist Wahabi Hanbali Sunnites have misunderstood and misapplied the Quranic command to enjoin good deeds and to advise against bad deeds; they have assumed the 'right' to act as inquisitors who control, watch, and dominate others in order to change vice or evil deeds by sheer force; thus, they have practiced compulsion in religion, which is a grave sin as per the Quran itself. Hence, the extremist Sunnites of today, especially Wahabis, eagerly kill those who disobey them or act in ways that violate their rules and tenets, after deeming the victims as infidels/apostates who deserve to die; many Wahabi Hanbali Sunnite fatwas and hadiths have been fabricated to support such a wrong stance. This is the exact opposite of the Sufi principle of non-protest and non-denial that urged passivity and submission to powers of evil, as if this were part of accepting fates preordained by God, and to never to speak against sinners and their sins of immoral behavior and promiscuity and the Sufi sinful notions about oneness or unity with God or communicating with Him or deifying mortals; i.e., Sufi saints. Yet, many followers and authors within Sunnite Sufism protested verbally or in written words against Sufi extremists among those who claim that God is manifested in their souls/bodies and those who committed promiscuity in public or in excessive ways which were deemed as flagrant or caused harm to others. We have discussed this topic in detail within our book titled "The Religious Life in Egypt during the Mameluke Era between Islam and Sufism". We discuss below the Sufi principle of non-protest and non-denial which was made to spread during the Mameluke Era in Egypt.   
Words of Sufi authors, sheikhs, imams, and leaders about the Sufi principle of non-protest and non-denial: 
  The Sufi authors, sheikhs, imams, and leaders urged the Sufi followers/masses to adhere all their lives to the principle of non-protest and non-denial and to accept any status quo or fait accompli as part of fates imposed by God. This applied to rulers and their evil deeds and also to sinners among the masses or sheikhs within their immoral or promiscuous behavior; one was not allowed to question them or to protest against any of their deeds, not even by mere words to express one's opinions. This included never to protest against the People of the Book (i.e., Jews and Christians) regarding their faith tenets and religious practices. We provide some details in the points below.
1- The Sufi disciples are never to disobey or protest against commands of their Sufi sheikhs/masters; those who join Sufi orders phrased this proverb: (Protesters will get expelled from the Order) [1]. Al-Shaarany, the Sufi sheikh/author, advised disciples to submit totally to their Sufi sheikhs/saints and to believe in them and never to disobey them or to protest against what they say about religion, the universe, and everything [2]. The Sufi author Abou Ali Al-Daqaq considers that those who protest against their Sufi masters after joining a Sufi order have torn the covenant of companionship [3]. The Sufi sheikh and author Al-Dashtouty considers those Sufi disciples who protest a lot as away from the presence of God [4]. Hence, the descriptions or traits of true Sufi disciples include never to protest against words/stances/deeds of their Sufi sheikhs, by night or by day, verbally or nonverbally, in secret or in public, and within both the presence and absence of their sheikhs [5].   
2- Some older Sufi disciples urged novices to never deny or protest against words/deeds of Sufi masters/saints/sheikhs and warned them against being cursed by God for it, as mentioned by Al-Khawwas [6] who also told his disciples never to protest against deeds/words of Sufi madmen in their Sufi trances so that God would not curse and destroy those protesters because He hates them [7]. Abou Othman mentions that God curses those who protest against Sufi sheikhs and this is a basic tenet for all Sufis in their orders. Al-Shazily warns those who reject Sufi saints and their deeds by telling his readers that God will never make such protesters as successful in this world and the next; he even claims that he saw Prophet Muhammad in a dream/vision, telling him that he swore by God's glory and majesty that those who reject deeds and words of Sufi saints will die as disbelievers, polytheists, Jews, Mages, or Christians, and never as real Muslims [8].   
3- In his writings, Al-Shaarany makes himself as a role-model or an example for others; he brags of his over-politeness and his reverence for those who wore the Sufi garb of poverty and his fear lest his deeds/words would incur their anger and this might nullify his many good deeds (which are as huge as mountains!); he urged readers of his writings to revere and sanctify Sufi sheikhs/saints and to respect their deeds and conditions [9]. Thus, Al-Shaarany, as an extremist Sufi author, makes protesting against words/deeds of Sufi saints a grave sin equal to polytheism which nullifies good deeds of a person; such a notion aimed, of course, at protecting Sufi saints against being persecuted or misunderstood by the masses and by rulers.    
4- This was linked to the call for imitating and following the footsteps of Sufi saints and for considering questioning or discussion of their deeds/words (by their disciples) as a grave sin; this is the act of deifying Sufi saints; Al-Shaarany writes that those disciples who utter the word "why" to their Sufi sheikhs are insulting God Himself [10]. This Sufi religious tradition is maintained by all Sufi disciples with their sheikhs/saints; Al-Shaarany assumes that this tradition is a core one within the pillars of Sufism [11], and if this was the case of disciples, what about the others among the masses? Indeed, Al-Shaarany assumes that all dreams/visions and miracles which are ascribed to Sufi saints must be believed by all people even if one's mind would not believe what the ears heard or what the eyes read; one must follow the wisdom of the heart in that case [12].     
5- Ibn Al-Hajj, in the 8th century A.H., was a Sunnite scholar of fiqh who protested against the practices of the masses who imitated Sufi sheikhs and applied Sufi traditions blindly and this led them to reject Sunnite traditions and methods; when he would ask the Sufi people to provide proofs that their practices are part of 'Islam', they merely said to him that they imitate their forefathers who revered Sufi orders and saints and their traditions and methods [13]. Al-Shaarany in the 10th century A.H. mentions in his writings that imitation of Sufi traditions without questioning them became the norm or the dominant Sunna/way/method among all people who feared that God would punish them if they stopped any inherited Sufi practices [14]. Thus, Al-Shaarany in his writings deems protest as a grave sin that should frighten the sinners/protesters lest they might incur the divine wrath. Sufism was at the time the dominant religion and the non-Sufi Sunnite scholars became a minority who are too much afraid to protest so as not to lose their popularity and/or authority among the masses and so as not to incur the ire of sultans who favored the fluidity of Sufism over the rigidity of Sunnite tenets. Al-Shaarany employed decontextualized Sunnite fiqh terms to defend Sufism against those few Sunnite fiqh scholars who protested outspokenly against Sufi traditions.    
6- Sufi authors used a form of psychological war to threaten those who deny miracles of Sufi saints/sheikhs; they made use of the belief of the populace and the masses in such accounts of miracles to make the ordinary people hate Sunnite scholars and never to listen to them. Sufi authors urged Mameluke sultans to remove from high-rank posts, incarcerate, torture, or put to death those Sunnite sheikhs or scholars who protested against Sufi traditions and practices. Sufi authors made use of the death or severe ailment of any Sunnite scholars to tell the masses that this was God's wrath that has befallen such men for denying and protesting against Sufism! Many stories of this nature filled the hagiology and narratives of miracles authored by many Sufi writers [15]. For instance, we have a funny story of a man who used to vilify and insult Ibn Al-Fared the Sufi poet/author; when this man died on this way to Mecca to perform pilgrimage (something normal at the time and happened more often than not), Sufi sheikhs told their masses that God caused his sudden, premature death as a punishment for his attacking and verbally abusing Ibn Al-Fared [16]. Al-Shazily, in his writings, warns those who protest against conditions/deeds of Sufis that they would figuratively die three times: of humiliation, of poverty, and of neediness, before their physical death which will be a violent one without mercy [17]. Such a myth invented by Al-Shazily reflects his fury against those who protested against his self-deification. Al-Shaarany writes that he saw examples of those who mocked, ridiculed, slandered, and verbally abused Sufi saints and how they suffered a violent death after leading a life of disobedience, as they were never good people (i.e., non-Sufis, as per Al-Shaarany).   
7- The call for non-protest and non-denial developed and included ordinary Sufi masses/disciples and even non-Sufis, even if they are sinners, lest they might be hidden saints, as per Al-Shaarany who bragged of never protesting against sins committed by anyone so as not to insult or to belittle the Divine Will! This relates to the Sufi tenet of the unity of doer of action; i.e., as if God makes/allows sinners to commit sins as part of His Divine Will! Thus, the Sufis make God the source of sinning and not the sinners! This is very blasphemous and insulting to God; He is Exalted and High above their blasphemous descriptions.  
8- The call for non-protest and non-denial developed and included Jews and Christians lest the protesters would be deemed by God as 'infidels' like Jews and Christians for a certain periods (days, months, or years!) until they repent, weep, and atone for the sin of protest and return to the Sufi faith, as per the author Ahmad Al-Zahed who wrote stories of such repentant ones. 
9- The call for non-protest and non-denial developed and included promiscuous Sufi fornicators and homosexuals (both who play the 'passive' role and the 'active' one); Sufi authors urged their followers never to protest against those men who physically and spiritually 'love' adolescent, hairless youths and spent time in private with them. Al-Shaarany, in his writings, warns his readers against protesting against young men who play the role of women when they have sex with older Sufi men or sheikhs lest God would make the mockers' bodies have the same type of lust/desire. Of course, the non-protest and non-denial principle included non-Sufis NOT for the sake equality among human brethren; rather, this aimed at protecting sheikhs of the Sufi orders from any sort of criticism regarding their  promiscuity and strange habits and deeds/words; many heads of the Sufi orders of Ahmadiyya, Ibrahimiyya, Al-Disoukiyya, Al-Mataawa, and Al-Qalandariyya were practicing homosexuals. Al-Shaarany who desired to set a 'good' example of himself to his disciples writes about himself that he once protested against the homosexual debaucheries of Al-Qalandariyya Sufis, but he saw, inside a mosque, one Sufi man who belonged to that order staying aloft in the air near the roof, who rebuked him for mocking Al-Qalandariyya order; this made Al-Shaarany give up protest ever since. An old man named Ahmad Maalouf had very corrupt sons who were impious; this was deemed as the revenge exacted by the Sufi saint Al-Sayed Al-Badawi (whose revered mausoleum and mosque are located in the city of Tanta, Egypt) for their denying his sainthood and mocking the Sufi disciples and masters of his order [18]. Al-Khawwas was more frank in his urging Sufi disciples to never undermine or ridicule those who never performed miracles lest they might be hidden saints [19]. Al-Khawwas urged Sufi disciples never to protest against Sufi saints/sheikhs who received money from the tyrannical rulers and unjust affluent ones [20].   
10- Of course, the Sunnite Hanbali scholars hated Sufis and Sufism and protested against deeds and notions of their contemporary Sufi sheikhs; for instance, Ibn Taymiyya, in his writings, deplores the fact that Sufi masses and disciples tolerated the immorality and promiscuity of their Sufi sheikhs/saints; Ibn Taymiyya asserts that those Sufi sheikhs and heads of orders rejected the daily prayers and consumed ill-gotten money and prohibited food items; they committed many acts of debauchery in public and in private and committed many injustices against people, including murder; some of them even shamelessly proclaimed in public and in their books their polytheism and self-deification [21].
11- Based on the above points, we cast doubt on the seriousness or earnestness of Sufi saints/authors who urge removing vice only by rejecting it inside their hearts with all their sentiments in silence and invoking God to remove it, as this method is typical of those saints who are nearer to God as per Sufi tenets [22]. This notion is asserted by the Sufi author/saint Al-Matbouli in his writings; he writes that changing vice by force or by hand is the method of rulers and governors, whereas the method of using one's tongue to protest against vice is typical of fiqh scholars; in contrast, Sufis who deem themselves as nearer to God have their own method: to protest only in silence inside their hearts [23]. This alleged 'protest' inside one's heart – if it existed indeed! – does not match the stature, power, influence, and authority of Sufi sheikhs/saints during that era; they used to control the masses and the obsequious disciples. This means that the Sufi saints/sheikhs have invented such a silly, illogical idea to stop Sufis and non-Sufis alike (especially Sunnite Hanbali scholars) from protesting against the sins and promiscuous lifestyle of heads of Sufi orders; for example, Al-Shazily insists in his book that if disciples desire to protest against deeds of their Sufi sheikhs, they should do this silently within their hearts only [24]; Al-Shazily insists that it is better for pious disciples never to desire (or act) to change vice/sin at all during their lifetimes [25].
12- Many Sufi saints/sheikhs used the device of dreams/visions (honored and revered very much by the gullible, naïve Sufi disciples) to urge people not to protest against vice and never to seek to change or remove sin. For example, the Sufi author Ibn Ali Wafa writes that when he was about to protest against an act of disobedience of a sinner, he heard a voice of the sky telling him that the One Who created this sinner is watching him and he is to leave him alone. As for his father, the Sufi author Ali Wafa, he considered those who try to change vice as sinners who protest against fates and decrees imposed by God [26]. This erroneous notion matches the Sufi tenets of the unity of doer of action; i.e., the will of God and the will of the humankind is one; hence, sinners and pious ones are both achieving the Divine Will and preordained fates! Some of the heads of Sufi orders used their power and authority to protect vice; for instance, the Sufi saint/sheikh Madeen was discovered as a drunkard who drank too much wine when one of his disciples (out of hatred towards this prohibited beverage) broke a jar of wine he found hidden inside the house of Madeen; this drunkard Sufi sheikh expelled this disciple out of the Sufi order and out of his Sufi mosque for good [27].   
13- The abovementioned endeavors of Sufis bore its fruits at last; non-Egyptian travelers who passed by Cairo, Egypt, wrote in their books about their astonishment regarding the dominant freedom within the Mameluke Era; for instance, the traveler Ibn Dhahira wrote that the Egyptians never protested against anything they see in the streets; disobedient sinners and promiscuous people are busy with their sins in public and in private and pious Sufis are busy with their festivals and acts of worship at mausoleums; at the same time, Sunnite scholars were busy preaching people inside mosques; no one ever blamed or rebuked anyone [28]. Ibn Khaldoun in his writings expressed his being astounded by the same conditions of Egyptians when he visited Cairo. Al-Makrizi, the historian, writes about Egyptians at the time while asserting that the Sufi masses committed sexual acts and indulged into many debaucheries shamelessly in public while never caring about the fact that sins and promiscuity provokes the fury of God; even Ibn Khaldoun, the teacher/tutor of Al-Makrizi, told him he deplored this wretched state of affairs; it is as if all Egyptian promiscuous people had written guarantees to enter into Paradise however sinful they might be! What sort of Sufi promise of Paradise did they ever receive?! And from which 'saints'?! It is as if they believed that they will not be judged on the Last Day like the rest of humanity! Al-Makrizi writes further that Sufis can find cheap food and bread; they seldom spend money as the masses donate food items to them regularly. Many parks and gardens were found near all markets, overlooking both banks of the River Nile, and men there indulged in dancing to loud music, smoking hash, drinking wine, fornicating with lewd women, having sex with hairless male youths, etc. shamelessly in public and no one ever protested at all, even when prostitutes wore revealing clothes or when drunkards dance and mingle with women or even when excessive drinking would lead to murder; this was strange and never to be found in other Arab countries at the time [29]. This passage entails no comment on our part, of course.
Submission, lethargy, poverty, misery, and humbleness:
1- Sufism of the Mameluke Era led the masses to accept total submission to rulers and to Sufi saints/sheikhs; Sufi masses and disciples took pride in their poverty and their constant need for others for their sustenance, as they were lethargic and too lazy to work to earn their living; they had to show humbleness and misery most of the time; Sufi authors in their books repeated this fake hadith/supplication ascribed falsely to Muhammad: (Please God! Make me live, die, and be resurrected only among the humiliated poor ones!).   
2- The real source of happiness and glory for real Muslims is in obeying Quranic commands of the Lord God and to believe in Him as the Only One and True Lord without adherence to any saints/deities/partners/associates/gods. True monotheists never humiliate themselves before others; they humiliate themselves only before their Lord God within humbleness and reverence; true believers are never proud and never look down upon others; rather, they treat their fellow human beings as equals and they vie for performing good deed within piety, seeking only to please and gratify the Dominant Lord God. Besides, Islam is the religion of open-mindedness; no real believers imitate anyone blindly or live within sloth as a dependent on others for food or sustenance; real believers are doers of good deeds within piety. God in the Quran makes humiliation linked to those who incurred His wrath among the disobedient sinners among the People of the Book: "...They were struck with humiliation and poverty, and incurred wrath from God..." (2:61) "They shall be humiliated wherever they are encountered, except through a rope from God, and a rope from the people; and they incurred wrath from God, and were stricken with misery..." (3:112). In contrast, glory is linked to real monotheists, and never to hypocrites: "...But glory belongs to God, and His Messenger, and the believers; but the hypocrites do not know." (63:8). To believe in the Lord God within monotheism means that one is a slave/servant of God only and NOT enslaved to mortals; i.e., other human beings; this is the source of glory and dignity in Islam. In contrast, the polytheism consisting of sanctifying/deifying things and mortals humiliates the Muhammadans who adhere to earthly/terrestrial religions of Satan. This humiliation within their Sufi religion led to humiliation and misery within the social level and social mores; thus, those who knelt before Sufi saints/sheikhs and clergymen will feel no qualms at all to prostrate to rulers and tyrants without protest. This wretched state of affairs dominated during the Mameluke Era.
3- Al-Shaarany has been the biggest preacher who has urged the masses to be content and satisfied with, and submissive to, the Mameluke severe injustice; typically, Al-Shaarany is the exemplary representative of the religion of Mameluke Sufism in his writings; he mixes between the call for being passively submissive to the unjust rulers and to non-protest regarding all deeds/stances of others within  lethargy and indifference; he employs illogicality, severe warning, and intimidation in his call; for example, he writes that the way of deliverance for all disciples is never to protest against all good and bad occurrences of life and to serve and pardon those who wrong them and that this is never forbidden in religion, as being submissive and weak are the typical traits of all true Sufis; otherwise, they will be expelled from the Sufi orders and be prevented from divine 'communion'; hunger to him along with peace of mind is better than satiation along with strife and struggle; hence, blind obedience to rulers and their men is expected to ward off evil and harm and any sort of distractions that may hinder Sufi practices [30]. Al-Shaarany asserts his stance of passivity by quoting the view of Al-Khawwas who praised slaves who enjoy being humble and submissive to their  masters and disapproved of slaves who seek their freedom by working and paying their masters installments of money to be released from bondage; Al-Khawwas assumed that those seeking freedom will be enslaved to carnal lusts and appetites, while slaves who accept bondage will be fed and clothed in their master's house and will be free from seeking livelihood and devote their lives to the Sufi ways of life [31].      
4- Before Al-Shaarany, it has been a Sufi notion established long ago that the sign of true Sufis is to bear with harm (i.e., verbal abuse and insults) within passivity and non-protest in order to seek peace of mind leading to Sufi trances and conditions, etc. Ibn Al-Haj Al-Maghraby in his writings remarks that Sufi orders accepted novices only if they pass this test: once they enter into the Sufi mosque, they are verbally abused and insulted very much for a long time; if the novices kept their silence and bore with it patiently and passively, they were accepted as ready to be true Sufi disciples who can join any of the Sufi orders [32].  
5- It is natural that such a call for passivity and dependence would include a call for laziness and lethargy; for instance, the Sufi author Ibn Ataa repeats in his writings this piece of advice to Sufi disciples: (bury your being into the cemetery of lethargy) [33]. Likewise, Al-Shaarany in his writings praises laziness and lethargy and ascribed them to 'Islam' (or rather, to Sunnite Sufism), as he assumes that the best traits of the 'holy' forefathers and 'good' ancestors include their preferring security and peace of mind to struggle for spoils and gains, poverty to riches, comfort to work, etc. in order to seek to 'please' God by devoting their lifetimes to Sufi acts of worship [34]. Of course, Al-Shaarany does NOT mean by referring to 'good' ancestors the so-called companions of Muhammad or the first generation that emerged after them who lived during the 1st century A.H.; rather, he means pioneers among Sufi sheikhs who emerged in the 3rd century A.H. Of course, the Shiite-Sunnite-Sufi mythology of 'good'/'holy' forefathers is typical of all man-made, earthly/terrestrial, fabricated religions, and the gullible, naïve masses in all eras who have deified such mortals readily believed in any narratives about them without any criticizing and questioning; this is why many myths have passed off as 'facts' when ascribed by their Sufi/Sunnite/Shiite fabricators to the so-called 'good' ancestors.         
6- Al-Shaarany mixes the call for passivity/laziness with humiliating oneself to others within humbleness; in his writings, he urges his followers to confine their looks to the ground day and night; i.e., to the dust trodden by the feet of people and to where dogs and cats, and other animals, urinate and defecate, and never to look at people or to the sky in order to humble their souls and never to be broken by the material, glittery, transient world; he quotes the pieces of advice by the Sufi saint/sheikh Al-Rifaai to his followers: (Be tails and do not be heads; heads are the first body-parts that receive hits) and (Do not be like high palm trees which carry their burden of dates; be like pumpkins whose weight is carried by the soil) [35].
7- One researcher asserts that Al-Shaarany in his writings addressed to his disciples never urges any sort of active work and earning one's livelihood for survival; rather, he assumed that any job or labor is a waste of time; one is to live like a slave and to accept charity/food from others while rejecting traits like hard-work, courage, resistance, and revolt against the unjust, oppressive ones [36].
8- The element of lethargy is manifested more often than not in Egyptian history during the 9th century and the early decades of the 10th century A.H. as per the history book written by the Egyptian historian Ibn Eyas whose views echoed those of the public opinion of the masses or the populace; researchers rarely find any major events in the book by Ibn Eyas; this historian often uses the expression (it is common among people that...) as he chronicles rumors spread among people; the only major event mentioned in his book is the fact that the Ottomans invaded Egypt after the political and military struggle among Selim I the Ottoman sultan, Ismail the Safavid of Persia, and the Mameluke sultan Al-Ghoury of Egypt. The Ottoman conquest of Egypt never brought any social or religious change at all because the Ottomans embraced Sunnite Sufism as if it were Islam and carried its banner while conquering parts of Europe. Hence, the main Sufi leaders/sheikhs continued to thrive within their spiritual authority over the masses during the Ottoman Era; this applies to Al-Shaarany who lived during the last decades of the Mameluke Era and the early decades of the Ottoman Era in Egypt, and he authored his Sufi books during the Ottoman Era, urging his disciples to adhere to non-protest, passivity, dependence, laziness, and lethargy as the best traits of true Sufis.    
9- It is noteworthy that the writings of Al-Shaarany influenced and shaped the mentality of the Egyptian people during the Ottoman Era, especially when Sufism, obscurantism, and ignorance dominated Egypt. The French author, known in Egypt as Clot Bey, remarks that the Egyptians at the time preferred lethargy and laziness to hard work and getting a job as they never thought about tomorrow or about free will; they only work when they have to or when they are engaged into (unpaid) forced labor or corvée by the local authorities [37]. This means that the masses believed in the ideas of Al-Shaarany about preferring lethargy to work to keep their 'peace of mind' by avoiding all activities and positive values that went against the Zeitgeist or the spirit of the age. 
 Hence, the first part of the equation of Sufism has comprised notions that made the ruled subjects chose willingly to be submissive to any rulers; this is reinforced by the second part of the equation of Sufism; i.e., the 'divine right' of rulers to do whatever they like; namely, all sorts of injustices and heinous crimes against the subjects were monopolized by rulers who committed them as part of religious rituals and imposed fate. This way, injustice became a religious duty or ritual performed only by rulers. This was the dominant state of affairs imposed within the climate of Sufism.
Between the Mameluke Sufism and the Mameluke injustice:
1- All researchers who tackle the history of the Mameluke Era notice that two phenomena flourished: Sufism and injustices. It is noteworthy that the Egyptians never revolted against the Mameluke-class injustices, oppression, and tyranny that increased with the passage of time. This coincided with the increasing numbers of Egyptians who embraced Sufism; this means that the Sufi religion is the cause of such submission and stagnation; no significant revolts ever occurred at the time because of the domination of Sufism. Sufism has nothing to do with Islam, of course; Islam (i.e., the Quran) prohibits all types of injustice and the submission to it if one can face it.  
2- Sufi saints/sheikhs, of course, applied and practiced their Sufi religion within their Sufi orders by playing a major role in aborting any possible revolt or rebellion among the Egyptians at the time; Sufi saints/sheikhs inculcated passivity and hypocrisy among the masses and manipulated religion to make people willingly submit to tyrannical sultans and their cronies and powerful men; hence, the masses assumed that injustices are ordained by God within the erroneous Sufi definition of fate! They assumed that rulers are scourges and plagues sent by God to 'purify' them from their sins! This is part of Sufi teachings of Satan, of course.   
About the Mameluke Era injustices:
1- The injustices of the Mameluke Era were the direct result of the military rule of foreign sultans; all the Mameluke sultans were non-Egyptians and they controlled the Egyptian nation by relying on Sufi sheikhs/saints venerated, honored, and deified by the masses – and this in itself contradicts the Quranic teachings which are against deification of things/items and mortals – and this means that the Sufi sheikhs/saints and the Mameluke sultans/leaders enjoyed their ill-gotten wealth obtained through within grave injustices and atrocities and polytheism while the masses paid the heavy price in this transient world and they will pay the worst price in the Hereafter: Hell for eternity. 
2- Historians of the Mameluke Era spared no efforts in their writings to describe within full, graphic details the types of injustices and the types of unjust ones, especially among rulers. For instance, Abou Al-Mahasin (who was a historian of the Mameluke Era in Egypt) describes in his writings the Mameluke prince Argon Shah as "the embodiment of darkness of injustice, promiscuity, and sinfulness who oppressed and humiliated many people within various types of grave injustices in which he was an expert par excellence." [38]. Yet, Abou Al-Mahasin defends this prince and all his stances by writing that all rulers have the 'divine right' to choose any of their subjects to put them to death [39]. Another historian in Egypt, Ibn Eyas, praises in his writings a Mameluke sultan for not shedding blood unless within 'legitimate' justification from Sunnite sharia laws, unlike the sultans who preceded and succeeded him who put people to death indiscriminately as typical of most Mameluke sultans [40]. Of course, Ibn Eyas is not telling the truth here; Sunnite sharia laws allow sultans/rulers/caliphs to put anyone to death unquestionably and without fair trial; many of the Mameluke sultans bribed judges to sentence their political foes to death by using fake justifications from the Sunnite sharia laws of Satan.  
3- There is hardly any biography of any Mameluke princes and sultans that does not contain stories and anecdotes of their cruelty, severe injustices, and massacres. All periodicals and history books authored during the Mameluke Era contain many pages of incidents showing severe injustices and bloodshed and screams of the wronged ones who suffered such types of oppression. Ordinary soldiers who served Mamelukes and have no biographies of their own are mentioned as thieves who typically seized the chance of any turmoil of street quarrels to impose 'order' while committing the crimes of looting, robbing, and stealing; those soldiers used to rape women and female and male children and they murdered those who resisted them. The times of such turmoil and unrest were so many, especially when sultans were lying in their deathbeds, were taken ill suddenly, or were absent within their military conquests; this occurred also when sultans were deposed and defeated before the new, victorious sultans would be enthroned, as such transitional periods were deemed as times of lawlessness. Ibn Eyas mentions lots of similar incidents at such times; for instance, he writes about the events of the year 872 A.H. that Cairo suffered pillage and turmoil for 20 days as the sultan Khushqadam was lying in his deathbed; no one dared to get out of one's house after sunset lest they would get killed, beaten severely, maimed, and/or robbed [41]. Ibn Eyas expressed his surprise as when the sultan Qaitbay was absent from Cairo as he led his troops in the Levant in 882 A.H., no unrest or turmoil occurred because of soldiers and their Mameluke princes; Cairene streets and suburbs enjoyed unexpected peace for the first time during the absence of a sultan [42]. 
4- Confiscating property, assets, possessions, and money of people in Egypt, for no reason, was the main feature of injustice committed by the Mameluke rulers and their men; for instance, Al-Makrizi the Egyptian historian writes within the events of the year 814 A.H. that unjust confiscations increased to an unprecedented level in Cairo and all innocent people feared losing their property and their lives if they dared to resist this injustice of greedy Mameluke princes and sultans who coveted all riches they could lay their hands on [43]. Sultans assumed the 'right' to 'punish' anyone for anything by confiscating their stretches of land or their valuable possessions; for example, at one time, the sultan Barqoq confiscated the inheritance left by one wealthy merchant and prevented his rightful inheritors to take their shares, under the claim that this dead merchant insulted the sultan at one time [44]. At one time, the sultan Barqoq saw pearls and jewels that adorned the women of the household of his overseer in one of the weddings; he confiscated all their jewels, gold, and pearls and sold them in return for more than 200 thousand dinars; when this overseer tried to verbally protest against his injustice inside the royal palace, he was beaten severely in public to be humiliated and the beating stopped only when he vowed to pay a fine of 300 dinars [45]. Ibn Eyas writes within the events of the year 875 A.H. that strangely, the sultan Qaitbay restored to some Cairene wealthy merchants most of the money and merchandise confiscated from them earlier by his men; months later, the sultan confiscated large amounts of merchandise, jewels, money, assets, etc. which could never be counted, under the pretext of preparing the army that would defend Egypt against conquerors coming from the Levant. Ibn Eyas expresses his surprise in some other lines of his history book as at one time, Qaitbay gave 100 dinars to the household members of a poor carpenter who died accidentally as he fell from the rooftop of one of the citadels of the sultan; Ibn Eyas expresses his surprise that at one time, Qaitbay said (Bless you!) to one of his scribes who sneezed [46]. Yet, we, as a researcher in history, consider Qaitbay as among the best of all Mameluke sultans.   
5- Abou Al-Mahasin in his writings infers the fact that the spread of injustices is the harbinger of utter ruin anywhere; for instance, he mentions that the number of weavers in Alexandria, an Egyptian major city located at the Mediterranean Sea, was reduced from 14 thousand men to just 800 men during the reign of the Mameluke sultan Barsbay, as he and his men confiscated even the little wages and profits of such honest men who worked hard to earn their livelihood and had to leave their profession [47]. Al-Makrizi writes about the increasing number of heavy taxes and grave injustices during the reign of the unjust sultan Barsbay that made people lament the times of previous sultans who were less severe and less cruel; people even said that Barsbay was crueler and worse than Moses' Pharaoh [48].         
6- Graver and more painful injustices were committed in rural areas and villages during the Mameluke Era, but historical accounts seldom focus on this as most historians focus on Cairo, the capital, and the sultans and their affluent retinue members, viziers, etc. In the book titled (Haz Al-Qohof) by Al-Shirbini, we find many stories of the fear of peasants because of the cruel men of the sultan [49]. Within the events of the year 817 A.H., heavy taxes and grave injustices in villages and rural areas and severe measures taken to collect as much money to the sultan drove peasants to desert their villages, farms, and stretches of land; devastation spread and crops were left to rot [50].  
7- Because of the fact that many peasants deserted their villages to escape heavy taxes and grave injustices, laws that entailed severe punishment for such runaway peasants were issued; yet, many of them managed to escape and they became Sufi disciples [51]; Sufi orders were filled with their likes, and stories of their previous life of adversity and ordeals in rural villages fill the book about Manaqib of Al-Hanafy Sufi order [52]. As the streets and alleys of Cairo were filled to the brim with such runaway former peasants, many laws were issued – to no avail – to force them to return to their original villages [53].    
8- Proverbs of the Mameluke Era shows that the Egyptian people typically despaired of expecting justice from any sultans even when newly enthroned sultans vowed to apply justice; each sultan followed the footsteps of his unjust predecessors; a proverb at the time goes like this (Do not express joy for the death of the sultan as you never know what the new sultan will look like!) [54].
9- Other proverbs which were common during the Mameluke Era express the spread of injustice: (Beat the innocent ones severely until the culprit would confess!), (Its guardians are also its thieves!), (The sword of the authority has a very long blade!), and (The Lord God Who protects people at the beginning of it will protect them at the last of it!) [55]. Until the 1980s at least, Egyptian mothers in rural villages used to implore the Lord God to spare their sons the injustice of unjust rulers. 
The role of Sufi saints in reinforcing and consolidating injustices:
 This role is manifested in Sufi writings during the Burji State during the Mameluke Era, when both Sufism and Mameluke types of injustices dominated; in fact, Sufi authors are frank and explicit in writing about their policies of supporting injustices and the unjust ones while hypocritically flattering them and urging the wronged parties who suffered injustices to submit to them within contentment and satisfaction while humbling themselves willingly to the unjust ones by hypocritically flattering them; the Sufi sheikhs/authors claimed that their stance is part of Islam; nothing could be further from the truth. We tackle this topic in detail in the points below.
Firstly: supporting and flattering the unjust ones:
1- Typically, the Mameluke sultans, princes, and leaders who adhered to the Sufi religion were keen on spending lavishly on Sufi institutions and hiring Sufi sheikhs in them to supplicate to God to make Him forgive them for the injustices they committed and to intercede on their behalf before God to be spared from His wrath in this world and in the Hereafter, as per the polytheistic Sufi notions and tenets. 
2- Yet, the Mameluke sultans, princes, and leaders enjoyed the endorsement and agreement of their official Sufi allies/saints and sheikhs who assumed to protect the Mameluke rulers in this world and in the Hereafter within the myth of Sufi saints' intercession. Hence, rulers and governors assumed that they can go on raping, fornicating, murdering, consuming ill-gotten money, and committing grave injustices while being absolved from their sins by their Sufi saints/sheikhs! A Sufi author has once written about the mythical notion that God readily pardons all the sins of all rulers everywhere however unjust they might have been [56]. Many Sufi-orders leaders and sheikhs consumed food offered to them by the unjust people of authority who consumed ill-gotten money, and Al-Shaarany has excused them and urged others never to protest against this [57]. As per Al-Shaarany, the Sufi sheikh/saint Al-Matbouli readily accompanied and stood by rulers and governors especially in times of ordeals and calamities without demanding to receive anything from them in return [58]. Sufi vows include to protect rulers of all low and high ranks so as not to allow God's wrath to befall them [59]; some Sufi sheikhs/saints bragged of being the confidants of rulers who were their guardians and who revered and consulted their Sufi allies, and Sufi men never divulged any secrets confided to them by rulers [60], and even some rulers bragged in public of their religious alliance with some Sufi saint/sheikhs who were their consultants in all affairs and acted as their intercessors before God [61].     
3- Hence, it was a very common practice by all unjust ones during the Mameluke Era to spend money on, and ally themselves to, famous Sufi sheikhs/saints who headed certain Sufi orders; it is as if this would absolve their sins; for instance, within the Manaqib of the head of the Hanafy Sufi order, we read about the story of the unjust governor Ibn Tamar who allied himself to the Sufi sheikh/saint Al-Bastamy the head of the Bastamyia Sufi order [62].  
4- Hence, the unjust ones at the time took advantage of allying themselves to Sufi saints/sheikhs (who receive money, food items, gifts, fine clothes, etc. from Mamelukes) to commit more grave injustices while assuming that all their sins would be remitted through the intercession of such Sufi sheikhs/saints; Al-Shaarany mentions this notion in his writings; he asserts that many rulers and their men increased their raping, murdering, robbing, sabotaging, arson, etc. while declaring in public that they never fear God's punishment (i.e., in this world and the next) since their sins are overlooked and pardoned by God via the intercession of such Sufi sheikhs/saints [63]. This is why the unjust men of authority of all ranks got nearer to Sufi sheikhs/saints by making them among their courtiers and retinue members and by giving them food, money, gifts, etc. while assuming that those Sufi sheikhs intercede on their behalf to the Lord God so that He would pardon their grave sins [64].    
5- Hence, it is logical to expect that the Sufi allies of such unjust rulers were spared any types of injustices; for instance, Al-Shaarany writes that mosques of his Sufi order and the Waqfs linked to these mosques (i.e., religious endowments that spent on mosques) were protected against any form of injustices and confiscation [65], whereas the opposite occurred to others whose mosques, stretches of land, and valuable possessions were confiscated at the time as per whims of the Mameluke rulers, tax-collectors, and governors and their men.  
6- Thus, the unjust Mamelukes never saw any contradiction between their religion and their grave sins and injustices; representatives of the Sunnite-Sufi religion gave them their benediction and blessings and allowed them to go on sinning while expecting forgiveness and absolution in the Hereafter; hence, the Mameluke princes and sultans and their viziers and their men kept building Sufi mosques and institutions and spending money on Sufi orders and their leaders while committing more atrocities and injustices routinely; for instance; the biography of the cruel, heartless Mameluke prince Timraz includes the fact that he was very deeply religious and respected Sufi sheikhs and that he prayed on time and read the entire Quranic text regularly; yet, he committed many untold atrocities and heinous crimes as well as acts of grave injustice within his sinful, promiscuous lifestyle; he typically punished severely and brutally those who made small mistakes [66]. Another Mameluke prince, Yalubgha, used to beat severely in public anyone from the subjects who came to complain to him about anything, and while his men beat these innocent people, he would perform long prayers of eight Raqas, with prolonged prostrations, and his men would never dare to stop their severe beatings of the victims unless he would finish his long prayers first; this is not to mention his putting to death so many people for trivial reasons [67]. The poet Ibrahim Al-Mei'mar Al-Harrati [68] composed these lines of verse to describe this strange state of affairs:
God has afflicted people with an unjust prince who glorifies His Name
But he's like a butcher who recites the Quran before slaughtering!
The proverbs of the Mameluke Era include this one about such a strange state of affairs: (A mouth that glorifies the Lord with a hand that slaughters people!) [69].
7- (A) On the other hand, some other Sufi authors practiced hypocrisy by flattering the unjust ones; for example, the famous Sufi poet Al-Bouseiry composed lines of verse to heap praise on the unjust Mamelukes and to ridicule Arabs within satirical poems in order to please and gratify the Arabs-hating Mamelukes [70]. (B) Historians of the Mameluke Era who lived at the time in Egypt were influenced by the dominance of Sufism and embraced it as if it were Islam; this is exemplified in their hypocritically heaping praise on the Mameluke sultans, as we read in several books such as the biography of the sultan Qalawun and the biography of the sultan Qaitbay by Al-Siyouti. (C) Of course, Sufi authors/saints made their own rules of how to hypocritically flatter and praise the unjust ones; for instance, when Al-Khawwas would hear that a Mameluke prince intended to visit him, he typically and readily would visit this prince to spare him any trouble and to save his time [71]. It was typical of Al-Khawwas to blame the wronged parties who suffered injustices inflicted on them and to praise and flatter the unjust ones; he writes that even if the ancient Sufi saints like Khedr and Qutb would rule the people as governors, they would inflict on them what they deserve as per their bad deeds; fate for him meant that one's sinful deeds will bring evil deeds inflicted on one as a form of punishment [72]; this means that Al-Khawwas encouraged acts of injustice and urged others to accept them within passivity and submission as part of daily life. Moreover, Al-Shaarany commanded his Sufi followers and disciples that within the cases when they would be within the presence of a sultan, a prince, a governor, etc., they must ask them to pray for them, even if they were bad, evil, unjust rulers, as God will never disregard the supplications and prayers of rulers within the presence of their subjects [73]. Al-Shaarany considered as part of merits and good qualities of good Sufi men to be polite and submissive to princes, sultans, governors, etc. as God gave them authority over the country and over the subjects [74]; of course, Al-Shaarany typically received protection, gifts, and money from these rulers. Al-Shaarany never told any prince about the conversations he made with other princes so as to win their trust and ward off their enmity and rivalry by never disclosing their secrets [75]. Al-Shaarany considered as part of merits and good qualities of good Sufi men to flatter and heap praise on governors, princes, and rulers (in conversations and in letters addressed to them) by saying that their men (and not those governors, princes, and rulers) were responsible for injustices done without their prior consent/permission or knowledge [76]. The hypocrisy of Al-Shaarany made him pretended to be ill and to stop eating, drinking, and having sex when any of his dear friends among the unjust sultans, governors, princes, and rulers was taken ill; this was his way to condole with them [77]; this was the way of his own Sufi tutors/masters and sheikhs and he writes that he must follow their footsteps [78].  
Secondly: influencing the wronged ones who suffered grave injustices to accept this within submission:
   Sufi sheikhs/saints were keen to urge and encourage the masses among their followers to be content/satisfied with accepting injustices inflicted upon them within submission and to adhere to hypocrisy and flattery when talking with the unjust ones in all ranks of authority. 
1- This urging has been done through intimidation; for instance, Al-Matbouli urged his disciples and his followers who could not ward off the injustices of princes and governors to bear patiently and silently with them to avoid being physically harmed or abused [79]. As for Al-Shaarany, he writes about all sorts of penalties exacted by the unjust Mamelukes on those who resisted any forms of injustice and told his followers never to resist any princes, governors, and tax-collectors [80].   
2- This urging has been done also through taking advantage of Sufi religious sentiments and illogicality; for instance, Al-Shaarany considered as part of merits and good qualities of good Sufi men who followed the footsteps of 'good' ancestors to bear patiently all the time with injustices committed by rulers against them; those who embraced Sufism assumed that such afflictions were their deserve as a form of expiation of their sins and mistakes [81]; the Sufis urged the masses around them to follow their example in this respect; unjust rulers were deemed as tools of the Lord God to punish them for their sins and heedlessness as they neglect religion; even Al-Khawwas considered that unjust rulers necessarily reflect the 'logical' deserve of the subjects as per their low level of (dis)belief and their high rate of sinning [82]. Al-Khawwas considered the behavior of unjust sultans as ordained or inspired by the Lord God Who enthroned them as they deserve to be rulers; he assumed that Prophet Muhammad urged others in some hadiths ascribed to him to submit to rulers to avoid civil strife and to remember that they are appointed by God as rulers! All hadiths are merely a bunch of lies, as per Quranism of course. Al-Khawwas urged his favorite disciple, Al-Shaarany, to never protest against rulers as they were appointed in their ranks and enthroned by God's leave and to never complain about their injustices so as not to lose God's rewards granted to the patient ones who bore silently and sweetly with injustices inflicted upon them [83]. 
3- Sufi sheikhs/saints/authors urged their disciples and followers never to supplicate to God to incur His wrath upon the unjust ones or to implore Him to punish or torment them; they claimed that God uses the unjust ones as tools to punish them for their sins; this is deemed as expiation of sins within Sufism! How silly, gullible, and idiotic the Sufis of the Mameluke Era must have been!
4- Hence, Sufi saints/authors assumed that the unjust ones are the means to flog and torture/torment sinners for their sins so that they remember God and readily repent and atone for such sins [84]. Despite the fact that the Lord God says in the Quran: "God does not like the public uttering of bad language, unless someone was wronged..." (4:148), Al-Shaarany considered as part of merits and good qualities of good Sufi men never to verbally insult unjust rulers who wronged them [85].
5- Sufi authors prevented their followers and disciples from backbiting the unjust ones or verbally abusing them secretly behind their backs; they assumed that true Sufis should never attend gatherings where rulers would be verbally abused and insulted by those who voiced their grievances in public instead of bearing patiently and silently with injustices committed against them; Sufi men were prevented from talking about the bad traits and unjust deeds of rulers [86]; thus, Sufi sheikhs/saints never allowed the wronged ones to even voice their complaints or vent their sentiments of fury or frustration.  
6- At the same time, Sufi sheikhs/saints commanded their disciples and followers, when wronged by unjust rulers, to obey the unjust ones and never to resist or to protest against the injustices afflicted upon them; for instance, Al-Matbouli urged all merchants in Egypt (and those Levantine merchants coming to Egypt) to pay the unjust heavy taxes willingly and submissively to tax-collectors to avoid being insulted, humiliated, or beaten in public [87]. Al-Shaarany made his followers and disciples swear solemn vows/oaths to obey the unjust ones all the time and to pay them all the taxes they demand and to never offer petitions asking for alleviation or reduction of taxes; he told them that this way, God will love and protect them and remit their sins; he urged all the wronged ones to apply and take heed of this piece of advice; he reminded them that his Sufi tutor, or sheikh/master, Al-Khawwas, mentioned to him that God hates those who resist paying taxes to unjust rulers and disobey the governors, as they were appointed by God's hand; all Sufi men must adopt the same stance of non-protest, as per Al-Khawwas [88]. 
7- Sufi sheikhs/saints commanded their disciples and followers to honor, revere, and sanctify the unjust rulers, as this was deemed as an act of worship to God Whose hand appointed them in their posts/ranks to dominate and rule over the subjects; Sufi authors/sheikhs urged readers to kiss the hands and feet of unjust ones in public and to move away from the routes to let their processions pass so as to earn their love and to ward off their evil; Al-Khawwas used to assert that he stood in reverence whenever a ruler/governor passed by him in the street; Al-Khawwas at one time kissed the feet of a tax-collector and when some fiqh scholars frowned upon such a deed and rebuked him severely, he defended himself by asserting that this was an act of worship dedicated to God Whose hand appointed the unjust ones in their ranks and posts [89]. More details about fiqh scholars are found in this BOOK elsewhere.
8- Typically, Al-Shaarany in his writings urges the wronged ones who suffered injustices to flatter the unjust ones within certain rules, invented by Al-Shaarany in his Sufi order, linked to the Sufi religion.  
(A) Al-Shaarany writes that Sufi vows included to flatter all people and to humor them and to submit to those people in positions of authority; true Sufis should never show contempt to rulers and governors as they are appointed by God Himself in this temporal world for a certain wise reason and a good cause which cannot be guessed or surmised by mortals [90].
(B) Al-Shaarany asserts that the intercession of Sufi saints will never be granted to those Sufis who resist or protest against unjust rulers [91]; he also underlines the fact that the Sufi vows/rules include that no Sufi moulids/festivals/celebrations should ever be held when sultans and princes are sick/bedridden or when they suffer from any calamities or hardships, unless acts of worship and Quran recited there would be dedicated to sultans/princes while supplicating the Lord God to lend His support/victory to them all the time within all situations [92].
(C) Al-Shaarany writes that rulers, sultans, princes, viziers, etc. and their men of authority are never required to attend Sufi moulids/festivals/celebrations dedicated to Sufi saints; it is hardly polite to expect such honored notables to attend such events and mingle with the destitute, the poor, and the weak [93].
(D) Al-Shaarany writes that when relatives of Sufis are imprisoned, they should not be visited (or visited only once) and no food should be sent to them, because the more such prisoners would suffer, the more their reward from God would be and the lesser their ordeal or imprisonment duration would be [94]. We hardly need to comment on such silliness!
(E) Lastly, the flattery within hypocrisy addressed by Sufis to rulers was confined only to them during their reign; once these rulers/governors were dead or got deposed by military force, Sufi sheikhs stop flattering and sanctifying them at once; this is because Al-Shaarany assumed that flattery and sanctification are devoted to the posts/ranks and not to the persons themselves [95]. Sadly, the populace and the masses at the time blindly followed and applied such notions as they deified the Sufi sheikhs/authors who were canonized as 'saints' once they died; in fact, the proverbs of the Mameluke Era reflect this humiliation/hypocrisy that contradicts Islam (i.e., the Quran), and they include these ones: (Submission to men of authority in times of danger is something manly and commendable), (People must follow the conquering, victorious one among belligerent rulers), and (An enthroned unjust sultan is better than long-lasting wars) [96]. Many other proverbs of the same vein emerged during the Ottoman Era, and they include these ones: (It is an honor to be beaten by the rulers and their men), (No man dies of a severe beating), (Lower your head to the storm until you reach safety), (Keep a low profile until the soldiers of the sultan pass the street), and (Sultans are to be insulted only by dying impaled men) [97]. Many proverbs and aphorisms of the Mameluke and Ottoman eras were influenced by Sufism as they urge flattering all low- and high-rank men of authority within sheer hypocrisy [98], and we exemplify this here: (Move about along with the tide within the passage of days), (When you enter into a town were calves are being worshiped, readily feed them), (If you cannot cheat him, flatter him), (If you cannot defeat him, either move away from him or kiss his hand), (If you cannot chop his hand off, kiss it), (Kissing his hand is the best way to flatter and deceive him), and (If you have a request to make of the dog, call him your master) [99]. Most of such proverbs were influenced by the writings of Al-Shaarany; yet, some of them have nothing to do with him and contradict his pieces of advice, because he urged his followers never to backbite or verbally abuse the unjust men of authority; this is an example of a proverb that goes against the teachings of Al-Shaarany: (Despite the awe of sultans, all of them are being insulted behind their backs) [100].
Problem No. Two: the Wahabi brutality and savagery of committing bloodshed as part of religious duties/rituals: 
The roots of Wahabi brutality and savagery: Ibn Taymiyya and his fatwas of putting everyone to death:
1- Sufism has caused the spread of certain social values/norms during the Mameluke Era and made such corrupt values as part of religion, especially non-protest, while expecting total submission to cruel tyrants and unjust rulers who must be flattered within hypocrisy; another corrupt notion was to view injustice of rulers as scourge/plague ordained by God when He desires to inflict torment or exact penalties on people, as part of Fate, to urge them to expiate  their sins or to atone for them; hence, cruelty and atrocities of tyrants were deemed as part of the Sufi religion. 
2- This wretched state of affairs went on during the centuries of the Mameluke Era and most of the Ottoman Era, until Wahabism has emerged within the last decades of the Ottoman Era; its emergence has changed the equation; people's souls were filled with the spirit of rebellion instead of submission; the false hadiths of changing vice by sheer force were revived and applied violently using weapons/arms; as a result, rulers no longer retained the exclusive 'right' of monopolizing tyranny/injustices, looting, confiscating, raping, sabotaging, aggressive wars, and massacres; all Wahabis gave themselves the 'right' to commit any atrocities and massacres in the name of God and religion once they own the might/power and money to have arms/weapons and to gather troops/followers. Wahabism as a religion has been assumed (sadly, until now!) as if it were Islam; the terrorists of the Muhammadans of today commit bloodshed and perpetrate bloodbaths worldwide because of Wahabism.      
3- This Wahabi equation has not emerged in vacuum or out of nowhere; rather, it has roots within the Hanbali Sunnite doctrine and its main figures, especially the Hanbali author/sheikh Ibn Taymiyya.
Firstly: the persecution inflicted on Ibn Taymiyya made his fatwas authorize the bloodshed of all people:
1- Ibn Taymiyya was the only Hanbali-doctrine sheikh/author of his era who readily protested and rejected in public what he deemed as sinful and sought to change such sins and to urge people to 'rectify' sinners by force; in fact, his school of thought attracted several Sufism-hating followers and disciples who faced Sufi extremists and readily attacked/criticized their idols and notions. Ibn Taymiyya and his followers among the Sunnite Hanbali sheikhs/scholars grew in fame within the Levant which was ruled by the Cairo-based Mameluke sultans. Such a fame made Ibn Taymiyya a part of the political equation of the Mameluke sultans. In a previous book of ours, we have tackled the Hanbali movement and school of thought of Ibn Taymiyya and his stance against the Mameluke sultan Beibars the Janissary who usurped the crown and the throne of the 'legitimate' Mameluke sultan Al-Nasser M. Ibn Qalawun. In fact, Ibn Taymiyya was incarcerated in a prison cell when he wrote and even orally expressed his opinion that he will never acknowledge Beibars the Janissary as sultan. Once Al-Nasser returned from his banishment in the Levant and retrieved his throne in Cairo, Egypt, Ibn Taymiyya was among his favorite courtiers and retinue members for a short duration; because Ibn Taymiyya had much power and exercised much authority in the palace-court while bypassing the power/authority of the Mameluke princes, Al-Nasser feared that the ever-growing influence of Ibn Taymiyya (whose Sufism-hating followers increased in number with the passage of time) posed a veritable threat to him. In fact, Al-Nasser was very sensitive and felt afraid that he might lose the crown and the throne again; he had an attentive ear to his affluent courtiers and retinue members and Sufi sheikhs in the palace-court who warned him against Ibn Taymiyya; besides, Al-Nasser had a tendency to rule as a tyrant so as not to get deposed and banished to the Levant again. Within such circumstances, Al-Nasser readily believed the rumor that Ibn Taymiyya (his trusted friend and supporter!) was a power-seeking, ambitious, dangerous element and a possible traitor; this rumor was spread by Sufi sheikhs, the typical arch-enemies and haters of Ibn Taymiyya who spoke and wrote against Sufism and declared Sufi extremists as polytheistic infidels. Thus, despite the fact that the hypocritical Sufi sheikhs in the political circles sided earlier with the enemies of Al-Nasser and sided with Al-Nasser later on when he was restored to the throne, Al-Nasser had to follow their advice; he imprisoned Ibn Taymiyya because he knew that his being settled in the throne entailed that he must appease and please Sufi sheikhs and maintain Sufism (the practiced religion of most people at the time) as the official religion of the Mameluke State. Thus, Al-Nasser was convinced that his authority was threatened by Ibn Taymiyya and his Hanbali ideas; he had to incarcerate his friend Ibn Taymiyya despite the fact that his ideas were admired by Al-Nasser before and after his being a sultan; Ibn Taymiyya never got out of prison this time; he died inside his cell months later.           
2- This was the last ordeal/adversity in the life of Ibn Taymiyya, as he died in his prison cell after a lifelong struggles, disputes, and rebellion and after suffering long years of persecution which have heavily influenced his character and thought; he was an extremist author who readily and boldly declared his foes as 'infidels' who deserve to be put to death as per his strange Hanbali fatwas. 
3- Within real Islam (i.e., the Quran), putting a person to death is ONLY when this person is a murderer; i.e., in retribution, and this retribution can be avoided by paying Diyya money to the family of the victim (see 2:178); also, self-defense military endeavors are allowed in Islam to deter aggressors (see 2:194) and God mentions three times in the Quran (see 6:151, 17:33, and 25:68) that it is a grave crime/sin to kill innocent non-murderous person(s). In contrast, the Hanbali sect/religion fashioned by Ibn Taymiyya allows putting people to death for many reasons (and not for being murderers!), as we show in the brief points below.   
Secondly: fatwas of Ibn Taymiyya issued to authorize putting all Sufis to death:
1- Strangely, Ibn Taymiyya admired the pioneers of Sufism; in his writings, he expresses his belief in both miracles and intercession of Sufi saints; he asserts that those early Sufis were diligent in their worshiping and obeying the Lord God (!). Ibn Taymiyya writes about Al-Jeineid, one of the Sufi saints/authors of the past eras, that he was an imam of 'guidance' and he implored God that He may sanctify his soul. The stance of Ibn Taymiyya against Sufis of his era and some Sufis of the past eras is summarized in the fact that he considered some people, like Al-Halaj, as imposters and extremists who were never true Sufi sheikhs; he considered many of his Sufi contemporaries as blasphemers who insulted God and never performed acts of worship; besides, they rejected some Sunnite notions. In our encyclopedia of Sufism, we show how Ibn Taymiyya believed in the miracles and intercession of dead Sufi saints/sheikhs of the past; in contrast, his angry fatwas include putting to death all Sufis of his era as they were infidels who rejected Islam. These fatwas are still deemed as valid and applied by Sufism-hating Wahabis of today who wrongly assume that fatwas of Ibn Taymiyya are part of honored, revered sharia laws of Islam!     
2- Consequently, fatwas of Ibn Taymiyya entail putting to death Sufi extremists and their helpers, supporters, and apologists as well as those Sunnite Hanbali scholars who are too reluctant to refute Sufi notions and never desire to condemn Sufis to death! In addition, fatwas of Ibn Taymiyya entail never to accept repentance of such people who must be put to death immediately once found or arrested! Adherents to Sufism who should be put to death as per fatwas of Ibn Taymiyya include those infidels who believe in the notion of being at one with God (i.e., God is seen as manifested in human beings or that the human souls of Sufis sheikhs can be united with Him by flying to the Upper Realm in heavens) and those who support/praise/defend Sufis in their writings or help them and never condemned their practices and polytheistic notions; Ibn Taymiyya assumed that all Sufis of his era were infidels who pretended hypocritically to be Muslims but their aim was to destroy Islamic faith tenets and to corrupt the thought of the masses, the clergymen, the scholars, the princes, and the sultans; in his fatwas, Ibn Taymiyya condemns all Sufis to violent, bloody death (even if they declared their repentance in public!) as the penalty of corrupters on earth who deify mortals. 
3- Because Sufis at the time considered heterosexual and homosexual debaucheries as acts of worship in their Sufi religion, fatwas of Ibn Taymiyya authorize putting to death male and female fornicators and practicing homosexuals (i.e., both the 'penetrators' and those being 'penetrated') when they are caught red-handed whether they considered their sins as Sufi acts of worship or mere indulging in carnal lusts; his fatwas also condemn to death as infidels those who allow and authorize all types of promiscuous behavior and immorality; in his writings, he assumes that there are hadiths about stoning to death 'active' and 'passive' homosexuals as well as married male and female fornicators, and he assumes that the so-called companions of Muhammad put adulterers/adulteresses to death (whether they were free persons or slaves) by stoning as per Torah and as per hadiths. Ibn Taymiyya writes details also about ways of putting the infidels to death: by the cutting their heads off by the sword, by stoning them to death, by strangulation, and by defenestration (i.e., being thrown from a very high building or a wall); he boldly claims that his views are agreed upon by all 'Muslims' in all eras (!). Of course, he meant by 'Muslims' here Sunnite Hanbali scholars of fiqh and hadiths. 
4- Within his fatwas, Ibn Taymiyya condemns to death all Sufis and non-Sufis who deny, despise, and disregard acts of worship (e.g., prayers, pilgrimage, and fasting), those addicted to Sufi singing (as singers or listeners), those who practice, or allow as permissible, grave sins like injustice, consuming ill-gotten money, adultery/fornication, homosexuality, gambling, and wine-drinking, and those who prohibit marriage (and insist on celibacy!) or permissible/legal items of food. Ibn Taymiyya condemns all such persons to death even if they repented in public and even if they were merely hypocrites who harbored such blasphemous thoughts inside their minds! We wonder how come Sunnite scholars who followed Ibn Taymiyya at the time would be mind-readers?! Would they readily put their foes to death based on mere suspicion or assumption of their being hypocrites/infidels?! This simply means an authorization from Satan the Devil to kill off all human beings after accusing them of being hypocrites/infidels or of harboring bad, sinful thoughts! 
5- Fatwas issued by Ibn Taymiyya also entail killing off en masse all followers/disciples of Sufi sheikhs and all the masses who embrace Sufism and engage into Sufi practices. For instance, Ibn Taymiyya condemns to death those disbelieving ignoramuses who offer oblation and/or money to entombed saints in their mausoleums and those who assume that such 'saints' are intercessors and mediators between them and the Lord God, unless they would repent in public (based on being forewarned by Sunnite scholars!) and they would readily stop such Sufi practices. Thus, Ibn Taymiyya contradicts himself; he writes elsewhere that he revered pioneers of Sufism as saints and intercessors. Ibn Taymiyya condemns to death those who kneel and prostrate before Sufi sheikhs and those who believe in their ability to perform/work miracles (including flying into the sky or to God or being present in several cities simultaneously), unless when they repent, but if they refuse to repent and insisted on adhering to their Sufi notions, they must be put to death immediately, as per fatwas of Ibn Taymiyya! Besides, in his fatwas, Ibn Taymiyya insists that Sufi sheikhs typically enlist the help of devils through sorcery to allow them to work magical acts/tricks to bewitch their naïve followers; he condemns those who believe in such 'miracles' to death if they adamantly refuse to renounce Sufism and repent. Fatwas of Ibn Taymiyya entail also putting to death those who believed in the intercession of living Sufi sheikhs and the intercession of dead Sufi saints who were among Sufi sheikhs who lived during his lifetime, as he deemed them as imposters and hypocrites that must be rejected by the masses; he assumed that the masses prefer their Sufi saints/sheikhs to Prophet Muhammad and this entailed their being put to death if they would not renounce such a stance in public. This contradicts the fact that Ibn Taymiyya writes elsewhere that he believed in the so-called intercession of Muhammad and the intercession of pioneers of Sufism who lived during the 3rd century A.H. Of course, Ibn Taymiyya condemns to death all those who refuse his ideas and reject his fatwas as well as those Shiite Sufis and Sunnite Sufis; he mentions detailed descriptions about how to spot/locate Sunnite and Shiite Sufis and how to differentiate between both types of Sufis, and as per his strange fatwas, all types of Sufis should be put to death if they refuse to repent and to renounce Sufism in public.       
Thirdly: fatwas of Ibn Taymiyya issued to authorize putting all Sunnites to death:  
 Fatwas of Ibn Taymiyya authorize putting to death all practicing Sunnites who hold views that contradict and differ from the Hanbali-doctrine extremist views/fatwas of Ibn Taymiyya; in his writings, he accuses Sunnites who oppose him as renegades/rebels (or Khawarij in Arabic) who deserve to be killed however pious, devout, and devoted they might be in their acts of worship! In order to support this wrong view, he quotes a false hadith ascribed to Muhammad (despite the fact that, as per the Quran itself, Muhammad never knew the future and he never predicted anything) about his predicting the emergence of groups of disbelieving Khawarij, who are enemies of Islam and persecute real believers, in every century in all eras after his death and that they must be fought and killed by real believers and those fighters for God's sake will be rewarded in Paradise for killing such hypocrites and infidels! Ibn Taymiyya quotes stories of the so-called companions of Muhammad to 'prove' that they killed off such renegades. Moreover, Ibn Taymiyya quotes the biography of the 'devout' and 'pious' Abbasid caliph Al-Mahdi who put to death a great number of hypocrites, renegades, apostates, and infidels who despised Islam and showed contempt towards Sunna.
 We assert here that Ibn Taymiyya is an enemy of the Quran and a disciple of Satan; we repeat the fact that as per several Quranic verses, Muhammad never knew the future and he never predicted anything within his lifetime or about events that occurred after his death. The authors of the Sunnite, Sufi, and Shiite religions have fabricated thousands of hadiths and attributed them to Muhammad; such hadiths include talking about the so-called intercession, the four pre-Umayyad caliphs, the Arab civil wars, the Abbasid caliphs, the so-called 'saints', events that occurred to Ali and his two sons, and the so-called companions who are to enter into Paradise without judgment. Other hadiths include Sunnite ones cursing Shiite foes and Shiite ones cursing Sunnite foes; warring parties fashioned and phrased hadiths to curse one another; this is why there are hadiths to curse Khawarij and Ibn Taymiyya quoted them to assume that Sufis and non-Hanbali Sunnites are renegades who reject 'Islam' (or rather, the Sunnite Hanbali extremism and fatwas of Ibn Taymiyya) and deserve to be put to death. Hence, Ibn Taymiyya accuses those Sunnites who oppose his fatwas of being hypocrites who misinterpret the Quran intentionally to serve their mean, vile ends and they reject hadiths and Sunnite fiqh in order to follow their own views and whims. Ibn Taymiyya assumes that all scholars of fiqh agree upon the view of putting such infidels/hypocrites to death. Among his foes who deserved to die were those non-Hanbali Sunnites who reject his interpretation of the Quranic verses about the Throne of the Lord; in his fatwas, he commands his Hanbali followers never to marry from among non-Hanbali families as they were infidels who deserve to die without offering them the chance to repent! Ibn Taymiyya even allows his disciples and followers to put infidels and hypocrites to death themselves without trial or resorting to the temporal authority of judges and rulers! Ibn Taymiyya defines 'hypocrites' as those who pray, fast, etc. but reject Sunnite Hanbali hadiths, which are deemed by Ibn Taymiyya as the only route to God through Muhammad! Nothing could be further from the truth; hadiths are the ways/routes of polytheism leading to Hell and their fabricators/authors repel people away from the Only Straight Path in Islam: the Quran itself.                
Fourthly: general rules made by Ibn Taymiyya as part of Hanbali Sunnite sharia laws to authorize putting anyone to death:
1- The phrases of Ibn Taymiyya contain vague words that give room for various, different levels of understanding so that his rules would fit any 'foes' anywhere within any era as per different Sunnite fiqh fatwas and as per the false Sunnite hadiths; e.g., he writes: (...Those who insult prophets of God must be put to death immediately...); thus, when Quranists assert the Quranic fact that all God's prophets are mortal human beings, Sunnite Hanbali/Wahabi extremists might consider this an insult to Muhammad and the rest of the prophets, as per Sunnite notions which deify prophets. 
2- Ibn Taymiyya writes: (...Those corrupters on earth must be fought and put to death to stop their evil, especially those who invent new things in religion and those dissidents who desire to divide the Muslims...They are to be put to death immediately...). This means that Ibn Taymiyya urges killing off hypocrites who pretend to be Muslims without trial and without giving a chance for them to repent! This is an invitation to kill anyone anytime anywhere under the pretext that they were infidels and hypocrites! 
3- Ibn Taymiyya had other trivial reasons to put those who opposed his views/fatwas to death; e.g., those who deny pilgrimage to the so-called Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem and to the Yathreb mosque that contains the abomination/mausoleum ascribed to Muhammad are to be put to death unless they repent in public and change their stance!  
4- The terms used by Ibn Taymiyya such as ''sharia'', ''Sunna'', and the 'holy books' refer ONLY to books of hadiths, fiqh, and interpretation/exegeses authored by the 'holy' Sunnite imams/authors of the Abbasid Era; their heritage was revered and sanctified by Ibn Taymiyya of the Mameluke Era, of course. Ibn Taymiyya repeats his fatwas/views, in almost every topic and issue within his writings, that those who reject and deny such heritage of fiqh and hadiths should be deemed as infidels/apostates who are to be put to death if they refuse to repent in public. Ibn Taymiyya in his writings intentionally disregards the fact that authors of the Abbasid Era differ in all issues and regarding all hadiths and that their books contain countless contradictions and discrepancies; such authors refute fiqh views/fatwas and hadiths of one another; in many cases, a given book by a given author contains contradictory views and hadiths within one topic and even within a given page!  
5- Of course, apart from hadiths fabricated by Sunnites, there are other hadiths fabricated by Shiites and Sufis who also ascribed them to Muhammad after his death; the fatwas of Ibn Taymiyya entail the belief only in Sunnite hadiths and the rejection of Shiite and Sufi ones; he assumes that 'believers' (i.e., Hanbali Sunnites among his followers) should kill off those who believe in Shiite and Sufi hadiths and adamantly refuse to reject and renounce them in public! Ibn Taymiyya writes that fabricators of such Shiite and Sufi hadiths are inveterate liars and fabricators who will rot in Hell forever; hence, Ibn Taymiyya assumes that Paradise and 'religious' knowledge/scholars are exclusively for Sunnites, while the non-Sunnite people are to be put to death and they will enter into Hell. In fact, Ibn Taymiyya authored a short book (or a booklet) about refuting hadiths of orators (i.e., illiterate oral narrators in mosques); yet, his disciple, Ibn Al-Qayyim, had a different opinion and he refuted this book of his tutor/master in his magazine (Al-Manar). This means that even Hanbali authors differ in the number of 'authentic' or 'verified' hadiths; this dispute over the hadiths is similar to the one between Al-Bokhary and his disciple Moslem in their respective books. Thus, if Ibn Taymiyya were alive when his disciple Ibn Al-Qayyim authored his book, he would have sentenced him to death once he is found/arrested (without a trial or chance to repent!) for trying to 'correct' and 'sift' Sunnite hadiths! It is silly to consider such hadiths of balderdash and nonsense as part of Islam; it is sillier still to put anyone to death for having different religious views!       
Fifthly: fatwas of Ibn Taymiyya about putting to death those who perform prayers at mosques or at homes:
1- The fatwas of Ibn Taymiyya include putting to death (unless they repent in public and change their stance) those who perform prayers who perform prayers belatedly and not on time and disregard congregational prayers by preferring to pray alone inside mosques or at home!   
2- Hence, even if a man was a recluse who performed prayers at home and refuses to attend prayers in mosques, fatwas of Ibn Taymiyya will cause his being sentenced to death if he would refuse to change their stance and 'repent' by applying Sunna hadiths and fiqh notions which stress the importance of congregational prayers inside mosques, especially Friday Noon prayers, for all 'Muslim' men who must worship the Lord only as per Sunnite fiqh and hadiths!   
Sixthly: fatwas of Ibn Taymiyya about putting any children to death:
1- Even children are not safe as per the strange fatwas of Ibn Taymiyya which entail putting to death any male or female children if they attack and commit aggression against adults, even if such attack/aggression does not result in murder or injury, and if this such children will cause their parents to lose their faith and turn into apostates! 
2- The fatwas of Ibn Taymiyya entail putting to death children who are naturally bad, as per their overt behavior, and have a potential to be criminals/charlatans when they grow up and he quotes a false hadith of Al-Bokhary about Muhammad allowing putting such children to death, upon request of their parents, under the pretext of prevent spreading corruption on earth!
Al-Jabarty as a witness regarding the immorality and promiscuity of the ruled subjects and the brutality and savagery of the Ottoman military rulers:
Introduction about Al-Jabarty as a historian:
1- Abdul-Rahman Al-Jabarty is the last of the great Egyptian historians; he was born in Cairo in 1753 A.D. – eight years after the emergence of Wahabism; he died in Cairo in 1825 A.D. – seven years after the destruction of the first Saudi State by the Egyptian troops. Moreover, Al-Jabarty witnessed the French Expedition in Egypt in 1798 and saw the French troops leaving Egypt forever; he also witnessed the emergence of M. Ali Pacha, the powerful governor of Egypt who later on became its king and the founder of the Modern Egyptian State. Al-Jabarty, as a historian, has chronicled all events he witnessed in his seminal book titled "The Marvels and Wonders of Biographies and Events"; in this book, he adopts the periodical methodology of narrating history; i.e., he mentions events within the chronological order as per the lunar/Hijri months and years. It is very obvious that Al-Jabarty was influenced by the Egyptian historian Al-Makrizi (who died in 1442 A.D.) who lived during the Mameluke Era. Yet, Al-Jabarty never reached the genius of Al-Makrizi within analyses and bold criticism of undesirable events; he never produced the same number of books of Al-Makrizi. In contrast, Al-Jabarty has outdone another veteran Egyptian  historian who lived through some decades of the Mameluke and Ottoman eras; i.e., Ibn Eyas who died in 1523 A.D. In fact, Ibn Eyas was also influenced by Al-Makrizi and he was less cultured, as we perceive within many of his books. Al-Jabarty, as we perceive within his books, especially the one mentioned above and another one titled "Holy Signs within the Defeat of the French", was more meticulous and cultured than Ibn Eyas; Al-Jabarty used to move through many Egyptian cities and villages to read documents, to check names and events, and to meet people/informants; this is unlike Ibn Eyas who authored his books while never leaving Cairo; Ibn Eyas chronicled common news and rumors that reached him and he copied them without verification; he begins many paragraphs with the phrases: (It is rumored that......) & (Rumors have it that......). Al-Jabarty had more analytical skills like his master and role-model Al-Makrizi. Al-Jabarty in his writings is bold and courageous in criticizing and protesting against what was done and said by sheikhs or fiqh scholars, soldiers and military leaders, governors and their men, high-rank slaves, and Arab figures and personalities. M. Ali Pacha could not stand this criticism, especially that Al-Jabarty refused to flatter him within hypocrisy typical at the time and refused to oblige him by pretending to agree with him; M. Ali Pacha punished Al-Jabarty by commissioning murderers to kill his son; Al-Jabarty stopped writing and retired as a historian; he kept mourning and lamenting for the loss of his son for three years inside his house while refusing to receive visitors. Because of the rumors that might undermine the stature of M. Ali Pacha before the eyes of the masses in Egypt, M. Ali Pacha commissioned murderers to kill Al-Jabarty three years later. 
2- Al-Jabarty was a historian who wrote about events he witnessed as a contemporary writer; he testifies in his writings regarding the Sunnite Sufi equation of the Mamelukes and the Ottomans whose rulers required total submission and they committed bloodshed as tyrants, whereas all the masses engaged into sinning and promiscuous behavior within the principle of non-denial and non-protest; Al-Jabarty sided with Wahabism and its first Saudi State; this means he supported the notion of changing vice by force; i.e., wars, violence, and massacres and compulsion in religion within a theocracy.  
3- We begin here with some details mentioned by Al-Jabarty about the savagery and brutality of rulers who massacred, raped, enslaved, and misused (within unpaid forced labor or corvée) many people among their subjects; he also mentions how the masses engaged into promiscuity within Sufi festivals (i.e., moulids) and no one protested against such immorality. When Al-Jabarty protested or refused to accept some deeds of M. Ali Pacha, ruler of Egypt, he suffered bereavement when his son was murdered and Al-Jabarty himself was assassinated three years later because people sympathized with him.
Firstly: Al-Jabarty as a witness regarding the spread of immorality and promiscuity in Egypt as per the tenets of Sunnite Sufism:
1- The writings of Al-Jabarty indicate clearly that Sunnite Sufism spread and controlled all aspects of life in Egypt at the time, especially after the increase of the rates of backwardness, ignorance, and obscurantism. The social life and religious one during the Ottoman Era were somehow dormant and stagnant; most people typically deified and worshiped entombed Sufi 'saints' in mausoleums and living Sufi sheikhs/saints of several Sufi orders. The religious practices during the Ottoman Era were centered around drawing 'benediction' from such living saints and mausoleums of dead ones; moulids/festivals were held in honor of both living and dead 'saints' as per the tenets of Sunnite Sufism; such celebrations were attended by 'stars' of that era; i.e., Sunnite fiqh scholars, Azharite sheikhs, and Sufi sheikhs/saints. Such celebrations combined, in the same location and time, polytheism and immoral/promiscuous behavior, especially within the moulids/festivals celebrating (fe)male saints like Hussein, Al-Badawi, and Zeinab in Egypt. By the way, Al-Jabarty was a graduate from Al-Azhar; i.e., he was an Azharite sheikh and so was his father; yet, he never hesitated (within his writings) in exposing and protesting against promiscuity, debaucheries, and immortal behavior witnessed by him despite the fact that some of his fellow Azharite sheikhs indulged themselves in such sins.       
2- Al-Jabarty mentions the following within the biography of a Sufi sheikh/saint among his contemporaries: (... the Sufi sheikh and imam, the magnate and holy saint who emits great lights and performed many miracles Abdul-Wahab Ibn Abdul-Salam ...); these words reflect the typical way of expressing deification and sanctification of Sufi saints/sheikhs; after narrating many details about the so-called miracles and many stories about this head of a Sufi order, Al-Jabarty writes the following about this sheikh's death and burial: (... he died in 1172 A.D. in the month of Saffar, the 12th, and he was buried beside the Mausoleum of our master the saint Abdullah Al-Minoufi ...). Al-Jabarty mentions what happened to this tomb: (... A great flood occurred in 1178 A.H., and all tombs and graveyards were destroyed by the water; corpses and bones of the dead floated everywhere; the mausoleum of the saint Abdullah Al-Minoufi was destroyed and filled with water ... no one ever found the bones of the saint Abdul-Wahab Ibn Abdul-Salam ...). This story proves there is nothing called sainthood or even Sufi miracles; some water effaced the bones and the tomb of this so-called saint; yet, polytheists typically insist on their bad notions: the location of the destroyed, empty tomb was deemed holier than ever: (... The disciples of this saint re-built the mausoleum on the right side of the renovated mausoleum of the saint Abdullah Al-Minoufi, near the monument of the sultan Qaitbay; the new mausoleum has a huge dome with costly decorations ...). This means that the polytheistic Sufis turned the ruined tomb which was like a garbage dump after the flood into a very elegant, richly decorated mausoleum; these disciples of the dead Sufi sheikhs never wanted to lose any money which came into their pockets from the naïve, gullible Sufi worshipers; all what it took was to convince wealthy Sunnite Sufis to finance this project as they believed in entombed deities and holy tombs; Al-Jabarty writes: (... Many people admired the magnificent mausoleum and visited it to worship at it reverently; men mixed with women under the dome that housed this mausoleum; a magnificent palace was built near it by the wealthy merchant named.... ...). Al-Jabarty mentions that some other tombs of other Sufi gods/deities were demolished when people stopped believing in them and such gods/saints lost their fame and popularity; for instance, a graveyard of old gods/saints was turned into a stable of donkeys and horses: (... at one time, the local authorities demolished a graveyard that housed many tombs and mausoleums of male and female saints, scholars of fiqh, and hadiths-narrators whom people no longer visited to draw benediction and turned the location into a walled stable for donkeys and horses ...).  Moulids/festivals to celebrate and commemorate Sufi 'saints' meant that Sufi disciples and living sheikhs will to collect lots of money, offerings, oblations, etc. and consume food for free in sumptuous banquets:  (... Sufi sheikhs and their disciples are the ones to decide when and where to celebrate saints within certain seasons ... peasants, workers, and wealthy people, men and women, from Upper and Lower Egypt would come every season to celebrate the Sufi saints they venerate and draw benediction from their mausoleums ... many coffee houses and eateries would serve them as well as magicians, belly-dancers, musicians, and whores in brothels and tents ... people of all classes mingled; the poor and the rich, the merchants and the peasants along with workers and so on and so forth ...). This means that such gathering made men mix with women and people have to be served and entertained by cooks, petty artists, and sex workers. Al-Jabarty here describes religious practices of Sunnite Sufis who performed 'pilgrimage' at such mausoleums within such festivals: (... men and women mingled around the mausoleums day and night within tents and outside tents to worship at the tombs and weep, to consume food and drink, defecate and urinate, sing, dance, and play musical instruments, and men would have sex with women and with other men and male adolescents as well ... many people would stay like this for more than ten days on end ...). These are the typical Sufi acts of worship: limitless orgies of heterosexuals and homosexuals along with means of entertainment and polytheistic worship of tombs. There were no fiqh scholars who would enjoin virtue and advise against vice; all Azharite scholars and Sunnite sheikhs joined the debaucheries/orgies and celebrations:  (... During these festivals, special tents were pitched for scholars of hadith and fiqh and others for princes and wealthy merchants ...). This means that such scholars of Satan considered promiscuity as part of religious practices and acts of worship; they would hardly be expected to try to preach chastity, piety, and morals: (... most people assumed that these practices drew them nearer to the Lord God; no scholars ever protested against what is going on within such celebrations as they participated in all activities ... May God guide them ...). This means that Al-Jabarty protested inwardly and implicitly against promiscuity, and he imitates his role-model, Al-Makrizi, in his way of analysis but in a more brief and less bold manner. 
Secondly: Al-Jabarty as a witness regarding the brutality and savagery of the Ottoman military rulers: 
1- Al-Jabarty lived within a period of political and military turmoil; Egypt was merely a governorate within the vast Ottoman empire; Egypt had a new governor (with different troops) every few years; these troops were mere soldiers and gangsters from different nationalities and in most cases, they fought against one another and against the remnants of the Mamelukes who ruled many stretches of land and villages in the name of the Ottomans. The Ottoman governor of Egypt typically centered his activities on collecting as much money as possible for himself and for the Ottoman sultans; these sultans never allowed a governor to stay too long in his post so as not to be tempted to rule Egypt within autonomy. Governors changed but the corruption and grave injustices increased; each governor was interested to loot for himself as much money as possible, and each would leave Egypt filled to the brim with military and political turmoil of the struggle among generals and troops; the victims here were mostly from among the unarmed ordinary Egyptian people and most of them typically vented their frustrations by leading a promiscuous life endorsed and led by Sufi sheikhs. Once M. Ali Pacha became the governor of Egypt, he aimed at ruling Egypt independently as its king; he managed to establish his dynasty eventually; before this, the Ottoman sultan commissioned him to use his well-trained Egyptian military army to crush and destroy the first Saudi State and to level to the ground its capital in the Najd region, Al-Dariyya. In fact, M. Ali Pacha got rid of both the remnants of the Mamelukes and the Ottoman soldiers inside Egypt, and he established an Egyptian fleet of warships and formed the well-trained Egyptian military troops; he later on fought against the Ottomans and was a foe of Europe itself and posed a threat to the Europeans who, in their turn, helped the Ottoman sultan to crush him; this saga of events is beyond the scope of this BOOK. We quote some lines from Al-Jabarty, one of the foes of M. Ali Pacha, as he writes about injustices of the military troops of the Ottomans and the Mamelukes.     
2- Al-Jabarty writes the following.
2/1: (... On Saturday, the 1st day of Shabaan, 1217 A.H., the local authorities arrested tens of men from the Cairene district of Old Cairo to help build military fortifications in the city of Giza ...); this means that people were arrested randomly in the streets to be used in unpaid forced labor or corvée.
2/2: (... In the 4th day of Zu Al-Hijja, 1217 A.H., a Christian solider of the Ottoman troops got killed by the Mameluke troops as he and his two friends used to be drunk while standing at the gate of this soldier's house to kidnap any passing women to rape them; this man got killed but his two friends ran away in fear ... The military troops of the Ottomans attacked a house in the alley of Khosh Qadam, in Cairo, and slaughtered all men and women inside it after looting everything inside it ...); this means that rape, theft, and murder spread at such times of turmoil.
2/3: (... In the 16th  of Rabei Awwal, 1218 A.H., a fierce battle between troops of M. Ali Pacha and his enemies took place in Damietta, and many soldiers of both sides were killed; the troops of the enemies attacked houses of all people of Damietta to steal the clothes of its people as well as their precious possessions, and they kidnapped women and raped them in the streets in broad day light; they stole all different sorts of local merchandise and imported goods within all shops and burned many of these shops ... This resulted in soaring prices of basic food items such as rice and bread ... May God relieve the calamity of the people of Damietta! ...); this means that the battle between the troops of M. Ali Pacha and the troops of his foes in Damietta, a city in northern Egypt overlooking the Mediterranean Sea, resulted in the fact that the people of Damietta suffered looting, rape, sabotage, and massacres.
2/4: (... In the 12th of Shabaan, 1219 A.H., many of the soldiers of the Ottomans raided villages and small towns of Upper Egypt and they stole cattle, camels, horses, mules and donkeys of all people ...); this means that looting spread in such times of turmoil even in rural areas.
2/5: (... In 1225 A.H., the military leaders of the troops of M. Ali Pacha roamed all districts of Cairo and Giza, and then other cities in Upper and Lower Egypt in order to mobilize all soldiers from all over Egypt to join the troops heading for Arabia ... On their way, they stole camels, horses, mules, and donkeys of people; they enslaved men momentarily to serve them in ships and other types of labor ... Runaway seamen, about 60 of them, who deserted their  ships were put to death by being locked up inside a huge cell without food and water until they died a week later ...); this means that during the preparation of the military campaign to finish off Wahabis in Arabia and to put an end to the first Saudi State, massacres, looting, and corvée had to occur first in Egypt!
2/6: (... In 1226 A.H., terror spread because of the military troops of M. Ali Pacha that roamed all cities from Cairo and Giza to Suez and to Alexandria to steal all cattle, camels, horses, mules, and donkeys; they even forced the wealthy people to dismount from their camels and horses and to leave their trade caravans and goods ... people had to hide their animals indoors and stopped going out for many days...); this means that looting went on all the time.
2/7: (... During the Ramadan of 1226 A.H., Prince Tousson the son of M. Ali Pacha led his troops to the city of Yanba' which overlooks the sea in Arabia and they embarked on their warships to control its harbor; they stole and confiscated all goods of all merchants who came to Yanba' by the sea or by the trade routes ... They stole all the goods, possessions, and money of the people of Yanba' and captured many women and sold them into slavery ... They imposed a heavy tribute on all wealthy merchants of Yanba' ... Imams of mosques were forced to praise the prince for his Islamic holy war and conquest and messengers were sent to Islambul, the capital of the Ottomans, along with many spoils to bring glad tidings of such victory ...); this means that looting was their faulty meaning of the so-called 'Islamic' conquest!
2/8: (... During Muharram , 1227 A.H., an eye-witness informed me personally that victory is hard to be attained as soldiers of M. Ali Pacha have nothing to do with Islam; they never perform prayers; they never heed the call to prayers, and they drink wine. The Wahabi warriors perform the five daily prayers on time within congregations within submission to God; our soldiers were mightily surprised to see this in the battlefield; Wahabi warriors accuse our military troops of polytheism, consuming ill-gotten money, the practice of usury, committing the sins of fornication and homosexual debauchery, drinking wine, shaving their beards, and rejecting prayers ... When Wahabi warriors took the clothes of the dead soldiers, they discovered that most of our men were not circumcised; many of our soldiers raped women en masse and then sold them into slavery, along with all children, after looting all towns in Arabia on their way to Najd ... Even some men of surrendered towns spoke about the soldiers demanding their women for only one night and promised to hand them back to their husbands, and those who refused were threatened to be put to a violent death ... Wahabi warriors claimed that our soldiers imitated the barbaric Al-Khawarij Shiite warriors of the past ...); this means that the warriors of Wahabism adhered to the five daily prayers during battle while soldiers of the Ottomans adhered to looting and enslavement of peaceful, unarmed civilians; Al-Jabarty tries to find a reason to justify the initial defeat of Prince Tousson, as per words of an eye-witness who joined this military campaign against Wahabis of Arabia.
2/9: (... In 1227 A.H., many Turkish soldiers joined the troops of M. Ali Pacha in Cairo, and stayed for weeks before being sent to Arabia; every night, they stole cattle, camels, horses, mules, and donkeys of the people of Cairo and sold some women and children into slavery; women and female adolescents and children were raped before being sold ...); this means that they typically confiscated possessions of people and kidnapped children and women to sold them into slavery, after raping the women and girls.
3- The above points are about the brutality and savagery of the Ottoman military rulers, but what about the brutality and savagery of the Wahabis?
Al-Jabarty as a witness, in spite of himself, regarding the brutality and savagery of Wahabis:
Firstly: Al-Jabarty sympathizes with Wahabism:
1- Al-Jabarty was the victim of Wahabi propaganda; he sympathized with Wahabi fighters and warriors. M. Ibn Saud at the time sent a letter addressing the Egyptians to Al-Jabarty with the sheikh/imam of the Moroccan pilgrims; Al-Jabarty copies the entire letter in his book and comments on it: (... Many people in Egypt differed about Wahabism if it is an evil or a good thing; many considered it as a form of violence and disbelief because this is the view held by the Meccans; some considered Wahabism as a revival movement of faith ... the sheikh/imam of the Moroccan pilgrims has met with our person to deliver a message sent specially to us by the Prince Mohamed Ibn Saud, talking about his Wahabi call and faith ... This is the entire letter: [ In the Name of the Lord God, the Dominant, the Compassionate, we rely on the Lord God and we praise and laud Him; we implore Him for forgiveness and pardon; we seek refuge in Him from the evil powers inside our souls and from our sins; those guided by Him are never misguided and those who chose misguidance will never be guided by Him; we testify that there is no God but Allah and that Prophet Muhammad is His servant and messenger; those who obey the Lord God and His messenger are the guided ones; those who disobey the Lord God and His messenger are the misguided ones who harm themselves and can never harm God; we implore the Almighty Lord God to bestow His many blessings on Prophet Muhammad and his companions and his family members. The Lord God says the following in the Quran: "Say, "This is my way; I invite to God, based on clear knowledge - I and whoever follows me. Glory be to God; and I am not of the polytheists."" (12:108); "Say, "If you love God, then follow me, and God will love you, and will forgive you your sins"..." (3:31); "...Whatever the Messenger gives you, accept it; and whatever he forbids you, abstain from it..." (59:7); "Follow what is revealed to you from your Lord, and do not follow other masters beside Him. Little you remember." (7:3); "This is My Path, straight, so follow it. And do not follow the other paths, lest they divert you from His Path. All this He has enjoined upon you, that you may adhere to piety." (6:153); "... Today I have perfected your religion for you, and have completed My Bounty upon you, and have approved Islam as a religion for you..." (5:3); God has perfected religion for people within the Revelation granted to Prophet Muhammad which he proclaimed to people; God has enjoined us to adhere to this Revelation and never to be divided and never to follow whims and desires. Prophet Muhammad predicts in his hadiths that many people of his Umma would follow the sinful ways of previous nations, especially the Jews and the Christians, and that his Umma would be divided into 73 groups who will enter into Hell except for one group of real monotheists who follow his Sunna/ways and the Sunna/ways of his companions. We denounce the wretched state of affairs of the Umma today; many people are now polytheists who worship the dead people in their tombs and ask for their help and aid to deliver them from calamities and to grant their wishes; people supplicate to entombed dead persons instead of the Lord God! Those polytheists bring offerings and oblations to these tombs and slaughter sacrificial animals to honor them; they should worship the Lord God instead of such tombs and should devote their religion and acts of worship only to Him: "We sent down to you the Book with the Truth, so worship God, devoting your religion to Him. Is not to God that sincere faith is due? As for those who take allies besides Him, “We only worship them that they may bring us nearer to God.” God will judge between them regarding their differences. God does not guide the lying disbelievers." (39:2-3). Hence, God will never approve of those who worship angels, prophets, and the good, dead men besides Him under the pretext of getting nearer to God as intercessors; there are no mediators in Islam between people and their Lord God Who never accepts anything but sincere devotion and monotheism; people are to implore and to supplicate to their Lord God and never to any mortals: "And they worship, besides God, what neither harms them nor benefits them. And they say, "These are our intercessors with God." Say, "Are you informing God about what He does not know in the heavens or on earth?" Glorified be He, High above the associations they make." (10:18); "...Who is he that can intercede with Him except with His permission?..." (2:255); "On that Day, the sinners' excuses will not benefit them, nor will they be excused." (30:57); "On that Day, intercession will not avail, except for him permitted by the Merciful, and whose words He has approved." (20:109); "...And they do not intercede except for him whom He approves; and they tremble in awe of Him." (21:28); "The places of worship are for God. So do not call, besides God, upon anyone else." (72:18). We do believe that the only intercessor on the Last Day is Prophet Muhammad who is promised the Laudable Position by the Lord God, within banners of all prophets and messengers; God has granted him the Grand Intercession using words taught to him to be used on the Last Day, as a mercy for his Umma to make them enter into Paradise; no scholars or sheikhs of religion can deny this; this is agreed upon unanimously by the Good Ancestors and the narratives told by the companions of Prophet Muhammad; yet, it is sheer polytheism to worship dead men and women as 'saints' and to worship their tombs and to assume as if they were intercessors who can manage the affairs of living people; it is sinful to celebrate such dead people in certain annual festivals and to collect money and to give parties and banquets in their honor; it is sinful that there would be sheikhs who serve such tombs and consume such food and money from the polytheists who deify such tombs; this is utter paganism against which many hadiths of Prophet Muhammad warn real believers. Of course, Prophet Muhammad carried the banner of monotheism and he advised against polytheism and its ways; many hadiths of Al-Bokhary and Moslem tell us about never to sanctify tombs and that decorations of revered mausoleums must be destroyed; there are narratives about Ali Ibn Abou Talib sent by Prophet Muhammad to destroy all pagan statues and idols in Arabia and all 'holy' tombs. Scholars of fiqh jurisprudence unanimously agree on the fact that mosques built over mausoleums must be demolished. This made people who differ from us fight against us in Najd and we had to defend ourselves; we are to fight people with the sword to force them to follow the true faith and the path of guidance if they refuse to follow the Quran and the Sunna and to perform prayers; a hadith by Prophet Muhammad asserts that followers of Sunna will never be misguided as long as they guide others to the true faith; God says in the Quran: "Fight them until there is no more persecution, and religion becomes exclusively for God..." (8:39); "We sent Our messengers with the clear proofs, and We sent down with them the Book and the Balance, that humanity may uphold justice. And We sent down iron, in which is violent force, and benefits for humanity..." (57:25); "Those who, when We empower them in the land, observe the prayer, and give regular charity, and command what is right, and forbid what is wrong. To God belongs the outcome of events." (22:41). This is our faith as Wahabis and we respect true Muslims who adhere to Sunna and the Quran as true followers of Prophet Muhammad. Our sincere greetings to you and may the Lord God bless you ...] ...). Al-Jabarty writes this comment after quoting this letter: (... I say that if this is the faith of Wahabis, it is the same faith of all Muslims and monotheists who have nothing to do with sinners and fanatics, and this is explained further within the book of Ibn Al-Qayyim titled "Ighathat Al-Lahfan", the book of Al-Makrizi titled "Al-Hafiz fi Tagreed Al-Tawheed", the book of imam Al-Yussi titled "Sharh Al-Kubra", and the book of Ibn Abbad titled "Sharh Al-Hukm"; this is not to mention other books of other revered authors ...). We assert here that if Al-Jabarty had ever read and studied the Sunnite books whose titles he mentions, he would have found that they contradict the call of M. Ibn Saud and the ideas of Al-Makrizi and other historians; such Sunnite ideas contradict the Quran which allows fighting ONLY in cases of self-defense and prohibits murder and killing; in contrast, Wahabis allow massacring all non-Wahabis and all peaceful opposition figures.    
2- It is obvious from the lines written by Al-Jabarty that he sympathized with Wahabism after the military troops of M. Ali Pacha destroyed their first Saudi State; the Saudi family members were brought to Cairo as captured slaves; the main head of the Saudi family was sent from Cairo to Astana, the capital of the Ottomans in Turkey, to be beheaded there for trying to rebel against the Ottoman empire. Al-Jabarty met some of the members of the Saudi family enslaved in Cairo and he expresses sympathy with them in his writings as he describes them. It is surmised that the animosity of Al-Jabarty towards M. Ali Pacha was another motive that drove Al-Jabarty to sympathize with the Wahabis because they were the enemies of the king of Egypt. We trace in the following points some features of how Al-Jabarty sympathized with Wahabis and Wahabism, and how this is shown in his lines written about them.     
Secondly: Al-Jabarty defends Wahabis who hindered and repelled people away from the Sacred Kaaba Mosque made by God for all peaceful people:
1- Ibn Saud announced in 1222 A.H. all over the Arab world that he will prevent non-Wahabis from performing pilgrimage in Mecca, as non-Wahabis are deemed by him as polytheists; Ibn Saud prevented the Egyptians, the Levantines, and the Iraqis from reaching Mecca that year. Al-Jabarty writes the following: (... Three ships reached Suez from Jeddah carrying Egyptians, Turks, Levantines, and other people of other nations who were prevented from reaching Mecca as the Wahabi Prince Mohamed Ibn Saud prevented them from performing pilgrimage as per his decree concerning preventing shaven men, who insist on not growing beards as per Sunna traditions, from ever entering into Mecca and Yathreb ... The written decree of Ibn Saud contains this Quranic verse: "O you who believe! The polytheists are polluted, so let them not approach the Sacred Mosque after this year of theirs..." (9:28) ...).  
2- It is obvious that Al-Jabarty approves of the Wahabi stance despite his being an Egyptian and this means that the decree of Ibn Saud of preventing Egyptians from entering into Mecca applied to him as well; Al-Jabarty writes the following about events of 1232 A.H.: (... Most Egyptians and Levantines stopped their journeys towards Mecca as they heard about the decree of the Wahabi Prince Mohamed Ibn Saud about preventing them from ever entering into Mecca. This is not true; the Prince did not command the prevention of certain nations; he only desired to prevent those who commit sins of coming into Mecca while carrying arms and weapons and carrying musical instruments played upon their entering into the Holy City; by the way, a group of Moroccans performed pilgrimage this year and returned safely to their homeland and no one prevented them from entering into Mecca or harmed them in any way ...). We say here that Ibn Saud should have allowed all people from all nationalities to enter into Mecca for pilgrimage and then stop their 'sins'; instead, he readily announced his preventing non-Wahabis from ever entering into Mecca unless they follow his rules; by the way, Ibn Saud misunderstood the verse  9:28; it is about preventing aggressors and violent people, who violate peace treaties as per the Quranic Chapter Nine, from entering into the Sacred Kaaba Mosque in Mecca. This means that the verse  9:28 applies to aggressive Wahabis who came from Al-Dariyya in Najd and conquered Mecca and other cities and regions in Arabia and forced people to follow Wahabi rules which includes the prohibition of smoking. 
Thirdly: Al-Jabarty defends Wahabis who stole treasures of the mausoleum attributed to Muhammad in the Yathreb mosque: 
   News spread among people that Ibn Saud and his Wahabi fighters and warriors stole the treasures deposited by sultans, kings, and the wealthy people inside the Yathreb-mosque mausoleum ascribed to Muhammad. With the passage of centuries, such treasures increased and people assumed they were 'holy' treasures that should never be touched or stolen; the gullible Muhammadans assumed such treasures are owned and guarded by an immortal Muhammad! Ibn Saudi and his Wahabi troops dared to stole such treasures once he conquered Yathreb; this was his primary aim; he soon enough felt the disgrace of stealing such treasures as people all over the Arab world talked about his act of 'sacrilege'; he could never defend himself or deny his deed; even Othman Ibn Bishr, the Wahabi historian who wrote about the first Saudi State and the second Saudi State, decided to never mention this disgraceful event in his book. In contrast, Al-Jabarty defended this act of Ibn Saud; within the events of 1221 A.H., Al-Jabarty writes the following: (... When the Wahabi troops conquered Yathreb, they demolished all domes under which there were mausoleums of buried imams; they stole all treasures, precious stones, and jewels which were located inside the chamber of the Yathreb-Mosque mausoleum of Prophet Muhammad ...). People all over the Arab and 'Islamic' world were shocked by this news of this theft and protested verbally and loudly against this 'sacrilege'; yet, Al-Jabarty defends Ibn Saud here: (... The Wahabi Prince Ibn Saud confiscated all treasures, jewels, and precious stones that were located inside the mausoleum chamber of Prophet Muhammad; many people assume that this is the worst type of sacrilege; such treasures accumulated throughout the centuries as insane Arab and non-Arab kings, sultans, and wealthy people dedicated such gifts to this mausoleum as if to purchase their right to earn entering into Paradise or in order not to let them be inherited by others; some left such treasures and precious gifts as stored money to prepare troops to defend Yathreb and Mecca when necessary in times of need when military jihad would be necessary; with the passage of time, naïve people have sanctified such treasures as if they were owned by Prophet Muhammad and they decided never to touch or spend them; it is sheer madness to assume that the Prophet owns such transient possessions of this world; God has made him a Prophet and not a wealthy king who is keen on the material possessions of this temporary world ...). Al-Jabarty has touched upon this topic again in some detail in his writing about the events of 1223 A.H.: (... When the Wahabi Prince of Najd, Mohamed Ibn Saud, came with his troops to conquer the city of Yathreb, people said that he confiscated four camel-loads of treasures: gold and silver pieces, jewels, pearls, diamonds, emeralds, rubies, and other precious stones as well as more than 100 priceless swords encrusted with gold and diamonds and rubies, sealed in the names of ancient caliphs, kings, and sultans ...). We remind readers that to store and amass money (symbolized by gold and silver) without spending them for God's sake and for charity is a grave sin and a prohibition against which God has warned in the Quran: "O you who believe! Many of the rabbis and priests consume people's wealth illicitly, and hinder from God's Path. Those who hoard gold and silver, and do not spend them in God's cause, inform them of a painful torment." (9:34). Hence, we conclude that it is prohibited to offer oblations (money or anything else) to the entombed dead persons whose tombs are sanctified and deified; such mausoleums (including the one at the Yathreb mosque) are abominations of Satan's doing. Of course, it is a sin to steal anything; Ibn Saud was a thief who consumed ill-gotten money and committed massacres and other heinous crimes; his grave sins include ascribing his crimes to the name of Islam; within real Islam (i.e., Qurnaism), such treasures of the Yathreb-mosque mausoleum should have been distributed as alms/charity among the impoverished Muslims.     
Fourthly: Al-Jabarty disregards and overlooks and does not protest against the details of brutality and savagery of Wahabis: 
1- The massacre of Al-Ta'if: It remains as the major stigma or disgrace in the history of the first Saudi State; it has been perpetrated again within the wars aiming at establishing the third, current Saudi State. The city of Al-Ta'if was ruled by Al-Sharif Ghalib, the prince of Mecca; he had at first made peace treaties with the Wahabis; these Wahabis violated these treaties soon enough and they conquered Al-Ta'if in 1802 A.D./1217 A.H., and they put to the sword all its dwellers: men, women, children, babies, and the elderly people; they even killed those who sought refuge inside mosques; other troops were sent after those who fled Al-Ta'if and they were murdered on the spot by being beheaded. Some men and women who surrendered to the Wahabi troops, inside and outside Al-Ta'if, were driven, stark naked, into a desert valley without food or water so that they die of hunger and thirst. The Wahabi warriors and fighters stole, robbed, and looted all precious items inside the city to give one-fifth of them to Ibn Saud and to distribute the rest among themselves; they tore and burned all books that contained non-Wahabi doctrines and schools of thoughts; they tore and burned copies of the Quran written in colored ink and threw them in the streets of Al-Ta'if; eventually, they dug holes within all bathhouses, gardens, walls, and houses of Al-Ta'if in search for any hidden treasures. Many corpses of women were seen with hands and arms chopped off as the Wahabi fighters aimed to steal their jewelry; many Wahabi warriors performed ablution, before performing prayers, with the blood of the victims after mixing it with water! Many reputable Sunnite scholars of fiqh were slaughter at the doorsteps of their homes because they were non-Wahabis. Al-Jabarty comments on this massacre of Al-Ta'if in his events of 1217 A.H.: (... on the 15th of Zu Al-Hijja, 1217 A.H., letters were sent by the people of Hejaz to the governor of Egypt, informing him of the fact that the troops of the Wahabis, led by the Prince Mohamed Ibn Saud, defeated the troops of Al-Sharif Ghalib, the Prince of Mecca, which defended Al-Ta'if; the remnants of his troops fled to Mecca after retrieving his treasures from his demolished house inside Al-Ta'if ... The Wahabis entered Al-Ta'if and were resisted for three days by its dwellers, but the Wahabis defeated them eventually, putting to the sword all men, women and children, while selling into slavery some girls and young women, and this is typical of victorious Wahabis when they deal with their enemies who fought and resisted them ...). This shows clearly that Al-Jabarty sympathized with the brutal, savage Wahabis and found their heinous crimes commendable! He never protested in his writings against their massacres and conquests! He ends this paragraph with warning readers within his era about the typical Wahabi aggressive behavior against those who resisted their conquests!      
2- Within the siege of Yathreb: When the troops of Ibn Saud sieged Yathreb for a long time, most of its inhabitants died of hunger; Al-Jabarty mentions this without any lamentation or regret; he mentions this neutrally and coldly without expressing any sorrow over the peaceful, unarmed civilians, i.e., the dwellers of Yathreb, who died of hunger during this siege; he writes the following within the events of 1219 A.H.: (... On the 13th of Rabei Awwal, 1219 A.H., ships carrying pilgrims (and Kiswah of the Sacred Kaaba) reached the port of Suez at the Red Sea in Egypt, and pilgrims sadly spread the news about their being prevented from pilgrimage because of the Wahabi troops that sieged Mecca and Yathreb as well as Jeddah; they informed people of the news that most of the dwellers of Yathreb died of hunger during this siege ...). 
Fifthly: Al-Jabarty disregards and does not protest against the crime of forced displacement committed by Wahabis:
 The savagery and brutality of Wahabis forced the dwellers of Mecca to surrender the city peacefully to them; many people fled their villages and towns in Hejaz, and within Arabia in general, as they feared for their lives and for their women; many of these people sought refuge in the Levant, Iraq, and Egypt, while seeking the help of the governors/rulers of these regions; some of these people sought refuge inside the capital of the Ottoman sultan in Turkey. This is known now in modern terms as the crime of forced displacement; people were forced to leave their homes, possessions, and stretches of land so as not to get killed or raped by the Wahabis and to avoid being sold into slavery and being subjected to the brutal Wahabi laws of changing what is deemed as 'vice' by force and violence. Al-Jabarty records some brief points (without protesting against the crimes of Wahabis at all!) about those who suffered forced displacement and had to settle in Egypt.  
1- (... Within the month of Shabaan, 1217 A.H., rulers of Mecca who belonged to the descendants of the household of Ali and Fatima fled from Mecca along with many Sunnite fiqh scholars in order to avoid any clashes with the fierce, belligerent Wahabis ... They headed for Istanbul to inform the Ottoman sultan about the fact that the Wahabis of Najd have conquered Mecca and to file their complaints and enlist his help to recapture the Holy City .. They voiced their grievances and narrated all the tales and stories they know to all high- and low-rank men in Turkey and people there circulated all their tales and stories, and then, they settled in the Egyptian capital, Cairo, as per the recommendation of the Ottoman sultan  ...).
2- (... Within the month of Shawwal, 1217 A.H., Al-Sharif or the Prince of Mecca and his family members and followers arrived to Egypt, and they met the prince of Jeddah who came to Cairo earlier, and narrated to the governor M. Ali Pacha their tales and stories of their flight to avoid Wahabis who conquered Mecca and carried letters from the Ottoman sultan enlisting the help of the governor to recapture the Hejaz region once more ...).
3- (... Within the month of Saffar, 1218 A.H., the Prince of Mecca left Mecca along with a group of his relatives and their followers, about 60 people, and they headed caravans of pilgrims who could not get into Mecca because the Wahabi prince Ibn Saud conquered Mecca without fighting and he appointed another prince and judge inside Mecca from among his Wahabi followers ... He made his men demolish all domes that housed mausoleums and those decorative domes built around the Kaaba; he delivered a speech inside the Sacred Kaaba Mosque about removing by force all inventions and innovations that contradicted the Quran and the Sunna hadiths; the former prince of Mecca settle momentarily in Jeddah, amidst fortifications, and the pilgrims embarked into their ships at the Jeddah port to return home to Egypt and to the Levant ...). This means that those who stayed inside Mecca listened submissively to Ibn Saud and never dared to question his words to avoid being put to death; those who managed to flee Mecca and settled in Egypt spread the news of what happened.
4- (... Within the month of Muharram, 1218 A.H., letters came via envoys informing the Egyptian governor that Wahabis have conquered the whole of the Hejaz region, and the rulers of Mecca and Jeddah who settled in Egypt advised all pilgrims who converged in Egypt to travel by ships to return to their homelands and to postpone their pilgrimage to another suitable time when the Egyptian troops and the Ottoman ones, which are being mobilized and prepared, would manage to recapture the Hejaz region ...).
5- (...Within the month of Saffar, 1218 A.H., letters arrived from the Hejaz region from envoys informing that Wahabis who controlled Mecca allowed a very limited number of pilgrims to enter into Mecca after forcing them to pay heavy tributes ... News spread that Al-Sharif Ghalib burned down his house inside Al-Ta'if after retrieving all his treasures and he fled to Jeddah and then to an unknown location as he traveled secretly by the Red Sea ... Other poorer pilgrims were prevented from entering into Mecca and had no choice but to return to their homelands ...).
6- (... Within the month of Zu Al-Hijja, 1223 A.H., news spread about the fact that the dwellers of Mecca and Yathreb were living in abject poverty as no pilgrims ever came to both cities; some of them died of hunger and many of them fled and settled in the Levantine region and in Egypt; few of them went to Istanbul to file their complaints to the Ottoman sultan and enlist his help to drive away Wahabis from the Hejaz region and they narrated tales and stories of their grievances and sufferings in detail to high- and low-rank officials in Turkey  ...).
Sixthly: Al-Jabarty disregards and does not protest against offensive and aggressive wars of Ibn Saud during the four sacred months of pilgrimage:
  We infer from the quotes above taken from the book by Al-Jabarty that some of the atrocities of the Wahabis were perpetrated within the sacred months of pilgrimage; yet, those cursed Wahabis ascribed their heinous crimes to the name of Islam; in contrast, the murderous Ottomans soldiers (including those who were Muslims, Christians, or others) who massacred unarmed, peaceful civilians all year long in order to rape, steal, rob, and loot never ascribed their crimes to the name Islam. The Wahabis of Najd led by M. Ibn Saud assumed they monopolized the name of Islam as if they were the possessors and controllers of the Lord God's Religion; such a false claim made the evil Wahabis commit all the crimes of raping, arson, sabotage, looting, enslaving, conquering, and massacring during the four sacred months of pilgrimage – yet, Al-Jabarty never reproached them or disowned their crimes despite the fact that he chronicled the events based on the lunar calendar of the Hijri months!     
 Al-Jabarty disregards and does not protest against the evil deeds of Wahabis and he defends them and yet he mentions some of what has been circulated about their brutal and savage actions; this means that he has concealed other atrocities as he has chosen not to mention them. We tackle within the points below some facts regarding M. Ibn Abdul-Wahab and the Wahabi State.
The hypocritical religious discourse and propaganda by M. Ibn Abdul-Wahab:
Firstly: both Ibn Taymiyya and M. Ibn Abdul-Wahab share the feature of contradictory discourse:
 Ibn Taymiyya, the extremist Sunnite Hanbali scholar, believed in Sufi 'saints' and their alleged miracles and intercession; he writes: (... Sufis are very diligent in their worshiping and obeying the Lord God ...); he writes the following about Jeineid, one of the Sufi sheikhs/saints among the generation of pioneers: (... Jeineid, may God bless and sanctify his soul, was among the holy imams of guidance ...); yet, Ibn Taymiyya assumed that there were fake Sufis or extremists among them (e.g., Al-Halaj) who were imposters because they have introduced fabrications and innovations into the Sufi religion and they were not true Sufis as per his own definition; it is strange that Ibn Taymiyya believed in miracles of Sufis, as he deemed them as allies of God, and also in the miracles of those deemed by him as allies of Satan (see the booklet titled "On the Sufis and the Poor", p. 16, by Ibn Taymiyya and also his book titled "The Criterion to Differentiate Allies of God from the Allies of the Devil", p. 99, 100, and 141). Of course, Ibn Taymiyya has issued fatwas to put to death all those who give views that opposed his own, and Sufis were no exception to him within those who deserve to get killed if they dared to refuse his fatwas! Many fatwas of his require putting to death all Shiites and many Sufis and those deemed by him as 'infidels'/'heretics' or 'apostates' who dared to oppose his views and fatwas! In contrast, M. Ibn Abdul-Wahab within his religious discourse and propaganda feigned believing in all of the common notions among the Muhammadans (i.e., Shiites, Sufis, and Sunnites), but the wicked Wahabi religion established and practiced by him reflects otherwise; his fatwas require to put to death all those deemed by him as 'infidels' or 'apostates'; i.e., all non-Wahabis, even if they were unarmed and peaceful people! This means he admired, applied, and adhered to fatwas issued by Ibn Taymiyya.    
Secondly: features of this Wahabi hypocritical religious discourse and propaganda based on lies and falsehoods:
1- Ibn Abdul-Wahab declared at first that he is not an inventor of a new doctrine: (... I – thank the Lord Allah – never call for a new doctrine of Sufism or any other; I am not an imam or even a fiqh scholar like the ones I revere such as Ibn Al-Qayyim, Ibn Katheer, and Al-Dhahaby ... I only call for the monotheism of (There is no God but Allah) and I call for a return to the hadiths of our Holy Prophet Muhammad; people should return to the truth and adhere to it; they should stop sticking to any heretic views that contradict the Quran, hadiths, and the fiqh of the revered Sunnite imams ... no hadiths are untrue; the Holy Prophet utters nothing but the truth, and this is testified by the Lord God and His angels ...) (from "Al-Dorar Al-Sunniyya" by Ibn Abdul-Wahab, Part I, p. 37 & 38). (... My faith and religion is the Sunnite doctrine agreed upon by Muslim scholars of fiqh within all eras, especially the four Sunnite imams and their followers until the Last Day ...) (ibid, Part I, p. 64). Ibn Abdul-Wahab requires blind obedience to conqueror/victorious rulers who ascend to their thrones regardless of their way of rule and their character: (... It is unanimously agreed upon by all Sunnite scholars that true believers must obey all rulers in all times even if the enthroned ruler is a black slave from Abyssinia, as per the hadiths ...) (from the complete works of Ibn Abdul-Wahab, Part I, p. 233, 234, & 394). In fact, Sunnite Hanbali Wahabism is a blood-thirsty, savage doctrine of Satan and the bloodshed it has caused is unprecedented within the history of the Muhammadans; the followers of Al-Maliki, Al-Shafei, and Al-Hanafiyya doctrines never committed the massacres which have been committed by Sunnite Wahabis which exceeded those massacres and atrocities committed by the Shiite Safavid Shah Ismail of the Safavid dynasty in Iran and  by Tamerlane the emperor of the Mongols.       
2- Ibn Abdul-Wahab in his religious discourse and propaganda that consist of falsehoods and lies within hypocrisy feigns his agreeing with the notions of Shiites, Sufis, ands Sunnites, especially regarding preferring Muhammad to the rest of God's prophets/messengers; he writes: (... The Holy Prophet Muhammad is the master of intercessors on the Last Day; he is the owner of the Grand Intercession and the Laudable Position; Adam and the other prophets and messengers of God are beneath his stature and follow his banner ... The Holy Prophet Muhammad is the Seal of all prophets and the best of all of them; he is better than Adam, Noah, etc. ...) (from "Al-Dorar Al-Sunniyya", Part I, p. 86 & 143).   
3- This means that Ibn Abdul-Wahab believed in the myth of the so-called intercession of Muhammad; he refutes those who undermine him regarding this topic here: (... My foes assume that I deny and refute the Grand Intercession of the Holy Prophet Muhammad; this is not true; this is an utterly false accusation leveled at me; this accusation is groundless; I testify that the Holy Prophet Muhammad is the Grand Intercessor and the owner of the Laudable Position on the Day of Judgment; I implore the Lord God and supplicate to Him to make me among those who receive the intercession of Prophet Muhammad and be among the resurrected ones under his banner ...) (from "Al-Dorar Al-Sunniyya", Part I, p. 63 & 64). (... Those who deny the intercession of our Holy Prophet Muhammad are misguided heretics; the Lord God says in the Quran: "...Who is he that can intercede with Him except with His permission?..." (2:255); "...and they do not intercede except for him whom He approves..." (21:28) ...) (from "Al-Dorar Al-Sunniyya", Part I, p. 31).
4- Ibn Abdul-Wahab feigns that he approves of the myth of the 'holy' members of the household of Muhammad: (... God has entailed certain rights to the sanctified relatives and household members of the Holy Prophet Muhammad; no real Muslims should ever deny these rights while seeking monotheism; to deny these rights is a form of extremism that indicates lack of faith ...) (from the complete works of Ibn Abdul-Wahab, Part V, p. 284)
5- Ibn Abdul-Wahab feigns that he approves of the Sufi myth of the so-called miracles of 'saints' revered during his era: (... I do believe in the miracles of Sufi saints, because they are the holy allies of the Lord God; they are to be revered, sanctified, and loved; real believers must acknowledge their miracles; only the misguided heretics deny them; this verse applies to these holy saints: "Unquestionably, God's allies have nothing to fear, nor shall they grieve." (10:62) ...) (from "Al-Dorar Al-Sunniyya" by Ibn Abdul-Wahab, Part I, p. 36 and from the complete works of Ibn Abdul-Wahab, Part I, p. 169); yet, he disapproves of deeming them as deities/gods to be worshiped within polytheism.
6- Ibn Abdul-Wahab feigns that he approves of the Sufi myth that saints will act as intercessors on the Last Day; yet, he disapproves of asking for their intercession as this is for him a form of polytheism; people must ask intercession from God only (see "Kashf Al-Shubuhat" by Ibn Abdul-Wahab, p. 8, 10, and 38). This is silly; Ibn Abdul-Wahab insults God by making Him as a 'mediator' between believers and Sufi saints; as if the so-called 'saints' are in higher position that the stature of the Lord God! The polytheistic Sufis ask for saints to act as their intercessors before the Lord God; Ibn Abdul-Wahab demands that they ask God to make such saints intercede before Him on their behalf! This exemplifies the human folly and the bovine stupidity that have exceeded those of donkeys, cattle, and beasts!
Thirdly: the repetition of the same religious discourse and propaganda by Ibn Abdul-Wahab to refute and undermine his foes and detractors: 
1- Ibn Abdul-Wahab faced an anti-Wahabi propaganda from his foes and detractors among Wahabism-hating Shiites, Sufis, and Sunnite Sufis; he had to refute them by repeating ad infinitum ad nauseam the same ideas of Sunnite Sufism so as to force his detractors to approve of his ideas; this is why Ibn Abdul-Wahab wrote many booklets to refute all accusations leveled at him by his foes; he imitates the style of writing of Ibn Taymiyya, who was his role-model.  
2- Ibn Abdul-Wahab denies and disowns 12 accusations leveled at him by his foes and detractors by dismissing them as groundless; he writes: (... My foes have spread fearful slanders about me; they are merely false accusations that should be dismissed ... They say that I deny fiqh books of the four Sunnite doctrines; they say that I deny certain hadiths such as............. They say that I despise holy traditions of our revered forefathers and that I despise those who supplicate to the souls of buried good men and women so that they would intercede on their behalf before the Lord God ... They accuse me of declaring certain Sufi poets, such as Al-Bouseiry, as infidels for their words and also those who swear by other than God ... They accuse me of calling for demolishing the Yathreb-Mosque mausoleum and preventing people from visiting it and of seeking to rebuild the Kaaba ... As regarding these twelve accusations leveled at me, my answer is to quote this verse: "...By Your Glory, this is a serious slander." (24:16) ...) (from "The Personal Letters of Sheikh M. Ibn Abdul-Wahab, p. 64).
Fourthly: the message of Ibn Abdul-Wahab addressed to the people of Al-Qassim who asked him about his faith tenets:
 This message exemplifies the religious discourse of propaganda by Ibn Abdul-Wahab within which he repeats (over and over again!) his words/phrases verbatim, without trying to explain anything using other words at all. Let us quote some parts of this message in the points below.
1- Ibn Abdul-Wahab declared his being among the Sunnites who follow the revered imams and his being against doctrines/schools of Shiites, Sufis, Al-Mu'tazala, etc. regarding the descriptions and qualities of the Lord God:  (... I testify, and the Lord God is my Witness along with His Angels that I believe only in the Sunnite doctrine regarding all issues and topics; I believe in God and in His Angels, Scriptures, and Messengers, and in the Resurrection in the Hereafter ... I believe in Fate, within both adversity and prosperity, and I believe in the Lord God's descriptions and qualities mentioned in the verified hadiths and in the Quran; I deny Sufi and Shiite and philosophical descriptions and qualities ascribed to God by Al-Khawarij, Al-Mu'tazala,.......... I never believe in embodiment of the Lord God in any shape or form ...... I deny theological ideas of Persian origin and otherwise ... God says in the Quran: "Exalted be your Lord, the Lord of Glory, beyond their allegations. And peace be upon the messengers. And praise be to God, the Lord of the Worlds." (37:180-182) ...).
2- Ibn Abdul-Wahab adhered to the view of Hanbali Sunnite scholars about the fact that the Quran is NOT created; i.e., it is not among the creatures of God: (... I believe in the Quran as the Lord God's Word; it is not created; it is the Truth which descended on the Holy Prophet Muhammad to be delivered to the whole world ...).
3- Ibn Abdul-Wahab mentions here that he believed in the Sunnite Ashaary doctrine regarding preordained fate: (... I believe in the fact that God is the Omnipotent and Omnipresent Lord Who decrees whatever He likes as per His Divine Will; all things in this world are done and exist as per His Divine Will and as per His measures and preordained fate ...).
4- Ibn Abdul-Wahab, like the polytheistic imams of the Muhammadans before him, adhered to the myth that Muhammad knew the future and could predict events to come in the so-called hadiths ascribed falsely to him and could talk about the metaphysical realm of the Hereafter: (... I do believe in all hadiths of our Holy Prophet Muhammad about the events bound to occur in the centuries after his death and the hadiths about the Last-Day events ........ As per the hadiths, a basin with his name written on it will be filled with water and he will make his Umma drink from it in the Hereafter before they enter into Paradise ........ all people will walk on a bridge thinner than a hair, called Al-Sirat, in order to either fall into the Fire-Pit of Hell or to pass through Paradise, as per their faith and deeds ...).
5- Ibn Abdul-Wahab asserts here that he believed in the so-called intercession of Muhammad in the Hereafter; he misinterprets Quranic verses about intercession  (... I do believe in the Grand Intercession of our Holy Prophet Muhammad; he is the first intercessor on the Last Day with God's permission; those who deny this fact are heretics and infidels; polytheists will never take part in the mercy of the intercession ... God says in the Quran: "...and they do not intercede except for him whom He approves..." (21:28); "...Who is he that can intercede with Him except with His permission?..." (2:255); "How many an angel is there in the heavens whose intercession avails nothing, except after God gives permission to whomever He wills, and approves?" (53:26); "But the intercession of intercessors will not help them." (74:48) ... I believe that Hell and Paradise are eternal and they exist now and that believers will be able to see their God on the Last Day ...). We refer our readers to our book, in English, titled "Intercession between Islam and the Muhammadans" found on this link: (http://www.ahl-alquran.com/arabic/book_main.php?main_id=119).
6- Ibn Abdul-Wahab believes in the myth that companions of Muhammad are revered, infallible people within a hierarchy as per the Sunnite mythology; he disregards their civil wars and the crimes of the Arab conquests; he disregards Shiite insults directed to most companions and to Aisha, wife of Muhammad: (... I believe in the fact that the Holy Prophet Muhammad is the Seal of prophets and messengers of the Lord God ... The best companions are in this order: Abou Bakr, Omar, Othman, Ali, the ten men promised of Paradise, and the other companions and the wives of Prophet Muhammad ... I never believe that they made any mistakes after the death of Prophet Muhammad; God will forgive all of them, anyway; God says in the Quran: "And those who came after them, saying, "Our Lord, forgive us, and our brethren who preceded us in faith, and leave no malice in our hearts towards those who believe. Our Lord, You are Clement and Merciful."" (59:10) ...).
7- Ibn Abdul-Wahab believed, within a slightly reserved manner, in the so-called miracles of the so-called Sufi saints and in the myth that they knew the future: (... I do believe in miracles of Sufi saints who are allies of God ... God grants them a measure of the knowledge of the future; but no one is to ask from saints things that could never be done except by God ...).
8- Ibn Abdul-Wahab claims falsely that he never declared any Muslims as infidels: (... I never said that so-and-so among people are to enter into Paradise or Hell; those specified as such are only mentioned in hadiths of the Holy Prophet Muhammad; I merely fear for fate of the sinners and disobedient ones and I wish all the goodness for the pious ones regarding their fate; I never declare sinful Muslims as infidels who deserve to die or as apostates who forsook Islam ...). Such 'sweet' words of 'peace' and 'mercy' indeed! It is as if Ibn Abdul-Wahab here were the incarnation of the Mahatma Gandhi! How hypocritical this ally of Satan was!
9- Ibn Abdul-Wahab insists on obeying and fighting for any enthroned rulers, be them righteous or impious, as long as their decrees and commands do not contradict the Quran and the so-called Sunna hadiths: (... All believers must obey their rulers/imams and perform prayers behind them as their imams every Friday as long as they never command anything against the Quran and Sunna; believers must fight with them once jihad is announced anytime; those rulers/imams are appointed by God since He has lent them victory to reach the throne with their swords ...). Why did Ibn Abdul-Wahab urge and participate in conquests of other people's regions, then?! Why did he refuse to obey the Ottoman rulers, then?!
10- Ibn Abdul-Wahab told a lie here when he writes about distancing oneself from infidels and disbelievers and praying for them so that they may repent one day: (... I think that one should avoid and distance oneself from infidels and disbelievers and to let them be, as long as they never raise arms against believers ...). This contradicts his blood-stained history of massacring and dismembering innocent, peaceful people for being non-Wahabis in order to conquer their land! 
11- Ibn Abdul-Wahab imitates words of Sunnites to convince them that the Wahabi movement does not differ from their religion: (... I think that no one should add or invent anything within fiqh and Sunna; faith means deeds and words together; one is to apply rules found in the Quran and the Sunna; disobedient one must repent before they die; we are to apply hadiths such as................... The Muhammadan sharia laws in hadiths must be revived: one must change vice by force and enjoin virtue among people, and the Lord God is my Witness ...).
12- Ibn Abdul-Wahab refutes some accusations leveled at him by his foes here: (... Some hypocrites ascribe to me words and stances I've never expressed; they are hypocrites and these Quranic verses apply to them: "Among the people is he whose speech about the worldly life impresses you, and he calls God to witness what is in his heart, while he is the most hostile of adversaries. When he gains power, he strives to spread corruption on earth, destroying properties and lives. God does not like corruption." (2:204-205) ... I never denied any of the books of the four main Sunnite doctrines and their fiqh; I never said that for the last 600 years, people were misguided polytheists for following Sufism and not Sunna; I never declared those who revere saints as infidels who deserve to be put to death; I never showed contempt towards the traditions of our revered ancestors ....... These are false, groundless accusations by liars who hate the Quran and Islam; God says in the Quran: "It is those who do not believe in God's Verses who fabricate falsehood. These are the liars." (16:105) ...). This contradicts his other books where he follows the footsteps of Ibn Taymiyya in his fatwas of putting everyone to death for merely rejecting the Sunnite/Hanbali fatwas; the history of Ibn Abdul-Wahabi and Ibn Saud is nothing but years of bloodshed.  
13- Ibn Abdul-Wahab mentions some of his views here: (... Muslims are the ones who declare in public that there is no God but Allah; they never slaughter sacrificial animals to honor other than God; they never make religious vows to other than God... My views are asserted by those of the founders of the four main Sunnite doctrines; this is the topic of my next booklet, if God will grant me more time to write it ... I remind my foes and haters, who leveled groundless accusations against me, of this Quranic verse: "O you who believe! If a troublemaker brings you any news, investigate, lest you harm people out of ignorance, and you become regretful for what you have done." (49:6) ...).
1- The above quotations represent mere propaganda and hypocrisy; we can hardly believe such quotations because the practices of Wahabism are nothing but violence, brutality, savagery, and bloodshed; such are the practices that helped establish the Saudi State; i.e., by massacring non-Wahabis and occupying/invading their stretches of land, raping their women and children, and robbing/stealing their possessions, because they have been declared as 'infidels' who deserved to be put to death, as per the Wahabi teachings of Satan. Ibn Abdul-Wahab himself sometimes led such wars; during his spare time, he authored such words to deceive others within hypocrisy typical of all Wahabis. This is repeated by Ibn Saud who desecrated Mecca after he invaded it and after he committed the massacre of Ta'if, and other massacres after and before it, and after he stole the treasures of the Yathreb-mosque mausoleum (ascribe falsely to Muhammad as his burial place). We mean to say that Ibn Saud wrote propaganda letters that do not differ much from those of his sheikh Ibn Abdul-Wahab, including the one quoted by Al-Jabarty who seemed to believe it.  
2- Hence, it comes as no surprise at all that since peaceful hypocrites, who pretend to be believers but they are not, will enter into Hell as per the Quran, this is certainly the same fate in the Hereafter for violent, murderous Wahabis who are also hypocrites as they have claimed to monopolize the name of Islam and committed many atrocities and heinous crime under its banner. 
The practical, real religion of Ibn Abdul-Wahab is to fight against God and His messenger:
Introduction: the Quranic sharia of Islam and the devilish Wahabi sharia of fighting against God and His messenger:  
1- Quranic sharia legislations of Islam confine killing to cases of retribution against murderers; they will not be put to death if the folks/family of the murdered victim accepted the Diyya money; God says in the Quran: "O you who believe! Retaliation for the murdered is ordained upon you: the free for the free, the slave for the slave, the female for the female. But if he is forgiven by his kin, then grant any reasonable demand, and pay with good will. This is a concession from your Lord, and a mercy. But whoever commits aggression after that, a painful torment awaits him." (2:178).
2- Killing is allowed in a second and last occasion within Islam; i.e., within legitimate self-defense military endeavors against aggressors; God says in the Quran: "The sacred month for the sacred month; and sacrilege calls for retaliation. Whoever commits aggression against you, retaliate against him in the same measure as he has committed against you. And be conscious of God within piety, and know that God is with the righteous ones." (2:194).
3- God repeats in the Quranic text this legislative rule three times: no one is to be put to death except within retaliation against murderers; this comes within the Quranic Ten Commandments: "...and that you do not kill the soul which God has sanctified - except in the course of justice. All this He has enjoined upon you, so that you may understand." (6:151); this is part of the description of the pious servants of the Dominant Lord God: "...and do not kill the soul which God has made sacred - except in the pursuit of justice..." (25:68); this is repeated here: "And do not kill the soul which God has made sacred, except in the course of justice..." (17:33). 
4- God considers the one who has murdered someone as if he/she killed all humanity; this shows the enormity of this heinous crime propagated by Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn Abdul-Wahabi in their fatwas to massacre all humanity. Those (e.g., Quranists) who defend Islam against such horrid notions of Sunnite Hanbali religion of Satan (the root-religion whose offshoot is Wahabism now) are sparing lives of all humanity: "Because of that We ordained for the Israelites: that whoever kills a person - unless it is for murder or corruption on earth - it is as if he killed the whole of humankind; and whoever saves it, it is as if he saved the whole of humankind..." (5:32).
5- Those polytheists and aggressors who apply the bloody Sunnite Hanbali religion of Satan (manifested in Wahabism now) are enemies of God and Muhammad as they ascribe such heinous crimes and notions/fatwas of jihadists' bloodshed of terrorism to God's Religion within hadiths ascribed falsely to Muhammad: "The punishment for those who fight God and His Messenger, and strive to spread corruption on earth, is that they be killed, or crucified, or have their hands and feet cut off on opposite sides, or be banished from the land. That is to disgrace them in this life; and in the Hereafter they will have a terrible torment. Except for those who repent before you apprehend them. So know that God is Forgiving and Merciful." (5:33-34). 
6- Away from the hypocritical discourse of the inveterate liar known as Ibn Abdul-Wahab, massacring all non-Wahabis is the exact application of his wicked religion of Satan. We provide some details in the following points.
Firstly: the 'jihad' of the people of Najd region who fought against God and His messenger:
1- Ibn Taymiyya lived in Egypt within the riverbank environment where the military leaders controlled Egypt within the Mameluke Era; the Mameluke sultans were military rulers who controlled an unarmed nation. When the Mameluke sultan Al-Nasser Ibn Qalawun felt that his friend Ibn Taymiyya was about to be a power center which may pose a threat to his authority, as fatwas of Ibn Taymiyya were admired by other throne-coveting Mamelukes at the time when the official religion was Sunnite Sufism, he readily incarcerated Ibn Taymiyya until he died in prison. This means that Ibn Taymiyya could never establish his desired theocratic State, unlike the case of M. Ibn Tumart, the fiqh imam and political leader, who established his theocracy in Morocco and North Africa within a desert-environment and mountainous areas that contained armed tribesmen of the Amazigh and Arabs; similarly, Ibn Saud managed, with the help of Ibn Abdul-Wahab and belligerent, armed desert-Arabs, to establish the first Saudi State in Najd and later on within the desert-environment of most Arabia.   
2- Within the arid desert of the Najd region and other regions of the desert-environment of Arabia, aggressive Bedouins and desert-Arabs were highwaymen who raided caravans of merchants and pilgrims; they loved massacring and looting within a religious banner or label to justify their heinous crimes within the misused and misunderstood term of 'jihad'; hence, the desert-Arabs of Najd typically massacred peaceful, unarmed Muslims and raped and robbed them throughout the centuries within all caliphates, sometimes under the banner of 'religious' revolts that resulted in bloodshed and bloodbaths, but in most times for the sake of looting, marauding, and raiding caravans without religious mottos. This entailed that caravans of pilgrims had to be protected by massive troops or armies to deter raids of the people of Najd; this is why Ibn Khaldoun mentions in his seminal book titled "The Introduction"(p. 125, 126, and 127) that desert-Arabs desire quasi-religious mottos or banners to begin their sabotage and wreaking havoc by massacring, looting, raping, etc. within 'legitimate' reasons to 'justify' their revolts, violence, and aggression.      
3- The Najd region was the center of revolts and renegades as early as once Abou Bakr became caliph; Musaylimah the Liar emerged as a self-proclaimed prophet in Najd, in the Hanifa Plain, and his ally was a woman of the Tamim tribe named Sagah. It is in the same area of the Hanifa Plain in Najd where Ibn Abdul-Wahab was born and lived and where he began his call for Wahabism. The Quran mentions this about most desert-Arabs: "The desert-Arabs are the most steeped in disbelief and hypocrisy, and the most likely to ignore the limits that God revealed to His messenger. God is Knowing and Wise." (9:97); those Bedouins submitted at first to the power and authority of Muslims before the death of Muhammad despite the fact that Islamic faith has not yet entered into their hearts: "The desert-Arabs say, "We have believed." Say, "You have not believed; but say, 'We have submitted,' for faith has not yet entered into your hearts. But if you obey God and His Messenger, He will not diminish any of your deeds. God is Forgiving and Merciful."" (49:14). Once Muhammad died, Abou Bakr became caliph, or successor; i.e., as a ruler who succeeded Muhammad in the Yathreb city-state, and Bedouins and desert-Arabs became renegades who revolted against him; their revolt center was the Najd region; Abou Bakr managed, after much hardships and difficulties, to quell and crush the revolt of those renegades; he decided to get rid of the threat posed by the rebellious, belligerent spirit of the Bedouins and desert-Arabs of Najd by channeling it to conquering the Levant and Iraq. Such conquests reached Iran, Egypt, and North Africa later on; this means that the conquering Arab troops were formed by a majority of Arabs (former renegades who hated and forsook Islam) and a minority of leaders of the Qorayish Umayyad faction (who were stubborn and feigned conversion to Islam, which was hated by them, only shortly before the death of Muhammad). The Umayyads saw that it serves their political, social, and economic interests to feign a conversion to the new faith; when the Arab conquests ended, the Umayyads and their Qorayish allies controlled and ruled the Levant, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, and North Africa falsely in the name of Islam during the reign of the caliph Othman who was manipulated and controlled by the Umayyads; the desert-Arabs and Bedouins of Najd rebelled against Othman and his Umayyad allies; this resulted in the first episode of the Arab major civil war; the primary reason for rebelling against Othman was that the people of Najd coveted the fertile, vast stretches of land in Iraq, in northern Najd, as their raids reached such area even before Islam, but the Umayyads prevented them from controlling such area and renamed it as (The Orchard of Qorayish). The Najd rebels eventually assassinated Othman after sieging his house in Yathreb for several weeks; those rebels appointed Ali as caliph; yet, the episodes of civil war ensued as the Umayyads led by Mu'aweiya desired to establish their own dynasty; the troops of Ali consisted mainly of the Najd desert-Arabs; they eventually rebelled against Ali and assassinated him; many of them rebelled against the Umayyads and became the group known as Al-Khawarij.       
4- The belligerent desert-Arabs of Najd apparently feigned a conversion to Islam during Muhammad's lifetime in order to spite the powerful and wealthy Qorayish leaders; once Abou Bakr became caliph, they forsook Islam and became renegades; after their defeat, they feigned a return to Islam and turned into soldiers within the conquering troops during the reign of Abou Bakr and Omar; they turned into rebels against Othman because he favored and was biased towards the Umayyad faction of Qorayish and he gave them more money from the spoils than the rest; they turned into Shiites or allies of Ali and then they rebelled against him and murdered him; this means that within less than 30 years (between the death of Muhammad in c. 11 A.H./ 632 A.D. to the murder of Ali in 40 A.H./ 661 A.D.), the fickle desert-Arabs of Najd changed their stances several times.    
5- The violence of the Najd desert-Arabs was typically linked to religious pretext in most cases; this applies to their feigning a conversion to the new faith in order to fight against Qorayish with Muhammad and then their fighting against Abou Bakr while being led by a self-proclaimed false prophet and eventually their vehement participation in the Arab conquests under the pretext of spreading Islam among conquered nations while their aim was spoils and treasures; when they rebelled against Othman they raised the banner/motto of justice; they rebelled against Ali and murdered him as an 'infidel', though they supported him and fought under his leadership, because Ali was deceived by the arbitration of Mu'aweiya and Amr Ibn Al-As. For more than a century, the Najd people became Al-Khawarij fighters who raided, robbed, raped, and massacred peaceful Muslims indiscriminately in Iraq, Arabia, and Iran while raising the motto (there is no judgment/rule except for God); as per the historian Al-Malti (who died in 377 A.H.), Al-Khawarij fighters uttered such a motto when they raided caravans and markets in any cities while massacring everyone; this is reminiscent of Wahabi terrorists and suicide bombers of today who shout the phrase (God is the Greatest!) or Allahu Akbar in Arabic.      
6- To massacre others and allow prohibitions and sins in the name of religion is a grave sin against God and people, as sinners/criminals attribute their heinous crimes to Islam; this is unlike secular murderers and killers like Al Capone and Hitler who never ascribed their crimes to God. The Qorayish caliphs; i.e., the four pre-Umayyad caliphs and the Umayyad and Abbasid ones, committed their murders and other heinous crimes, especially the Arab conquests, while ascribing them to Islam as if their crimes were religious duties imposed by God; hence, the desert-Arabs of Najd had the same culture of ascribing their crimes and raids to Islam within a false definition of ongoing jihad; Al-Khawarij revolts and crimes which began after the assassination of Ali were not crushed forever until the last decades of the First Abbasid Era. Of course, jihad in the Quran means ONLY self-defense to stop aggression and persecution inflicted by enemies on peaceful people.       
7- The Second Abbasid Era witnessed the Zanj rebellion (i.e., the armed revolts of the black slaves) that broke out near Al-Basra; this rebellion was joined by the desert-Arabs of Najd and few other belligerent tribes; this rebellion lasted for 15 years (255 – 270 A.H.) and it was crushed and quelled after much difficulties and hardships. The rebellious black slaves and their allies murdered more than 30 thousand people when they invaded some southern Iraqi cities in 256 A.H. In 257 A.H., they sieged Al-Basra until its people surrendered and its leaders signed a peace treaty; yet, the leaders of the Zanj rebels breached the treaty and put to death all men and children of Al-Basra while distributing the women as female slaves among his black soldiers who raped them; these women included some among the members of descendants the household of Ali and Fatima; some women were sold as slaves for 2 or 3 dirhams; when some women beseeched being freed from their unjust masters, the leaders of the Zanj rebellion told them to obey their new masters (see History by Al-Tabari, Part 9, p. 472 & 481, and "Moroj Al-Dhahab" by the historian Al-Masoody, Part 4, p. 146).    
8- Later on, the Najd desert-Arabs renewed their armed revolts of looting and massacring under the banner of the Shiite Qarmatians; they mixed their raiding and sabotage with a heterogeneous mélange of Shiite and Sunnite ideas in order to describe their heinous crimes as jihad against the Abbasids; this means that the Najd leaders in most cases needed quasi-religious pretext and banners/mottos to 'justify' their crimes, bloodbaths, and aggression and to make them appear as 'legitimate' in the name of 'Islam'. The raids of the Qarmatians reached Iraq, the Levantine region, Arabia, and also the eastern borders of Egypt; at one time, they destroyed the Kaaba in Mecca and preceded the Mongols within the cursed policy of (scorched earth); i.e., to kill off all inhabitants of cities conquered by them and to daze the cities or to level them to the ground by destroying, burning, and sabotaging everything; Al-Tabari has recorded some of their heinous crimes in the Vol. No. 10 of his history within the events of the period 286 – 302 A.H.; their atrocities went on for nearly two centuries after the death of Al-Tabari in 310 A.H., until they were crushed, defeated, and finished off by other more powerful Arab tribes. Those Qarmatians were very savage and brutal within their crimes of massacring, raping, looting, etc. Al-Tabari mentions that they typically killed off all POWs or captured people; they killed off all dwellers (i.e., men, women, and children) of many cities; e.g., the Levantine cities of Hama, Baalbek, and Salamiyya; among their victims who were put to the sword were members of the Hashemite faction of Qorayish (i.e., from the faction of Muhammad and his extended family). At one time, the Qarmatians reached the Kaaba inside Mecca and massacred all pilgrims and threw their corpses in the Zamzam well; they stole and confiscated for about two decades the so-called Blackstone which was at the corner of the Kaaba and has been sanctified by the Muhammadans (until now!); see History by Al-Tabari, p. 10, 71, 77, 86, 94-99, 107, 115-130, 135, and 148. Al-Nuweiry the historian mentions how the deluded youths were being convinced to join the troops of the Qarmatians and to leave their families and houses for good after declaring them as 'infidels' and then they were trained to be brutal and savage by committing murders in cold blood while thinking that this way, they serve God! See "Nihayat Al-Eraab" by Al-Nuweiry, p. 25, 195, and 277.                
9- After the end of the Qarmatians, the Najd desert-Arabs and Bedouins returned to their old ways of becoming highwaymen who raided and marauded caravans of pilgrims and merchants and they fought against other tribes, without any religious mottos or banners, until M. Ibn Abdul-Wahab emerged with his call and made alliance with M. Ibn Saud, the prince of Al-Dariyya, a small city of no consequence in the Najd region. This alliance between Ibn Abdul-Wahab and Ibn Saud contained one main motto: (to destroy and to kill!); the sharia laws invented by Ibn Abdul-Wahab allowed Ibn Saud and his troops to murder all non-Wahabis as 'infidels' who deserve to die and their land and possessions should be confiscated by Wahabis; this way, the conquests of Wahabi troops helped establish the first Saudi State by means of conquering, massacring, looting, sabotage, and other heinous crimes within religious mottos derived from Hanbali Sunnite notions and fatwas; the heinous crimes of Wahabis spread all over Arabia, around the west coast of the Persian Gulf, and in certain areas in Iraq and the Levant, until the Ottoman sultan enlisted the help of M. Ali Pacha, governor of Egypt, whose Egyptian troops destroyed the first Saudi State and demolished its capital, Al-Dariyya, in 1818 A.D.       
10- Thus, the Najd region, as well as its desert-Arabs, has been the source of Al-Khawarij, Zanj, the Qarmatians, and the Wahabis; their atrocities, massacres, and other heinous crimes are the same in all eras; they have been repeated within the military endeavors of establishing the first Saudi State and the third, current one. The massacres and atrocities perpetrated by the Wahabis reached Iraq, the Levant, Hejaz (where Mecca is situated), and other regions of Arabia. No women, children, or old people were ever spared from being put to the sword by the Wahabis; the same brainwash methods of the Qarmatians have been employed by Wahabis who convinced their youths that they serve God's cause; the Wahabi scholars and clergymen used extremist Hanbali notions in their sermons to inculcate Wahabi tenets of violence into the minds of these deluded youths; this has been repeated in the 1910s and the 1920s when Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud trained the youths to join his troops of the Najd Brothers to conquer Arabia to form the third, current Saudi State, renamed as the KSA in 1932 A.D. These Wahabi fighters and warriors saw that it is OK to murder all non-Wahabis and that this way, they serve God! Their reputation as the source of terror and sabotage frightened the villagers and peasants in Iraq and the Levant; by the way, it is the same Wahabi brainwash methods employed by the terrorist MB group members and Salafists in, Egypt and elsewhere, to prepare suicide bombers and to convince these deluded youths that their terrorist attacks would be deemed as 'jihad' which will serve God's cause.  
Secondly: an overview about the establishing the very first Saudi State within the 'jihad' of the Najd tribesmen who fought against God, His Word (i.e., the Quran), and His messenger:
1- The alliance formed between Ibn Abdul-Wahab and Ibn Saud indicates clearly that the Najd military 'jihad' means to fight against God, His Quran, and His messenger, because their fighting, massacring, raping, and other heinous crimes have been merely the scramble for loot for the sake of Satan while ascribing their atrocities to the name of Islam; thus, this alliance entailed that the propaganda and the religious discourse of Ibn Abdul-Wahab would be nothing but falsehoods and lies within hypocrisy.  
2- The first Saudi State was established based on that alliance between Ibn Abdul-Wahab and Ibn Saud, who was the prince of an insignificant city (Al-Dariyya) in the Najd desert, in 1158 A.H./ 1745 A.D., and thus, Ibn Abdul-Wahab who revived the Hanbali Sunnite religion as Wahabism gave Ibn Saud and his troops the desired quasi-religious or 'legitimate' to conquer other regions while massacring others after declaring them as infidels since they refused to convert to Wahabism; the Wahabi fighting was deemed as 'jihad' that repeats the conquests of companions under the leadership of caliphs. No one pondered the real jihad of Muhammad which was military self-defense within the Yathreb city-state.   
3- The first Saudi State was established based on that alliance between Ibn Abdul-Wahab and Ibn Saud, and the Wahabi troops massacred hundreds of thousands of peaceful people in Arabia, the Levant, and Iraq; the Wahabis led by Ibn Saud conquered the Najd region at first, and then they conquered and annexed Al-Ahsa region and then Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Hejaz, and few stretches of land within Yemen; they coveted Iraq and the Levant but could not conquer them. Annexing such regions was linked to massacres and sabotage, and the Ottoman sultan had to enlist the help of the powerful governor of Egypt, M. Ali Pacha, who sent the Egyptian troops to liberate and retrieve the Hejaz region in 1811 A.D.; the war between the Egyptian troops and the Wahabi troops lasted until 1818 A.D., as the Wahabis/Saudis were defeated eventually and their capital, Al-Dariyya, was destroyed and it was never rebuilt.      
4- Because of the fact that Wahabism remained without being questioned, discussed, undermined, and refuted in order to prove the fact that it contradicts the Quran, the second Saudi State was established and it lasted between 1818 to 1891 A.D., but it ended because of the internecine strife among the sons of Al-Saud family. Later on, Abdul-Aziz Ibn Abdul-Rahman Al-Feisal managed to establish the third, current Saudi State and gave it its name, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (after his family-name), in 1932, after years of military endeavors that began in 1902. Using the oil revenues, the evil KSA has managed to spread its Wahabism worldwide while labeling it as Islam, as if it were Islam; the Wahabi/Saudi jihad worldwide spread bloodshed and bloodbaths everywhere in the name of 'Islamic jihad', and this makes the Wahabi KSA the axis of evil in our modern era.      
5- In the next CHAPTER, we provide our own analysis of the book titled "The Glorious History of Najd" by the Wahabi historian Othman Ibn Bishr in order to allow readers to have a glimpse of the practical, real religion known as Wahabism and how it has been applied. 
CHAPTER II: A Reading within the Book Titled "The Glorious History of Najd" by the Wahabi Historian Othman Ibn Bishr 
1- There is a main difference between a historian and a researcher in history; within our book about the Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah Al-Sisi, in English, titled "A Witness of the Earliest Months of The Presidential Term of The Egyptian President Al-Sisi" (found on this link: http://www.ahl-alquran.com/arabic/book_main.php?main_id=77), we are a historian who writes based on his being a witness of contemporary events. In contrast, when we write about the first Saudi State (or any other topics such as the Abbasids, the Mamelukes, or other caliphs), we are a researcher in the field of history who relies on what ancient historians have written while adhering to the rules of historical research, of course. Novelists may change events of history as per artistic/poetic license and as per their imagination; in contrast, researchers in the field of history are restricted by research results when they study and analyze, within neutral, objective tools of research, what previous historians have recorded about a certain era, event, State, or person. Accordingly, when this or that State is/was a theocracy that has assumed itself to belong to 'Islam' or acting in its name, a researcher must measure its acts/deeds using God's Word, the Quran, as the criterion.    
2- The first Saudi State (1745 – 1818 A.D.) has its few historians who were eye-witnesses; some of them wrote about their conquered regions when Saudis/Wahabis annexed them and some of them belonged to Saudis themselves and served them. Few historians wrote about the first Saudi State within praise and encouragement; fewer still are those historians who criticized and attacked it. For instance, the historian A. Ibn Zini Dahlan (who died in 1887 A.D.) wrote about the relations and dealings between rulers of Mecca and Hejaz and the Wahabis; he hated the Wahabis and Al-Saud family and he was biased towards rulers of Hejaz, because they were deemed as descendants of the household of Ali and Fatima. In contrast, the Wahabi historian Hussein Ibn Ghannam (who died in 1810 A.H.) wrote favorably about the Saudi State and its conquests in his book titled "A History of Najd" and he approved of massacres and other heinous crimes committed by Wahabis and he assumed that this is the application of 'Islam'!  In fact, he had no qualms at all in praising Al-Saud family while forgetting the bloodshed and bloodbaths they have caused while establishing the first Saudi State. Another pro-Wahabism historian was Othman Ibn Bishr (who died in 1871 A.H.) who took pride in Najd as we infer from the title of his book: "The Glorious History of Najd".        
3- Some researchers in later eras attacked and denounced the heinous crimes and massacres of the Saudi State but without delving deeper into roots/details of such gory events, and with no refutation and discussion of such events in light of the Quranic legislations in order to debunk the myth that Wahabis monopolize (the name of) Islam, and without linking the cursed religion of Satan; i.e., Wahabism, to the Hanbali extremist, violent Sunnite religion of Ibn Taymiyya and others before him. We, Dr. A. S. Mansour, are the very first researcher and writer who does this in this BOOK and other books and articles of ours which are translated into English. This intellectual endeavor of ours is unprecedented; no author before our person refuted Wahabism from within Islam (i.e., the Quran). There are those writers, historians, and researchers whose pens were bought by Saudi money to write favorably and positively about the first Saudi State and third, current one; they sold their souls to the Devil and heaped praise on the Wahabi criminals while attacking and ridiculing the victims who were raped, robbed, and massacred; these hypocritical writers lack truthfulness and objectivity of true researchers and historians and they have betrayed Islam because they have portrayed Wahabism as if it were the application of the Quran; this is, of course, a grave sin against God; i.e., to ascribe falsehood and lies to His Religion. Of course, such lies-infested researches/books written by bribed hypocritical writers fill Arab libraries today and show the baseness and vileness of such writers whose list of names we will not mention here. In the points below, we give a portrayal of the first Saudi State from what has been written by the Wahabi historian Ibn Bishr. The main fact here is that Wahabism is the private religion owned by M. Ibn Abdul-Wahab.  
About Wahabism as the private religion owned by Ibn Abdul-Wahab:
1- Unlike the hypocrisy of the propaganda and religious discourse filled with falsehood and lies of Ibn Abdul-Wahab in his writings, the fact is that Ibn Abdul-Wahab considered Wahabism as his own private religion owned solely by himself; those who refuse to convert to it should be killed and conquered, as per his own rules; yet, his more heinous crime/sin is to ascribe his bloody ideas to God's Religion (i.e., Islam); this means he deified himself and this is a grave sin; he never admitted openly that this is his own terrestrial/earthly religion formed and authored by him; Wahabis in all eras assume that there is nothing called Wahabism and that their religion is Islam! This is what has been taught to them by leaders/imams of Wahabism who belong to Al-Sheikh family.  
2- Ibn Bishr witnessed the first Saudi State and lived most of his life during the second Saudi State; his book faithfully reflects the Wahabi religion with all its horrible notions of endorsing crimes of rape, sabotage, looting, arson, enslavement, massacring etc. of all non-Wahabis and of deeming Wahabism as the application of 'true Islam', and we provide features/details of this from the book by the Wahabi historian Ibn Bishr. 
Firstly: monopolizing Islam and declaring others as infidels/apostates:
 The book by Ibn Bishr contain the laughter-inducing insistence on describing Wahabi marauders and murderers in their conquests as ''Muslims''; he rarely uses the terms (Wahabis) and (Wahabism); this means the he considers the Wahabis as the only Muslims while he deems non-Wahabis as non-Muslims or 'infidels' who deserve to be put to death. For instance, Ibn Bishr writes the following within the events of 1195 A.H. about prince Saud: (... The prince led the fighters and commanded those Bedouins to cede their water-wells to him; when they refused to submit, a fierce battle ensued, and God granted victory to the Muslims; they got many spoils and killed many of their enemies and controlled the water-wells; very few of the enemies fled in fear ...); this means that this prince led his Saudi troops to fight against desert-Arabs and Bedouins to have their water-wells; he defeated them and killed most of them and stole their money/possessions; Ibn Bishr calls these aggressors as 'the Muslims'. We provide more quotes arranged chronologically in the points below.
In 1110 A.H.: (... Prince Saud left Al-Dariyya on horseback until he reached Shaqra and greeted its hospitable people who welcomed him and were generous with their honorable guest; he waited until all Muslims troops gathered from all locations to meet with him, with their horses, guns, spears, and swords, and he led the troops to Al-Ahsa, and they settled near some farms, preparing the camps to have some rest before the battle ...).
In 1174 A.H.: (... The Prince led the troops to raid the tribes of Nabateans and their leader Ibn Fayyad, and the troops of Muslims killed ten of their men and had many spoils that include pieces of furniture, bags of clothes, and more than 80 camels ...).
In 1183 A.H.: (... The Prince – may God have mercy on his blessed soul – led his troops of Muslims to raid the tribes near the region of Sadeer ...).
In 1184 A.H.: (... The Prince led his troops of Muslims to raid the tribes in the region of Al-Dhafir and defeated them after a fierce battle, killing most of their men and the piles of spoils were huge ...).
In 1186 A.H.: (... The Prince led his victorious troops of Muslims to fought against the dwellers of Riyadh for some days; their city was sieged for more days and their fortifications were destroyed, and once the troops of Muslims entered into city, its men were put to death by the sword during the month of Saffar ...). (... The Prince led his victorious troops of Muslims that included all men of Najd and he led them northwards to fight against the tribe of Bani Khaled; they defeated them and killed most of their men, about 2000 men of Bani Khaled were killed during fighting; some died of hunger and thirst ... The piles of spoils were huge and the troops confiscated all money, possessions, cattle, horses, and camels of the defeated enemies ...).
In 1188 A.H.: (... The Prince led his victorious troops of Muslims to raid the tribes at Al-Kharaj, a small city near Riyadh, and he confiscated all their cattle and camels and put to death ten of their men; two Muslim fighters were martyred during this raid ...).
In 1190 A.H.: (...The Prince led his victorious troops of Muslims to raid the tribes of the southern area of the borders of Najd; the spoils were only a great number of camels ...).
In 1195 A.H.: (...The Prince led his victorious troops of Muslims to siege the city of Al-Kharaj; 2000 palm-trees were burned and cut down and tens of men were killed among the enemy after the end of the siege, as the troops of the Muslims managed to enter into the city ...). (... The troops of Muslims fought Al-Yamama tribe and confiscated all the horses of the enemies after killing the head of this tribe ...). (... The Saudi troops, whose fighters came from Al-Ahsa and Najd, fought against the ships and the people of the island of......, and the Muslims killed tens of men from among the enemy and the piles of spoils were huge amounts of money, precious stones, and pearls ...).
In 1197 A.H.: (...The Prince led his victorious troops of Muslims to vanquish and crush the rebels among the tribes in the northern area of Najd ...).
In 1198 A.H.: (...The Prince led his victorious troops of Muslims to Al-Ahsa to crush the rebels among the tribes there; these tribes were surprised by the military attack; the spoils were only cattle, camels, horses, and bundles of clothes and pieces of furniture ... Upon the return of the victorious troops, they decided to raid Al-Yamama tribe to have more spoils; more than 80 men were killed among the defeated Al-Yamama tribe; most of its people were in an outing in the wilderness and never witnessed this battle ... The troops of Muslims raided Al-Qassim region and killed tens of men there and the piles of spoils were huge this time ...).
In 1205 A.H.: (... A fierce battle took place in Al-Ahsa; the prince led his massive troops of Muslims from Najd; he fought Bani Khaled first for three days and killed many of their men and gained countless spoils of cattle, camels, bags of fine clothes, money, etc., the Prince and his troops defeated Al-Ahsa people as well; he took one-fifth of the spoils and distributed the rest among the Muslim troops: each of the cavaliers received a share which is equal to two shares of two infantry soldiers ...). (... Within the battle of Adwa, the victorious troops of Muslims led by the Saudi prince came from Najd and killed hundreds of men of the enemies among cavaliers, tribesmen, and leaders who suffered defeat  ... The piles of spoils gained by Muslims were huge ... Spoils included camels, cattle, pieces of furniture, tools, arms/weapons, clothes, tents, and fineries ...).
In 1218 A.H. about the conquest of Basra: (... The prince led his victorious troops of Muslims to raid and conquer Basra and they defeated the troops of the enemy led by the tribal leader Mansour Ibn Thamar, who was taken captive and he ransomed himself ... The troops of Muslims performed congregational prayers in the big mosque of Basra ... Hundreds of men of Basra were killed and the others were sieged for days before they surrendered ... The Muslims gained huge piles of spoils that included possessions, money, cattle, horses, and camels, and made a treaty to allow the people of Basra to surrender if they desire to be spared ...).
In 1224 A.H.: (... On their way back to Najd after a fierce battle, the victorious troops  of Muslims raided the tribe of Tehama and killed most of its men and destroyed their tents and houses and confiscated their possessions, money, cattle, horses, and camels ...).
In 1225 A.H.: about the conquest of Oman: (... After the victorious troops of Muslims managed to defeat the dwellers of Oman, after killing hundreds of their men, the Muslims gained huge piles of spoils: tents, fine clothes, cannons, guns, possessions, precious stones, pearls, and goods ...).
In 1229 A.H.: (... The Prince Abdullah Ibn Saud – may God have mercy on his blessed soul – led the troops of all Muslims of Najd after they assembled in Al-Dariyya in the month of Muharram and they headed towards the Hejaz region to conquer it, but they failed this time ...). (... During the month of Ramadan, the Prince Abdullah Ibn Saud led the troops of all Muslims of Najd and they marched towards Al-Qassim to get military reinforcements and more fighters; they raided many desert-Arabs and Bedouins near the region of Mateer and gained spoils: cattle, camels, horses, etc. and the troops marched towards the Hejaz region again to try to conquer it ...).
1- The above points prove that Wahabism contradicts Islam (i.e., the Quran) in every respect. Islam simply means to submit to Allah as the Only Lord and God by obeying His commands in the Quran, as per these verses: "Say, “My prayer and my worship, and my life and my death, are devoted to God, the Lord of the Worlds. No associate has He. Thus I am commanded, and I am the first of those who submit." (6:162-163). This is Islam in terms of faith inside one's heart/mind, and this is judged solely by God on the Last Day; mortals are not to judge one another's faith. Islam in terms of behavior is peaceful demeanor within fairness and justice; Islam is peaceful coexistence among all human beings; this religion of peaceful demeanor is the one intended in these verses addressing Muhammad shortly before his death: "When there comes God’s victory and triumph. And you see the people entering God’s Religion in multitudes." (110:1-2). Muhammad was never a mind-reader; he never knew about the metaphysical realm of the invisible and the future; he saw that Arabs adhered to peace (i.e., God's Religion in 110:2, which is Islam in terms of peaceful demeanor within how people deal with one another) and he could not judge the faith inside their hearts. Human beings can judge overt demeanors to see if they are aggressive/violent or peaceful. Those who commit acts of aggression/violence are disbelievers and when they ascribe their heinous crimes to God's Religion, Islam, they are the most unjust people on earth who are unjust towards the innocent people and towards God as well; their fate is Hell if they die without repentance and making amends.   
2- The heinous crimes/sins of Wahabis include massacring the innocent while assuming that this is the application of God's Religion; their religion of Satan has nothing to do with Islam which is only the Quran; may God curse all of them in Hell.
3- Ibn Abdul-Wahab should have been less polytheistic disbeliever if he should have ascribed his religion of Wahabism to himself and not to God's Religion.
Examples of Wahabi brutality and savagery: killing people off during the conquests to establish the very first Saudi State:
Firstly: the Wahabi jihad is committing aggression against peaceful ones who never committed aggression against Wahabis: 
1- M. Abdul-Wahab not only led some troops within battles, he also taught desert-Arabs and Bedouins the Wahabi jihad fighting; Ibn Bishr writes this about him: (... And he taught them all about Islamic jihad and commanded them to join his troops of Muslims to raid some tribes, and after they fought them, the spoils they gained were huge amounts of goods, and they returned back in safety ...). This means they were aggressors/raiders who attacked peaceful people who never fought them in the first place; this raid/aggression made them sinners before the sight of the Lord God and not as people of 'safety' as assumed by Ibn Bishr.
2- The prince Saud never mentioned to men of his troops about the location of their next raid or battle; they usually followed him blindly without knowing anything, waiting for the command to attack. Ibn Bishr mentions the following about him in the events of 1218 A.H.: (... It was typical of Saudi princes never to mention the destination of their next raid and battle to the troops of Muslims; they sometimes march to the south and head suddenly to the east, west, or north; they depended on surprising the enemies to destroy them and to gain more spoils ...). This means that as per words of Ibn Bishr, the Saudi troops were aggressors who begin attacking people (in the west east, north and south of Arabia) to kill and rob them; they attacked small and big cities, villages, tribes, desert-Arabs, Bedouins, and nomads; they attacked coasts of the Gulf, Mecca, Yathreb, Al-Ta'if, Jeddah, Basra, Damascus, etc. and peaceful dwellers of such regions who were attacked never heard before of Wahabism, Saudis, or their capital Al-Dariyya at all.   
3- Let us tackle below some examples of the conquests led by Ibn Saud in several locations, as per what is written by the Wahabi historian Ibn Bishr.
In 1171 A.H.: (... The ambush prepared by night by the Muslim troops of the Saudi prince was near a large area of palm-trees in a valley known to the enemies who were surprised by the attack next day ...).
In 1173 A.H.: (... The people of Al-Kharaj were attacked by the troops of valiant Muslims and eight men of Al-Kharaj were killed; all their shops were robbed; the Muslims took all money and goods in these shops as part of the spoils, which were added to the larger amounts of spoils gained from raiding other tribes and Bedouins, and tens of men were killed ... Countless camels were part of the spoils ...).
In 1176 A.H.: (... The victorious Muslim troops were led to Al-Ahsa and they killed more than 70 men and the piles of spoils were huge ... Many tribes were raided by the Muslim troops on their way back to Najd ...).
In 1191 A.H.: (... When the victorious Muslim troops sieged Al-Kharaj and Al-Yamama tribe, many people died of hunger and thirst and this made the infidels surrender at last without fighting  ...).
In 1195 A.H.: (... The Prince Saud – may God rest his blessed soul – led his massive Muslim troops from Najd and marched towards Al-Kharaj to siege it as a penalty for their rebellion ...).
In 1208 A.H.: (... The Saudi Prince recruited more soldiers to join his troops from Al-Qassim, Shamar, and other regions; each new battalion had its own military leader ... The troops assembled in one point before heading towards three small cities to siege them and to threaten to fight and kill their dwellers if they would not surrender and embrace Islam and to obey and submit to the Saudi Prince ... Those men who resisted the troops were put to death ...).
In 1220 A.H.: (... The Saudi Prince led the victorious troops of Muslims towards Basra to raid the city; after gaining enough spoils, the victorious, pious Muslims returned home to Najd ...).
Secondly: killing people off and never allowing anyone to keep any captives:
1- Within the Only True Islam; i.e., the Quran, which has been rejected by Ibn Abdul-Wahab and the Saudis/Wahabis, we find that God cares for making human beings preserve human life, even in the battlefield: "Whoever kills a believer deliberately, the penalty for him is Hell, where he will remain forever. And God will be angry with him, and will curse him, and will prepare for him a terrible torment. O you who believe! When you journey in the way of God, investigate, and do not say to him who offers you peace, "You are not a believer," aspiring for the goods of this world. With God are abundant riches. You yourselves were like this before, and God bestowed favor on you; so investigate. God is well aware of what you do." (4:93-94); "And if anyone of the polytheists asks you for protection, give him protection so that he may hear the Word of God; then escort him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know." (9:6).
2- In contrast, Ibn Saud was keen on killing off and annihilating mercilessly those attacked by his Wahabi troops, while considering such heinous crime of aggression as 'jihad'; in fact, it is an act of worship to Satan and to false gods in man-made religions. There are many examples, mentioned by Ibn Bishr, to assert this tendency of Wahabis/Saudis to massacre all non-Wahabi people; we quote few ones in the points below.
In 1186 A.H. about the conquest of Riyadh: because the Saudi/Wahabi troops attacked Riyadh many times, its dwellers deserted it and fled; yet, Wahabis chased them to kill off as many of the dwellers of Riyadh as possible; we quote the words of Ibn Bishr about the events of 1186 A.H.: (... The Saudi Prince led the victorious troops of Muslims from Al-Dariyya towards Riyadh; his spies brought news that its ruler fled in fear; once the troops entered the city, they found no one of its dwellers; the doors of the houses were open; fire to cook food was still there; food items, pieces of furniture, and goods and all possessions, precious items, money, cattle, camels, etc. remained scattered everywhere; no dwellers took anything with them when they ran away and deserted the city; a group of Muslims collected all spoils while the rest of the troops left the city to chase the runaway people to catch up with any of them to put them to death; indeed, many of them were killed by the swords of the Saudi troops ...).
In 1210 A.H.: about Al-Ahsa: Ibn Bishr accuses its dwellers who defended it of being immoral people and infidels who deserved to die: (... The Muslim troops raided Al-Ahsa and killed most of its immoral dwellers, who breached the treaties and resisted the Muslim troops, by putting them to the sword or by beheading inside a large tent ...). The tendency to kill off and massacre all or most inhabitants of a place is a recurrent theme in the book by Ibn Bishr: (... The Prince Saud – may God have mercy on his blessed soul – led his victorious Muslim troops that consisted of all people of Najd and headed northwards to raid and attack the Bani Khaled tribe; its men, women, and children were not spared; the runaway men were chased and killed on the spot ... The piles of spoils were huge ... At least 2000 men died of hunger and thirst when sieged in their fortifications and towers ...). 
In 1212 A.H.: (... During Ramadan, the Prince Saud led his victorious troops of Muslims that consisted of all people of Najd and headed towards the locations of desert-Arabs and Bedouins to raid them; most of them were killed and some were drowned in the sea when they tried to escape; all their tents were burned; all their men, women, and children were killed; spoils included many camels and horses; every one of the cavaliers of the tribes of Shamar and Qahtan and the tribes of...,...,...,...were killed off ... After attacking Al-Kharama, all its dwellers were put to death for never accepting to surrender and refusing to convert to Islam; their houses were leveled to the ground and burned; the dwellers of other neighboring cities ran away and deserted their houses as they expected the raids of the Muslim troops ... Countless spoils from these cities included tents, precious items, cattle, camels, horses, mules, money, etc. Even the troops of Al-Sharif family of rulers fled in fear to avoid any military confrontation ... Many of those who ran away were caught and put to death; many of the sieged people in their towers and fortifications died of hunger and thirst ... At least 2400 men were killed, as per the estimates of other historians  ...).
In 1216 A.H.: Ibn Bishr writes the following about the massacre of Karbala, in Iraq: (... The Prince Saud led his victorious troops of Muslims that consisted of all people of Najd, Tehama,...and headed towards Karbala to raid and fight the polytheistic Shiites; the Muslims attacked the city and took its dwellers by surprise; the Muslims killed off most of these dwellers in markets, houses, etc. More than 2000 of the men of Karbala were killed ...). The Najdi historian Ibn Bishr defends here the Wahabis/Saudis against criticism leveled at them for committing the massacre of Karbala; he proudly writes the following: (... As for those who blame and criticize the Muslims troops for raiding the city of Karbala and slaughtering its dwellers, we will never apologize for our jihad against the infidels and apostates who are the enemies of God ... For ten days, the Muslim troops massacred all dwellers of Karbala and spared no one; such destruction is the proper fate of all infidels ...). 
In 1217 A.H.: Ibn Bishr writes the following about the massacre of Al-Ta'if after ruler of the city, Al-Sharif Ghalib, ran away in fear, and its dwellers surrendered without fighting or resisting the Wahabi troops; yet, they were not spared: (... The Muslim troops entered Al-Ta'if without fighting and its dwellers surrendered and never resisted the Muslim troops ... Once the troops entered into the city, they put its dwellers, in their houses and markets, to death by the sword; 200 men were killed in one day ...). Other sources mention that the number of victims of Al-Ta'if massacre are estimated to be tens of thousands. 
In 1218 A.H.: Ibn Bishr writes the following about Basra, in Iraq: (...The Prince Saud led his victorious troops of Muslims and headed towards Basra and demolished its main mosque, slaughtered most of its dwellers in their houses, markets, and the big square, and robbed and looted all precious items and cattle, horses, camels, etc., and the Prince commanded his faithful troops to demolish the palace of ruler of Basra after killing everyone inside it ...).
In 1220 A.H.: Ibn Bishr takes pride in the Wahabi troops led by the prince Saud to raid caravans near Iraq: (... God has lent the Muslim troops victory over those infidels! All people of these caravans were slaughtered within one day, and the Muslims confiscated all their goods and possessions; very few men of these caravans ran away on horseback and the troops could not catch up with them as they were busy collecting the spoils that included camels, horses, mules, etc. ...). Ibn Bishr never expresses sorrow over the Meccans dying of hunger within the siege: (... The Muslim troops of the Prince Saud sieged Mecca and prevented any food items from entering into the city to force its people to surrender and open their wall gates ... Many Meccans died of hunger ... Survivors ate the flesh of dogs and donkeys; some people ate the flesh of dead animals ...).
In 1225 A.H.: (... The Muslim troops that consisted of all of the people of Najd, Aseer, Qahtan,......headed towards the coastal city of.......and after raiding the city, they slaughtered all its people; at least 1000 men were killed by the swords of the victorious Muslim troops ...).
Killing off fetuses inside the bodies of pregnant women:
1- Ibn Bishr mentions repeatedly that pregnant women within raided cites and tribes suffered abortion out of fear of the Wahabi troops; he writes the following in the events of 1210 A.H.: (... After performing the dawn prayers, the Muslim troops of the Prince Saud headed towards Al-Ahsa region to raid it; at its borders, the soldiers shot their guns into the air to intimidate the dwellers of Al-Ahsa; black smoke filled the air and the sky blackened; the dwellers of Al-Ahsa ran away and the pregnant women lost their fetuses ...). This type of terrorism was typical of Wahabi troops at the time.
2- Ibn Bishr writes the following in the events of 1191 A.H.: (... At daybreak, the military leaders of the Muslim troops commanded them to shoot their guns in unison at the sky; the dwellers of the city were frightened and surrendered at once while hoping to be spared ... Their pregnant women lost their fetuses out of fear ...).
3- About raiding Basra in 1218 A.H.: (... The Wahabi troops shot their guns in the air at sunset to intimidate its sieged people ... Many frightened people ran away, leaving behind their possessions, and many frightened pregnant women lost their fetuses when they took refuge in top of the roofs of their houses ... The siege lasted for 12 days until the city yielded and the piles of spoils were huge and included crops, money, cattle, horses, etc., and then the Muslim troops return safely home to Najd ...). About the events of 1110 A.H.: (... The Prince Saud led his troops of Muslims and left Al-Dariyya and headed towards Al-Ahsa and camped near its vast farms ... At daybreak, the Prince commanded his faithful soldiers to shoot their guns into the air to intimidate the people of Al-Ahsa after igniting bonfires ... The frightened pregnant women lost their fetuses ...). Thus, fetuses were never spared the evil of Wahabis/Saudis led by Saud!
Examples of Wahabi brutality and savagery while establishing the very first Saudi State: massacres, sabotage, and forced displacement:
Firstly: forced displacement:
1- The people of Riyadh suffered from several raids of the Wahabis who looted, massacred, and sabotaged; Abdul-Aziz Ibn M. Ibn Saud raided Riyadh once more in 1186 A.H. and its people fled and ran for their lives and deserted their city, leaving behind their possessions coveted by the Wahabis; Ibn Bishr writes the following: (... The Prince headed the Muslim troops and left Al-Dariyya to raid and conquer Riyadh ... The spies told the Prince that the ruler of the city ran away in fear and so did the rest of the dwellers of Riyadh; when the troops entered into the city, it was deserted; cauldrons of food were left on cooking fire, and all precious items, rich clothes, gold, silver, arms/weapons, horses, camels, cattle, etc. were left behind by runaway people ... The troops chased them to kill them off; the Prince decided that many of the soldiers will settle in Riyadh as part of his territories ... Spoils were distributed as usual in the typical manner ...). Abdul-Aziz Ibn M. Ibn Saud did not destroy the houses of Riyadh this time as he conquered it and decided that some of his men would settle in it; he was keen on eradicating and killing off its runaway dwellers so as not to allow them to return to Riyadh; the Wahabis desired to keep the city as part of their own territory. 
2-  Sabotage and temporary forced displacement occurred within the events of 1225 A.H. as the Wahabis destroyed the coastal city of Al-Hodeida so as not to allow its dwellers to make use of it upon their return: (... When the Muslim troops drew nearer to Al-Hodeida, its dwellers fled in ships, taking plenty of water and food with them and few of their precious possessions, and sailed into the deep sea where they would not be followed; they remained there for several days ... The Muslim soldiers confiscated all spoils and destroyed and burned down all the houses there and cut off the palm-trees; they slaughtered all men they could find inside and around Al-Hodeida ...).
3- Sabotage and forced displacement within the events of 1193 A.H.: (... The dwellers of the village of......, in the northern area of Najd, breached the pledge of submission and loyalty to the Al-Saud princes and the Muslims troops leveled this village to the ground and destroyed its wall and houses; most of its dwellers settled in Karbala and Basra before the Muslim troops reached their village ...). Within the events of 1196 A.H., Ibn Bishr writes the following: (... The Prince Saud and his Muslim troops destroyed and burned down all houses and cut off all palm-trees after entering the city of......after a one-month siege, and the citadel of the city was confiscated by the Prince ... The Prince commanded the dwellers of the city to leave it for good ... Soldiers who were loyal to the Al-Saud family settled in this city and changed its name ...).
Secondly: sabotage, destruction, arson, and cutting off the palm-trees:
1- Ibn Bishr asserts that Ibn Saud in all his raids was keen on destroying everything to urge people to leave their homeland for good as was the case of Riyadh. Within the events of 1161 A.H.: (... The people of Al-Dariyya joined the Muslim troops of the Prince Ibn Saud and fought the dweller of Riyadh within a fierce battle; tens of Muslim soldiers were martyred; hundreds of men of Riyadh were killed and many people ran away; the Prince commanded his faithful soldiers to demolish all houses and to cut off all of the palm-trees ...). Within the events of 1162 A.H.: (... After raiding Riyadh, the Prince M. Ibn Saud commanded his loyal men to cut off all of the palm-trees and to burn all houses ...). Within the events of 1170 A.H.: (... The dwellers of Riyadh fought fiercely against the Muslim troops led by the Prince Abdul-Aziz Ibn M. Ibn Saud – may God rest his blessed soul – and in order to punish them for their rebellion, the Prince commanded the destruction of all their houses and markets and banished them out of the city ...). Within the events of 1186 A.H.: (...The Prince Abdul-Aziz Ibn M. Ibn Saud and his victorious Muslim troops marched towards Riyadh and fought its dwellers for several days and sieged their city walls; once they managed to enter into the city, the Muslim soldiers demolished all houses, fortifications, and towers and killed off most of the men of Riyadh ...). 
2- Massacring and slaughtering people by the Wahabis is linked all the time with demolishing, sabotage, burning down houses, and cutting off the palm-trees; this means that the Wahabi robbers typically destroyed things they could not carry so as not to let others make use of anything. We provide examples of that in the points below from the book by the Wahabi historian Ibn Bishr.
In 1189 A.H.: (... The Muslim troops led by Abdul-Aziz Ibn M. Ibn Saud – may God rest his blessed soul – marched towards Al-Kharaj to raid it and the spoils were not many; 12 men were killed during the battle and all palm-trees were cut down...).
In 1191 A.H.: (...The Muslim troops led by Abdul-Aziz Ibn M. Ibn Saud managed to crush the rebellion of the people of Al-Kharaj; their palm-trees and houses were burned down after a long siege; many of their men were killed ...). (... When the Muslim troops could not siege the walled city of....., they destroyed and burned down all crops in the plains outside the city-wall as a way of revenge before they headed back to Najd ...).
In 1193 A.H.: (... The Prince Abdullah led the Muslim troops to raid the city of....., and many of their men were killed in the battlefield ... Reinforcement troops came led by the Prince Abdul-Aziz, his brother, and sieged the city of......, and after defeating its people, the loyal soldiers demolished all houses and cut off all of palm-trees as per the commands of the Prince ...).
In 1195 A.H.: (... The Prince Saud Ibn Abdul-Aziz led the Muslim troops to siege Al-Kharaj ... After defeating its dwellers in battle, 2000 palm-trees were cut off and tens of men were killed ...). (... The victorious Muslim troops were led by the Prince Saud Ibn Abdul-Aziz to raid the Al-Kharaj and Al-Yamama tribe ... Many men were killed in battle and all houses and towers were demolished and palm-trees were cut off ...).
In 1202 A.H.: (... The people of Al-Kharaj joined the Muslim troops who attacked some of Al-Ahsa villages ... After achieving victory, the Muslim soldiers were commanded to burn down all fields of crops and all houses, and they leveled the villages to the ground ...).
In 1220 A.H.: (... The Muslim troops sieged the city of..... After achieving victory after a fierce battle, the Muslim soldiers were commanded to cut off the palm-trees and to collect spoils ...).
In 1224 A.H.: (... The Muslim troops this time comprised more than fifty thousand fighters ... The piles of spoils were very huge ... All raided villages and towns were destroyed ... All people of Tehama were killed and their houses burned to the ground  ...).
In 1225 A.H.: (... Many tribes loyal to the Al-Saud family joined the Muslim troops in their raids ... Spoils included gold, silver, precious stones, pearls, expensive and fine clothes, etc. ... At least to thousand men among the infidels were killed; their houses were burned down and demolished by the Muslim soldiers ...). (... The Muslim troops comprised 20 thousand fighters who marched towards Tehama and then Al-Hodeida ... After a fierce battle, hundreds of Tehama men were defeated and slaughtered and their possessions confiscated ... Al-Hodeida people ran away in their ships after carrying water and food items; the Muslim troops burned down their city after collecting the spoils ...).
Thirdly: destruction of mausoleums venerated by the Muhammadans: 
In 1217 A.H.: The Wahabis at the time were known for their destroying mausoleums venerated by Shiites and Sufis and all Muhammadans at large; this provoked the ire of people of Mecca after it was conquered by Saudi troops; Ibn Bishr writes the following: (... The Prince Saud and his Muslim troops conquered Mecca eventually; after they circled around the Kaaba, they demolished all domes built on tombs and all mausoleums ... This process took them two weeks until all such mausoleums turned to dust ... The frightened polytheistic Meccans felt insulted and furious but never dared to protest ...).  
In 1218 A.H.: (... When the Muslim troops raided Basra, they destroyed all domes built on tombs and all Shiite mausoleums ... After the destruction of Al-Dariyya and the defeat of Al-Saud, the dwellers of Basra readily re-built all their domes and mausoleums ...).
 We assert the following points. Within True Islam (i.e., the Quran), there are not any commands regarding destroying pagan temples, mausoleums, or any other polytheistic abominations; the Quranic command is to avoid them only; i.e., we are not to come near them. The Quran addresses our minds and tells us that such polytheism is based on lies and falsehoods; those who worship the dead persons never realize that the dead souls never feel, see, or hear anything and they never know when they will be resurrected. Hence, the Quran convinces monotheists, by addressing their reasoning minds, that such false gods or 'saints' and deified relics/things cannot bring harm or benefit to their worshipers; those polytheists who worship such items and mortals will enter into Hell if they die without repentance. The Quran tells us that the Only Saint and Ally in Islam is the Lord God Himself; He never allows any of His human or non-human creatures a measure of control over the universe and the Hereafter. The Quran tells us that polytheists worship and believe in the Lord Allah but alongside with their imaginary deities; polytheists should know that their gods are mortals who cannot create anything like the creatures originated by God the Creator and they never control the universe; they are nothing but dust and bones inside tombs; their souls are in Barsakh in a state of timeless and senseless slumber. Of course, the Quranic warning against polytheism is also addressing those who deify entombed gods/'saints' inside mausoleums in our era; they believe in the laugher-inducing myths surrounding such abominations, and they cannot realize that they are polytheists since they sanctify the dead persons and the relics/tombs. God commands monotheists in the Quran to avoid mausoleums as they are abominations of Satan's doing. Of course, Satan and devils do not build such mausoleums; they merely whisper into people to worship such tombs and to sanctify and deify the building materials used to establish them; Satan and devils make polytheists assume that the dead persons (who turned into dust and bones) are 'immortal saints' who are still alive beneath the ground under their feet and can control the planet Earth and people living in it! It is extremely silly to assume that entombed 'saints' are alive and can breathe within their tombs and can control the lives of the living people; why would such gods/deities accept being confined in a small space under the soil of the earth, then?! Real monotheists must avoid entering and performing prayers inside mosques that contain mausoleums; when religious awareness within monotheism is raised, people will stop sanctifying/deifying things/items/tombs and pagan statues/idols (e.g., the ones representing Jesus and Mary). It is never wise to demolish mausoleums and other abominations since they have their worshipers; religious freedom is absolute within the Quranic teachings; besides, polytheists will rebuild their destroyed mausoleums, relics, and temples once more, while reasserting myths about them; e.g., their 'saints' or gods have taken revenge against their deniers and came back to the same 'holy' spots and locations! This is proved by the fact that Ibn Bishr mentions that the Shiite dwellers of Basra rebuilt all their domes and mausoleums once the first Saudi State ended; this means that those polytheists who deify and worship mausoleums or 'holy' tombs will continue to sanctify them more, even after their destruction and after their being rebuilt.  
 The sabotage committed by the terrorists of Taliban and ISIS is the application of Wahabism; they follow the footsteps of these Wahabis of the first Saudi State!
The Wahabis of the first Saudi State fought in the name of Satan and never in the name of the Dominant Lord God:
Introduction: it was fighting for the sake of pleasing Satan:
1- The Wahabi fighting is certainly for the sake of pleasing Satan; i.e., its aim is looting and reaching power/authority through conquering, massacring, invading, enslaving, etc., as self-defense fighting against aggressors is the only one deemed as for God's sake; fighting for any other reasons linked to this transient world is for the sake of Satan. God says in the Quran: "Those who believe fight in the cause of God, while those who disbelieve fight in the cause of Taghut. So fight the allies of the Devil. Surely the strategy of the Devil is weak." (4:76); for more information about the term (Taghut), we refer readers to two English articles of ours found on these links: (http://www.ahl-alquran.com/English/show_article.php?main_id=17984  /  http://www.ahl-alquran.com/English/show_article.php?main_id=14342).  Real believers/monotheists know that God hates the aggressors: "And fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not commit aggression; God does not love the aggressors." (2:190); real believers who are engaged into self-defense military endeavors implore their Lord this way: "...Our Lord, do not burden us with more than we have strength to bear; and pardon us, and forgive us, and have mercy on us. You are our Lord and Master, so help us against the disbelieving people." (2:286); this is because disbelievers/polytheists in terms of behavior are aggressors who violate God's Religion; i.e. peace, by committing violence against peaceful people; God loves the pious ones who never fight except for the sake of self-defense against aggressors: "And fight them until there is no persecution, and religion becomes devoted to God alone. But if they cease, then let there be no hostility except against the transgressors...Whoever commits aggression against you, retaliate against him in the same measure as he has committed against you. And be conscious of God within piety and know that God is with the righteous ones." (2:193-194).
2- Looting and gaining spoils was the ultimate goal of Wahabis/Saudis who lived in the capital of Najd, Al-Dariyya, and Ibn Bishr mentions the following about Al-Dariyya and its Wahabi dwellers: (... The holy sheikh Mohammed Ibn Abdul-Wahab made his early followers immigrate and settle in Al-Dariyya ... They had little victuals and felt very needy at first; the dwellers of Al-Dariyya were very poor at the time ... They spent their nights listening attentively to sermons of the sheikhs who taught them the tenets and teachings of Islam and they spent their days in raiding to earn their living ... Later on, I saw Al-Dariyya during the reign of Prince Saud – may God rest his blessed soul – while it was brimming with jewels, precious stones, gold, silver, swords and weapons encrusted with gold and silver, fine clothes, fine Arabian horses, camels, cattle, and countless luxurious items that no words can describe ...). This means that Al-Dariyya was at first a small town of no consequence whose dwellers were impoverished; once Ibn Abdul-Wahab and his disciples/sheikhs taught its dwellers that 'jihad' in their 'Islam' (i.e., Wahabism which has nothing to do with the Quran) means looting, raiding, and massacring as well as all acts of violence and aggression, they enthusiastically followed the footsteps of the robber and highwayman, their leader Saud, and huge piles of spoils filled Al-Dariyya later on. All these Wahabis were robbers/thieves and murderers who consumed ill-gotten money and massacred thousands of people within bloodshed perpetrated in the southern Levantine region, south of Iraq, and the whole of Arabia. We provide a brief overview of their fighting for the sake of looting, to please Satan, in the points below.
Firstly: looting is closely linked to fighting and massacring, anyway:
1- Ibn Bishr was a Wahabi historian; i.e., he was never objective or neutral; he was biased very much for his Wahabi people; he sided with them in all stances, events, and situations; he deemed Wahabis as the only true 'Muslims', and he considered their aggression against peaceful people as 'Islamic' jihad to exterminate the 'infidels'! When he wrote about spoils, he showed his own ignorance, fanaticism, bigotry, and bias.
2- Ibn Bishr was an ignoramus; he described spoils in general terms without writing any details about their exact quantities though he had the chance to investigate and to know such pieces of information.   
Secondly: some remarks on the methodology of Ibn Bishr the Wahabi historian about the topic of spoils:
1- Of course, even before Wahabism, desert environment in Arabia typically had desert-Arabs and Bedouins who were marauders and raiders who looted and killed to earn their living by attacking caravans, towns, and other tribes but without fashioning a quasi-religious justification for their crimes; besides, the wronged, attacked parties had the right to defend themselves and their property. This means that looting is typically linked to fighting and bloodshed even before Wahabism and the fake/sham 'religious' justification of violence in the name of 'jihad'; it was known for everyone at the time that fighting was only for the sake of looting and stealing/robbing and NOT for conquering and ruling. In the Nile-River agricultural environment of Egypt, the Egyptians in most eras was passive and submissive to the rulers who looted, monopolized, and confiscated everything with their men and weapons; the wronged parties typically adhered to patience and they obeyed the clergymen of all types who were hypocrites who flattered the rulers and served them obsequiously.        
2- Ibn Bishr unexpectedly mentions few details about the spoils in each raid or battle, though desert-Arabs who were looters and murderers were keen on such details : (... After attacking and raiding the tribes of....., the Muslim troops collected huge piles of spoils: money, fine clothes, and camels ... One-fifth of the spoils were sent by the military leaders to Al-Dariyya ... A month later, the Muslim troops that comprised soldiers from Najd and Al-Ahsa headed towards the islands of.....and fought its people who settled inside ships at the shore; many of the infidels were killed and Muslim soldiers confiscated all their possessions and money ...). Thus, Ibn Bishr rarely mentions minute details in contrast with the case of the Egyptian historian Al-Jabarty who had a good eye for detail and he verified pieces of information and events before writing them down; we exemplify the inconsistencies of Ibn Bishr in the following points.
2/1: Within events of 1110 A.H., Ibn Bishr writes the following: (... The Muslim troops fought the tribe of.....over a certain water-well near the town of Al-Turba; more than 40 men of the infidels were killed and the possessions and money of the enemy were confiscated ...). Ibn Bishr never mentions here the amounts of spoils; this is in contrast with the details of spoils he writes within the events of 1212 A.H.: (... The Muslim troops that comprised soldiers from Najd and Al-Qassim raided the south of the Levantine region and killed 120 men and took 5000 camels, countless cattle, bundles of fine clothes, and huge amounts of food items ... One-fifth of the spoils were sent by the military leaders to Al-Dariyya and the rest were distributed on cavaliers and infantry soldiers in the typical way: each of the cavaliers received a share which is equal to two shares of two infantry soldiers ...). 
2/2: Ibn Bishr is vague here about the spoils; he never mentions details about them: (... Within the events of 1206 A.H.: ... The victorious troops of Muslims attacked and raided Al-Qatif and sieged the neighboring cities of......and more than 400 of the infidels were killed; great amounts of money and possessions were taken ... Some of the surrendered tribes submitted to the Muslim troops in return for the ransom of 500 red camels to avoid being put to death ...). (... Within the events of 1179 A.H.: ... The Prince Abdullah Ibn M. Ibn Saud – may God rest his blessed soul – led the Muslims troops to raid the tribes of......., and great amounts of money and possessions were taken ...).
2/3: Ibn Bishr would mention briefly and vaguely that Wahabi looters confiscated all the money and possessions: (... Within the events of 1178 A.H.: ... The Muslim troops of the Prince Abdul-Aziz – may God rest his blessed soul – consisted of soldiers from Riyadh and other Najd towns and they marched towards the tribes of.....and 30 men of the infidels were killed ... Great amounts of money and possessions were taken ...).
2/4: Ibn Bishr often never describes the spoils at all; within the events of 1225 A.H. after the dwellers of Al-Hodeida city deserted it and the Wahabis stole and robbed everything: (... The trusted men of the Prince Saud collected the spoils distributed among the Muslim troops, and one-fifth of the spoils were sent to Al-Dariyya as usual ...). Within the events of 1222 A.H. after raiding the coastal region of Ras Al-Khayma: (... Spoils were collected and distributed among the Muslim troops, and one-fifth of the spoils were sent to Al-Dariyya ...).
3- In many cases, Ibn Bishr overlooks a well-known piece of news by never mentioning it at all because it is disgraceful; e.g., when Ibn Saud and his Wahabi men stole the treasures of the chamber beside the Yathreb-mosque mausoleum ascribed to Muhammad; Al-Jabarty mentions detailed, accurate account of this incident though he typically defends Wahabis:  (... When The Saudi troops conquered Yanba' and Yathreb, they destroyed all domes above tombs and mausoleums which are the burial places of holy imams ... They confiscated all the treasures and jewels of the chamber located near the Holy Sepulcher of the Holy Prophet Muhammad: four huge coffers filled to the brim with jewels and precious stones: pearls, rubies, and diamonds, four chandeliers encrusted with emerald, more than 100 priceless swords encrusted with gold and diamonds and rubies, and the metal of these swords were sealed in the names of ancient caliphs, kings, and sultans ...).
Thirdly: the Wahabis stole treasures and great amounts of money while giving one-fifth of them to Ibn Saud and the rest for the fighters:
1- As per the Sunnite sharia law, regarding spoils, formulated by the caliphs Abou Bakr and Omar, one-fifth of spoils is given to the Treasury of rulers and the rest to fighters/soldiers; Ibn Saud did the same; he confiscated one-fifth of the spoils and distributed the rest among his Wahabi fighters. Of course, such spoils of aggression are ill-gotten money and consuming it contradicts and violates Islamic/Quranic sharia legislations. This way of distribution, within battlefields after achieving victory, encouraged many deluded youths to join the Wahabi troops to participate in this lucrative business; they were persuaded by Wahabi sheikhs that if they ever get killed during battles, houris will receive them in Paradise! Some spoils were insignificant and small, and yet, Ibn Saud never hesitated to commit bloodshed for getting them (more on that topic in the coming passages), and some other spoils were huge piles of treasures; we exemplify such spoils in the points below.       
2- Within the events of 1212 A.H., the troops of the ruler Al-Sharif Ghalib were defeated and Ibn Bishr mentions the spoils confiscated by Wahabis as per words of a non-Wahabi historian: (... A historian mentions that the huge coffers of Ghalib left in the city were filled with gold and silver coins ... Such money was distributed among the soldiers at sunrise ... Spoils included countless swords and weapons, bundles of fine clothes, camels, horses, etc. ...). 
3- Within the events of 1216 A.H., the Karbala massacre was perpetrated by the Wahabi troops and the spoils were huge piles of precious items: (... The victorious Muslim troops which consisted of men of Najd, Tehama, etc. marched towards Karbala and sieged it for few days before invading the city and killing the vast majority of its dwellers in their houses and markets. They destroyed the dome above the tomb ascribed to Al-Hussein, and they confiscated all jewels and precious stones (emeralds, rubies, etc.) that were encrusted on this dome and that tomb ... The Muslim troops confiscated countless money, arms/weapons, cattle, camels, horses, fine and expensive clothes, gold, silver, and other precious items found in the city ... At least 2000 men among the Shiite infidels were killed ... The Prince distributed the spoils, after keeping one-fifth to his treasury, in the typical way: each of the cavaliers received a share which is equal to two shares of two infantry soldiers ... Everyone returned to their respective homelands ... The Prince returned to Najd ...).
4- Within the events of 1217 A.H., the massacre of Al-Ta'if occurred, and Ibn Bishr omits many details and focuses on the spoils: (... Al-Sharif Ghalib was afraid and fled to Mecca after running away from Al-Ta'if; the troops of Muslims entered this city without fighting; they killed off all its dwellers in their houses, markets, and rooftops. About 200 men among the infidels were killed  ...). Of course, the number of victims is NOT true here; other historians estimate the number to be at least ten thousand people. (... The Muslim troops confiscated countless money, arms/weapons, cattle, camels, horses, fine and expensive clothes, gold, silver, and other precious items and they sent the one-fifth to the Prince in Najd and distributed the rest among the fighters in the typical way: each of the cavaliers received a share which is equal to two shares of two infantry soldiers ... The military leader of the Muslim troops was appointed as the governor of Al-Ta'if and Hejaz later on...). The ruler of Al-Ta'if, Ghalib, ran away with most of his money; he knew that Wahabis fought only for the sake of money: (... God has caused Ghalib to be frightened all the time and he kept moving with his coffers of money and treasures from Mecca to Jeddah to other cities to avoid military confrontation as the Muslim troops conquered Hejaz ...).
5- Within the events of 1218 A.H., the battle of Jeddah took place: (... The ruler of Asser and Alma was commanded by the Prince Saud to lead the Muslim troops to Jeddah to fight the troops of Al-Sharif Ghalib ... The troops of the enemy were defeated and many men of such troops took flight within fear; they were chased and killed by the Muslims troops ... Spoils included huge piles of weapons and swords (and about 2500 guns), clothes, precious items and possessions, and money left by runaway soldiers of the enemy ... More than 600 men among the infidels were killed, most of them were Turkish people and not Arabs ... One-fifth of the spoils were sent to the Prince in Najd and the rest was distributed among the fighters; each of the cavaliers received a share which is equal to two shares of two infantry soldiers ... The troops returned safely to their respective homelands (i.e., several regions of Saudi provinces) after such a great victory and after gaining such great spoils ...).
6- Within the events of 1225 A.H., the battle of the Levant took place: (... The victorious Muslim troops, more than 8000 soldiers from several regions of Saudi provinces, were led by the Prince Saud; all of them rode very fine Arabian horses after meeting in one assembly point in Al-Dariyya ... They headed towards the Levantine region to raid several villages ... All possessions, horses, camels, pieces of furniture, and food items were confiscated; the dwellers of the villages ran away when news reached them about the Muslim troops; the soldiers burned the houses down in all these villages ... Some Levantine men who resisted the troops were killed ... The victorious troops returned home in safety ...). This is the Wahabi jihad of aggressors who sabotaged and looted everything and terrorized peaceful peasants!
7- Within the events of 1225 A.H., the massacre of Qahtan was committed: (... Many fighters from different regions joined the Muslim troops to siege the city of..... After invading it, they killed more than 1000 men of its dwellers who surrendered and burned down all houses of the city after collecting huge piles of spoils that included money, gold, silver, pearls, and fine clothes ...). This sabotage, looting, and massacring is for the sake of the cursed Satan; this has nothing to do with the Quran which was sent as a mercy for the humankind and conveyed by Muhammad. This aggression has nothing to do with the Lord God and His Religion of Islam.
8- Raiding the coastal city of Al-Hodeida in the events of 1225 A.H.: (... When the Muslim troops drew nearer to Al-Hodeida, its dwellers fled in ships, taking plenty of water and food with them and few of their precious possessions, and sailed into the deep sea where they would not be followed; they remained there for several days ... The Muslim soldiers confiscated all spoils and destroyed and burned down all the houses there and cut off the palm-trees; they slaughtered all men they could find inside and around Al-Hodeida ...). This means the Wahabi killed all those who could not flee in the ships.
9- Within the events of 1225 A.H., the massacre of Masqat, in Oman, was committed: (... The Muslim troops marched from Najd towards Oman; they fought against the Omani troops who were led by the ruler of Masqat; the battle was fierce; after defeating those infidels, they put most of them to a violent death, sparing no-one except those who ran away and could not be caught; the spoils included tents, precious items and possessions, weapons, cannons, and swords ... One-fifth of the spoils were sent to Al-Dariyya and the rest was distributed among the valiant soldiers ...).
10- Within the events of 1225 A.H., the piles of spoils were so huge, within the four sacred months of pilgrimage, that three sons of Saud desired to lead the troops into raids without getting the prior permission of their father who was performing pilgrimage in Mecca; they raided Oman and massacred many people to get more spoils; Ibn Bishr writes the following: (... Once the Prince reached Mecca to perform pilgrimage, three of his sons decided to raid Oman and they gathered a group of fighters ... The reason for this was that they quarreled with their father as he refused to give them the large sums of money they demanded, though he was always generous within his gifts to them; he refused to give them permission to raid any place during his temporary absence in Mecca ... Spies told the Omani infidels about the group of soldiers who marched from Najd; they were prepared to fight and resist ... Within a fierce battle, many men of both sides got killed ... After sending letters to demand reinforcements, the Muslim troops joined them from several regions whose people are loyal to the Prince; this caused the defeat of Omani troops; most of the Omani men were killed ... Piles of spoils were huge and consisted of money and countless precious items and possessions ... Raids went on within other Omani coastal cities to increase the amounts of spoils ...).
  The victims of Wahabism at the time were hundreds of thousands of people who were massacred, injured, rendered homeless, penniless, and terrorized, and lost their possessions because of Wahabis who looted and destroyed everything. How come that Wahabis would justify such atrocities?! How dare Ibn Bishr justify such heinous crimes?! This proves that Wahabis of the first Saudi State fought for the sake of Satan (i.e., to loot and raid) and never to please the Dominant Lord God. Wahabism is applied now worldwide by Al-Qaeda organization and ISIS terrorists and their likes.   
The Wahabis of the first Saudi State are thieves who stole cattle and camels: their jihad for the sake of stealing cattle and camels:
 Ibn Bishr takes pride in Saudis and their 'glorious' Wahabi jihad; he is proud of their 'jihad' which was for the sake of getting cattle, camels, mules, horses, and food items. This means that their fighting was never for the sake of the Lord God, but for the sake of Satan as they looted and massacred to get some animals! There were no longer any treasures left after they confiscated coffers of the rulers of Hejaz and after stealing the treasures of the chamber attached to the Yathreb-mosque mausoleum and treasures of the main cities. Hence, most of their raids were for the sake of stealing cattle, camels, mules, and horses. Within such raids, they sabotaged and burned down houses, farms, palm-trees, towers, fortifications, etc. and massacred many people. Is this the 'glorious' history of Najd assumed by Ibn Bishr?! The Wahabis were merely highwaymen who stole animals! Ordinary highwaymen are better than those Wahabis, because ordinary or 'secular' thieves never ascribe their crimes to Islam. The Wahabis have ascribed their heinous crimes to Islam and considered them as 'jihad'; they have assumed that they monopolize the name of Islam in order to accuse others of being apostates/infidels so that they would steal their animals and massacre all those who resisted their raids and thefts! We provide examples in the points below from what Ibn Bishr has written about the 'glorious' highwaymen and thieves of Najd.
Firstly: the jihad for the sake of stealing cattle, goats, and camels which drank at water-wells:
 The ambushes by Wahabis were typically located at water-wells where shepherds bring their cattle and animals to allow them to drink. Even non-Wahabi Bedouins who were thieves and looters did that; fighting would ensue only when shepherds and desert-Arabs would decide to defend themselves; yet, such defense was rare in the Bedouin culture which at the time allowed anyone to steal anything as Bedouin tribes raided one another all the time; the attacked, robbed ones would be attackers/robbers soon enough; tribes that allied themselves to one another might turn into enemies who raided one another; enemies among tribes might ally themselves to one another at one point in time within a joint raid. Besides, shepherds in general were peaceful people who avoided bloodshed; they let themselves get robbed and they rarely defended themselves provided they are left in peace (i.e., they are not attacked to be killed). This was known by ordinary (i.e., non-Wahabi) thieves, looters, raiders, and marauders in Arabia. Things changed to the worse when Wahabi raiders and looters emerged; they insisted on killing off the owners of stolen animals as they were deemed as disbelievers and infidels! The equation has changed: kill all people and steal all their animals! We quote in the points below some facts written by Ibn Bishr.
1- Within the events of 1110 A.H.: (... The Saudi Prince sent his troops led by.......to raid the Bani Hajar tribe as they brought their cattle, sheep, and camels to the water-well near the town of Al-Turba ... The Muslim troops confiscated all the cattle, sheep, and camels and killed 40 men among the infidels ...).
2- Within the events of 1178 A.H.: (... The troops of Riyadh were led by the Saudi Prince himself to raid the tribes of......at their water-well. All their animals were confiscated by the Muslim troops; more than 30 men of the infidels were killed in this raid ...).
3- Within the events of 1194 A.H.: (... The Muslim troops attacked the water-wells area near Basra and the frightened shepherds ran away; the Muslim troops confiscated about 4000 camels ...).
Secondly: the jihad for the sake of stealing cattle, goats, and camels elsewhere:
 In many cases, Ibn Saud and his troops and fighters did not wait for animals to drink at water-wells; they readily attacked the locations of tribes and stole their animals. We quote in the points below some facts written by Ibn Bishr.
1- Within the events of 1197 A.H.: (... The Prince – may God rest his blessed soul – led all the Muslims within massive troops to attack the tribes of Mateer and Shamar ... Many men of the infidels got killed, including cavaliers and tribal leaders, and the spoils were the tents, cattle, some goats, several camels, and ten horses ...). 
2- Within the events of 1229 A.H.: (... Within the last week of Ramadan, the Prince, Abdullah Ibn Saud, led the Muslim troops from all over the Najd region to settle for a while in Al-Qassim for training  and preparations in order to raid the tribes of Mateer and........; the victorious troops confiscated their cattle ... The raids against the tribes of........in the Hejaz region resulted in the confiscation of their victuals, clothes, cattle, camels, and tents; several men of the infidels got killed ...).
3- Within the events of 1212 A.H.: (... The Muslim troops raided the tribe of.......in the Hejaz region; several infidels were killed and the spoils were cattle and so many camels ...).
4- Within the events of 1211 A.H.: (... The Prince Abdul-Aziz Ibn M. Ibn Saud commanded his ally.......the leader and governor of..... to prepare his troops to raid the tribes and nomads of Hejaz for two months ... About 50 men of the infidels were killed; the spoils were countless camels and cattle  ...).
5- Within the events of 1229 A.H.: (...The Prince Abdullah Ibn Saud  – may God rest his blessed soul – led all the Muslim troops from Al-Dariyya and all Najd to attack the tribes at the borders of Najd; the spoils were countless camels and cattle ...).
Thirdly: the jihad for stealing cattle only:
 Even if there are few items of cattle, the Wahabi troops never hesitated to attack any location or town to steal such cattle. We quote in the points below some facts written by Ibn Bishr.
1- Within the events of 1164 A.H.: (... The Prince Abdul-Aziz Ibn M. Ibn Saud  – may God rest his blessed soul – led all the Muslim troops to raid the small town of...... The troops confiscated the cattle and returned safely home to Najd  ...).
2- Within the events of 1165 A.H.: (... The dwellers of Al-Dariyya raided Al-Kharaj and confiscated all the cattle there and returned to their homeland; when the infidels tried to restore the cattle by force, the Muslims killed them off ...). Wow! All this 'jihad' is for cattle! Very impressive!
3- Within the events of 1191 A.H.: (... The Muslim troops raided the town of.......and confiscated the cattle and killed six men who resisted them ...).
4- Within the events of 1184 A.H.: (... The Prince Abdul-Aziz Ibn M. Ibn Al-Saud  – may God rest his blessed soul – led all the Muslim troops to raid the tribes at a certain valley within Al-Dhafir region; the fighting resulted in killing some tribesmen of the enemies and the spoils were their cattle  ...).
5- Within the events of 1186 A.H.: (...The Prince Abdul-Aziz Ibn M. Ibn Al-Saud commanded his Muslim troops to raid Riyadh in order to confiscate the cattle of its dwellers to feed the Muslim troops ...).
6- Within the events of 1188 A.H.: (... The Prince Abdul-Aziz Ibn M. Ibn Al-Saud  – may God rest his blessed soul – led the Muslim troops to raid Al-Kharaj, killing ten men and confiscating all the cattle there ...).
Fourthly: the jihad for stealing camels only:
1- Within the events of 1173 A.H.: (... The Prince Abdul-Aziz Ibn M. Ibn Al-Saud led all his Muslim troops to raid Al-Kharaj, killing seven men and confiscating all camels found in Al-Kharaj ...).
2- Within the events of 1176 A.H.: (...  The Prince Abdul-Aziz Ibn M. Ibn Al-Saud  – may God rest his blessed soul – led the Muslim troops to raid the tribes of......, situated in the valley of........and the troops confiscated about 200 camels ...).
3- Within the events of 1186 A.H.: (... The Prince Abdul-Aziz Ibn M. Ibn Al-Saud  – may God rest his blessed soul – led his victorious Muslim troops to raid the tribes of......, situated in the valley of........and the troops confiscated countless camels and many infidels got killed ...).
4- Within the events of 1197 A.H.: (... The Muslim troops that consisted of about 200 fighters from Al-Kharaj raided the tribes of......, situated in the valley of........and the troops confiscated several camels before returning safely home ...).
5- Within the events of 1190 A.H.: (... The Prince Abdul-Aziz Ibn M. Ibn Al-Saud led his victorious Muslim troops to raid the tribes of......, situated in the valley of........and the troops confiscated countless camels before returning to Najd ...).
Lastly: stealing camels to sell them to 'infidels'!:
  Within the events of 1109 A.H.: (... The Saudi Prince, Abdullah Ibn Saud, led his victorious Muslim troops who rode fine Arabian horses and marched into the north of Najd to raid several locations of many tribes; most men of these tribes were defeated and killed ... Spoils included 1500 camels and all cattle, tents, and pieces of furniture of the defeated tribes; spoils were distributed in the typical way before the troops returned to Najd ... Days later, the Muslim troops sieged the city of Al-Turba, cutting off all palm-trees, and defeated and killed its dwellers ... The Muslim troops which consisted of the fighters of the city of Al-Kharaj attacked Qatar and the spoils were lots of money and thousands of camels which were sold later on to some Shiites inside Al-Ahsa region ...). This means they raided Qatar to steal some camels and they sold them in Al-Ahsa to non-Wahabis who are deemed by all Wahabis as 'infidels'! Bravo! We have the right to exclaim and express our surprise! Ibn Saud was such an infidel and a disbeliever indeed!
The Wahabis of the very first Saudi State are highwaymen and marauders who raided caravans to steal luggage and food items:
  Within Sunnite hadiths, fiqh rules, and sharia laws of Satan, fighters within Sunnite 'jihad' of aggression are allowed to get all things of their murdered/killed victims: the clothes, arms/weapons, possessions, and money, and this is apart from collective spoils and enslaved women: 1/5 of them is confiscated by the imam/caliph/ruler and 4/5 of them are distributed among the conquering troops. Such laws of Satan were issued for the first time by the four pre-Umayyad caliphs, revered and sanctified by the Sunnites, and the Abbasids endorsed these laws within their books of Sunnite fiqh and sharia, and many hadiths were fabricated to 'assert' these Sunnite laws. Ibn Abdul-Wahab never mentioned these facts in the books of his privately owned religion; he had his own formulated law of collecting all stolen items to be distributed (1/5 and 4/5) later on. Thus, a Wahabi fighter who stole the victims, murdered by him, did NOT confiscate their possessions and clothes to himself; the distribution (1/5 and 4/5) had to be applied within all spoils or stolen items as per Wahabism. Yet, the Wahabi fighters were very keen on taking all items of the dead victims: money, ornaments, turbans, and clothes. Wahabis and all Arabs at the time, like the so-called companions of Muhammad in Arabia in the past, never knew underwear; this means that corpses remain stark naked after taking all the clothes of the victims. Within the massacre of Al-Ta'if in 1217 A.H./1802 A.D., the Wahabi fighters were very diligent and keen on looting everything inside houses to the extent of digging inside the bathrooms in search for hidden treasures and chopping off the hands of women to get their precious jewels and ornaments (i.e., rings and bracelets). Since they removed all clothes and ornaments from the dead victims, they also robbed everything inside houses and shops: food items, goods, utensils, tools, etc. This also means to steal goods, animals/cattle, camels, and horses of the raided caravans and the clothes of the dead victims among the people of such caravans to increase the amounts of spoils. Hence, we can say that the Al-Saud family members in their first Saudi State were not only thieves who stole cattle, horses, and camels, but also money, precious items, clothes, goods of shops and caravans, food items, and food containers. This was the 'jihad' of Ibn Saud and his 'victorious' troops as per the expression of Ibn Bishr, and we provide some examples in the points below as per the book of Ibn Bishr.
Firstly: the Wahabis of Al-Saud are thieves who stole luggage:
1- Within the events of 1110 A.H., when the troops of Al-Sharif Ghalib were defeated by the Wahabis who never spared runaway men and chased them to kill them off; huge amounts of spoils included camels, cattle, clothes, and arms/weapons: (... After the troops of the infidels were defeated, the Muslim troops caught up with the runaway men and killed about 300 of them; the spoils included countless camels, cattle, and bundles of clothes; after the distribution, each fighter had at least 100 camels; the tents and cannons of the enemies were confiscated ...).
2- Within the events of 1174 A.H.: (... The Muslim troops raided the Nabateans and killed ten of their men ... The spoils were 80 camels as well as many pieces of furniture and bundles of clothes ...).
3- Within the events of 1182 A.H.: (... The Prince Abdul-Aziz Ibn M. Ibn Al-Saud – may God rest his blessed soul – led the Muslim troops to raid the tribe of..... The spoils included so many camels, cattle, and bundles of clothes ...).
4- Within the events of 1195 A.H.: (... The Prince Saud attacked with his men some Bedouins at their camp at their water-well and he defeated them; many got killed and others ran away in fear; the spoils were great; 17 thousand heads of cattle, 5 thousand camels, and 15 horses as well as countless tents and bundles of clothes ...). Because these Bedouins were at their camp of tents, the Wahabi marauders attacked, robbed, and killed them! What chivalry! 
5- Within the events of 1203 A.H.: (... The victorious Muslim troops, led by the Prince Saud, attacked the tribe of......but they did not find anything except some tents, clothes, and pieces of furniture; they confiscated them and returned to Najd ...). Would the 'victorious' troops raid, kill, and terrorize a tribe only in order to get some tents?! Why?! Ibn Bishr never tells us the reason!
6- Within the events of 1204 A.H.: (... The Muslim troops, led by the Prince Saud, left Najd and marched towards the borders of Al-Ahsa to raid the tribe of Bani Khaled ... Fierce fighting went on for three days ... Many infidels were killed; runaway men were caught and killed on the spot wherever found; countless spoils included cattle, camels, bundles of clothes, tents, and pieces of furniture ...). The Wahabis and Saudis were only highwaymen or gangsters led by the gang-leader Saud!
7- Within the events of 1205 A.H.: (... The men of the tribe of Al-Adwa were defeated by the Muslim troops, led by the Prince Saud, after a fierce battle that lasted for three days, as within each day, the defeated ones tried in vain to retaliate; those who ran away were chased and killed by the Muslim troops ... Spoils included 11 thousand camels and 100 thousand goats as well as tents, bundles of clothes, and pieces of furniture ...). Thus, this Wahabi 'holy' war allowed the Wahabi thieves to rob everything and to massacre everyone!
8- Within the events of 1206 A.H.: (... The Prince Saud led massive troops of Muslim fighters to raid the tribe of.......The victorious troops confiscated all tents, 20 horse, 8 camels, and all cattle ... Several men among the infidels were killed ...).
9- Within the events of 1212 A.H.: (... During Ramadan, spies informed the Prince Saud about the desert-Arabs who gathered at the water-well of.......to bring water to their camels ... The Muslim troops attacked them and confiscated their tents, camels, and clothes; many of the infidels ran away in fear, leaving their items behind, to avoid being killed; very few of them ran away with their tents ...).
10- Within the events of 1212 A.H., when the troops of Al-Sharif Ghalib were defeated by the Wahabis: (... God has made fear seize the hearts of the soldiers of the enemy; they were defeated and killed, and many of them ran away while leaving behind their tents, possessions, etc. The Muslim troops chased them to put them to death and collected more spoils that included money, precious possessions, arms/weapons, ammunition, cattle, camels, etc. ...  Some historians mention that 1020 men among the infidels got killed ...).
Secondly: the Wahabis of Al-Saud are thieves who stole victuals or food items:
 The Wahabis of Al-Saud never hesitated to steal any food items that belonged to non-Wahabis, as per Ibn Bishr. 
1- Within the events of 1110 A.H.: (... The Prince Saud – may God rest his blessed soul – led his victorious Muslim troops who rode their fine Arabian horses from Najd to Hejaz to raid the tribes of Mateer, Otaybah, etc. and attacked the tents of desert-Arabs in this region ... Spoils were cattle, 1200 camels, tents, and cooked and uncooked food items ...).
2- Within the events of 1198 A.H.: (...The Prince Saud – may God rest his blessed soul – led his victorious Muslim troops to Hejaz to raid Al-Ahsa region ... Upon attacking the houses, all pieces of furniture, clothes, and cooked and uncooked food items were confiscated as well as cooking utensils, tools, and cauldrons ...).
3- Within the events of 1207 A.H.: (... All the people of the Bani Khaled tribe were killed off, and more than 200 horses, as well as tents, pieces of furniture, clothes, and food items were confiscated by the victorious Muslim troops ...).
4- Within the events of 1211 A.H.: (... When the troops of the city of......were defeated, many of them fled in fear, but they were chased by the victorious Muslim troops near Kuwait ... The Muslims killed all of them and confiscated all their cattle, horses, camels, tents, clothes, and food items  ...).
5- Within the events of 1212 A.H.: (... Fighters of the Muslim troops were mostly from the people of Al-Qassim and they headed to the Levantine region to raid it ... more than 120 men of the infidels were killed and about 5000 camels, horses, and cattle were confiscated as well as clothes and huge amounts of food items, cauldrons, plates, and other utensils ...).
6- Within the events of 1218 A.H.: (... The Prince Saud led his massive troops of Muslim fighters, consisted of faithful men of Oman, Al-Ahsa, and Najd, and marched northward into Iraq to raid many locations of several tribes; fighting was easy and spoils were so many, including money, precious items and possessions, camels, cattle, horses, tents, clothes, and food items and utensils ...).
7- Within the events of 1222 A.H.: (... The massive Muslim troops raided the Bani Hajar tribe, in northern Najd, and killed their leader and many of their men, and spoils included countless camels, cattle, horses, tents, clothes, victuals, and food items and utensils ...).
8- Within the events of 1225 A.H.: (... The victorious Muslim troops consisted of about 8000 fighters (from Najd, Al-Jouf, Hejaz, etc.) who rode their fine Arabian horses and left Al-Dariyya and marched into the Levantine rural villages around Damascus; after confiscating horses, pieces of furniture, clothes, precious items, and food items as spoils to be carried to Al-Dariyya, the troops burned down such villages ...). Thus, they not only stole everything, but also burned the houses of all villages as the typical Wahabi way of leaving a thank-you note! 
9- The case differed when the Saudi prince would invade a city to own it and rule it; he would control its houses and steal food items inside them; he would appoint men to guard food items and spoils (i.e., stolen goods and items) inside these houses. Ibn Bishr mentions the following about the invasion of Riyadh: (... The Prince Abdul-Aziz Ibn M. Ibn Al-Saud led his Muslim troops out of Al-Dariyya to conquer Riyadh ... Spies told him its ruler and dwellers ran away in fear; the Muslim troops entered it without having to fight ... The deserted city, as well as its stretches of land filled with palm-trees, was annexed to the kingdom ... The doors and gates of the houses were open and food items and all precious items and goods were in abundance; cooked food items in cauldrons were left by the dwellers of Riyadh who left in a hurry to avoid the military confrontation; guards were appointed to protect all food items and countless spoils: arms/weapons, food items, clothes, etc.  ...).
Thirdly: about caravans:
1- When the aggressive polytheistic Qorayish tribesmen drove away Prophet Muhammad and the early believers out of Mecca and deprived them of their houses, possessions, and assets, they confiscated such items as well as their money-shares of trade caravans (i.e., of the winter and summer journeys of Qorayish mentioned in the Quranic Chapter 106); the Qorayish tribesmen continued their attacks against the early believers in Yathreb; for a certain period, the Yathreb dwellers did not defend themselves; they waited for God's leave and permission in the Quran; this permission is mentioned in 22:39-40 after the believing Yathreb dwellers (i.e., immigrants and original inhabitants) were ready to engage into military self-defense endeavors. The first and biggest confrontation was when the Yathreb troops attacked a Qorayish trade caravan that carried their own money-shares; this is NOT highwaymen's aggression; rather, this was an act of retrieving stolen rights. 
2- This is in contrast to the bad habit of the desert-Arabs and Bedouins of the Najd region and elsewhere in Arabia who were highwaymen who raided and marauded caravans of trade and of pilgrims, within utter disregard for the Divine commands to protect pilgrims as they headed towards the Sacred Kaaba Mosque. The troops of the Wahabi Saudis (who came originally from the Najd region) were also highwaymen who attacked caravans in Arabia while establishing their first Saudi State. They attacked almost every caravan within their reach as soon as they got news of any caravan getting nearer to them; they stole all goods and items of each caravan and massacred all its people (merchants or pilgrims); we provide some examples in the points below from the book by Ibn Bishr.
Within the events of 1176 A.H.: Ibn Bishr mentions that when the Wahabi troops and the Saudi prince received the news from their spies about a huge caravan with goods/shares in it for dwellers of Riyadh and the tribes of Sadeer, etc., they stole only shares of the dwellers of Riyadh (after killing more than 70 men of Al-Ahsa region raided by them on their way to the caravan!) and left the other shares that belonged to the tribes who were the allies of Wahabis who respected the truce agreements (e.g., goods/shares that belonged to the tribe of Sadeer); this generosity exceeded that of Robin Hood! 
Within the events of 1199 A.H.: Ibn Bishr mentions that spies informed the Saudi prince and Wahabi troops of a huge caravan; they ambushed near a known water-well (where the caravan men were expected to stop to get water) and attacked the men who guarded the caravan; fierce fighting went on and more than 300 non-Wahabi men were killed; spoils included all tents, food items, goods, money, horses, and camels. 
Fourthly: about stealing goods in markets, bazaars, and shops:
1- Within the events of 1173 A.H.: (... The Muslim troops, led by the Saudi Prince Abdul-Aziz Ibn M. Ibn Al-Saud, attacked Al-Kharaj and eight of its men were killed; all goods of all shops and markets of the city were confiscated ...). The Saudis/Wahabis and their prince were mere petty thieves.
2- Within the events of 1212 A.H.: (... During Ramadan, the Prince Saud Ibn Abdul-Aziz Ibn M. Ibn Al-Saud led his victorious troops from Najd and headed northwards into Iraq ... They raided all markets and shops to confiscate all their goods and food items ... Many men among the infidels got killed; several runaway men drowned in the sea ...). Hence, instead of piety and fasting in Ramadan, Wahabi Saudi thieves massacred and robbed!
Prayers of Wahabis are dedicated to Satan and never to the Dominant Lord God:
Introduction: performing prayers as an act of worship between Islam and disbelief:
1- Within the Only True Islam (i.e., Quranism), performing prayers is not an end in itself; rather, performing prayers are the means to attain purity of soul and achieving piety by avoiding sins; this is the positive influence of prayers and all acts of worship in Islam within the lifetime of monotheistic believers; God says the following in the Quran: "Recite what is revealed to you of the Book, and perform the prayer. The prayer prevents immoralities and evils. And the Remembrance of God is greater. And God knows what you do." (29:45); one is to concentrate within daily prayers and to be humble by performing them reverently within the fear of the Lord God; this means that ''believers'' who never do this will draw no benefits from prayers performed in a mechanical manner without reverence/piety and they fall into the trap of sins and disobedience because they are impious; God says the following in the Quran: "Successful are the believers. Those who are humble in their prayers. Those who avoid nonsense. Those who work for charity. Those who guard their chastity. Except from their spouses, or their slaves whom they married - for then they are free from blame. But whoever seeks anything beyond that - these are the transgressors. Those who are faithful to their trusts and pledges. Those who observe their prayers. These are the inheritors. Who will inherit Paradise, wherein they will dwell forever." (23:1-11).
2- All acts of worship within Islam aim at attaining piety; God says the following in the Quran: "O people! Worship your Lord who created you and those before you, that you may attain piety." (2:21); "O you who believe! Fasting is prescribed for you, as it was prescribed for those before you, that you may attain piety." (2:183); "The Hajj is during specific months. Whoever decides to perform the Hajj - there shall be no sexual relations, nor misconduct, nor quarrelling during the Hajj. And whatever good you do, God knows it. And take provisions, but the best provision is righteousness. And be mindful of Me, O people of understanding." (2:197); this applies to self-defense military fighting which is a duty in Islam to deter aggressors as a form of retribution: "...Whoever commits aggression against you, retaliate against him in the same measure as he has committed against you. And be conscious of God within piety, and know that God is with the righteous ones." (2:194).
3- The hypocrites within the Yathreb city-state led by Muhammad performed prayers without piety and tried to deceive others by the appearance of sham/fake piety and God has warned them against Hell-torment if they would die without repentance; God says the following in the Quran: "What prevents the acceptance of their contributions is nothing but the fact that they disbelieved in God and His Messenger, and that they do not approach the prayer except lazily, and that they do not spend except grudgingly." (9:54); "The hypocrites try to deceive God, but He is deceiving them. And when they stand for prayer, they stand lazily, showing off in front of people, and remembering God only a little." (4:142); "The hypocrites will be in the lowest level of the Fire, and you will find no helper for them. Except those who repent, and reform, and hold fast to God, and dedicate their religion to God alone. These are with the believers; and God will give the believers a great reward." (4:145-146).
4- Likewise, the polytheists of Qorayish performed the daily prayers, in the same corrupt manner of the polytheistic Muhammadans, within mosques that contained mausoleums (i.e., holy tombs of saints/deities/gods) inside and around Mecca; when Muhammad preached them to dedicate mosques to the worship of the Lord God only, they were about to beat him but God saved him from their evil aggression: "The places of worship are for God. So do not call, besides God, upon anyone else. And when the servant of God got up calling on Him, they almost fell on him in a mass. Say, "I pray only to my Lord, and I never associate anyone with Him."" (72:18-20). After most believers immigrated to Yathreb, the polytheistic Meccans prevented the few remaining believers in Mecca from entering into their mosques and into the Sacred Kaaba Mosque: "Who is more unjust than him who forbids the remembrance of God's name in places of worship, and contributes to their ruin? These ought not to enter them except in fear. For them is disgrace in this world, and for them is a terrible torment in the Hereafter." (2:114); this means that polytheists performed prayers in mosques and in the Sacred Kaaba Mosque only in an ostentatious manner without piety while adhering to polytheism/disbelief and in order to prevent believers from performing prayers at the Kaaba and from performing pilgrimage: "Yet why should God not torment them, when they are turning others away from the Sacred Mosque, although they are not its allies? Its rightful allies are the pious; but most of them do not know. Their prayer at the House was nothing but scheming and driving people away - so taste the torment for your disbelief." (8:34-35).
5- Hence, within earthly/terrestrial, prayers are never performed as the means to attain piety but the means/tools to justify disobedience and aggression; i.e., many of the Muhammadans are hypocrites who assume that as long as they perform prayers regularly, they can steal, rob, act violently, and disobey God's Quranic commands on purpose while assuming that intercessors (prophets and the so-called 'saints') would make God pardon them on the Last Day! This myth continues as corrupt, powerful clergymen control and dominate over the naïve, gullible masses and brainwash them with mythology and with fake/sham appearance of piety within earthly religions so as to take their money; clergymen of the Muhammadans, thus, consume ill-gotten money and urge people to adhere to polytheistic notions and acts of worship. 
6- The worst part is when the followers of the earthly religions of Satan fight for the sake of Satan; i.e., for the sake of worldly treasures and possessions; this grave sin was committed by the troops of Wahabis of Ibn Saud while establishing the first Saudi State in Arabia. Of course, fighting for the sake of God in Islam means to engage into military self-defense endeavors ONLY when attacked by aggressors. The Wahabi Sunnite Ibn Saud (along with his ally Ibn Abdul-Wahab) convinced their troops that it is OK to kill off all 'infidels' (i.e., non-Wahabis) and to conquer their land, enslave their women, and confiscate their money and possessions in the name of God and His Religion; thus, such heinous crimes required prayers as the rituals of justification and propaganda within giving the others (i.e., non-Wahabis) the false impression of piety. Wahabi warriors, thus, were keen on praying regularly on time as part of the Wahabi rituals of ostentatious, fake piety before the eyes of onlookers; this made them have the false sense of being 'justified' to commit all types of atrocities even during the four sacred months of pilgrimage. We provide some details about this topic in the points below.       
Firstly: performing prayers as part of the features of Wahabi fighting within establishing the very first Saudi State:
1- Some Egyptians, including Al-Jabarty the historian, admired (but were also surprised by) the fact that Wahabi fighters would stop fighting in battlefield to perform prayers on time; Al-Jabarty mentions the following: (... And people in Egypt asked how come that victory would be attained by the Egyptian and Ottoman troops since they lack the piety of the Arabian soldiers? The troops that headed to Arabia to crush the rebellious Najdi people had crates of wine bottles with them and never performed prayers or cared about religion at all; the Arabian soldiers, to everyone's surprise, would readily stop fighting during battles to perform the five daily prayers on time within rows behind the imam after they hear the call to prayers  ...).
2- The prince Saud Ibn Abdul-Aziz Ibn M. Ibn Al-Saud died in 1229 A.H., and Ibn Bishr praises him and mentions his 'good' features and traits here while lamenting his loss: (... and he performed the five daily prayers inside his palace, along with a group of people who were very close to him, but he performed the Friday congregational noon prayers in a grand mosque near his palace; he would bring six men with their swords to pray beside and behind him in order to protect him while he prayed ... May God have mercy on his blessed soul; people mourned his loss a great deal for a very long time ...). These are the rituals of his prayers; i.e., to perform prayers while being surrounded with armed guards and soldiers. This means he feared being killed by his enemies during prayers. 
3- This prince was a hypocrite who would prolong the time of his prayers outside the capital, Al-Dariyya, to give a false impression to others about his alleged 'piety'; he would preach and deliver sermons/lessons to people inside mosques; Ibn Bishr writes: (... Riding on horseback outside Al-Dariyya, the late prince typically greeted others by the word of peace; once he would hear the call to prayers, he would enter into the mosque with his men, and his prayers would take from him a very long time ... People would typically wait impatiently to hear his sermon delivered after the prayers ...).  
4- Ibn Bishr writes the following about the role of prayers during wars and battles: (... One group of fighters after the other would perform prayers behind the imam in the battlefield, while their backs were being protected/covered by their brethren ... Before fighting days, sermons would be delivered after the five daily congregational prayers to remind fighters of jihad rules and Paradise and the values of patience, courage, etc. while quoting certain Quranic verses such as...........and hadiths such as............. They were told that their prayers and valiance are the reason for attaining victory over the infidels whose hearts are seized with fear ...). Thus, the purpose of their prayers would be achieved; i.e., to steal money, cattle, camels, horses, food items, tents, clothes, and food items: (... After achieving victory, spoils would be distributed, usually at water-wells and inside caves, in the typical way before allowing everyone to return to their respective homelands ...). This means that their prayers led to aggression, murder, and others sins; the prayers were merely a psychological preparation for aggressors before engaging into fighting within wars and raids and before the distribution of spoils of ill-gotten money!  
Secondly: performing prayers as part of the features of Wahabi fighting within establishing the third, current Saudi State:
1- Abdul-Aziz Ibn Abdul-Rahman Al-Feisal Ibn Al-Saud established the third, current Saudi State by the military endeavors within the period 1902-1932 A.D.; he began to recruit Arabian youths and train them inside colonies/settlements to prepare them to be fearless, fierce fighters and he made his Wahabi sheikhs teach them tenets of Wahabism that include allowing, within their wicked religion, the fighting and murdering all non-Wahabis, deemed as 'infidels,' in order to rob them and conquer their stretches of land and to enter into Paradise in the Hereafter after causing so many bloodbaths everywhere! Those fighters came to be known later on as the Najd Brothers; their swords helped annexing more regions to the nascent Saudi kingdom through bloodshed. 
2- Careful plans were put and executed regarding choosing the locations of Wahabi settlements/colonies; they were situated away from caravan routes so as not to whet the appetites of new Wahabis to raid caravans; the aim was to conquer and annex regions to the kingdom. The chosen locations had abundant water-wells and everyone were sworn to secrecy about the locations of colonies; each colony was built by first erecting the mosque in the middle of a small square in the middle of each colony; houses/tents would be built around this square. This square would be seen from all windows of tents and houses to allow everyone to see banners of jihad that mobilized them; a system was introduced to distribute arms/weapons, food items, and water and to register names, etc.  
3- Life inside such colonies was very strict like military camps; Wahabi soldiers spent their time either in military training or listening to sermons after the obligatory five daily congregational prayers; they were inculcated about the Wahabi tenet that their 'holy' mission was to make infidels convert to the 'true' religion by force or else to conquer their regions to put them to death; they were taught about martyrdom and Paradise and also about the 'glory' and riches waiting for the living ones after battles; fighting every now and then, in fact, was their only chance to get out of the tedious life in the colonies; they felt they are obeying God's commands which were, in fact, the commands of their Wahabi clergymen and sheikhs.  
4- The mosque inside each colony was the assembly point of military mobilization, as per Wahabi teachings of Satan that link raiding, massacring, looting, etc. with religion and acts of worship (i.e., prayers). Before the five daily congregational prayers, lists of the names of fighters were used by Wahabi leaders to check who was present/absent; soldiers were recruited at the age of 15 and above, and each one is responsible for his food items, arms/weapons, clothes, etc. given to him. No one was allowed to be absent from the mosque except in case of illness; when banners of jihad were raised in the square of the colony, this means that all soldiers must assemble with their victuals and arms/weapons to be led to the location of the fighting/battle and to obey the commands of the military leaders blindly. Some soldiers in the houses/tents of the colonies were married; the Wahabi wives would encourage their husbands to obey Wahabi sheikhs and Saudi leaders and to never miss the congregational prayers and to never miss joining the mobilized forced heading for battle; some fierce women killed their men if they were reluctant to fight without acceptable excuses (e.g., being ill or bedridden).  
The religion of Wahabism is all about either to control and rule people or to kill them off to send them to Hell: compulsion in religion and in politics within the Wahabi religion:
Introduction: there is no political life at all within tyrannical rule:
1- Within the field of politics, there are no absolutes; there is no room for (either/or) policies and the black-or-white stances; it has the spectrum of colors and all shadows of grey, and this entails many options within negotiations within different views/stances and situations. Reaching power is the aim of any politicians; this is why they aim to form alliances and to win people over to their side; divisions occur and competition is fierce; politicians serve the citizens in democracies where people have the real power.   
2- In contrast to the above point, political tyranny means that there is no real political life; it might be only a façade or a décor; a mere appearance formed by dictators and tyrants to please and appease the opposition figures and the outside world. Thus, tyranny is based on existential struggle and the either/or policies; i.e., to be or not to be; tyrants confiscate all power and authority to themselves and assume that they own the 'absolute truth' about everything as if they receive revelation from God; they assume they are infallible persons who are never to be questioned; those who protest against views/stances of tyrants are deemed as traitors; tyrants expect blind obedience from the masses; there is no real political life in such cases, apart from the appearance of it by rigged elections and bribed media figures, etc. to give a false impression of democracy. Thus, citizens never participate within the political life which does not exist in the first place as tyrants confiscate power and authority to prevent people from seeking power or to oust tyrannical rulers; tyrants incarcerate, torture, and murder those 'traitors' who dare to contradict and undermine policies of tyrants in their absolutist regimes. The motto of such tyrants is to either rule the people or kill them off! This is the zero equation or policies of either/or within secular tyranny. 
3- What is worse than secular political tyranny is the theocratic one; theocracy is the Taghut; i.e., the tyranny or grave injustice of clergymen ascribing false revelations to God and to His Religion to rule, control, and dominate over people. This means that theocracies use sham/fake quasi-religious legitimacy to justify tyranny, oppression, violence, suppression, and preventing free speech; this is worse and more unjust when compared to secular tyranny because secular tyrants never ascribe their crimes to God; theocrats are tyrants who ascribe their atrocities to God while assuming to be His representatives on earth and to be controllers of the Hereafter. Those who oppose or protest against secular tyrants might be tortured, incarcerated, or killed without using religious mottos; in contrast, those who oppose or protest against theocratic tyrants are killed as apostates and theocrats assume they are sending them to Hell. This means that theocrats terrorize and intimidate people and deprive them of all rights while insulting God by assuming that they control the Hereafter and usurp the Authority of the Lord God. The motto of such theocratic tyrants is to either rule the people or kill them off to make them enter into Hell! Thus, secular tyrants commit grave injustices only against the people, whereas theocratic tyrants (by their Taghut or theocratic tyranny) perpetrate grave injustices against the people and against the Lord God.
4- This is why all terrorist Wahabi political organizations; e.g., the MB and Salafists, in Egypt and the Arab world must be prevented from political participation; Wahabis never believe in politics in the first place and they consider democracy as a form of disbelief and blasphemy. The Wahabi MB members, for instance, use tools like elections to reach power after brainwashing the masses and they destroy mechanisms of political life once they reach power anywhere so as to establish their cursed theocracy that would typically cause bloodbaths; this has occurred in Algeria (when Wahabis won the elections in the 1990s) and in the West Bank (by the MB members of the Hamas terrorist group). Mixing any religions with politics must be absolutely banned in the Arab world to allow room for competition within equal opportunity; it is a form of grave injustice against God that any political figures or parties would assume that God would be at their service or siding with them and that He would be the enemy of their competitors and foes. May God be exalted and glorified high and above such wicked notions of the Wahabi Salafists and MB members.       
5- This introduction is necessary to understand the nature of the first theocratic Saudi State, because it is the source/root of the third, current Saudi State which is the axis of evil now that spreads corruption and bloodbaths worldwide.
Firstly: compulsion in religion and swearing fealty to enter into the wicked religion of Ibn Abdul-Wahab:
1- Arabian tribes and desert-Arabs (or Bedouins) in the Najd region and elsewhere typically raided and conquered other tribes and caravans, to get food and money, for many centuries before Ibn Abdul-Wahab was born. Ibn Abdul-Wahab offered them an irresistible offer; they can go on with their sins and atrocities (i.e., sabotage, looting, raiding, raping, massacring, and enslaving) within quasi-religious 'legitimacy' by making their crimes have the banner or label of 'jihad' to get more spoils by conquering the regions of Arabia. Ibn Abdul-Wahab had imposed certain ways of dividing the shares of spoils: one-fifth of the spoils were confiscated by Ibn Saud and the rest were distributed among troops of cavaliers and infantry troops; each of the formers had the share of two men of the latters. This was in case the warriors survived the battle; the dead ones were assumed to enter into 'Paradise' promised by Ibn Abdul-Wahab as if he were its owner or keeper! Wahabism spread among Arabs within different cities and tribes; they had to travel to the capital of Najd, Al-Dariyya, to swear fealty to Ibn Saud and join his Wahabi troops after becoming followers of the wicked religion of Ibn Abdul-Wahab. Thus, Ibn Saud had massive troops to conquer many regions and to eradicate and kill off all non-Wahabis if they would not surrender and convert. Thus, innocent people had to choose between either being murdered or to convert to Wahabism as fighters; otherwise, they might flee and escape into poverty and/or dying of hunger in the arid deserts.       
2- Many people who have survived after being defeated and conquered by Wahabis chose to adhere to Wahabism out of fear of being killed; Ibn Saud sent to them Wahabi scholars to teach them rituals and notions of the new religion known as Wahabism. Some people rebelled against the Wahabis later on and fought them within new wars; Wahabis deemed those armed rebels as infidels and apostates because they rejected Wahabism after converting to it; some other weak people who had dared to cast doubt on Wahabism in public within conquered regions were killed instantly on the spot by Wahabis. This means that Wahabis expect exclusive, blind obedience of those controlled by them within sheer force; people must obey Wahabis even unwillingly. The Lord God pardons repentant people but Wahabis never pardon or forgive those who repented of disobeying them and they typically kill them off. 
3- This means that Wahabism is a privately owned religion fashioned and formed as per the whims of its fabricators; Wahabism demands from its followers much more than what God demands from human beings in the Quran; Wahabism, as one of the many man-made religions of Satan, expects its adherents to sacrifice their lives for the sake of Ibn Saud and Ibn Abdul-Wahab presumably in order to enter into Paradise while assuming that this is God's Religion conveyed by Muhammad!! (N.B.: our readers may add any number of exclamation marks they like!).
Secondly: examples quoted from Ibn Bishr:
1- Within the events of 1148 A.H.: (... The Prince Abdul-Aziz Ibn M. Ibn Al-Saud led his victorious Muslim troops to raid the tribe of.....located between Al-Kharaj and Riyadh; he sieged and fought them and cut off some of their palm-trees; eventually, the tribesmen surrendered and swore fealty to the Prince and they converted to God's religion and vowed to obey the Prince  ...).
2- Within the events of 1149 A.H.: (... The Muslim troops raided Al-Zulfa area and burned its fields of crops, and then, they raided Al-Kharaj ... The dwellers of Al-Zulfa surrendered and swore fealty to the Prince and they converted to God's religion and vowed to obey the Prince  ...).
3- Within the events of 1169 A.H.: (...  The tribesmen of the tribe of..... came to the holy sheikh Ibn Abdul-Wahab and swore fealty to the Prince and they converted to God's religion and vowed to obey the Prince  ...).
4- Within the events of 1181 A.H.: (...  After defeating the tribes of Sadeer and....., its people swore fealty to the Prince and they converted to God's religion and vowed to obey the Prince  ...).
5- Within the events of 1183 A.H.: (... The people of Al-Qassim came in several delegations, before they returned home, and swore fealty to the Prince and they converted to God's religion and vowed to obey the Prince  ...).
6- Within the events of 1188 A.H.: (... The tribesmen of the tribes of..... came to the holy sheikh Ibn Abdul-Wahab and the Prince Abdul-Aziz Ibn M. Ibn Al-Saud and swore fealty to the Prince and they converted to God's religion and vowed to obey the Prince ...).
7- Within the events of 1190 A.H.: (... The tribesmen of the tribes of..... came to the holy sheikh Ibn Abdul-Wahab and the Prince Abdul-Aziz Ibn M. Ibn Al-Saud and swore fealty to the Prince and they converted to God's religion and vowed to obey the Prince ...).
8- Within the events of 1199 A.H.: (...  During the last week of the month of Zu Al-Hijja, the Prince Saud led his victorious Muslim troops to siege and attack Al-Kharaj; a fierce battle ensued within the area of the palm-trees; the ruler of Al-Kharaj and several of his men got killed ... The Muslims conquered Al-Kharaj eventually and appointed.....as its governor. The people of Al-Kharaj surrendered and swore fealty to the Prince and they converted to God's religion and vowed to obey the Prince  ...).
9- Within the events of 1202 A.H.: (... After many battles and suffering several defeats, the tribesmen of the tribes of............came to the holy sheikh Ibn Abdul-Wahab and the Prince Abdul-Aziz Ibn M. Ibn Al-Saud and swore fealty to the Prince and they converted to God's religion and vowed to obey the Prince ...).
10- Within the events of 1207 A.H., Ibn Bishr writes the following about the reason behind the alleged conversion of the dwellers of Al-Ahsa to Wahabism: (... When the people of Al-Ahsa heard about the many victories of the invincible Muslim troops, fear seized their hearts; once the troops camped near Al-Ahsa at a certain water-well, its people sent letters to the Prince Saud in order to surrender and swear fealty to the Prince and all of them converted to God's religion and vowed to obey the Prince who entered into Al-Ahsa without fighting  ...).
11- Within the events of 1208 A.H.: (... The Prince Abdul-Aziz Ibn M. Ibn Al-Saud gathered his troops and military leaders from Najd, Al-Qassim, Shamar, etc. to conquer the northern region of.......... Three cities were annexed to the kingdom after a short duration of siege; many men of the infidels got killed. The dwellers of the cities swore fealty to the Prince and they converted to God's religion and vowed to obey the Prince ...).
12- Within the events of 1211 A.H.: (... After defeating the tribes of........., in the northern area of Al-Ahsa, and killing many of their men, countless spoils were distributed by the Prince Saud and the dwellers of Ahsa swore fealty to the Prince and they converted to God's religion and vowed to obey the Prince ...).
13- Within the events of 1212 A.H.: (... Desert-Arabs and Bedouins if Al-Hejaz and Otaybah came in delegations to swear fealty to the Saudi Prince and they converted to God's religion and vowed to obey the Prince, especially regarding paying zakat, and he commanded each of them to pay the tribute of some dirhams to prove their loyalty ...).
14- Within the events of 1212 A.H.: (... After sieging the tribes of........., they surrendered and swore fealty to the Prince and they converted to God's religion and vowed to obey the Prince ...).
15- Within the events of 1213 A.H.: (... After sieging the tribes of........., they surrendered and swore fealty to the Prince and they converted to God's religion and vowed to obey the Prince who appointed the leader......... as the governor of this region ...).
16- Within the events of 1220 A.H.: (... The tribesmen of............ came in delegations and swore fealty to the Prince Saud and they converted to God's religion and vowed to obey the Prince ...).
17- Within the events of 1222 A.H.. within the region known now as Oman and UAE, the Wahabi troops fought and defeated the leader/ruler named Qais and killed him in battle: (... and many people were drowned in the sea and most of the soldiers got killed by the swords of the Muslim troops; more than 3000 men were killed in one day ... The son of the dead leader/ruler Qais came within a delegation of governors of Oman to the Prince Saud and swore fealty to the Prince and they converted to God's religion and vowed to obey the Prince; he paid a very heavy tribute/fine; the whole region was annexed to the kingdom ...).
Thirdly: rejecting the Wahabi religion:
1- Within the events of 1163 A.H., Ibn Bishr mentions the following about the assassination of the governor Othman Ibn Muammar, the ruler of Al-Oyayna town who was among the first people to support Ibn Abdul-Wahab and to fight with Ibn Saud; in fact, he was also the in-law of Ibn Saud, but both Ibn Abdul-Wahab and Ibn Saud decided to get rid of him because of his too much influence and stature in Arabia Ibn Bishr tries here to 'justify' the assassination: (... The governor Othman Ibn Muammar was assassinated inside the mosque of Al-Oyayna after he performed the Friday congregational prayers, in the month of Rajab, by a group of his men hired by the Prince Ibn Saud ... Ibn Muammar breached the pledges and solemn vows by allying himself to the enemies of the Saudi troops; he wrote letters to the enemies to urge them to fight against the Muslims and to rebel against the Saudi rule ... Religion knows no partiality or bias: traitors and betrayers must be put to death ...). Ten years later, in 1173 A.H., as per the words of Ibn Bishr, Ibn Abdul-Wahab commanded his men in Al-Oyayna to demolish the palace of Othman Ibn Muammar. 
2- Within the events of 1167 A.H., Ibn Bishr mentions the following about putting to death the rebellious leaders of some tribes who dared to revolt against the Saudi rule: (... The Muslims troops invaded the locations of the tribes of......... and put to death the leaders of the rebellion who showed contempt towards the holy religion and its sheikhs and revolted against the Saudi prince ...).
3- Within the events of 1179 A.H., Ibn Bishr mentions that the ruler of Riyadh joined the forces of Wahabis and fought with them, but later on, he revolted against the Saudis; he was defeated eventually, and he, as well as all the dwellers of Riyadh, had to desert the city and leave it for good; Ibn Bishr deems this rebellion as 'apostasy' of renegades who rejected 'Islam'; he means, of course, the Wahabi religion of Satan; it is as if Ibn Bishr deemed the Saudi State as a symbol of Islam! Shame on him!
4- Within the events of 1190 A.H., one of the leaders of the people of Al-Kharaj rebelled and revolted against the Saudis and killed the Wahabi governor/emir of Al-Kharaj; the Wahabi troops, led by Abdul-Aziz Ibn M. Ibn Al-Saud, fought and defeated this rebellious leader; he had to re-convert to Wahabism and to submit once more to the Saudis after breaching the pledges and solemn vows of obedience; he was spared from being put to death and so were the people of Al-Kharaj, but they had to accept their new governor appointed by the Saudis and to came in delegations to renew their swearing fealty to the Saudi prince. 
5- Within the events of 1190 A.H.: (... The tribes of.......who submitted to the Muslims and swore fealty to the Saudi Prince breached the pledges and solemn vows as they revolted against the Muslims days later, but they were defeated and had to re-convert to God's religion and to swear fealty again and to make solemn oaths about obeying the Saudi prince who spared their lives ...).
Fourthly: earning ill-gotten money by manipulating religion and by controlling others within the hateful religious police patrols that imposed goodness and removed vice by force:
 Secular tyrants impose their full political control and rarely interfere in religion; in contrast, theocratic tyrants control all religious aspects (and other aspects of life) of the masses while considering the whims of theocratic rulers as part of religion! Let us trace some points related to this topic from Ibn Bishr.
1- Within the events of 1027 A.H., after most of the people of Al-Ahsa feigned the conversion to Wahabism en masse out of fear of being exterminated, Ibn Bishr mentions the following about teaching them Wahabi tenets: (... The Muslims troops participated in the process of demolishing all mausoleums and domes built over tombs along with the people of Al-Ahsa ... Sheikhs of our holy religion remained for months to teach Islam and its sharia laws to the people of Al-Ahsa regarding prayers, jihad, removing vice, enjoining goodness/virtue, etc. ...).
2-  We quote what Ibn Bishr writes about the prince Saud after the conquest of Mecca and imposing Wahabi tenets on its people, banning all types of smoking, and preventing some people from performing pilgrimage. 
Within the events of 1222 A.H.: (... Groups of Muslims who were enjoining goodness/virtue and removing vice spread in Mecca; they were appointed by the Prince Saud himself; no one was allowed to smoke tobacco in markets; other men were appointed to stand in markets to make all men close their shops in order to gather so as to perform the daily congregational prayers ... The Prince Saud returned to Najd, after giving orders never to receive any pilgrims this year from Egypt, Iraq, and the Levantine region ...).
Within the events of 1225 A.H.: (... The Muslim men appointed in markets forced people to close their shops when the call to prayers is heard; no one was allowed to miss the daily congregational prayers or to smoke tobacco in public, among other sins prevented by the true Muslims inside Mecca ...).
Within the events of 1226 A.H.: (... The true, God-fearing Muslims who prevented sins, removed vice, and enjoyed virtue/goodness inside Mecca controlled all pilgrims this year and watched them; they allowed no one to smoke tobacco in public or to miss any daily prayers ... Of course, penalties were imposed on those who swear by other than God's Name in public ... The Saudi Prince prevented the entry of pilgrims from Egypt, the Levant, and Istanbul and allowed the entry of pilgrims from Morocco and Yemen ...).
3- We perceive here a strange contradiction; i.e., Wahabis allow massacring innocent, peaceful people as a religious duty despite the fact that murder is a grave sin, while they prohibit smoking which is permissible since it is not mentioned in the Quran as a prohibited practice. This means that Wahabism is a privately owned wicked religion formed and fashioned to serve whims and desires of Quran-hating criminals/sinners; the Saudi Wahabis of today hate the Quran and prevent those whom they dislike or hate (i.e., deemed as foes of Wahabism or the KSA) from entering into Mecca for pilgrimage; they assume that the Kaaba is part of their property! Wahabis never believe in the Quranic fact that the Lord God has made this House for all human beings to perform pilgrimage in security.     
4- It is a grave sin to assume that such heinous crimes and atrocious deeds are part of God's Religion of Islam conveyed to Muhammad; the Quran never mentions Ibn Abdul-Wahab and Ibn Saud and never endorses their evil deeds! Gabriel never proclaimed that God's Religion is lacking anything to be 'completed' by Ibn Abdul-Wahab! God's Religion does not need Ibn Saud and his troops and family members to be its 'defenders' or spokespersons! Wahabism is the religion of Satan and it has nothing to do with Islam. Those who deem Wahabism as a version of Islam are adhering to utter blasphemy.    
PART II: The Third Current Saudi State Has Spread Wahabism in Egypt 
CHAPTER I: The Role of Rasheed Reda: An Overview of the Savagery of Wahabism during the Establishment of the Third Current Saudi State
1- Abdul-Aziz Ibn Abdul-Rahman Al-Feisal Ibn Al-Saud established the third, current Saudi State within the period 1902-1932 while relying on the Najd Brothers who were desert-Arabs and Bedouins of the Najd region; they were recruited by him and sent into his isolated colonies/settlements to be taught Wahabi notions of savagery, bigotry, violence, etc. and in order to receive military training to become fierce warriors who prefer death to being defeated. 
2- Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud imitated the savagery and brutality of his ancestors. Hafiz Wahba, the Egyptian consultant of Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud, mentions in his book titled "Arabia in the Twentieth Century" that Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud said the following: (...  "All tribes inside Arabia resisted our call during the conquests, and our great-grandfather Saud the First once imprisoned a number of leaders from the tribe of Mateer; a number of other leaders from the same tribe came to him as intercessors to ask for the release of the imprisoned leaders, but Saud the First commanded the beheading of the Mateer prisoners and put their severed heads on plates served at the lunch table for the intercessors and commanded them to eat these severed heads! When they refused and felt horrified, he put them to death!" ... King Abdul-Aziz has narrated this story to the leaders of Mateer who came as intercessors to request the release of their imprisoned, leader Feisal Al-Daweesh, before he was killed by the King. The King warned these intercessors that he will put them to death if they continue to act as intercessors on behalf of Feisal Al-Daweesh ...).
3- Feisal Al-Daweesh was also the leader of the Najd Brothers who helped establish the kingdom of Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud; when he desired to share authority with king Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud, the latter refused, and thus, Al-Daweesh became the first opposition figure who stood against Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud; this opposition evolved into full-fledged war; Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud defeated Al-Daweesh and his troops of rebels in two battles and he eventually put Al-Daweesh to death.
4- The Saudi family members who spread Wahabism in Arabia made their followers commit massacres against Shiites and Christians and other minorities in Iraq and the Levant. Such massacres, especially the one that took place in 1830 A.D. made millions of Levantine Christians immigrate to Latin American countries and to Egypt, among other regions. This bad memory made the Shiite Druze in Palestine become Israeli citizens and serve the Hebrew State to avoid Sunnite Wahabi extremism and violence spread and sponsored by the KSA all over the Arab world. Likewise, the tragedy of Syria since 2011 was caused directly because (among other reasons) of the Syrian Sunnite Wahabis dominating over the Shiites there who raised the banners of Pan-Arabism (a.k.a. Arab nationalism) within the Baathist party; once this  party reached power, it took revenge against Syrian Sunnites; Al-Assad defends his regime now with all his might to avoid the eradication/massacring of Syrian Shiites (one-fifth of Syrian citizens) by Wahabi Sunnite rebels who desire the ouster of Al-Assad. Thus, Wahabism is behind most struggles and all evil in the Arab world, past and present. We provide more details about the massacres committed by the third, current Saudi State in the points below.       
Firstly: enumerating the massacres committed by the Wahabi Saudi family:
 In 1929 A.D., about 1200 unarmed Yemeni pilgrims headed for Mecca, but after the Wahabi Najd Brothers feigned to allow them to pass the desert route, within the valley of Tanouma, in peace, they treacherously attacked their caravan and killed them off, except for two men who had a narrow escape and they informed everyone about this heinous massacre. The Saudis committed several massacres while establishing the third, current Saudi State (known now as the KSA), and historians never agree on the number of such massacres and the number of the victims. Nasser Al-Said in his book titled "The History of the Al-Saud Family" mentions the following list of the massacres committed by the Al-Saud family in Arabia.
1- The massacre of Hael: 3790 victims were massacred inside a mosque within attacking the region of Hael during Ramadan in 1922 A.D.
2- The massacre of Al-Jeileida, a region near Hael: 410 victims. 
3- The massacre of Beidaa Nethel: 513 victims.
4- The massacre of Umm Al-Gharameil, a region in the east of Hael: 411 victims.
5- The massacre of Al-Ghouta, inside Hael: 375 victims.
6- The massacre of Al-Turba and Kharama: 40 thousand men of the troops of Al-Sharif Hussein were massacred; about 500 men of these troops managed to escape.
7- The massacre of Al-Ta'if and Al-Hawba: 15.000 victims that included men, women, children, and elderly people.
8- The massacre committed during the siege of Al-Ta'if: 2800 victims from the people of Jeddah and the soldiers of Al-Sharif Hussein the ruler of Hejaz. 
9- The massacres of Al-Qassim region: 37.000 victims.
10- The massacres of Al-Nissiyya, Al-Waqeed, and Al-Jathamiyya: 10.000 victims from the tribe of Shamar and the dwellers of Hael.
11- The massacre of Al-Jouf: an unspecified number of victims.
12- The massacres of Tehama and Aseer: 50.000 victims.
13- The massacre of the valley of Tanouma: about 1200 Yemeni pilgrims.
14- The massacre of the Bani Malik valley in Al-Ta'if: 7000 victims, besides the destruction of 70 village.
15- The massacre of Jabal Al-Qahr region, south of Hejaz: 3480 victims.
16- The massacre of Al-Jahra: 1000 victims that included Arabian and Kuwaiti men. 
17- The massacre of Sabilla: 5000 fighters of the Najd Brothers were massacred after helping the Al-Saud family establishing their kingdom by achieving victory within many battles.
18- The massacres of the tribes of Al-Ajman: 3000 victims.
19- The massacres of the tribe of Bani Atiya, Juhayna, and Al-Howaytat: 7000 victims, besides rendering thousands of people homeless. 
20- The massacre of Iranian pilgrims: 329 Iranian men and women.
Secondly: a brief overview of the known massacres:
The massacre of Al-Turba and Kharama:
1- They were two villages inside Hejaz region near the borders between Hejaz and Najd, ruled by Al-Sharif Hussein, the ruler of Hejaz at the time. The Wahabi soldiers, known as the Najd Brothers who were led by the Feisal Al-Daweesh, attacked both villages in the month of Shabaan, 1337 A.H. (in 1919 A.D.), and they raped, massacred, sabotaged, and looted, and then, they burned the palm-trees upon leaving.
2- The Najd Brothers invaded and conquered both villages and massacred all soldiers and civilians; those who fled were chased and killed in the very next day; about 1000 persons survived as they managed to run away. As usual, historians differ regarding the number of massacred victims; some assert that the numbers are 8000 civilians (i.e., men, women, and children) and 7000 soldiers. Strangely, Wahabis would stop the bloodbaths temporarily to perform the five prayers together and then resume the massacre! This paved the way for the Saudis and their Najd Brothers to commit the massacre of Al-Ta'if.
The second massacre of Al-Ta'if: 
1- We have tackled the first massacre of Al-Ta'if when we tackled the first Saudi State.
2- We tackle here the second massacre of Al-Ta'if committed in 1924 A.D. within the endeavors of Wahabis led by Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud to establish the third, current Saudi State (which has come to be known later on, since 1932 A.D., as the KSA); about 100 thousand persons were slayed mercilessly in this massacre.  
3- The Wahabi Najd Brothers attacked and sieged Al-Ta'if, near Al-Hejaz, and put its dwellers (men, women, and children) to the sword. The Wahabi historian who mentions this massacre was Ahmad Fouad Al-Attar, the hired historian of Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud who was commissioned by him to write everything about the first Saudi king's lifetime and actions. This historian mentions this massacre in the second volume of his book titled "The Falcon of Arabia: Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud", as per the narration of the Saudi king himself; of course, this historian tried to clear the name of his king and to declare him as innocent in order to blame the Najd Brothers for this heinous massacre.   
4- We know from the words of Al-Attar that the troops of the Najd Brothers attacked Al-Ta'if and that the troops of Al-Sharif Hussein, 400 fighters and their cannons, marched swiftly to save the people of Al-Ta'if. These troops were about to defeat the Najd Brothers; yet, the Bedouins among the 400 fighters betrayed Al-Sharif Hussein and joined the Najd Brothers as they sought shares of the spoils; this led to the defeat of the Al-Sharif Hussein, whose troops (and reinforcements sent to them) could not face 40 thousand Wahabi warriors and had to flee and leave Al-Ta'if. Some of the frightened civilians inside Al-Ta'if fled the city, leaving their valuable possessions behind, after hiding gold, money, jewels, and precious stones inside secret locations within their houses; they placed huge rocks behind the walls and fortifications of the city to prevent the invaders temporarily from entering into the city. More desert-Arabs and Bedouins joined the Wahabi troops in the siege of Al-Ta'if; thus, the troops consisted of 50 thousand men. Once they managed to enter into the city, they massacred all its innocent dwellers by bullets and swords, looted everything, demolished houses in search for treasures and precious items, and raped women before killing them. Al-Attar mentions the following as per words he allegedly heard from Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud: (... Bedouins and desert-Arabs who desired to take revenge against their enemies among the people of Al-Ta'if entered into the city to loot and kill and rape along with their Wahabi brethren; they even drank water mixed with the blood of the massacred people and performed ablution with this water and performed prayers! They chopped off hands and feet of raped, dead women to get their rings, bracelets, and anklets; the Najd Brothers and Bedouins wore such stolen ornaments in their hands and necks so as not to lose them while continuing their looting and killing ...). This is the summary of what Al-Attar has quoted from the words of Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud.
5- Al-Attar defends Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud here: (... As a historian, I do believe that Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud is innocent of the massacre of Al-Ta'if; he never commanded his soldiers to perpetrate such a heinous crime; on the contrary, he ordered them never to harm any civilians, especially women, children, and elderly people, never to finish off the injured soldiers, and never to attack houses, but they disobeyed his command since he was not with them during the conquest ...).
6- When Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud tried to blame Ibn Bejad, one of the leaders of the groups of the Najd Brothers, for the massacre of Al-Ta'if, Ibn Bejad defended himself within the council of the king inside Mecca before the people of Hejaz who attended this council; he announced outspokenly to Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud before the gathered people that the king commanded him to put to the sword all of the innocent people of Hejaz to deter the disobedient, rebellious ones and to exterminate as many of the 'infidels' as possible. Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud fell silent at such a response so as not to cause any further embarrassment in public.
7- The analysis of the events asserts that the massacre of Al-Ta'if was planned by Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud to intimidate and terrorize the dwellers of the Hejaz cities of Mecca, Jeddah, and Yathreb to force them to surrender without fighting or any form of resistance. The Wahabi troops of the Najd Brothers marched toward Yathreb in Dec. 1925 and then Yanba' and Jeddah to siege it; the prince Ali Ibn Al-Sharif Hussein had to surrender Jeddah to the Saudi king in 1926 – within negotiations mediated by the British – and he received a solemn promise (before joining his brother the king of Iraq) that the Najd Brothers will not enter into Jeddah; the Saudi king agreed because Jeddah is the Arabian Red Sea port that received many pilgrims and many foreigners live and work in it within embassies and consulates, apart from merchants of different nationalities. Hence the king Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud became the sultan of Najd and king of Hejaz in Jan. 1926. 
Thirdly: the Saudis and massacring women and children:
1- The Najd Brothers massacred all women and children indiscriminately inside Al-Ta'if and also during the battle of Al-Jahra in Kuwait in 1920 and in towns of Transjordan in 1924. Foreign (i.e., non-Arab) watchers wrote that the Najd Brothers never kept any captives or POWs; they massacred everyone whom they could lay their hands on while sparing no one at all. 
2- Calling others to convert to Wahabism as 'true' Islam was linked to putting to death those who refuse to convert; this compulsion in religion within the Wahabi religion of Satan is against the Quran, of course (see the verses 109:6 and 2:256). The Wahabis typically told people that those who convert will not be killed and robbed and their women will not be raped! Thus, for several years, Wahabi fighters frightened children and grownups alike; the Najd Brothers massacred all men, women, and children in the region between Najd and Transjordan. Two survivors among the Najd Brothers (after most of them were killed in a battle by British troops and mercenary ones of the Saudi king) once told John Habeeb, the author of a book about the Wahabi brethren or the Najd Brothers, that they participated in raiding Iraq with the Najd Brothers; the march towards Iraq took them ten days; both men killed about 1000 men in Iraq; raiding and massacring continued day and night; they slept only for three hours per day, consuming only bread, dates, and coffee. This barbarism, brutality, and savagery drove the British occupiers of Iraq to build a citadel to protect Iraq against the frequent Wahabi raids; the Najd Brothers were furious upon seeing such a citadel of defense; it seared their eyes; they tried to force their king and leader to allow them to attack and demolish it; he naturally refused so as not to provoke the ire of his allies the British; this incident provoked the political and military opposition of the rebellious, belligerent Najd Brothers who fought their king and leader as they felt that he rejected Wahabi tenets; this is why they massacred many of their Wahabi brethren (men, women, children, and elderly people) who sided with Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud and preferred peace as they did not join the rebellion of the Najd Brothers against the Saudi king. 
3- What helped in this was (1) the tenet of allowing prohibitions and making them permissible within Wahabism and (2) the quasi-religious link within Wahabism between prayers and fighting.
4- The Wahabi savagery and brutality threaten the whole world as Wahabism is now spreading worldwide within the terrorist MB group, ISIS, Al-Qaeda, etc. We provide an overview of such spread of this veritable danger in the points below. 
The spread of Wahabism in Egypt between Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud and Rasheed Reda:
 Wahabism was hated in Egypt at the era when the dominant, practical religion there was Sunnite Sufism. Things changed radically when Wahabism spread gradually in Egypt under the admired euphemism of (Sunna) of Muhammad, his companions, and their followers in the next generation; i.e., Salafism or the religion of Salaf (i.e., 'good' or 'pious' ancestors!). The hateful moniker or label (Wahabism) was tactfully avoided in Egypt. The names/labels of Sunnite Salafism or Salafist Sunna were admired as they refer to revered or 'holy' saints or forefathers and this is among the notions of Sunnite Sufism of course; Sufis sanctified and deified the so-called companions, caliphs, and followers and other historical figures of authors/sheikhs. This dangerous transition made the terrorist MB group emerge in 1928 in Egypt, financed by Britain and Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud, to spread and propagate Wahabism in Egypt and the rest of Arab and non-Arab countries of the Muhammadans. This dangerous transition has been caused at first in Egypt by two persons: Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud and his agent Rasheed Reda; we provide some details about this topic in the points below.
Firstly: Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud needed to establish an Egyptian brotherhood of the MB to replace the Najd Brothers:
1- The founder of the third, current Saudi State (or the KSA), Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud, suffered from the obscurantism, backwardness, and rigidity of Wahabi sheikhs/scholars and the Najd Brothers who desired to dominate all aspects of life inside Arabia since they helped the Saudi king establish his kingdom with their brutality and savagery; they interfered in all matters of rule and he felt that his power and authority were threatened by them. Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud had to bear patiently with them at first and he humored them until he would find an alternative; i.e., more loyal troops and agents to replace the belligerent, brainless Najd Brothers. 
2- The Wahabi rigid sheikhs/scholars and the Najd Brothers deemed the British and the Egyptians as infidels and polytheists and they objected to the dealings of Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud with both the Egyptians and the British; they even protested against his introducing Western innovations like the telegraph, telephones, and motorcycles into Arabia. This objection turned into a political opposition and then into full-fledged war that ended with the triumph of Abdul Aziz Al-Saud over his former Wahabi troops in 1930 A.D. For sure, Abdul Aziz Al-Saud knew that the Wahabi ideology is not flexible enough to allow his political dealings with foreigners (e.g., Britain) and non-Wahabi Egyptians (as Egypt was the most important regional power at the time).
3- Thus, the political opposition of the Wahabi Najd Brothers expressed vociferously within conferences turned into military struggle; Abdul Aziz Al-Saud who prepared alternative troops defeated the troops of the Najd Brothers twice in two separate battles; he realized that he must control everything and manage all authority/power and this was made possible by tightening his grip over Wahabi scholars/sheikhs to make them submit to his will. Within the conferences he held to appease and humor Wahabi sheikhs and the leaders of the Najd Brothers, Abdul Aziz Al-Saud knew that they used Wahabi rigid tenets to prove they are fitter as the future rulers of Arabia instead of him; they posed a veritable threat to him and he decided to get rid of them with the help of Britain, of course.   
4- The Wahabi sheikhs and their allies the Najd Brothers never realized at the time that Abdul Aziz Al-Saud planned secretly – after he conquered Mecca and controlled pilgrimage and this entailed being politically open to the whole world – to spread Wahabism in Egypt (and from Egypt to the Arab and non-Arab countries of the so-called 'Islamic' world) and to establish new Brothers inside Egypt (i.e., the terrorist MB organization established by Hassan Al-Banna in 1928 A.D.). Simultaneously, with the help of Britain, he established his own loyal troops from outside the Najd Brothers as he felt that the time for military confrontation drew nearer; he had to defeat and to get rid of the Najd Brothers once and for all to force Wahabi scholars to submit to his will. Many overt and covert Wahabi societies and groups have been established in Egypt using Saudi money to turn Egyptians gradually away from Sunnite Sufism of peace, submission, and nonchalance to make them embrace the bloody, savage, and violent Sunnite-Hanbali Wahabism under the label of Salafism (i.e. following 'good' ancient sheikhs and ancestors); this way, Egypt has become the strategic depth for Abdul Aziz Al-Saud and the KSA. 
Secondly: factors that imposed on Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud to either neutralize Egypt or to win it to his side:
1- Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud realized the fact that the Wahabi ideology is so backward that it cannot cope with the modern age; to modernize and sift through the Wahabi ideology is an arduous task beyond the scope and abilities of the Najd Wahabi scholars; this task must be performed only in Egypt after making it a strategic depth for his nascent Saudi State; no doubt that his Egyptian advisor, Hafiz Wahba, was behind the endeavors of the Saudi king to establish close ties between Egypt and the KSA.  
2- Hafiz Wahba was interested very much in documenting the relations between Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud and Egypt; he writes the following in p. 268 in his book titled "Arabia in the Twentieth Century" about Egypt and the Saudi king, and he expresses his own views: (... In Sept. 1925, the Egyptian Azharite sheikh and supreme judge Al-Maraghy along with a high-rank official of the Egyptian royal palace arrived to the Sultan Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud to deliver a letter addressed to him by the King of Egypt, who intended to visit Mecca very soon  ... This is a rather rare opportunity and a very good chance to be seized to consolidate the ties between Najd and Egypt; the Sultan Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud acknowledged the leadership of Egypt within the fields of culture and civilization and he was keen on having a very close relation with Egypt  ...). At the time when Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud conquered Hejaz, it was under the control, influence, and nominal dependency of Egypt.   
3- Egypt itself was a very big problem for Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud; Egypt used to control the Hejaz region (where Mecca and Yathreb are located) since the Tulunid and Mameluke eras; Hejaz was nominally dependent on Egypt; its people lived on goods and victuals sent to them annually by the Kiswah caravan from Egypt; the Kiswah caravan incident made the Saudi king very much afraid lest the Egyptian King Fouad might send troops to destroy the nascent kingdom; the Egyptian military troops that protected the Kiswah caravan shot the Wahabi aggressors anyway, and the Saudi king tried to appease the anger of Egypt in order to normalize relations with Egyptians after he conquered Hejaz; he knew the vital importance of winning Egypt to his side. Wahba, his Egyptian consultant, was also keen on winning the Egyptian authorities to the side of the Saudi authorities as soon as possible and at any cost.   
4- Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud felt that Egypt posed a veritable threat to his nascent kingdom whose fate is linked to Egypt all the time; he knew that Egyptian troops destroyed the first Saudi State in 1818 A.D. and Egypt indirectly (by never morally and financially supporting Saudis in Hejaz) contributed to the factors that led to the collapse of the second Saudi State; hence, the fate of the third Saudi State of Abdul-Aziz Al-Saudi is directly linked with the approval and support of Egyptians. Egypt is the most ancient State on earth; the KSA (est. in 1932) was the newest state in the Middle East before Israel (est. in 1948).  
5- Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud feared that the Wahabism-hating Azharite and non-Azharite Egyptians might make Egypt ally itself to Jordan and Iraq (ruled by kings who were sons of Al-Sharif Hussein) and also to Yemen and Shiites of Hejaz and Al-Ahsa. Hence, Egypt might lead a coalition that will siege the nascent Saudi kingdom and crush it eventually. The Saudi/Wahabi expansionist scheme of annexing more regions in Arabia made Saudis rule over their enemies; i.e., the Shiites in Hejaz and Al-Ahsa; besides, the Saudi borders with Jordan and Iraq were endangered by kings who were sons of the arch-enemy of Wahabis: Al-Sharif Hussein. To top it all, the Shiite Iran remains a source of danger to the KSA (until now); Shiites of Yemen were also another source of danger at the southern borders of the KSA. Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud realized the importance of making Egypt his strategic depth and his trusted ally later on in order to stop any possible Egyptian alliance with the enemies of Saudis to prevent the collapse of the Saudi kingdom after it annexed Hejaz, a region controlled for centuries by Egypt since the Tulunid and Mameluke eras.     
6- Thus, if Egypt become the strategic depth of the KSA, its Al-Azhar institution (which is like a Vatican to Sunnite-Sufi Muhammadans) and its government would be assets to face the foes of the Saudis in the east, north, and south; the Saudi king was keen on winning Egypt to his side as soon as possible by any means; he and Wahba made many attempts to achieve this aim and their endeavors succeeded eventually; their agents inside Egypt managed to gradually spread Wahabism in the name of Sunnite Salafism and to weaken Sufism; the dire consequences of the Kiswah caravan incident were avoided and contained; diplomatic ties with Egypt were strengthened after the death of King Fouad of Egypt. The agent of Saudis in Egypt, Rasheed Reda, managed to have a cultural and religious influence on Egyptians (since 1926, a year that marked the dangerous transition within the religious life in Egypt) as he gradually made Wahabism replace Sunnite Sufism. We have tackled above the motives of the Saudi king; what about the motives of Rasheed Reda?   
Thirdly: the Wahabi agent Rasheed Reda betrayed his teacher the imam Mohamed Abdou:
1- The political openness in Egypt during the reign of the Khedive Ismail who admired the European renaissance and the French civilization bore fruit in many aspects including the religious reform endeavors preached by the imam M. Abdou (1849-1905), the head of Al-Azhar, within the last decades of the 19th century A.D.; he died in 1905, five years before Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud had established the Najd Brothers troops in Arabia within several Wahabi colonies/settlements. After the death of M. Abdou, he was betrayed by his nearest disciple Rasheed Reda who disregarded the school of thought and the reform project of M. Abdou and spread the Salafist Wahabi trend in Egypt while labeling it as the 'reform' ardently sought by M. Abdou! This has resulted, gradually within the passage of time, in changing the religious life in Egypt from Sunnite Sufism (which hates Wahabism) to extremist Sunnite Wahabism that monopolizes the name of Islam and declares dissidents (i.e., all non-Wahabis) as infidels and apostates. This radical change in the religious life in Egypt has made Egypt be dominated by the KSA and its Saudi royal family members within political and religious aspects, as a consequence of other circumstances, and the other Arab and 'Islamic' countries followed the example of Egypt within the dependency on the KSA with its religious/spiritual influence. This radical change to the worse began in the first place by the endeavors of Rasheed Reda in Egypt.        
2- To flee the environment of fanaticism and prejudice in the Levant, many Levantine people (i.e., scholars, artists, journalists, thinkers, cultural elite members, literary figures, poets, and other men of letters) immigrated to Egypt to seek settling in the environment of tolerance and peace; within the same immigration wave, Rasheed Reda fled from Syria and settled in Egypt for the rest of his life. Sadly, some Levantine men like Rasheed Reda came to Egypt while carrying inside their minds the inherited notions of extremism, bigotry, and fanaticism, and such notions were ignited earlier because of Wahabi sheikhs in Iraq and the Levant and Wahabi troops that massacred Shiites and Christians in the Levant. Thus, Rasheed Reda came to Egypt while shrewdly hiding inside his soul pro-Wahabism sentiments and Wahabi fanaticism; he concealed his true stance while being tutored by M. Abdou in Cairo. Because deep-seated Wahabism remained latent inside the mind of Rasheed Reda, we assume that he was pained very much by the reformist thought of M. Abdou who declared vociferously that all of the so-called hadiths are mere lies and untrue narratives and thus are never part of Islam; M. Abdou asserts in his writings that Prophet Muhammad never uttered any of such hadiths and they must be discarded by all Muslims. We, ourselves, assume that M. Abdou was the first Egyptian Quranist thinker.    
3- Rasheed Reda (in his Al-Manar magazine and its exegeses/interpretation of the Quran) quoted many of the anti-Sufism views of M. Abdou who criticized Sufi myths severely; in contrast, he disregarded views of M. Abdou about ridiculing and severely criticizing Wahabism; M. Abdou writes that (...Wahabis are never allies of the Quranic knowledge and they never liked civilized societies...) (see his book titled "Islam between Knowledge and Civilized Societies", p. 47 and 48). Likewise, Rasheed Reda disregarded the main view of M. Abdou that Islam has no room for declaring others as infidels to put them to death and to rape and rob them. Thus, M. Abdou was against the fundamental notions that allowed Saudis/Wahabis to conquer and expanded/annex more regions to their Saudi State. In fact, Rasheed Reda in many pages of his book of exegeses declares those non-Wahabis who reject his Wahabi views as infidels and apostates; thus, he has followed the footsteps of Ibn Taymiyya.   
4- In his book titled "Islam between Knowledge and Civilized Societies", M. Abdou makes the notion of abolishing clergymen and all types of religious authority and theocracy as a fundamental part of Islam; in contrast, Rasheed Reda intentionally misinterprets this view as a mere attack on high-rank Sufi sheikhs favored by rulers! Rasheed Reda preached the establishment of Wahabism-based theocracy and he spread Wahabi notions in Egypt under the name of the Sunnite Hanbali doctrine of 'good'/'holy' ancestors/sheikhs.  
5- The gap is huge between the stances/writings of M. Abdou and Rasheed Reda; M. Abdou rejected all hadiths as mere falsehoods and he asserted that hadiths are useless since Muslims have the Quranic verses from God; in contrast, Rasheed Reda assumed that all hadiths are a main source of his 'Islam', even if these hadiths contradict the Quran; in fact, Rasheed Reda misinterpreted Quranic verses and purposefully twisted, warped, and distorted their meanings to make them compatible with hadiths he preferred and to make the Quran accommodate hadiths favored and emphasized by Wahabi scholars.   
6- Sadly and painfully, we have to mention here that Rasheed Reda managed to abort and nullify the ideas of the reformist school of thought of M. Abdou; this occurred easily because (1) words and phrases of M. Abdou in his writings were rather vague, generalized, and unclear; he never defined Quranic terminology; he had no clear Quranic vision to be used in criticizing inherited books of traditions/hadiths in detail, and (2) the cultural climate around Rasheed Reda supported his methodology; he never reached the caliber of M. Abdou as a thinker and he would never have continued developing the reformist school of thought of M. Abdou; besides, Rasheed Reda never dared to defy and challenge men of Al-Azhar to avoid creating more enemies; he could not bear to lose his allies among the royal family of the Khedive and the affluent feudal lords in Egypt. Of course, it is hardly expected that the Wahabi Levantine traitor Rasheed Reda would enthusiastically follow the footsteps of the Egyptian thinker M. Abdou who denied all hadiths; rather, Rasheed Reda used the name of M. Abdou (during his lifetime and after M. Abdou died) to draw attention of others to himself and to gain more fame by proclaiming himself as a disciple of M. Abdou. Once M. Abou died, the cultural climate helped Rasheed Reda to reject the school of thought of M. Abdou and to reveal his Wahabi sentiments and Salafist/Sunnite stances which were hidden for years. Thus, the cultural climate around Rasheed Reda helped him spread fundamentals of Salafism/Wahabism in Egypt through both his writings and his own disciples. Rasheed Reda was encouraged by Azharite sheikhs and clergymen to revive the interest in Sunnite Hanbali ideas; men of Al-Azhar felt intimidated and threatened by Levantine immigrants among the cultural elite member who settled in Egypt as they spread philosophies of the West that included ideas of skepticism, agnosticism, and atheism, especially after the collapse of the Ottoman caliphate in 1924 A.H. and after Turkey became a secular country that favored atheism in all aspects of life and politics. This coincided with the emergence of Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud who was, for Sunnite extremists, seemed like a hero coming from the depths of the desert to revive their 'Islam' when he conquered the Hejaz region; people in the Arab world talked a lot about his reviving the 'Islamic' caliphate in Arabia after abolishing the Ottoman caliphate in Turkey.       
7- Naturally, the shrewd Levantine man, Rasheed Reda, tried to get any gains from this cultural, social, and political climate; in fact, this was what took place; he received more than what he desired; the cultural, social, and political climate at the time in Egypt never allowed anyone to continue building on the ideas of reform initiated by M. Abdou. This climate made most people accept the idea of reviving the caliphate and dream of establishing a theocracy; this is ironic; it is strange that such sentiments and ideas would spread after more than a century of the renaissance of thought and establishing the modern Egyptian State by M. Ali Pacha, governor and later on king of Egypt, and after the participation of M. Abdou in establishing a political party that urged the separation between religious affiliation and political participation; i.e., never to mix religions with politics.   
8- This is the climate that witnessed the alliance between Rasheed Reda and Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud; Rasheed Reda managed to spread Wahabism in Egypt under the name of Salafism because he was financed by the Saudi king; Rasheed Reda managed to tutor a generation of disciples and the main one among them, Hassan Al-Banna, established the Wahabi terrorist MB organization in Egypt in 1928 under the auspices of the Saudi king who financed him as well; such overt and covert Wahabi societies and groups gradually spread Wahabism/Salafism in Egypt and all over the Arab world – Egypt and the Arab countries have not left this dark tunnel until this very moment. Now, after more than a century after the death of the imam M. Abdou, we, Dr. A. S. Mansour, try to restore Egypt, and the Arab world, to the level of mentality and thought of the era of the reformist thinker M. Abdou. The criminals Rasheed Reda, Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud and his Saudi family members, and Hassan Al-Banna and his MB terrorists have destroyed the Arab mind and thought for many decades by their Wahabism; this caused much harm and damage that exceeded the harm/damage done within the massacres perpetrated by the Wahabi Saudis from 1745 A.D. until now. In the following points, we talk more about Rasheed Reda who masterminded the process of spreading the virus of Wahabism inside Egypt.  
The character of Rasheed Reda between hypocrisy and fanaticism:
1- In fact, Rasheed Reda desired to protect himself by hypocrisy and flattery amidst changing circumstances: the Ottoman caliphate was abolished and Turkish extremists ruled the Levant and a new country in the Najd region and Arabia has emerged led by Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud; Britain conquered and controlled 'Muslims' from India and the Persian Gulf region to Egypt and Sudan; France conquered and controlled North Africa (Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco); Italy conquered and controlled Libya; Al-Sharif Hussein, ruler of the Hejaz region, allied himself to Britain and France to rebel against the Ottomans; the WWI drew new borders in the Arab world within Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan, ruled by kings who were the sons of Al-Sharif Hussein who was defeated by Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud who conquered Hejaz and established the KSA officially in 1932.   
2- Things would have been different if Rasheed Reda had a measure of power and authority inside the Levant to protect himself; his being an unprotected Sunnite Wahabi in the Levant made him suffer persecution; he had learned the lesson and he had to hide his  Wahabism very well inside Egypt which was dominated by Sunnite Sufism; he knew that most Egyptians hated the term (Wahabism); he had to be very cautious; he learned the lesson more when he saw that his master/tutor M. Abdou became the persecuted foe of Azharite sheikhs and the royal family of the Khedive of Egypt despite his being the head of Al-Azhar and his being among prominent political leaders. M. Abdou was banished from Egypt for a while and he lived in exile because of his participation in the revolt of Ahmed Ourabi. Thus, Rasheed Reda the hypocrite who sought refuge in Egypt normally had no right or ability to reach the stature and fame of M. Abdou.     
3- The political shrewdness of the Levantine Rasheed Reda allowed him to win over to his side people from all colors of the spectrum without suffering any persecution inside Egypt, unlike the persecution he suffered in the Levant and made him run away to settle in Egypt. This means that Rasheed Reda was a hypocrite who protected himself by flattering and pleasing everyone within the complicated network of relations and changing circumstances and conditions. This made him grew in fame all over the 'Islamic' world though he lived in Egypt and not his homeland (i.e., the Levant); even at one time when he visited Syria and Lebanon, he received a warm welcome as a famous scholar of 'Islam' and a VIP. Rasheed Reda managed to win the sympathy of M. Abdou; he inherited the stature of M. Abdou after he died. Rasheed Reda had to go on with his concealment and hypocrisy when he met with high-rank men inside and outside Egypt to win them to his side and to ally himself to them by pretending he agreed with all their views/stances; later on, his Wahabism began to show itself and he lost the friendship of some people; he declared his Sunnite Wahabism frankly and openly only when he became the paid agent of Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud.       
4- The Wahabi religion of Rasheed Reda made him change his political stances many times, while hiding his Wahabism very well within hypocrisy, until he allied himself to Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud and he no longer needed hypocrisy. He was devoted to his master, Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud, who, in his turn, found in this loyal agent an ideal tool to spread Wahabism in Egypt. 
5- We provide below an overview of the life of Rasheed Reda based on what is written by the Azharite sheikh, Dr. Ahmad Al-Sherbasy, in his book/research titled "Rasheed Reda, the Owner of Al-Manar", published in Egypt in 1970. This book was originally the PhD thesis submitted by Dr. Al-Sherbasy at Al-Azhar University; he heaps praise on Rasheed Reda and defends all his views and stances; this is typical of most Azharite researchers who heap praise on the historical figures they tackle in biographies and researches. Of course, we have checked and verified the words of Dr. Al-Sherbasy, and now, we know that he deliberately misinterpreted many historical texts to serve his own purposes; we have linked all pieces of information mentioned in his book with one another and we have reached conclusions that differ a great deal from those reached by Dr. Al-Sherbasy, of course.     
Firstly: an overview of the life of Rasheed Reda:
1- Rasheed Reda was born on 23rd of September, 1865, in a Lebanese village near the city of Tripoli in the Levant; he died in Cairo, Egypt, on 22nd of August, 1935, and his family claimed (falsely, of course) to be among the descendants of Ali and Fatima; i.e., daughter of Muhammad and her husband. His family bragged of this mythical ancestry despite the fact that this lie undermines one's faith and shows that one is seeking wealth, power, and authority like all clergymen. We notice this tendency to trade in religion to make money within the biography of Rasheed Reda: he was tutored first at home by his own father, who was a sheikh/clergyman, and he was taught the Sunnite religion in Tripoli, one of the major Levantine cities of Sunnites at the time, and those Levantine Sunnites were heavily influenced by Wahabism. This is why Rasheed Reda was taught Sunnite-Hanbali Wahabism since his childhood.     
2- Rasheed Reda never showed his Wahabism during the lifetime of M. Abdou; his Wahabism showed itself openly in his writings after the death of M. Abdou and he held views that clearly contradict the ones of M. Abdou. This is shown in Part (1) and Part (2) of the interpretation/exegeses of the Quran published in Al-Manar magazine; Part (1) was authored by M. Abdou and he covers 'interpretation' from the Quranic Chapter One till 4:125, and his death made this project stop abruptly for a while. Yet, Rasheed Reda continued this task in Part (2) which covers from 4:126 to the end of the Quranic Chapter 12. We notice here the difference between both men; M. Abdou asserts in Part (1) that Prophet Muhammad, as per the Quran, never knew the future; this fact means that believers must deny and reject thousands of hadiths ascribed to Muhammad about topics of the Hereafter, the Last Day, intercession, and future events in later eras in this transient world. In contrast, Rasheed Reda writes in Part (2) that Muhammad will be the Grand Intercessor on the Last Day and he quotes hundreds of hadiths about the Hereafter and future events. This means that there are two separate religions of M. Abdou and Rasheed Reda and both will never converge. Hence, we conclude that Rasheed Reda was among those adamant in hypocrisy; he concealed his Wahabi sentiments very well to take the advantage of getting nearer to M. Abdou as his favorite disciple; this made Rasheed Reda have a measure of authority and fame derived from his accompanying M. Abdou; once M. Abdou died, the traitor Rasheed Reda rejected all reform ideas of his teacher/tutor and spread Sunnite Wahabi notions.       
3- When the imam M. Abdou lived in exile in the Levant (as he was banished by the British for three years), he visited a Lebanese city, Tripoli, and Rasheed Reda met with him there and managed to win the sympathy of M. Abdou who accepted Rasheed Reda as a new disciple; at the time, M. Abdou cursed politics and lamented the failure of the Ourabi revolt; his new dream was to introduce religious and educational reform and to establish a new generation of educated, cultured youths who will pursue the reform endeavors after his death; all of the reformist ideas of M. Abdou contradicted Wahabism, of course; ironically, the deceitful, hypocritical Sunnite/Wahabi extremist Rasheed Reda drew nearer to M. Abdou as a 'faithful' disciple to 'continue' the endeavors of M. Abdou so as to succeed him one day; he concealed his Wahabism very well; M. Abdou never suspected him for a moment. M. Abdou spent the last years of his life writing about reform, helped by his young aide and 'faithful' disciple Rasheed Reda, who came to Egypt as per the advice of his tutor; once M. Abdou returned to Egypt, he was followed soon afterwards by Rasheed Reda who reached Cairo in Jan. 1898; he was broke and penniless; yet, in March 1898, he established Al-Manar magazine within the blessings, support, and agreement of M. Abdou; of course, the magazine contained pages dedicated to publishing the serialized articles of the Quranic commentary/ponderings or exegeses/interpretation written by M. Abdou.  
4- The Al-Manar magazine (and its published books) established the fame of Rasheed Reda all over the 'Islamic' world, from India to North Africa; indeed, Al-Manar became the No. 1 'Islamic' magazine within all countries of the 'Islamic' world. Once the reformist imam M. Abdou died, the treacherous disciple Rasheed Reda replaced him in position, stature, and fame; he received many invitations that made him visit several countries; e.g., India, the Gulf region, Hejaz, and the Levant; he met with several famous figures and had an audience with several kings/princes/rulers. In 1912, he established and inaugurated a school for the preparation and qualification of Sunnite (i.e., Wahabi) preachers in Al-Roda Island in the River Nile, which was a posh district in Cairo at the time; this school began its work the following day after celebrating its inauguration; yet, later on, it lacked sources of funding and had to close down once WWI broke out.
Secondly: the fanaticism of Rasheed Reda:
1- Rasheed Reda was an impoverished man when he reached Cairo; he lived in a low-class, overpopulated Cairene district at first; once his financial status improved, he moved into several posh areas and districts of Cairo until he settled in a posh, upper-class district later on and he had his own home, printing house, office, and storehouse of books in the same building.
2- In his autobiography and letters, Rasheed Reda confessed many times that he lived in abject poverty in the Levant before his coming to settle in Egypt; he mentioned that Egypt is a safe haven envied by all rulers, princes, and kings; people there thrive financially and live within ease; in his former homeland, he lived in constant fear and could not be outspoken in writing/preaching the 'truth'; he felt that in Egypt, he was able to serve 'Islam' as best as he could; this was his religious duty, he presumed; the Ottomans (during the reign of sultan Abdul-Hamid) caused much harm to Rasheed Reda and his family members in the Levant; he fled being persecuted by settling in Egypt, where the Ottoman authorities could never harm him again.  
3- The cursed religion of Sunnite Wahabism that remained latent inside Rasheed Reda showed itself finally within (1) his writings that emerged once M. Abdou died, and (1) his relations with Egyptians and non-Egyptians.
3/1: The Wahabism of Rasheed Reda manifested itself in his writings when he expressed his hatred and animosity towards the Egyptian Copts; he was an immigrant to Egypt and his Wahabi sentiments drove him to hate Copts, who are the origin of Egyptians, for no reason; he refuted and ridiculed their demands and their rights and he attacked and criticized the tenets of their Coptic Orthodox faith; he spread rumors that Copts allied themselves to the British occupiers of Egypt. Rasheed Reda, the hypocritical sheikh, was himself the secret agent serving the British – more on this topic later on within this BOOK. Rasheed Reda later on compiled all his anti-Christian articles that attack the Copts of Egypt in a special book titled "Muslims and Copts".   
3/2: Of course, his attacking Orthodox Christian Copts and non-Orthodox Christians in Egypt made them, along with Muslim Egyptian liberals, attack and criticize him; this attack against Rasheed Reda was repeated in the Jesuit magazine "L'Orient". In Aug. 1907, Rasheed Reda wrote in Al-Manar magazine that a writer in Al-Moayyad newspaper accused him of growing rich mysteriously once he settled in Egypt, though he was a persecuted, penniless sheikh when he arrived in Cairo, and instead of being grateful to Egypt for wealth and safety, he criticized the Egyptians severely. Other articles attacking Rasheed Reda appeared in several other Cairene newspapers; he decided not to defend himself except by telling the readers of Al-Manar that such attack and criticism were intended for the imam M. Abdou. This is an outright, flagrant lie by the inveterate liar and hypocrite Rasheed Reda; why would Muslim and Christian liberals attack M. Abdou the prominent leader of liberalism in Egypt?! They were taught liberalism by M. Abdou and his writings; besides, their attack and criticism are directly leveled at Rasheed Reda himself.    
3/3: The Wahabism of Rasheed Reda showed itself in his attacking and criticizing Egyptians in his letter to one of his Levantine friends: (... I dislike very much the sinful people I have seen in Egypt; I had to conceal my protest and despise; many people here are sinful; all people walk around naked in bathhouses and see one another's genitals; many people drink wine in public shamelessly, especially in the streets and pavements; most people are foul-mouthed and utter many blasphemies; there are many fornicators and adulterers ... In my village, near Tripoli, I used to never talk or even look at the direction of sinners who have fornicated ...). This Wahabi hatred and animosity towards sinners and disobedient ones and disowning them contradicts Islam (i.e., the Quran); Muhammad has been commanded in the Quran to disown misdeeds/sins and disobedience of his contemporaries/companions and not to disown any persons: "And lower your wing to those of the believers who follow you. And if they disobey you, say, "I am innocent of what you do."" (26:215-126).
3/4: The Wahabism of Rasheed Reda manifests itself in his writings when he attacked the Egyptian government (and he described it as a mere décor or a façade) that never protested against the British who allowed European Christian missionaries to work inside Egypt. Rasheed Reda overlooked the fact that he never dared to protest against the existence of European Christian missionaries inside the Levant; he disregarded the fact that Egyptian liberalism at the time allowed this openly within tolerance; the liberalism of the West, past and present, allows the Muhammadans (who assume wrongly that they are 'Muslims') to freely proselytize their religions/doctrines in the West countries. Rasheed Reda disregards the Quranic fact that absolute religious freedom is one of the fundamentals of Islam.      
4- Some of the former friends of Rasheed Reda have disowned and attacked him.
4/1: Rasheed Reda visited Oman and Kuwait in 1330 A.H./ 1913 A.D., and then Iraq and India; he wrote in Al-Manar to express his being thankful for the 'Muslim' people and rulers in each country for the grand reception as they celebrated his presence. He never wrote about the fatwas issued by Wahabi scholars of Kuwait declaring him as an apostate/infidel who must be put to death; he never wrote about the failed attempt to assassinate him inside Kuwait (see "The Saudis and the Islamic Solution", by Jalal Kishk, p. 271 and 306).  
4/2: One of the friends of Rasheed Reda was the Azharite scholar and sheikh Youssef Al-Dijwi (who died in 1946) who was a member of the (supreme committee of scholars) in Al-Azhar and among the conservative Sufi-Sunnite sheikhs who hated and undermined Wahabism; he wrote a book to refute the one by sheikh Ali Abdel-Razik titled "Islam and the Foundations of Governance". Al-Dijwi, the former friend of Rasheed Reda, became his foe when the Levantine sheikh showed his Wahabism outspokenly and allied himself to Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud; Al-Dijwi sent Rasheed Reda a letter in Sept. 1931 expressing himself as a former friend who decided to give him some pieces of advice; in this letter, he wrote about the blasphemous notions in the articles of Al-Manar, especially in exegeses and commentaries of many Quranic verses, and about supporting Wahabi tenets which have nothing to do with Islam; Al-Dijwi wrote that he did not address Wahabis to refute them because they are brainless ignoramuses; he expressed his wonder about readers of Al-Manar who approved the notion of killing and robbing 'infidels' while assuming (like the Wahabi brethren) that these crimes would please the Lord God; he accused Rasheed Reda of hypocrisy and receiving money from the Wahabis of Arabia; he told him about the discrepancies and contradictions in his writings; he advised him to fear the Lord God within piety and to stop defending the Wahabi criminals.        
  The following points are noteworthy:
1- Dr. Ahmad Al-Sharbasy, the author of the book about Rasheed Reda mentioned in p. 204 the following about this message: (... A handwritten message, within an envelope, addressed to the sheikh Rasheed Reda was found, sent to him by the arrogant sheikh Youssef Al-Dijwi, but it never got published in Al-Manar, because it contains insults and verbal abuse unfit to be published ...). This means that Rasheed Reda refused to publish this message, unlike the fact that he typically published all messages he received.
2- We are quite sure that Rasheed Reda did not publish this message because Al-Dijwi criticized the Al-Manar readers' approval of the Wahabi idea of massacring and robbing non-Wahabis as done by the criminals of Al-Saud as if they would please the Lord God by such heinous crimes; such a letter would embarrass Rasheed Reda and his readers and will provoke the ire of Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud the master of Rasheed Reda. The words of Al-Dijwi imply that not all readers of Al-Manar were Wahabis; rather, they were being gradually brainwashed to accept Wahabism as if it were the application of Islam. 
3- Al-Dijwi became the enemy of Rasheed Reda and he wrote many articles against him and his ideas in Al-Azhar magazine; Rasheed Reda refuted many of the articles of Al-Dijwi in his own articles in Al-Manar magazine. Al-Dijwi authored a book to attack, criticize, and undermine the ideas of Rasheed Reda, titled "Lightning of Fire that Refutes the Owner of Al-Manar". 
Rasheed Reda the agent of Great Britain: between Rasheed Reda and Asmahan:
Firstly: the intelligence of the British nation established the British empire which lasted for centuries:  
 As per the Wikipedia, the phrase "the empire on which the sun never sets" was often used to describe the British empire, because its expanse around the globe meant that the sun was always shining on at least one of its territories. The British ruled over countries whose populations exceed the number of the British population. This indicates the intelligence of the British nation which ruled and controlled vast areas of Africa, Asia, North America, and the whole of Australia. The greed and folly of the Spanish colonization had no bounds; the Spanish destroyed nations in the New World and stole their treasures; at first, the British could not compete with Spain and its fleet that controlled Latin America and Central America; Spain did not have enough resources and products to feed its nations and to maintain its fleet; the British were more intelligent; their products invaded Spain and the gold of the Spanish was used to buy such goods/products and Britain receive this gold and moony until it became financially strong enough to bribe pirates to attack and rob Spanish ships that carried treasures and cargoes of Latin America. The British and the Spanish fought one another within the period 1585 – 1604 A.D. The arrogance of the Spanish king made him prepare the biggest fleet in the world at the time (i.e., the Armada) and he intended to invade Britain; this huge fleet moved slowly in the sea; it was destroyed and defeated by the fast-moving British ships in 1588 A.D., and this marked the end of the Spanish empire; the British one succeeded, replaced, and outsmarted it. The intelligence of the British nation is behind the power and the existence of the British empire for a long duration; this unparalleled intelligence and experience accumulated within 3 centuries made the British able to make use of Rasheed Reda and to stop this hypocritical Levantine man from making use of the British, before they decided to get rid of him, by rejecting him and NOT by assassinating him, as they no longer needed his services.        
Secondly: between the intelligence of the British nation and the imam M. Abdou:
 Within the autobiography of M. Abdou, one cannot help but notice his complaining of the superficiality of Ahmed Ourabi; yet, he joined his movement and was the leader of the civil support-front for this movement; the intelligence of the British made them decide to banish Ourabi and to allow him to return to Egypt after smashing his legend; this was more useful than putting him to death in a prison. This British intelligence contained the 1919 revolution and aborted it peacefully; in the same way, the endeavors of the leaders Mustafa Kamel and M. Fareed for the liberation of Egypt were aborted. The intelligence of British hindered the progress of Egyptians and Arabs: the British helped and funded both Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud and Hassan Al-Banna; they allowed Rasheed Reda to abort the reforms of M. Abdou and to spread the backward, obscurantist Wahabism inside Egypt. The British occupiers knew that they will leave the Arab countries soon enough; they desired that backwardness would be maintained so that tyrants would rule the Arab world and continue cooperating with Britain so that the British would continue gaining profits from Egypt even after leaving it for good. This intelligence of the British made them realize how harmless the reformist leader M. Abdou was; they used him to support the occupation authorities in Egypt and help whitewash the reputation of the British occupiers; M. Abdou was banished to Beirut for 3 years after a short duration of imprisonment inside Cairo. He was allowed by the British (or rather by the shrewd and cultured Lord Cromer) to return to Egypt in 1889 A.D., and he promised not to get engaged into the political life; he decided to focus on religious reform until he died in 1905. In fact, M. Abdou helped Cromer establish a faculty to teach and qualify religious judges; M. Abou headed this faculty; he was the consultant of Cromer, and within the consultation council, he helped issue modernized laws. Reformist endeavors of M. Abdou included issuing good fatwas that were ahead of his era; e.g., (1) it is OK to accumulate money savings (inside banks or safes) as this is not usury; (2) the Quran is the only source of Islam; (3) the only real application of Islam was during the lifetime of Muhammad and never when the so-called 'companions' fought other nations and fought one another; (4) heritage books of traditions/hadiths are never part of real faith, as they hinder the progress of Egyptians and create veils/barriers between the human mind and the Quranic text; and (5) all hadiths are mere conjectures and surmises; they cannot be deemed as a source of Islam, whose only source is the Quran. Of course, these ideas of religious reform influenced the reformist endeavors in the fields of literature, journalism, and politics as several political and literary figures in Egypt admired and imitated M. Abdou but never reached his genius and greatness. Sadly and painfully, we have to mention here that the spread of Wahabism in Egypt aborted the reformist school of thought of M. Abdou; the one who aborted this religious reform is the hypocritical sheikh Rasheed Reda the secret agent of both the KSA and Britain.
Thirdly: Rasheed Reda the agent of Great Britain:
1- In the same year when M. Abdou returned to Egypt after spending three years in exile, Rasheed Reda came to Egypt to be the disciple of M. Abdou who introduced him to Egyptian figures of culture, media/press, and politics and helped him to get to be known in Egypt by all possible means. M. Abdou also introduced Rasheed Reda to the British officials inside Egypt. If it had not been for M. Abdou, a refugee/immigrant like Rasheed Reda would not have had such fame and stature. Of course, the authority and influence of the British are also behind this underserved fame and stature of Rasheed Reda; the British drew benefits from their agent Rasheed Reda; otherwise, why would an impoverished Levantine refugee/immigrant in Egypt like him have very good relations with the British? Of course, he served the interests of the British for a while. The shrewd British, who ruled the world for centuries, easily understood the nature of Rasheed Reda and the difference between him and M. Abdou; of course, M. Abdou sincerely sought religious and political reform, whereas the hypocritical traitor Rasheed Reda served his own Wahabi interests. The relation between M. Abdou and the British remained good as he dedicated his time to preach religious reform and he had excellent relation with the lord Cromer and other British officials in Egypt; they expressed their grief over the premature death of M. Abdou. In contrast, Rasheed Reda served the British but never won their trust; they dealt with him using the logic/policy of the stick and the carrot.      
2- Rasheed Reda was the ideal model of an agent who served the British in Egypt because he was not an Egyptian and he needed a source of power to protect himself; the British helped him to gain more fame and more followers/disciples and prepared him with the proper tools to spread Wahabism as he desired; his only defect was his too much ambition and that he could not be fully trusted, but the remedy was provided by the shrewd British; they made him under their control by alternatingly rewarding and intimidating him.   
3- We continue quoting from the book by Dr. Al-Sherbasy about Rasheed Reda; he quotes several passages from Al-Manar magazine and from the books authored by Rasheed Reda, especially what Rasheed Reda mentions about his own memories; strangely, Dr. Al-Sherbasy shamelessly quotes passages that prove that Rasheed Reda was the agent of Britain, while in other pages, he heaps praise on Rasheed Reda for his hating colonialism! This reflects that attacking the Western colonialism of the Arab countries was en vogue within the Nasserist Era in Egypt when Dr. Al-Sherbasy published his book. We quote below passages from this book (which is the PhD thesis of Dr. Al-Sherbasy) that prove the fact that Rasheed Reda was the temporary agent of Britain inside Egypt.  
Fourthly: proofs from the book of Dr. Al-Sherbasy that Rasheed Reda was the agent of Great Britain:
1- Once Rasheed Reda arrived in Egypt, M. Abdou introduced him to a British employee: (... and his name was Mitchell, and he was an employee in the Egyptian Ministry of Finance; sheikh Rasheed Reda praised him as the most liberal and independent British man he ever seen; he admired his ideas; both men had exchanged words and letters about politics and religion; the one who introduced sheikh Rasheed Reda to Mitchell was the imam M. Abdou ...).
2- The British sent their agent, Rasheed Reda, into several journeys; his fame as a 'Muslim' scholar and a successor of M. Abdou preceded him whenever he went; he met with leaders, sheikhs, rulers, and princes; they talked with him freely while never realizing his being the servant and agent of Britain; for instance, he went to India, which was the "jewel in the crown" of the British empire and the primary cause of the British occupation of the Gulf Arab countries, and he spent days in Oman and Kuwait within this journey of 1913 as well: (... Sheikh Rasheed Reda visited India, Oman, and Kuwait, which were occupied by Britain at the time ... He reached these destination on board of a British ship ... He delivered many speeches and sermons in major mosques of the capital of each of these countries; he met with rulers, governors, and princes ... He spent a week in Kuwait and a week before it in Oman; a great number of people listened to his speeches and sermons and admired them, as per what we read in his Al-Manar articles about this long journey; his speeches and sermons tackled political topics besides the religious ones ...).
3- Shortly before WWI, the Ottomans allied themselves with Germany against France and Britain. Before his being deposed, the Ottoman sultan Abdul-Hamid threatened Britain with two projects (aborted by the British later on): the Islamic University and the Hejaz railways. The Ottoman sultan desired by these projects, with the help of the Germans, to incite Muslims of India against Britain and the Muslims of North Africa against France. Within the endeavors to abort both projects, Britain made its ally, Al-Sharif Hussein the ruler of Hejaz, to revolt and rebel against the Ottomans; he accused them of being 'infidels' and he declared himself as the caliph of Muslims and the king of Hejaz without any ties with Turkey. Britain needed an 'Islamic' campaign to support the revolt of the ruler of Hejaz; the British commanded their agent Rasheed Reda to write articles to support Al-Sharif Hussein and made him visit Hejaz later on. We can guess easily that Rasheed Reda never approved of the ruler of Hejaz as he was an enemy of Wahabis/Saudis of Najd and of the religion known as Wahabism. Yet, Rasheed Reda had to gratify his British allies and to pretend that he supported the ruler of Hejaz. Later on, he rejected Al-Sharif Hussein and joined and sided with the Wahabi Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud when both rulers fought against each other.   
4- Dr. Al-Sherbasy writes: (...  There are proofs that indicate that the sheikh Rasheed Reda cooperated with the British after the WWI began, as he hated the leaders of the Turkish political parties and loathed the Ottomans very much; this is why he supported the separatist movement of Al-Sharif Hussein at first ... There is a copy of a handwritten memorandum authored by sheikh Rasheed Reda in 1915 A.D./ 1334 A.H. which was delivered to the men of the British authority in Egypt (especially the head of the British central intelligence in Egypt, Captain Clayton) about the stance of Arabs (especially in the Levant) about the Ottomans allying themselves with Germany ... Sheikh Rasheed Reda wrote articles to support Al-Sharif Hussein, the chief ally of the British, and to approve of his revolt that took place in Oct. 1916, and described this separatist movement as the greatest feat that will serve Islam and Muslims ... When the relations between sheikh Rasheed Reda and the ruler of Hejaz worsened, the sheikh readily exposed the ruler of Hejaz as the agent of Britain in his articles in Al-Manar; he criticized the faults and shortcomings of his character and explained the factors that led to the failure of his movement ... He mentioned that Al-Sharif Hussein was promised by Britain to be allowed to rule Arabia, Iraq, and the Levant while being loyal to the British! Only gullible people would believe that Britain would allow this to happen! ...). It seems here that the British at this point in time trusted their agent Rasheed Reda and let him in on some pieces of information about any secret agreements to write such details in his articles in the right moment as per the commands of the British; yet, Dr. Al-Sherbasy defends Rasheed Reda here: (... If sheikh Rasheed Reda knew about such an agreement before the failed separatist movement of the ruler of Hejaz, why did not he expose him at the time? Why did not he advise Al-Sharif Hussein? Maybe he did advise him, but the ruler of Hejaz denied the existence of such an agreement with the British  ...). 
Fifthly: when Great Britain punished Rasheed Reda:
1- No doubt, Britain knew about the fact that Rasheed Reda betrayed M. Abdou and rejected his reformist project and methodology; this means that the British did not trust him fully as an agent and watched him closely. The Levantine prince, writer, poet, historian, and politician Shakib Arslan, the intimidate friend of Rasheed Reda, wrote that since the British watched Rasheed, this means that he was their foe and not their agent; he was biased for his friend and defended him: (... The sheikh Rasheed Reda provoked the ire of the British; he humored them when they commanded him to make some propaganda for the British in several Arab countries; he did not do that; he supported the separation of Arabs from the Ottoman empire; when the British saw he disobeyed them, they thought of banishing him to Malta or to imprison him; yet, they were afraid lest he would side with the Ottomans and they did not banish him; they confiscated some of his books and letters; they decided to watch him closely as long as he stayed in Egypt ...); Dr. Al-Sherbasy imitates the stance of Shakib Arslan: (... No doubt that the British watched the sheikh Rasheed Reda closely inside Egypt; this means he had his special political role as he bailed Muslim political prisoners out of British prisons ...).      
2- The British doubts concerning Rasheed Reda increased as he made a journey to the Levant in 1919, after the end of WWI in 1918. He received a very warm welcome in the Levant; people there chose the prince Feisal, one of the sons of Al-Sharif Hussein, as the king of the Levant; Rasheed Reda was chosen as the head of the People's Assembly in the Levant; yet, the French invaded Damascus in July 1920; when Rasheed Reda decided to return to Egypt, the British authorities refused to allow his return; he spent a whole year in the Levantine region before he was permitted to return to his family members in Egypt.
3- The British doubts concerning Rasheed Reda were justified; they might have thought that he sought to offer his services as an agent to the French who occupied Damascus; this might have endangered British interests; this is why he was prevented for a year from returning to Egypt; this is why the British watched him (and his movements and correspondences) in Egypt; at one time, he was prevented from meeting his friend Shakib Arslan in 1934.  
1- Another Lebanese agent who served Great Britain during WWII was the female singer Asmahan, but she was assassinated (possibly by the British) in 1944, in Egypt, based on suspicions that she might have been a double agent who served the enemies of Great Britain.  
2- Luckily for Rasheed Reda that he was not the female singer Asmahan and that he was spared her fate; he was never assassinated; he was too insignificant to pose any danger for the British interests; the British realized how hypocritical and unimportant he was. 
Rasheed Reda and Al-Sharif Hussein the ruler of Hejaz:
1- The Lord God says in the Quran: "That Home of the Hereafter - We assign it for those who seek no superiority on earth, nor corruption. And the outcome is for the pious ones." (28:83). Of course, superiority is confined to the Lord God; glorified and exalted be He above all the partners and associates the polytheists attribute to Him. the pious monotheists never seek to be superior over other people because superior people are corrupt in their behavior and they lack morals and commit injustices against people. For instance, tyrants vie for power/authority and ascend thrones within superiority after defeating their competitors by sheer (military) force and by deceiving the naïve, gullible masses. In contrast, the pious preachers of reform know quite well that Islam is NOT about any political call to ascend to thrones and to rule over people; the real, Quran-based country or state is NOT a theocracy but it is all about human rights; it never mixes religion with politics; it has no room for political tyranny and clergymen of any type; its mission never includes guiding citizens to Paradise; (mis)guidance is a personal choice; God will judge our deeds, faith, and choices and settle our differences in religion on the Last Day. This is understood from the Quran by M. Abdou when he attacked the notion of theocracy; he joined the revolt of Ahmed Ourabi to defend Egypt, his homeland, but he disliked Ourabi and criticized many of his stances and ideas; when the movement failed and M. Abdou returned from his exile, he dedicated the rest of his life to preach religious reform, while bearing patiently with the Azharite herd of cattle with their bovine stupidity (i.e., clergymen who were extremist ignoramuses).       
2- In contrast, the Levantine hypocrite Rasheed Reda settled in Egypt, concealed his Wahabism, and got involved in the cultural, religious, and political life in Egypt to reach a measure of influence/authority and to get wealthy by the help of the British after the death of M. Abdou. Rasheed Reda as an immigrant to Egypt who concealed his hated-by-the-Egyptians Wahabism had no power or authority there on his own; he had to rely on the help of the British who recruited him as an agent (for he had the skills for this) shortly before and during WWI by making him write against the Ottomans and to side with the rebellion of Al-Sharif Hussein in Hejaz. Later on, after Rasheed Reda was deemed by the British as no longer useful for them, and he was seen as a source of trouble, they threatened and expelled him from their service; thus, his engagement in politics as an agent of Britain was of no use to him within serving Wahabism. Luckily for him, Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud who conquered Al-Ahsa region in Eastern Arabia also conquered Hejaz, in Western Arabia where Mecca and Yathreb are located, and defeated its ruler, Al-Sharif Hussein, and he drew the attention of world media and spotlights reached him; this made Rasheed Reda drew nearer to Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud and to offer him his services; he was a loyal servant/agent to his new master, the Saudi king who paid him handsomely, after the British masters discarded him as an agent who was no longer useful for them; we provide more details in the points below.
Firstly: upon receiving British commands, the Wahabi Rasheed Reda allied himself to the sworn enemies of Wahabism; i.e., Al-Sharif Hussein:
1- Rasheed Reda was a hypocrite who concealed his Wahabism very well; he sought to contact those men near Al-Sharif Hussein as per the British commands he received; Dr. Al-Sherbasy writes: (... The sheikh Rasheed Reda contacted the ruler of Hejaz for the first time in 1327 A.H./ 1909 A.D. ... Reda met with the secretary of Al-Sharif Hussein and gave him pieces of advice about introducing reforms to Hejaz; the ruler of Hejaz admired the ideas of Reda; correspondence began between him and the ruler of Hejaz in 1910 A.H. ...). this is shortly before WWI and as Britain prepared for it. 
2- WWI broke out in 1914, and Turkey sided with Germany against Britain and France; Al-Sharif Hussein, the chief ally of the British, revolted against the Ottomans in Oct. 1916. As per the British commands, Rasheed Reda declared his support for the ruler of Hejaz whose 'feat' will serve and protect the two holy cities of Mecca and Yathreb in case the Ottoman State would collapse; he heaped praise on the 'wisdom', 'eloquence', and 'honor' of the ruler of Hejaz and his declaration of independence and described him as (the master of all Arabs). All decrees of Al-Sharif Hussein were published in his Hejaz-based newspaper (Al-Qibla) and also in Al-Manar magazine, and Rasheed Reda described such decrees as 'pearls of wisdom of our master' and urged his readers to read them as the best published items in Al-Manar; the British coordination and distribution of roles here between Rasheed Reda and the ruler of Hejaz is very clear.  
3- In 1334 A.H./1916 A.D., Rasheed Reda performed pilgrimage and met with Al-Sharif Hussein for the first time; he was his guest and he received a precious Hashemite gift from him, as per words of Rasheed Reda himself in Al-Manar. When both men met each other, Rasheed Reda concealed his Wahabism and flattered the ruler of Hejaz within hypocrisy – both men claimed (falsely) that they were the descendants of the bloodline of Prophet Muhammad's daughter Fatima. Dr. Al-Sherbasy writes: (... In 1916, the sheikh Rasheed Reda performed pilgrimage and met with Al-Sharif Hussein ... Reda praised him and tried many times, in vain, to kiss his hand ...).   
4- Rasheed Reda as a propagandist delivered his pro-Al-Sharif Hussein political/religious speech to thousands of pilgrims; he talked about the causes of the weakness of the Ottomans and he heaped praise on the ruler of Hejaz and his separatist movement or revolt. The Hejaz-based Al-Qibla newspaper (controlled by Al-Sharif Hussein) published the entire text of the speech delivered by Rasheed Reda and the praise he heaped on the ruler of Hejaz and how both men agreed on almost all topics. Rasheed Reda continued his propaganda among the pilgrims and subjects of Al-Sharif Hussein as per the role assigned to him by the British; he returned to Egypt by the end of the month of Zu Al-Hijja in 1334 A.H./ 1916 A.D.
Secondly: the Wahabi Rasheed Reda refused to support Al-Sharif Hussein who proclaimed himself as a caliph of all Muslims:
1- Al-Sharif Hussein celebrated the presence of Rasheed Reda as he was the envoy of the British; Rasheed Reda received gifts from him besides the warm welcome; Al-Sharif Hussein sent one of his senior sheikhs/deputies to receive Rasheed Reda at the port of Jeddah upon his arrival there. Rasheed Reda described Al-Sharif Hussein in Al-Manar magazine as 'our master, the greatest one of the Al-Sharif family, the king of Hejaz'. 
2- Al-Sharif Hussein planned to turn Rasheed Reda from an agent of the British to his own agent or emissary to Britain to convince the British to help the ruler of Hejaz declare himself as the caliph of all Muslims. He assumed that Rasheed Reda would readily agree so that he would be assigned a bigger role in the coming caliphate; yet, the Wahabi sheikh Rasheed Reda never acted as mediator or emissary and he never helped the non-Wahabi ruler of Hejaz to achieve his aim.  
3- The shrewd ruler of Hejaz tried his best to convince Rasheed Reda to serve him to act as a mediator to make the British allow him to proclaim himself as caliph instead of the weak Ottoman sultan; Al-Sharif Hussein assumed that his being a Hashemite Arab and a descendant of the family/progeny of Ali and Fatima would give him the 'right' to be the caliph of all Muslims; since Rasheed Reda claimed being a Hashemite descendant of Ali and Fatima, the ruler of Hejaz expected he would readily serve him to get more benefits later on; yet, Rasheed Reda never promised to help and refused to give a definite answer to the question if he would help within this endeavor or not; the shrewd Levantine sheikh evaded giving an answer by telling anecdotes instead of serious political talk, as he came to Hejaz to accomplish a certain mission for the British; he concealed his dislike for the non-Wahabi ruler of Al-Hejaz; Dr. Al-Sherbasy writes: (... A relative of Al-Sharif Hussein told Reda jokingly that he should have ended his speech by urging people to swear fealty to the ruler of Hejaz as the caliph of all Muslims; Reda responded that he does not have the right to declare his own views or to speak in that way in his speech; he readily changed the topic of the conversation by telling anecdotes instead of talking about politics ...).     
4- Al-Sharif Hussein did not give up his trying to convince Rasheed Reda to propagate his proclaiming himself as caliph within the consent of Britain; this insistence of Al-Sharif Hussein implies the fact that he knew that Rasheed Reda was the agent of the British; of course, the Wahabism of Rasheed Reda prevented him from playing such a role; yet, so as not to lose his relation with Al-Sharif Hussein, he advised him to postpone this matter until the end of WWI to see its results. Al-Sharif Hussein disliked very much this piece of advice. 
5- Al-Sharif Hussein decided to entrap and embarrass Rasheed Reda; his men prepared a conference to gather all pilgrims to announce swearing fealty to Al-Sharif Hussein as the caliph of all Muslims; Rasheed Reda felt threatened by this danger because he, as a guest of the ruler of Hejaz, must attend such a conference; he readily met with Al-Sharif Hussein in private to advise him to cancel this conference, reminding him of the hadith about if there are two imams/rulers/caliphs, the second one must be put to death. The conference got cancelled; this means that Al-Sharif Hussein assumed that Rasheed Reda, the agent of Britain, has given him an indirect death threat since he would be a second caliph that defied and challenged an established one in Turkey; i.e., the Ottoman sultan, and as per this silly Sunnite hadith (which has nothing to do with Muhammad, of course), Al-Sharif Hussein may deserve to get killed; he felt afraid of such a hadith. Rasheed Reda wrote that Al-Sharif Hussein apologized for him, while telling him that it was the advice of one of his sons to hold such a conference.    
6- Once Rasheed Reda left Hejaz and returned to Egypt, Al-Sharif Hussein proclaimed himself as the king of Arabs of Arabia; he made people swear fealty to him in the month of Muharram, 1335 A.H. Rasheed Reda published the text of this fealty in Al-Manar magazine and commented on it by writing that the reason for it was the control of one of the Turkish political parties of the Ottoman caliphate with the help of the Germans; this major political party in Turkey (i.e., Committee of Union and Progress) hated Islam and Arabs. Rasheed Reda wrote that the independence of Hejaz is very important in case the Ottomans would be defeated along with Germany in WWI so as not to expose the Holy Land to any threat of foreign/European interference, and yet, Rasheed Reda refused to acknowledge Al-Sharif Hussein as the king of Arabs and the whole of Arabia; his shrewdness led him to support the independence of Al-Sharif Hussein as a ruler of Hejaz only and not as a caliph or a king. 
7- Dr. Al-Sherbasy writes: (... It came as no surprise at all that several types of rumors spread about the pilgrimage of sheikh Rasheed Reda in 1916 A.D./ 1334 A.H. People assumed he was on a political mission to head a delegation from the King of Egypt to swear fealty to Al-Sharif Hussein as a caliph; other rumors were about Al-Sharif Hussein appointing him as the supreme judge of Hejaz; Reda refuted such rumors in Al-Manar; he wrote he performed pilgrimage only and that there were no political aims within his journey to Hejaz ...).
Thirdly: the relation between Rasheed Reda and Al-Sharif Hussein from coldness to enmity:
1- The relation between both men became very cold; when Al-Sharif Hussein felt that Rasheed Reda deceived him, he issued a decree to prevent Al-Manar magazine from entering into Hejaz; Rasheed Reda published this decree in Vol. No. 22 of Al-Manar magazine published in 1921 A.D., and the reason for this decree was the alleged insults addressed by Rasheed Reda to the ruler of Hejaz in issue No. 9 in Vol. No. 19 of Al-Manar magazine, published four months after the return of Rasheed Reda to Egypt from Hejaz.  
2- Later on, enmity between both men manifested itself in articles of criticism in Al-Manar magazine of Rasheed Reda and Hejaz-based Al-Qibla newspaper; Rasheed Reda began to implicitly attack and criticize the ruler of Hejaz in order to defend himself for his previous relation with him; he wrote it was a relation based on seeking to serve the interests of Arabs and Islam; he mentioned that the ruler of Hejaz rejected all pieces of advice he gave to him as his special guest; Rasheed Reda refuted and rejected all accusations leveled against him in Al-Qibla newspaper, saying that such falsehoods aim to tarnish his reputation for no reason.  
  The enmity between Rasheed Reda and Al-Sharif Hussein caused later on the alliance between Rasheed Reda and Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud; this was the major step that allowed Rasheed Reda to express his Wahabi ideas while serving Al-Saud family; at the time of this alliance, Rasheed Reda was mature enough in terms of his political and religious career; he spread Wahabism in Egypt while serving his master Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud; this caused Wahabism to spread from Egypt to the whole world; in fact, the whole world is still paying the heavy price, until now, for not launching the peaceful intellectual war of ideas for the sake of combating and undermining Wahabism (the religion of terrorism) using the Only True Islam: Quranism.  
Rasheed Reda served Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud even before he met with him:
Firstly: the Wahabism of Rasheed Reda emerged before the death of the imam M. Abdou:
1- Within the liberal epoch in Egypt, the published autobiography of M. Abdou contains his attacking the royal family that ruled Egypt because the Khedive confiscated agriculture, manufacturing, and commerce, issued laws to prevent people from owning arms/weapons, and marginalized the middle-class. In 1902, the very shrewd Rasheed Reda seized this chance; he attacked the extravagant celebrations inside the palaces of the royal family that commemorated the passage of 100 years of the rule of the M. Ali Pacha dynasty in Egypt. Rasheed Reda emphasized the negative points in the rule of this dynasty, and he assumed that their worst 'crime' was to destroy the State of the Wahabis/Saudis in Najd in 1818; he wrote that they foiled and aborted the religious and political 'reform' introduced by the Saudi royal family in Arabia!       
2- Hence, Rasheed Reda was the first person in modern Egyptian history to defend Wahabism; at the time (i.e., in 1902), Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud (who was not known at this point in time outside Arabia) conquered Riyadh, and this step was followed by many other steps to establish the Saudi kingdom by annexing more regions to the nascent State through the Wahabi savagery and brutality of his Najd Brothers. 
Secondly: Rasheed Reda defended Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud before his conquest of Hejaz:
1- Rasheed Reda freed himself from the restrictions of the reformist school of thought of M. Abdou when the latter died in 1905. At the time, Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud annexed more stretches of land in Arabia and realized his expansionist ambition (after he controlled the whole of the Najd region) through the Wahabi savagery and brutality of his Najd Brothers. Of course, Rasheed Reda in his writings never tackled or cared about the massacres committed by Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud and his Najd Brothers; he continued supporting and defending Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud. 
2- For instance, when Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud fought against the Al-Rasheed family who ruled the Shamar region within its capital, Hael, Rasheed Reda wrote in his Al-Manar magazine articles and pieces of news covering this struggle while showing his bias towards the aggressor Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud; he wrote that the Al-Rasheed royal family members were unjust ignoramuses. At the time, Rasheed Reda served Britain and cooperated, as per the commands of the British, with Al-Sharif Hussein the ruler of Hejaz and the main foe of Wahabis; yet, Rasheed Reda, the extremist Hanbali Sunnite, was eager to specify time to defend Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud without meeting with him. 
Thirdly: Rasheed Reda sided with Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud within the struggle against Al-Sharif Hussein:
1- After the defeat of Al-Sharif Hussein and his expulsion from Hejaz after the Wahabis, led by Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud, conquered Hejaz (and its main cities: Mecca, Yathreb, Jeddah, and Al-Ta'if), Rasheed Reda showed his Wahabism by attacking and criticizing Al-Sharif Hussein in the Vol. Nos. 25 & 26 of Al-Manar magazine, while expressing clearly his support of Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud and urging his readers to support him as the 'best of kings' in Arabia; he kept making comparisons between Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud and other Arab rulers (and rulers/governors of the Arabian regions), and his partiality towards Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud was very clear; he claimed to his readers that the Saudi leader has the 'right' to be the king of Arabia and that his 'subjects' love and obey him and that he must dominate all Arabs!    
2- Rasheed Reda wrote the following in a letter in Dec. 1925 addressed to his friend Shakib Arslan: (... All these years, I came to know that the only ruler now who can protect Hejaz is the Sultan of Najd, Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud; this is an undeniable fact; even enemies of the Al-Saud family cannot deny it ...). 
3- Within the book authored by Rasheed Reda titled "The Sunnites and the Shiites", he heaps praise on Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud two years before the conquest of Hejaz.
Fourthly: Rasheed Reda acted as a propagandist for Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud before he met with him:
1- It is clear that there was a period of correspondence between Rasheed Reda and Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud before the latter conquered Hejaz in 1925. Dr. Al-Sherbasy writes the following: (... This means that the good relations between the sheikh Rasheed Reda and the king Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud were deepened later on, and some letters sent by Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud to Rasheed Reda were found to assert such cordial relations ...). 
2- The struggle between Al-Sharif Hussein and Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud is reflected in the writings of Rasheed Reda who supported and heaped praise on the latter and attacked and showed his despise for the former. This means that Rasheed Reda decided to act as a propagandist of Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud (even before meeting with him) after he was no longer the agent of both Britain and Al-Sharif Hussein; he attacked this ruler of Hejaz in order to support his next master the Wahabi Saudi Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud.  
3- Rasheed Reda attacked and criticized Al-Sharif Hussein for accepting the interference and protection of Britain which is a foreign (i.e., non-Arab) country; he pretended to be a nationalistic man; he overlooked that he was the agent of Britain; Rasheed Reda sided with Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud in his struggle against the ruler of Hejaz; he mentioned that all Muslims should prefer the sultan of Najd as the new ruler and protector of Hejaz instead of Al-Sharif Hussein and his son who cannot be trusted because of their alliance with the British.  
4- Rasheed Reda, at this point, began suddenly to defend Wahabism and to refute the criticism by Al-Sharif Hussein and his men to the Salafism of the Najd people; he defended the sultan of Najd, Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud, politically and also in terms of religion in several articles that he collected later on within one book titled "The Wahabis and Hejaz". We quote this paragraph from one of these articles: (... In fact, the call of the late sheikh M. Ibn Abdul-Wahab adhered to by the people and the Sultan of Najd is based on returning to Islam and its original, pure roots that must be revived and on rejecting fabrications which have nothing to do with religion ...).  
5- Rasheed Reda did not hesitate to issue a very long fatwa to attack and condemn Al-Sharif Hussein and accuse him of allying himself to the British 'infidels', preventing some pilgrims (e.g., from Najd) from entering into Mecca, and imposing heavy taxes on pilgrims. This fatwa ended by some negative comments about Al-Sharif Hussein as an unjust, untrusted ruler who risked the fate of Mecca, Yathreb, and even Jerusalem for leaving these holy cities under the control of non-Islamic authority; Rasheed Reda mentioned in his fatwa that Al-Sharif Hussein posed a veritable threat to Hejaz and the whole of Arabia; Rasheed Reda assumed that 'Islam' might vanish from Arabia if he continued to remain enthroned as the ruler of Hejaz; he urged his readers from all over the Islamic world to save Hejaz from Al-Sharif Hussein, and this was deemed by Rasheed Reda as an 'Islamic' duty.   
6- Directly after this fatwas, the Najd Brothers sieged and attacked Al-Ta'if and massacred its dwellers; this heinous massacre compelled the Meccans to surrender Mecca to Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud in 1924 A.D. and so did the dwellers of Yathreb and Jeddah in 1925 A.D., after about one year of sieging Jeddah; hence, the whole of Hejaz region was annexed to the Saudi kingdom and to be rule by the Saudi king.
7- During such battles, Rasheed Reda increased his propaganda to serve Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud (before both men met with each other); Rasheed Reda expressed his support for the Saudi family in Al-Manar magazine and in his articles published in Al-Ahram newspaper and other Cairo-based newspapers. Such articles contain his attacking and criticizing Al-Sharif Hussein; his 'bad' traits and misrule were the reasons offered by Rasheed Reda to his readers to 'justify' the Najdi/Saudi conquest of Hejaz; he never mentioned the massacre of Al-Ta'if, of course. The corruption of Al-Sharif Hussein was no secret or a novel piece of news; he mistreated pilgrims and imposed heavy taxes on them; pilgrims from India and morocco complained of his misdeeds. Rasheed Reda remained silent about the misdeeds of Al-Sharif Hussein and he wrote about them later on only to serve and support his new master Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud before meeting with him; what about when both men did meet?  
1- Al-Jabarty heard of the massacres committed by the Wahabis and he mentions them in his book of history; in contrast, Rasheed Reda was visiting the Hejaz region when he served its ruler, Al-Sharif Hussein, and he heard about the massacre of Al-Ta'if and the massacre of Al-Turba and he never wrote about them; in fact, he heaped praise within is writings on his future master Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud even before he met with him and deemed his conquests as commendable deeds for the sake of 'Islam'! This means that Rasheed Reda had no conscience and he never felt sorry for the massacred unarmed children, women, and elderly people in Al-Ta'if; likewise, he never protested against the atrocities of the ruler of Hejaz, Al-Sharif Hussein, who robbed the pilgrims. Thus, it is expected that Rasheed Reda would overlook atrocities and heinous crimes of Wahabi troops led by Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud.
2- In order to get to know how criminal Rasheed Reda was as he remained silent and never mentioned massacres perpetrated by Wahabis when he heard of them when he was in Hejaz, let us remind our readers here of what we have mentioned about the massacre of Al-Ta'if (committed in 1924 A.D.) and let us be reminded by the fact that more than one hundred thousand people were massacred in Al-Ta'if. 
3- The Wahabis attacked Hejaz and sieged Al-Ta'if; once they entered this city, they massacred all of its dwellers (men, women, and children); Ahmed Fouad Al-Attar, the historian hired/bribed by Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud, mentions this massacre in the second volume of his book titled "The Falcon of Arabia: Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud", as per the narration of the Saudi king himself. Al-Attar tried to clear the name of Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud, as if he never commanded his Wahabi troops to massacre anyone; Al-Attar blamed the Najd Brothers instead, as if they took the decision on their own to kill off the dwellers of Al-Ta'if.
4- We know from the words of Al-Attar that the troops of the Najd Brothers attacked Al-Ta'if and that the troops of Al-Sharif Hussein, 400 fighters and their cannons, marched swiftly to save the people of Al-Ta'if. These troops were about to defeat the Najd Brothers; yet, the Bedouins among the 400 fighters betrayed Al-Sharif Hussein and joined the Najd Brothers as they sought shares of the spoils; this led to the defeat of the Al-Sharif Hussein, whose troops (and reinforcements sent to them) could not face 40 thousand Wahabi warriors and had to flee and leave Al-Ta'if. Some of the frightened civilians inside Al-Ta'if fled the city, leaving their valuable possessions behind, after hiding gold, money, jewels, and precious stones inside secret locations within their houses; they placed huge rocks behind the walls and fortifications of the city to prevent the invaders temporarily from entering into the city. More desert-Arabs and Bedouins joined the Wahabi troops in the siege of Al-Ta'if; thus, the troops consisted of 50 thousand men. Once they managed to enter into the city, they massacred all its innocent dwellers by bullets and swords, looted everything, demolished houses in search for treasures and precious items, and raped women before killing them. Al-Attar mentions the following as per words he allegedly heard from Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud: (... Bedouins and desert-Arabs who desired to take revenge against their enemies among the people of Al-Ta'if entered into the city to loot and kill and rape along with their Wahabi brethren; they even drank water mixed with the blood of the massacred people and performed ablution with this water and performed prayers! They chopped off hands and feet of raped, dead women to get their rings, bracelets, and anklets; the Najd Brothers and Bedouins wore such stolen ornaments in their hands and necks so as not to lose them while continuing their looting and killing ...). This is the summary of what Al-Attar has quoted from the words of Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud; was Rasheed Reda in another planet while Al-Attar was in Planet earth?!
Why did Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud need Rasheed Reda?
1- When Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud conquered Hejaz, he faced the very imminent possibility of colliding with Egypt.
2- The first Saudi State during the reign of Ibn Saud was established in Najd in 1745 A.D. and it conquered the Hejaz region in 1805 (60 years separate the two events), and this drove the Ottomans to enlist the military help of the Egyptian troops of M. Ali Pacha who were sent to Arabia in 1811, led by his son, and the Egyptian troops destroyed the first Saudi State in 1818 and leveled to the ground the city of Al-Dariyya, its capital in Najd. In contrast, Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud began his military endeavors to establish the third, current Saudi State in 1902 and he conquered Hejaz in 1924; i.e. after about 20 years.   
3- The first Saudi State reached the zenith of its power and might when its troops conquered Hejaz; Egypt at the time was merely an Ottoman province ruled by an ambitious governor who was not yet settled in his throne at this point in time; yet, the Egyptian troops of this governor, M. Ali Pacha, managed to crush the strong first Saudi State and destroy its capital, Al-Dariyya, and he sent the last Saudi ruler of Najd to Istanbul to be beheaded there. Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud was not as strong as his grandfather Ibn Saud; besides, Egypt was the strongest regional power when he established the third Saudi State; he feared very much the nightmare that the Egyptians might destroy his nascent Saudi State and put him to death like Abdullah, the Saudi ruler of Al-Dariyya, who was killed by the Ottomans in Istanbul.   
4- We provide the historical background to this in the points below.
Firstly: about the Hejaz region:
1- The very strong Egyptian influence in the Hejaz region began with the emergence of the very first independent State inside Egypt which was nevertheless subservient to Abbasid caliphate; i.e., the Tulunid State (868 – 905 A.H.) which expanded and annexed the Levant and Libya; the Ikhshidid State followed it, but it collapsed without fighting and the Shiite Fatimids conquered Egypt in 972 A.H. and built the city of Cairo to be a Shiite capital/center of rule and religion; this Shiite Cairo was stronger than Baghdad, the Sunnite capital of the Abbasids in Iraq; the Cairene Shiite preachers reached Baghdad itself with their Shiite call; the Fatimids controlled and ruled Hejaz and this went on during the reign of the Ayyubids and the Mameluke sultans.     
2- After the collapse of the Mameluke sultanate when the Ottomans conquered Egypt, Egypt was turned into an Ottoman province; yet, the strong Egyptian influence in Hejaz never decreased or ceased; this is why it was naturally expected that the Egyptian troops must interfere, when the Ottomans enlisted the help of the governor of Egypt, and crush the first Saudi State in Arabia when the Wahabi Saudis dared to conquer the Hejaz region controlled by Egypt.   
3- The destruction of the first Saudi State was the biggest step for M. Ali Pacha to become the king of Egypt, not merely its governor serving the Ottomans, and other steps before this included massacring the remnants of the evil Mamelukes and removing the backward, mercenary Ottomans troops from Egypt by sending them to Arabia to fight the Saudis. The decisive victory over the first Saudi State was achieved by the Egyptian troops formed by M. Ali Pacha and his sons by training Egyptian peasants; he also built a huge military fleet and military factories and created a renaissance in many fields in Egypt, especially in education.    
4- Ibrahim Pacha, the eldest son of M. Ali Pacha, was the genius military leader of the Egyptian troops who crushed the first Saudi State; his father made him led the troops in 1816 A.D. within the last stage of this war; he managed to capture the ruler of Al-Dariyya, Abdullah, and he sent him to Cairo; M. Ali Pacha sent this ruler to Istanbul where he was humiliated by being chained and forced to roam the streets of the city for three days before being beheaded; of course, Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud feared that this might be his fate if Egypt decided to crush his nascent kingdom.  
Secondly: between the Saudi family and Egypt from the 19th century until the conquest of Hejaz by Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud:
1- The second Saudi State was established in Najd (and its new capital is Riyadh) by the Saudi prince Turki Ibn Abdullah two years after the destruction of the first Saudi State; this second Saudi State suffered military attacks from its neighbors as well as schisms and quarrels within the Saudi royal family members; eventually, the second Saudi State was destroyed by Al-Rasheed royal family, the rulers of the regions of Hael and Shamar in Arabia, though they were the former allies of Al-Saud family. The last ruler of Riyadh, Abdul-Rahman Al-Feisal Al-Saud, fled to Kuwait along with his wives and offspring, including his son Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud who established later on the third, current Saudi State. This means that Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud witnessed the collapse of the second Saudi State; he feared that Egypt might destroy his kingdom because Egypt was the strongest regional power and it controlled the Hejaz region and had a major influence in it.   
2- During the suffering inflicted on the second Saudi State, Egypt developed into a regional power while it was nominally a country under the control of the Ottoman caliphate.  
3- Ibrahim Pacha, the eldest son of M. Ali Pacha, was a military genius and the greatest military leader of that era; he led the Egyptian troops and achieved great victory over the Saudis and crushed their first Saudi State; he fought and achieved victory in Sudan, which was annexed to Egypt; he managed to annex the Levantine region to Egypt in 1831 A.D.; the Egyptian troops continued annexing more regions and drew near the Ottoman Turkey; Ibrahim Pacha defeated the Ottoman troops in the battle of Konya in 1832 A.D. and captured the military leader of the Ottoman troops; he was about to conquer Istanbul itself; the Ottoman sultan beseeched the help of European powers and requested their interference; the Peace Agreement of Kütahya ended the Egyptian-Ottoman war in 1833; because of the pressure of Ibrahim Pacha, the Ottoman sultan had to agree to let M. Ali Pacha be the ruler of Egypt, Crete, and the Levant and to let Ibrahim Pacha be the ruler of Hejaz (in Arabia) and Adana (which is located in Asia Minor). In 1839 A.H., the Ottoman sultan tried to retrieve the Levantine region, but Ibrahim Pacha prepared massive Egyptian troops and crushed the Ottoman troops in Anatolia in the battle of Nezib. The decisive Egyptian victory was about to cause the collapse of the Ottoman caliphate as the Egyptian troops might have reached Istanbul; the European powers had to interfere and they forced Egypt to accept the London peace agreement; Britain interfered by plotting several revolts inside the Levant against the Egyptian rule; this resulted in restoring the Levant to the Ottoman rule.      
4- If it had not been for the European interference, Egypt would have destroyed and inherited the Ottoman State; this is why the European powers stood against the powerful Egypt to stop it from inheriting Europe's sick man. The European policies regarding Egypt and the Ottoman State changed as per European interests; Greece and Eastern Europe were under the Ottoman control since the 15 century A.D.; the ottoman sultan failed to face the revolts of the Greeks and he enlisted the help of M. Ali Pacha who sent his son, Ibrahim Pacha, who managed to crush such revolts using the Egyptian troops within the period 1825 – 1828. Yet, Britain, France, and Russia interfered and they destroyed the Egyptian, Ottoman, and Algerian fleets in 1827 in the battle of Navarino, one of the most important maritime battles of the 19th century A.D.       
5- Ibrahim Pacha assumed the rule of Egypt during the lifetime of his father, M. Ali Pacha, but he died in Nov. 1848 shortly before the death of his father. Soon enough, Abbas I (the son of Prince Tousson, one of the sons of M. Ali Pacha) was enthroned as the Khedive of Egypt for three years and he was assassinated; he was a murderous, cruel, weird sort of man who embraced Wahabism and typically doubted all those around him; after his assassination, Said Pacha ruled Egypt until his death in 1863, and he gave Ferdinand de Lesseps the permission to dig the Suez Canal which brought a curse upon Egypt as foreign powers (i.e., the Europeans and others) interfered in Egyptian affairs until the British invasion/occupation of Egypt in 1882.    
6- Khedive Ismail (the son of Ibrahim Pacha) ruled Egypt from 1863 to 1879; i.e., until he was removed from the throne of Egypt by the Ottomans. Khedive Ismail is the second one (after his grandfather M. Ali Pacha) to establish Modern Egypt within a great renaissance; during his reign, Egypt's first Parliament was established in Nov. 1866; he introduced great reforms in the fields of education, the judiciary system, healthcare, governance, means of communication and transportation, housing/building plans, agriculture, irrigation, manufacturing, etc. Khedive Ismail built the Cairo Opera House, several luxurious, spacious palaces, and the Great Cairo Library (i.e., Dar Al-Kotob in Arabic); he made Cairo resemble European cities in elegance and modernity; he conquered more regions to annex them to his kingdom and his troops reached Somalia; he fought for the abolishment of slavery in Africa; the greatness and grandeur of Egypt was acknowledged by the Europeans in the party that marked the grand opening of the Suez Canal in 1869      
7- European powers felt threatened by the ambitions of Khedive Ismail; they pressurized the Ottoman sultan until he removed him from the throne of Egypt in 1879. After the grand opening of the Suez Canal, Britain conquered/occupied Egypt in 1882 (during the reign of Khedive Tawfik, the son of Ismail, which lasted from 1879 to 1892) to ensure its conquest/occupation of India.  
8- The British occupation of Egypt was interested very much in the geographical location of Egypt in the middle of the British empire; the British preserved the stature and importance of Egypt; the liberal epoch (initiated by Khedive Ismail) within Egypt went on and the introduced reforms developed and continued; later on, the raised awareness of most Egyptians made them demand independence; Khedive Abbas II urged the Egyptians to use violence against the British occupation. Because of the critical situation on the international scene before WWI, the British removed Abbas II from the throne of Egypt and announced that Egypt is a British Protectorate, thus ending its nominal dependence to the Ottoman sultan; the decided not to use the Ottoman title "Khedive" and they appointed Hussein Kamal (the son of Khedive Ismail) as King/Sultan of Egypt in 1914.    
9- After the end of WWI in 1918, the Egyptian 1919 massive revolt took place; Britain had to stop regarding Egypt as a British Protectorate and to issue the Declaration of 28th of Feb. 1922 to acknowledge the partial independence of Egypt; the Egyptians refused this declaration but it helped in the emergence of the Egyptian Constitution of 1923 that asserts the liberalism of Egypt and that the Egyptian nation is the source of all types of authority. Until now, the other constitutions of Egypt are never up to the greatness and precision of the Egyptian Constitution of 1923.     
10- Lastly, we talk again in the next lines about Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud who conquered the Hejaz region and during the reign of Fouad who ascended the throne of Egypt in 1917 as the sultan of Egypt, but his title in 1922 became the King of Egypt, Nubia, Cordovan, and Darfur. His son and successor, King Farooq, had the title the King of Egypt and Sudan.   
Thirdly: between Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud and King Fouad I of Egypt:
1- Ibrahim Pacha was the ruler of the Hejaz region, and even after his death, no events lessened the dependency of Hejaz on Egypt; Egypt, in fact, controlled Hejaz and it had major influence within it because its local rulers depended economically and politically on Egypt. The Egyptian authority interfered to settle disputes of the rulers of the cities of Hejaz.     
2- Mustapha Kemal Ataturk announced the end of the Ottoman caliphate in 1923 and banished into exile the last sultan, Abdul-Hamid II, and his family members; Al-Sharif Hussein in Hejaz coveted being announced as the caliph/sultan even before 1924; while he ruled Hejaz (while being dependent on, and protected by, Egypt), he gave himself the title of (The King of Arabs); this provoked the ire of King Fouad in Egypt who desired to be announced as caliph; he felt that since Hejaz was dependent on Egypt, its ruler had no right to proclaim himself as king of all Arabs.  
3- This desire of theocracy harbored by King Fouad of Egypt posed a threat within the liberal epoch of Egypt; the specter of theocracy was looming to the consternation of everyone; this call for theocracy goes against the school of thought and the call of imam M. Abdou whose ideas were still influencing the political, cultural, and religious life – before Rasheed Reda would have enough Saudi money to spread Wahabism in Egypt, of course. King Fouad did not have the required personality or fame and deeds to covet and earn the title of ''caliph"; he assumed he deserved such a title for merely being the King of Egypt that controlled Hejaz. The Egyptian Azharite sheikh Ali Abdel-Razik stood against the theocratic ambitions of King Fouad by writing his seminal book titled "Islam and the Foundations of Governance", where he asserts that caliphate system/regime of rule is never part of Islam; King Fouad took revenge against Ali Abdel-Razik by making the Supreme Council of Azharite Scholars interrogate and try him in an inquisition-like manner and their verdict was to annul his Azharite University certificate and remove him from his post as a judge.     
4- Those who attacked the book of Ali Abdel-Razik inside Egypt included sheikh Al-Khedr Hussein, who later on became the head-sheikh of Al-Azhar, the Mufti Bakheet Al-Muteiy, and the judge Abdel-Razak Al-Sinhoury, and from outside Egypt the Tunisian sheikh Al-Taher Bin Ashour. Those who defended the book of Ali Abdel-Razik inside Egypt included the thinkers/journalists M. Hussein Heikal, Mustapha Al-Akkad, and Salama Moussa. During the trial of Ali Abdel-Razik, the Minister of Justice, Abdel-Aziz Fahmy, resigned as an act of protest in 1925; this means that the book of Ali Abdel-Razik caused a ministerial crisis in the liberal epoch of Egypt.  
5- Rasheed Reda criticized the book of Ali Abdel-Razik severely in his Al-Manar magazine despite the fact that he never sided with King Fouad; he merely wished to please his master, Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud, though this Saudi king never coveted the title ''caliph''; he merely wished to keep Hejaz annexed to his nascent kingdom without  getting into serious trouble with Egypt.
Lastly: Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud needed Rasheed Reda:
1- This was the liberalism of Egypt which Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud had to face to avoid the destruction of his kingdom; the liberalism of Egypt limited the authority of King Fouad as a ruler; this is in contrast to the absolute power of his despotic grandfather, the tyrannical M. Ali Pacha, who murdered Al-Jabarty after he murdered his son for merely writing/saying views that were not approved by him. Thus, the liberal epoch in Egypt allowed ample room for criticizing King Fouad and ensured free speech for all Egyptians and all non-Egyptians who lived inside Egypt, such as Rasheed Reda. Hence, King Fouad could not fight against Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud, even if he wished to, whereas Rasheed Reda the agent/servant of the Saudi king defended the KSA and its king while establishing, with Saudi money, Wahabi groups and societies to spread Wahabism all over Egypt by taking advantage of the climate of political freedom, free speech, and the freedom of thought within this era of liberalism.        
2- This is why Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud needed Rasheed Reda.
The alliance between Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud and Rasheed Reda and the need for money:
1- The Egyptian liberalism in the first half of the 20th century lacked social justice; a class of impecunious, educated youths emerged and such cultured youths had no place under the sun; this is because the affluent capitalists, aristocrats, and feudal lords monopolized everything; this class of youths had no option left but to chant slogans in demonstrations organized within parties or in marches organized for the sake of nationalism; these youths were mostly unemployed; giving large bribes within corruption was the only way to get employed at the time; hence, the rich-class members could find jobs for their sons though they never needed such jobs in the first place. The number of impecunious, educated, cultured youths increased and they sought social mobility and to climb the social ladder into the middle-class. This is unlike ignorant, illiterate masses who accepted the reality surrounding them as part of preordained fate. The educated class of youths knew their rights and looked for alternative ways to get these rights; sadly, many youths saw Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud as the desired alternative; his agents inside Egypt preached the 'good' ways of 'good' ancestors and the Sunna-hadiths ascribed to Muhammad; many of the frustrated youths joined Salafist groups and societies inside Egypt to get some money while feeling that they serve a 'good' cause; thus, the agents of Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud had ample scope within such a climate to make Egypt change its dominant religion (i.e., Sunnite Sufism) into Wahabism re-labeled as Sunnite-Hanbali Salafism.    
2- Rasheed Reda, Hafiz Wahba, and Moheb-Eddine Al-Khateeb realized the fact that most of graduates of Al-Azhar, scribes, writers, and the class of educated and cultured people and small employees in general had the ambitions to get rich because they were impoverished; it was easy for Hafiz Wahba to find an unknown journalist in Egypt to recruit him to make him write positively about the Saudi king; it was easy to recruit impecunious, ambitious men who assumed that they may serve 'Islam'. Hence, Rasheed Reda did his best and spent his own money to spread Wahabism/Salafism in Egypt; the money he received at first from Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud was not enough to recruit many men of the cultured, educated class (esp. Azharite men and journalists) or to spend on recently established Salafist societies; he realized that a source of funding must be found soon.      
3- The financial resources of Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud at first were not enough; he had his own financial troubles sometimes; the solution was to allow the West countries of the 'infidels', especially Britain, to invest inside Arabia, even if this would provoke the ire of the Najd Brothers and Wahabi sheikhs who will protest against such cooperation and will prevent it even if they had to fight their master Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud. They fought and rebelled against him, as we have detailed in our book, in English, titled "The Wahabi Opposition Movements in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in the Twentieth Century" found on this link: (http://www.ahl-alquran.com/arabic/book_main.php?main_id=85). Later on, the regions of Najd, Aseer, and Hejaz were united in 1932 A.D. within the name of the KSA (i.e., the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) under the rule of one king: Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud. This took place after getting rid of the Najd Brothers who were defeated in battle by the troops of Britain (the chief ally of Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud) and the mercenary troops loyal to Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud; this made Wahabi sheikhs/clergymen submit to Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud and they never dared to protest against any of his decrees later on lest they might get imprisoned/killed. As for investing inside Arabia, the West 'infidels' began to extract oil from the Arabian land. This changed the equation, as the KSA grew rich because of oil revenues; the Saudi king could send enough money to Rasheed Reda so that he would help spread Wahabism in Egypt and the Arab world. In fact, the KSA has spent billions of US$ to spread Wahabism worldwide within centers, mosques, secret and overt organizations, 'peaceful' and terrorist/armed groups, etc. while carrying the label of 'Islam'. This made Wahabism/Salafism pose as if it were Islam worldwide; as a result, massacres and terrorist attacks spread by the so-called 'Islamists' or Wahabi militants who are either supporting or opposing the KSA. Islam, because of oil revenues of the KSA that helped spread Wahabism as if it were Islam, is now accused of terrorism, extremism, fanaticism, and bigotry. Within oil revenues, the term "Wahabism" is now on the background as if it were too holy to be used; it is indeed sanctified by some people, whereas the term "Islam" has become abused, misused, and insulted within the foreground in worldwide media; may God curse the Wahabi polytheists. God says in the Quran: "Have you not seen those who exchanged the blessing of God with blasphemy, and landed their people into the house of perdition? Hell - they will roast in it. What a miserable settlement. And they set up rivals to God, in order to lead away from His Path. Say, "Enjoy yourselves; your destination is the Fire."" (14:28-30). As always, God says nothing but the Absolute Truth. We provide more details about this topic in the points below.
Firstly: the liberal epoch in Egypt included freedom without justice:
1- Achieving welfare and peace in any given country entails upholding justice and allowing freedom on all levels; of course, justice is quite impossible within the absence of freedom; the Nasserist era in Egypt proves this; Nasser achieved a measure of social justice and the removal of class-distinction or the barriers among social classes; he cared for the middle-class members and allowed them excellent, free education and employment; yet, his era of tyranny and the lack of freedom destroyed everything he achieved. The political tyranny crushed his project and has brought shame and disgrace which have increased after the death of Nasser within the military rule of today which has eroded both freedom and justice.  
2- Before the 1952 coup, the liberal epoch of Egypt lacked social justice; thus, grave injustices harmed the vast majority of Egyptians – especially peasants and workers. The grievances caused by social injustice made the Egyptian population support the 1952 coup and Nasser reached power in Egypt in 1954. Nasser established the military rule which has brought shame and disgrace to Egypt until the present moment. 
3- Within the first decades of the 20th century, the number of the middle-class educated members increased from among the offspring of workers, peasants, craftsmen, and small merchants, and the Egyptian State could not employ them; the middle-class members supported and participated in the 1919 revolution, but they were let down as their demanding better life conditions was ignored; this is because the political life was run mostly by the elite rich-class members. The most popular political party at the time, Al-Wafd, never cared for the cultured, educated class members who were very poor; Al-Wafd party never helped within social mobility (i.e., allowing the poor ones to climb the social ladder) and never allowed those poor citizens to participate in the parliamentary elections as candidates.  
4- In the 1930s, a new generation emerged that consisted of ambitious, open-minded, educated youths who knew about their rights as citizens and desired to have them through political participation and by having shares of the public wealth; yet, all doors/gates were shut before their faces. This frustrated generation included Azharite youths who were mostly unemployed; few of them worked as teachers in return for measly stipends; even Azharite scholars received low salaries at the time as Al-Azhar depended on being funded from Waqfs (i.e., religious endowments). Bribes in many cases made Azharite scholars get employed by replacing dead scholars; some scholars would inherit the jobs of their late Azharite fathers, regardless of efficiency and level of knowledge. This means that many Azharite youths were frustrated, and their religious background, skills of delivering eloquent speeches/sermons, and influence on the ignorant masses (in rural villages and low-class districts of cities) posed a danger because Wahabi agents recruited them easily as per instructions of Hafiz Wahba; he saw them as venal, mercenary youths who would be very beneficial for Wahabi/Salafist centers/societies established in Cairo and all over Egypt, especially the ones established and controlled by the terrorist MB organization members. At first, such centers/societies lacked funding until oil was discovered in the KSA.        
5- Indeed, Rasheed Reda suffered from this impecuniousness (or lack of funding), for a certain period, within his striving fervently to spread Wahabism in Egypt, before the discovery of oil in Arabia.
Secondly: the devotion, zeal, and ardency of Rasheed Reda in his endeavors to spread Wahabism in Egypt: 
1- Rasheed Reda headed the Wahabi/Salafist trend in Egypt along with another Wahabi agent: Moheb-Eddine Al-Khateeb. Both men became very close friends and assumed several roles in the scheme of spreading Wahabism in Egypt. Rasheed Reda delivered speeches/lectures inside the Muslim Youths Society established by Al-Khateeb; he contributed articles to the magazine of this Society (which also published his sermons/lectures), which has become later on an MB-affiliated Society. Al-Khateeb visited the location of Al-Manar magazine and contributed articles to it. The last lecture of Rasheed Reda at that Society headed by Al-Khateeb is titled (Woe to Arabs from the Imminent Evil!). 
2- In 1924, Rasheed Reda was among the co-founders of a Cairo-based society known as Peace in the Holy Land Society; the holy land here is Hejaz, of course; and the aims of that Society was to spread literature and arts, especially in relation to heritage books of traditions, hadiths, interpretation/exegeses, and the Arab tongue (style, eloquence, oratory skills, etc.); the main aim of this Society was the pro-Saudi propaganda to serve Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud before Rasheed Reda met with him.    
3- After the encounter between Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud and Rasheed Reda, their relation became close; the roles imposed on Rasheed Reda and other Wahabi agents were distributed within the auspices of the Saudi king and the orchestration of Hafiz Wahba, the Egyptian consultant of the Saudi king who advised him regarding the spread of Wahabism in Egypt and the Arab world. The close ties between Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud and Rasheed Reda became no secret; many people in Egypt accused Rasheed Reda of being funded/bribed by Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud, as Al-Manar published Wahabi, Sunnite, Salafist books in good editions sold for very low prices; many people accused him of being a Wahabi man who became filthily rich by supporting the KSA and receiving money from the Saudi king.  
4- Within his articles in his Al-Manar magazine, Rasheed Reda decided to refute and undermine these accusations leveled against him; e.g., he mentioned in Vol. No. 28 of Al-Manar that his supporting Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud was for no reasons linked to this temporal, transient world; rather, it was the support for the Sunnite doctrine of 'good' ancestors and ancient 'holy' imams; he proved this by reminding his readers of his defending Wahabis/Saudis fought by the Egyptian troops of M. Ali Pacha (in 1818 A.D.) when he tackled this historical event in his previous writings in 1320 A.H. Of course, Rasheed Reda assumed (or rather told a lie) that Salafism (he avoided using the term ''Wahabism'' in most cases) had many followers inside Egypt thanks to the writings of Al-Manar; he asserted that since 1320 A.H., he began corresponding with the at-the-time prince Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud to urge him to call the rulers of Arabia to unite in order to protect Arabia from foreign invasion and interference. Abdul-Aziz asked Rasheed Reda to send an envoy to explain to Wahabi scholars the nature of such agreement of unity among rulers of Arabia; yet, WWI broke out and such an envoy could not reach Najd. Rasheed Reda wrote in Al-Manar that no rulers of Arabia were fit to save and protect Hejaz except Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud; other rulers never took heed of this call by Rasheed Reda; he criticized Al-Sharif Hussein and enumerated his faults and the shortcomings of his character; Rasheed Reda began to write articles to support Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud as the 'protector' of Islam who fought fabrications and myths and aimed to introduce the much-needed reform; he wrote that the reformist plans of Al-Manar match the endeavors of the sultan of Najd and that it is OK if he and other Muslim rulers would help fund Al-Manar for the sake of Islam; in Vol. No. 28 of this magazine, Rasheed Reda defends himself by writing that he never received any money from Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud and that he never used his magazine to serve the political ambitions of any man (!), and he wrote that Al-Manar was established first, before the emergence of the Saudi State, in order to serve 'Islam' and to spread knowledge of the Salafism of the 'holy' and 'good' ancestors/forefathers, scholars, and imams (he meant Wahabism, of course) and not with the aim to amass wealth. He mentioned that the relation between him and Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud is a strong, spiritual tie as serving Islam united them and that all rumors against such a relation increase its strength; Rasheed Reda wrote that God has chosen both men (himself and Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud) to serve 'Islam' (!), and he admired Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud very much that he gave him the title (the drawn sword of the Sunna and the bearer of the guidance of our good ancestors).        
5- In fact, the Wahabism of Rasheed Reda drove him to enthusiastically and vehemently spread his religion in Egypt under the name of Salafism, even if he was not paid to do so and before he met with Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud. Rasheed Reda was a hypocrite and the British never trusted him; both Rasheed Reda and Al-Sharif Hussein claimed to belong to the progeny/descendants of Ali and Fatima, and yet, both men did not trust one another as they held different religions. In contrast, Rasheed Reda admired and was trusted by Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud as both shared one religion; i.e., Wahabism.   
6- No one can cast doubt on the fact that Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud financed the endeavors of Rasheed Reda to spread Wahabism in Egypt; yet, mostly, Rasheed Reda used his own money as well; he had an orchard in his native village in the Levant; he received its annual rent from its tenant and the sum covered the expenses of Al-Manar and publishing Salafist books. It is noteworthy that most subscribers of Al-Manar did not pay the annual sums of the subscriptions regularly, as per the frequent complaint of Rasheed Reda in his letters to Shakib Arslan; he even wrote to him in June 1929 that he had to borrow a large sum of money from a certain bank in Cairo, Egypt, and that he depended on the financial help of the Saudi ruler, who commissioned him to publish certain Salafist books, to help settle such a debt later on.     
7- In his writings, Shakib Arslan mentions that Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud donated a large sum of money to Rasheed Reda to settle his debts; this means that he knew that Rasheed Reda suffered financially in his endeavors to spread Wahabism in Egypt (and elsewhere) through Al-Manar magazine and publishing Salafist books and he was keen on helping him because a Wahabi Egypt will never pose a threat to the third Saudi State. Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud believed that Rasheed Reda took great interest in reviving the Sunnite/Salafist religion (as opposed to Sunnite Sufism dominant in Egypt at the time) and this was the primary cause that drove him to support the conquests of the Wahabi ruler of Najd years before both men met with each other. Of course, since Abdul-Aziz himself had to get money to secure his kingdom and to spread Wahabism in the Arab world, he allowed the British and other Europeans to invest in Arabia and extract oil. 
Thirdly: Abdul-Aziz found the solution in oil revenues:
Wahabism and deep-seated hatred of foreign investors:
1- The unknown Egyptian journalist who visited Najd and Hejaz, after the Wahabi/Saudi conquest of Hejaz and after the Kiswah caravan incident, wrote about the Najdi/Wahabi culture of xenophobia; he wrote that the Najd people never trusted or liked foreign investors, even those who pretended to be tourists, and deemed them as 'infidels' whose existence soiled or polluted Arabia. European engineers, experts, etc. decided to avoid entering into the Najd region; they had to invest in other regions like Al-Ahsa and Al-Jouf, and the project to extract oil from Riyadh came abruptly to a halt despite the need of the Najd people for money; this means that at this point in time, Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud could not resist the xenophobic Najd Brothers and the Wahabi clergymen who insisted on never allowing any foreigners to enter into Najd and hated the fact that their leader and king befriended and allied himself with non-Wahabis.   
2- The historian and writer Kheir-Eddine Al-Zarkeley mentions in his book titled "A Brief Biography of King Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud", p. 197, that Wahabi scholars and clergymen protested against American investors who came to Al-Ahsa region (... as this means they will drink wine and bring their cameras and cars, among other inventions, into Arabia ...). The Wahabi scholars and the Najd Brothers assumed that new inventions are devilish items of witchcraft prohibited in their religion; they resented the fact that Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud sent his son, Saud, to Egypt the country of 'polytheists', and his son, Feisal, to England the country of 'infidels'.     
Putting an end to the opposition of the Najd Brothers and their Wahabi scholars by the absolute dominance of Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud:
 Rasheed Reda and Hafiz Wahba stood by Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud in his facing and crushing the opposition of the Najd Brothers and the Wahabi scholars and clergymen; it is most likely that Reda and Wahba advised the Saudi king of establishing a group of obedient Egyptian ''Brothers'' (i.e., those who came to be known later on as the MB organization members) as an alternative to the quarrelsome Najd Brothers, who were defeated in the battle of Sabilla, among other battles, in 1929 and their armed rebellion ended forever as many of them were killed. This defeat made Wahabi scholars and clergymen, who incited such armed rebellion, tremble with fear lest the Saudi king might put them to death. Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud held a conference for them and many tribal leaders attended it; there were about 2000 attendees; the Saudi king delivered a speech to them to announce certain principles as follows.     
1- The Quran and the Sunna are the bases of the decision-taking process within religious matters and not personal, individual views.  
2- Obeying the king is a must as per Sunnite sharia laws. 
3- Meetings that are held to discuss worldly or religious topics without the prior consent of the king are banned.
4- Muslims must be respected and so are those protected by Muslims inside Arabia; he meant the foreign (American and European) investors protected by him.
5- The Saudi king directly threatened to put to death those who violate such principles; he mentioned that the fate of the Najd Brothers is well deserved because of their disobedience; Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud went to Mecca for pilgrimage after this conference and left the Wahabi scholars and clergymen trembling and shuddering in fear. 
Extracting Oil from Arabia: 
1- We quote this paragraph from the Arabic translation of the book titled "The Kingdom" (1981), which is a history of the KSA until 1979, authored by British historian and writer Robert Lacey: (... the Saudi king in the early 1930s was in bad need of investing and mining inside Arabia to fill his Treasury with money ... The American Charles Crane came to Jeddah in Feb. 1931 with offers of investment in oil, etc. ... Even if someone else came before or instead of Crane, the king would have readily accepted any investment offers ...).
2- This British historian never knew about the plans of Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud regarding funding the endeavors of spreading and propagating Wahabism inside Egypt; thus, Lacey expresses contradictory views: he mentions that the Saudi king lacked money because of the recession in world economy, in the 1930s, which lessened the number of pilgrims; the Najd region's exportation of dates has decreased because of lower demand; of course, the wealth (i.e., millions of money) Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud received at first, because of pilgrimage revenues, after conquering Hejaz helped him defeat the Najd Brothers in the battle of Sabilla in 1929 as he gave money to many tribes to make them join his own troops, apart from mercenaries and enlisting the help of Britain, to crush the much-hated, belligerent Wahabi brethren. But Lacey contradicts this by mentioning that the number of pilgrims lessened in the 1930s and that the new currency, the Saudi Riyal, plummeted in value at first; Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud, he writes, found himself running debts and had to welcome investors and oil extraction companies into Arabia, as per the advice of John Philby, his British consultant who was the broker and mediator between the Saudi king and foreign investors. Thus, the fact overlooked and ignored by Lacey and other non-Arab historians is that oil revenues helped the Saudi king to fund and recruit thousands of Egyptians as preachers of Wahabism within Salafist mosques, societies, groups, and institutions in Egypt.             
3- Oil wells were so many in Al-Ahsa; Al-Zarkeley mentions the following in his book titled "A Brief Biography of King Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud", p. 148: (... The King Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud in April 1939 visited the oil sites in Al-Dhahran and saw the first shipment of oil in the port......and he narrated the story of how oil investment began inside the KSA ...).
Oil and the spread of Wahabism in Egypt:
1- The influence of oil revenues began to appear in stances and words of Egyptian thinkers and activists; Jalal Kishk in his book titled "The Saudis and the Islamic Solution" mentions that M. H. Heikal named Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud (the Napoleon of the Arabs); A. M. Al-Akkad was imprisoned for writing lines of poetry to praise the Saudi king and to insult the Egyptian King Fouad; Ahmad Hessein the leader of the political party, The Young Egypt, visited the KSA in 1948 and wrote a book which heaps praise on the Saudi king and was accused of being bribed by Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud, though he owned a socialist newspaper that paved the way for the 1952 coup supported by the MB organization members.     
2- Al-Zarkeley mentions in his book titled "A Brief Biography of King Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud", p. 338-340, that the Egyptian publishing houses were given huge amounts of money to print, publish, and sell Sunnite books of, e.g., Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn Hanbal, Ibn Al-Qayyim, Ibn Al-Jawzy, and Ibn Abdul-Wahab, and these books were sold for very cheap prices, and in many cases, they were distributed for free. This applied also to Sunnite books of hadiths, fiqh, and exegeses/commentaries/interpretation of the Quran; of course, these books include the 12-volume Al-Manar interpretation of the Quran and books of historians such as Ibn Bishr and Shakib Arslan.   
3- Al-Zarkeley mentions in his book titled "A Brief Biography of King Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud", p. 127, that after the Kiswah caravan incident, the Saudi king sent his first-born son, Saud, to Egypt in 1926 to appease the fury of the Egyptian King in the royal palace, but such endeavors failed at first and the diplomatic ties remained nonexistent; this changed once King Fouad died and oil revenues increased the wealth of the Saudi king and he managed to recruit thousands of Egyptians as agents of Wahabism, especially Hassan Al-Banna who established 50 thousand branch of the terrorist MB organization all over Egyptian cities and villages. Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud was interviewed by an Egyptian journalist in 1935 (about nine years after the incident of the Kiswah caravan in 1926) and he asserted in this interview that he loved Egypt and he never sought to boycott or to insult its government and king; he said the issue of the Kiswah caravan should be settled as per sharia laws; he expressed his reverence and respect to Azharite scholars of 'Islam' who adhered to the Sunna and the Quran; he said his Saudi government was ready to satisfy any demands of the Egyptian government as per sharia laws. Of course, at the time, Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud had his hundreds of Egyptian Wahabi/Sunnite scholars as his loyal, well-paid agents who never used in their writings and sermons the term (Wahabism) at all; instead, they used the term (Sunna). In this interview, the Saudi king tried to pose as a 'defender' of Sunna and faith and to imply that the Egyptian government did not heed religion at all. It is most likely that the one who prepared such an interview and provided answers to the questions of the journalist was Hafiz Wahba himself. We are to remember all the time that the Egyptian Hafiz Wahba and both of the Levantine scholars who settled in Egypt, Rasheed Reda and Moheb-Eddine Al-Khateeb, masterminded and led this radical change of gradually turning Egyptians from the Sunnite Sufism to Sunnite Wahabism; the three of them were Wahabi Sunnites who had not the bigotry and fanaticism of the Najdi scholars and clergymen; they were hypocritical liars and changed their colors like chameleons to serve their own interests and to serve Wahabism; they were greedy, venal men who sought wealth. In fact, the three of them encouraged the Saudi king to allow the extraction of oil in Arabia to fund the endeavors of spreading and propagating Wahabism (under the name of Sunna/Salafism) in Egypt and the Arab world.     
4- Yet, their endeavors were not the only reason behind the spread of Wahabism in Egypt and elsewhere. 
The conference of Hejaz in 1925 and the Wahabi influence on Egypt:
1- After the conquest of Hejaz, its people swore fealty to Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud and he held a conference there during the pilgrimage season in 1344 A.H./ 1925 A.D., which was attended by representatives of 33 'Islamic' countries and all Saudi/Wahabi scholars, clergymen, and sheikhs; of course, Rasheed Reda attended this conference and met his master, Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud, for the very first time. 
2- Of course, Hafiz Wahba planned everything related to this conference in Hejaz; he invited all people he knew among notable Egyptian and Arab thinkers, scholars, sheikhs, dignitaries, etc. to prove that annexing Hejaz to the Saudi kingdom did not pose a threat to anyone and was not something evil or vicious; Wahba tried to allay the fears of Egyptians and others, assuring them that all people are welcome in Hejaz as pilgrims, tourists, and merchants; Rasheed Reda played a major, active role in this conference; he was even fatigued and contracted a fever during the days of the conference.    
3- We provide some details on this topic in the points below.
1- Because of the echoes of the heinous crimes perpetrated within the massacre of Al-Ta'if, some 'Islamic' bodies, movements, and institutions criticized and attacked the Saudi king and tried to hold a conference to condemn him within an international level while his troops sieged Jeddah (and the son of Al-Sharif Hussein, its ruler, was inside it), and Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud had to contain the situation soon enough; he did his best to conquer and annex Jeddah and he expelled the son of Al-Sharif Hussein out of Hejaz; he made the people of Hejaz swear fealty to him as king; he readily held this conference under the pretext of examining the conditions of the Hejaz region. The primary aim was to make the whole 'Islamic' world recognize and acknowledge him as the king of Hejaz and the sultan of Najd. 
2- The conference was announced in Ramadan 1344 A.H. and its activities would begin in the 20th of Zu Al-Qaida 1344 A.H., and Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud sent letters of invitation to all Islamic governments and nations (and 'Islamic' institutions and societies) to send representatives to attend this conference to discuss pilgrimage and the circumstances and conditions of the Hejaz region and the two holy cities of Mecca and Yathreb to serve Muslims from all over the world who arrive to Hejaz, as per the promises of the Saudi king. 
3- It is most likely that Hafiz Wahba wrote this letter of invitation on behalf of Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud, as the Saudi king was an illiterate Bedouin. This letter never mentions anything about (1) the Saudi conquest of Hejaz and (2) swearing fealty to the Saudi king by the people of Hejaz; it merely implies that Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud is the new king and ruler of Hejaz and never puts this fait accompli to question. 
4- Copies of this letter of invitation to the conference was sent to the institutions and rulers of 18 'Islamic' countries: Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Yemen, Turkey, etc. and heads of 'Islamic' institutions and societies in major capitals: Cairo, Damascus, Jerusalem, Baghdad, etc. Most invitees agreed to attend the conference. The Shiite governments and religious institutions of Iran, Iraq, and Jordan decided to ignore this invitation as they deemed Wahabi Sunnites as their enemies.      
5- The conference was held in its predetermined time, and it was inaugurated by the Saudi king, but the one who delivered the inauguration speech was Hafiz Wahba, who asserted the vital importance of this first 'Islamic' conference to unite the stance of all Muslims who should stand by one another; he defended the Saudi king as the savior of Hejaz which was endangered by the Al-Sharif Hussein family members; Wahba stressed the importance of avoiding political discussions and tackling any regional disputes among Muslims within the activities of the conference. Hafiz Wahba and Rasheed Reda coordinated and managed the activities of the conference days; they allowed no one to put to question the Saudi invasion and rule of Hejaz. The recommendations of the conference were announced as per what was desired by Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud.        
Secondly: the recommendations of this conference:
1- A committee must be formed to enumerate and control the Waqfs (i.e., religious endowments), all over the 'Islamic' world, which are dedicated for Mecca and Yathreb; the report of this committee will be submitted in the next annual conference. Comment: this means that Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud intended to steal the money of Waqfs, in all 'Islamic'/Arab countries, dedicated within the past centuries for Mecca and Yathreb by the wealthy people and by sultans/rulers.  
2- The Saudis will control, through a Yathreb-based 'Islamic' council, the Hejaz railways as part of Waqfs as per the recommendations of the Lausanne conference held in Jan. 1923. 
3- The Hejaz railways will be established between Mecca and Yathreb to facilitate the transportation process for pilgrims; funding this project will be through money donations sent to Hejaz from all over the 'Islamic' world. 
4- Money donations will be collected from the 'Islamic' world for the maintenance of the Holy Land (i.e., Mecca and Yathreb) in Hejaz.
5- A medical committee must be formed to study health conditions and health problems of the dwellers of Hejaz and submit a report about possible solutions to the ruling authorities in Hejaz. 
6- Never to allow non-Muslims to invest inside Hejaz in order to maintain its independence and freedom.
7- As per the desire of Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud, Hafiz Wahba and Rasheed Reda made some attendees protest against the British control of two small towns inside Hejaz near its borders and giving these two towns to Jordan, ruled by the prince Abdullah Ibn Al-Sharif Hussein. Those attendees demanded from the Saudi king to exert efforts to retrieve both towns; yet, attendees from Egypt, Turkey, and Afghanistan protested against such a demand. Comment: Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud desired to invade and annex both towns by this conference since he could not invade them with his troops so as not to provoke the ire of Britain. 
Thirdly: the second conference in 1926:
1- This second conference was held in the very next pilgrimage season in 1345 A.H./ 1926 A.D., and the same attendees of the previous conference came to Hejaz to attend this second one; the Saudi government was represented in this conference by its minister of education. Disputes were so many among the representatives and attendees over many issues. Hafiz Wahba had to deliver a letter in the name of the Saudi king to define the program of the conference: never to interfere in the internal affairs of Hejaz and its Saudi authority, never to tackle any political issues, and to confine discussions only to the affairs of pilgrims and endeavors to ensure their comfort.   
2- The major disputes revolved around protesting the dominance and full control of Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud over the Hejaz region and imposing Wahabi tenets on its dwellers and on all pilgrims inside Mecca and Yathreb. 
3- Yet, the conference was a very good chance for the Saudi king to propagate Wahabism; it was no longer a much-hated term and its negative connotations seemed to disappear; many Wahabi Sunnites from Egypt (and other Arab countries) attended this conference within the coordination and planning of Rasheed Reda, Hafiz Wahba, and Moheb-Eddine Al-Khateeb; many Wahabi agents contacted Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud to discuss the gradual process of spreading and propagating Wahabism, also under the name of Sunnite Salafism, in Egypt and in many Arab countries. This second conference was deemed as a successful one.   
Fourthly: the third conference in 1927:
1- This third conference was a failure a per the viewpoint of all attendees and that of the Saudi authorities; yet, the Saudi king never cared about this failure because he managed to contain the situation regarding Muslims/Arabs who never approved of the Wahabi/Saudi conquest of Hejaz and he managed to make the whole world acknowledge his being the king of Hejaz and Najd among other regions in Arabia. In fact, this conference was a mere cover or a façade so that Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud would secretly meet in Hejaz his agents working inside Egypt (and those working elsewhere) so that the Saudi king would review and supervise the plans of spreading Wahabism (mostly under the name of Sunnite Salafism) all over the Arab and 'Islamic' world. 
2- At the time, the military war was imminent between Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud and his Najd Brothers led by the leader Feisal Al-Daweesh; both sides were prepared for this military confrontation. Of course, this essentially political struggle for power had the flimsy religious cover or façade of Wahabism; the Najd Brothers accused their master, Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud, of being an apostate who rejected Wahabism by allying himself to 'infidels' and 'polytheists' (i.e., non-Wahabis among Arabs and non-Arabs). This type of military, political, and religious struggle is an existential one; one party must annihilate and exterminate the other party; there is no room for compromises; it is the zero equation of (to be or not to be). Of course, Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud realized this; he prepared very strong, massive troops and he orchestrated the spread of Wahabism outside the Saudi kingdom to gain more territories and followers/agents who will submit to him and may reach power within Egypt and other Arab and 'Islamic' countries so that they rule as theocrats while being loyal to the Saudi royal family members. He knew that the (Egyptian Brothers); i.e. what came to be known later on as the MB organization members, would be the best alternative to replace the quarrelsome, belligerent Najd Brothers.        
Fifthly: the dangerous, disastrous radical change in the religious life inside Egypt (1926 - 1928):
1- After the return of Rasheed Reda to Egypt, the negative impact of the Kiswah caravan incident was contained within the official, governmental level, and a very dangerous, disastrous radical change in the religious life inside Egypt occurred; i.e., the emergence of the first signs that indicate the gradual change of the religion of most Egyptians from Sunnite Sufism to Sunnite Wahabism.  
2- This dangerous, disastrous radical change within the religious life inside Egypt took place via these four Salafist/Wahabi groups.
2/1: Al-Gamiyyia Al-Shariyya (The Sharia Society): it was established in 1913 A.D. by the sheikh Mahmoud Al-Sobky who was at first devoted to the Sufi religion and he authored a four-volume book about making Sunnite fiqh rules submit to Sufism; yet, in 1926, he changed his mind; his other 26 books contain a very harsh attack on Sufism and a defense of Sunnite Hanbalism (or Wahabism) under the motto of defending Sunna and undermining and refuting Sufi myths; he died in 1933; his footsteps were followed by his son Amin Al-Sobky, who wrote 9 books to defend and propagate Wahabism under the name of Sunnite Hanbalism; Amin Al-Sobky died in 1968. Within the Saudi influence (and funding) inside Egypt initiated by Rasheed Reda, The Sharia Society (the biggest Wahabi society inside Egypt now) controls more than 6000 mosques, thousands of imams/preachers, and millions of followers. In fact, until now, The Sharia Society is the strategic reserve of the MB members; this is how they control Salafist thought and movement inside the Egyptian society.       
2/2: Gamiyyiat Ansar Al-Sunna (The Society of Sunna Supporters): it was established in 1926 A.D. by the Azharite sheikh M. Hamid Al-Fiqi; the money he received from Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud allowed him to build a house in the Cairene district of Abdeen; this house was a center of spreading the Wahabi call in Egypt. Until now, The Society of Sunna Supporters specializes in spreading and propagating Salafism/Wahabism and it publishes books of Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn Al-Qayyim, among others. The Society of Sunna Supporters has its own magazine (The Prophet's Guidance) whose first issue was published in 1936.
2/3: The Muslim Youths Society: it was established in 1927 A.D. by the Levantine Wahabi sheikh Moheb-Eddine Al-Khateeb who settled in Egypt and was the close, intimate friend of Rasheed Reda; several Egyptian youths joined this society, including Hassan Al-Banna, the most prominent young man there who later on established the terrorist MB organization to make his 'Muslim' Brothers imitate the appellation of the Najd Brothers of Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud; of course, Al-Banna every often visited the headquarters of the Muslim Youths Society; as he was getting out of its headquarters after delivering a speech, he was assassinated at its gates in Feb. 1947.   
2/4: The terrorist MB organization: it was established in 1928 A.D. by Hassan Al-Banna under the guidance and auspices of Rasheed Reda and Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud; it represents the political movement and armed militias of Wahabism in Egypt and elsewhere; its aim is to reach power in order to dominate and rule over all the Arab and 'Islamic' countries. Of course, Rasheed Reda introduced Al-Banna to Hafiz Wahba and the prominent, wealthy Wahabis and Wahabi scholars/clergymen and agents inside and outside the Saudi kingdom; e.g., he introduced him to the head of the Islamic World League. This Wahabi League aims, until now, to assert the Saudi influence and control within the 'Islamic' countries; it has played a major role in recruiting misguided, deluded youths and sending them to Afghanistan to get brainwashed and trained there in order to be Wahabi terrorists/jihadists.   
Firstly: Rasheed Reda contacted Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud before the conference of Hejaz in 1925:
1- Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud began his conquests in 1902 A.D. from Riyadh, the capital of Najd, in order to annex as many Arabian regions as possible to form a Saudi kingdom; M. Abdou died in 1905 A.D., and his favorite disciple, Rasheed Reda, discarded his reformist school of thought and began to preach Wahabism under the name of Salafism; he established, in 1912, a school for the preparation and qualification of Sunnite (i.e., Wahabi) preachers in Al-Roda Island in the River Nile beside the Salafist Al-Zahraa institution run by the Levantine Wahabi sheikh Moheb-Eddine Al-Khateeb which was located in the same Cairene district. Of course, Rasheed Reda in his famous, popular magazine, Al-Manar, began to publish articles that propagated Wahabism under the name of Sunna and Salafism.  
2- Before the conference of Hejaz held in 1925 A.D., there was correspondence between Rasheed Reda and Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud; at the time of such correspondence, Rasheed Reda was an agent serving the British and had to befriend and ally himself to Al-Sharif Hussein, ruler of Hejaz before the Saudi/Wahabi conquest, as per the commands of Britain. This temporary alliance never prevented the correspondence between Rasheed Reda and Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud, the arch-enemy of Al-Sharif Hussein. The exchanged letters between both men contained political topics, and, of course, the British spies translated the contents of such letters into English.  
3- One of the letters addressed to Rasheed Reda in Cairo, translated into English by the British spies in 1916, contains the warnings addressed by Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud to him about not to get engaged into the political life in Egypt or into the foreign conspiracies and about the request to inform him of any Egyptian decisions or movements that might threaten Arabia; the same letter contains the shared element between both men; i.e., Wahabism, which should be propagated at any cost in Egypt and from Egypt's Al-Azhar to the Arab/'Islamic' world; the letter contains assurance of the fact that the Ottomans were too busy to stand on his way of establishing his kingdom and how his relation with the ruler of Hejaz was 'good' at the time. Another letter from Rasheed Reda to the prince-at-the-time Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud in Riyadh contains much praise heaped on the Saudi prince and his 'great' and 'wise' pieces of advice and how he served Arabs and Islam; he addressed the prince of Najd as (the great leader and honorable ruler) and encouraged him to keep in touch through regular exchange of letters. Rasheed Reda, in his turn, gave pieces of advice to Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud regarding political issues; he was often consulted by the sultan of Najd in these letters about several issues, even before both men met with each other; Wahabi zeal united both of them, of course.  
4- It is obvious that Rasheed Reda acted like a consultant to Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud and he sent his pieces of advice via exchanged letters; Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud used to accept readily his pieces of advice; this means that mutual trust existed between both men. 
5- After the defeat of Al-Sharif Hussein, Rasheed Reda throe himself under the feet of Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud; they exchanged many letters; Dr. Al-Sherbasy writes the following about such correspondence: (... This means that the good relations between the sheikh Rasheed Reda and the king Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud were deepened later on, and some letters sent by Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud to Rasheed Reda were found to assert such cordial relations ...). 
6- Within his letters, Rasheed Reda mentions the evil and negative influence of the British on Muslims as they helped the enemies of Wahabis inside Hejaz (he meant Al-Sharif Hussein and his family of rulers) against Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud so as the British would go on interfering in the affairs of the Hejaz region; he mentions that when the Saudi king announced that when he would annex Hejaz he will not allow foreigners (i.e., non-Arabs) any measure of influence there, Britain felt troubled and decided to help Al-Sharif Hussein by giving him arms from Egypt (!). Rasheed Reda mentions within his letters that sheikh M. Ibn Abdul-Wahab faced many obstacles in his call to revive the glory of 'Islam' in terms of both religious and temporal authorities; these obstacles were the Ottoman sultan, M. Ali Pacha the governor of Egypt, and 'the country of intrigues'; i.e., he meant Britain but he did not have the nerve to mention its name explicitly in this context.    
Secondly: the overt alliance between Rasheed Reda and Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud:
1- Dr. Al-Sherbasy writes: (... The sheikh Rasheed Reda believed that King Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud was the real political and religious leader of the Arab Islamic world; he publicly supported this Saudi leadership before and after the official emergence of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in 1932 A.D. In his turn, King Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud appreciated and admired Rasheed Reda as a reformist Muslim scholar whose views, fatwas, and pieces of advice are esteemed and valued. The strong bond between both men was, of course, based on the Salafist faith. The Saudi King was the leader of Wahabism and Sunnite Salafism adhered to by Rasheed Reda; the enemies of Rasheed Reda inside and outside Egypt nicknamed him (the Wahabi) as a derogatory appellation to deride him; in contrast, his admirers inside and outside Egypt nicknamed him as (the leader of Salafism) and (the reviver of Sunna); Salafism gained momentum in Egypt because of his endeavors ...).
2- Of course, before and after the conference of Hejaz, Rasheed Reda, through his articles in his Cairo-based Al-Manar magazine, made himself the chief propagandist of Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud; he published many political decrees of the Saudi kingdom and expressed his support for the Saudi king; he published news of the Saudi kingdom and praised the 'unprecedented reforms' introduced by Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud inside Arabia; for instance, he published details about the endeavors to offer protection and comfort to pilgrims, educating Bedouins and desert-Arabs so that they follow knowledge and faith and catch up with civilized world, and the defeat of the Najd Brothers and how Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud crushed their revolt to ward off their evil.     
3- Correspondence between Rasheed Reda and Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud shows that the former was playing the role of religious imam who gave pieces of advice to the latter who was the political imam. Such pieces of advice covered religious and political issues. Dr. Al-Sherbasy mentions that he found most letters of the Saudi king which are addressed to Rasheed Reda and some of the copies of the ones addressed to the Saudi king by Rasheed Reda; he mentions that the Saudi king accepted the pieces of advice of the Levantine sheikh even the ones that have a strict, frank tone; Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud admired the style of Rasheed Reda who addressed him in the ways of addressing/preaching the sultans and caliphs of the Middle-Ages, especially about supporting him as long as he upholds Sunna and Salafism (i.e., methods and traditions of the good, holy ancestors) and destroys fabrications and myths of polytheism. Dr. Al-Sherbasy mentions that one of the relatives of Rasheed Reda once reproached him for addressing the Saudi king in a too frank manner and a very serious tone in his style of writing within the letters, but Rasheed Reda was furious and accused his relative of trying to make him look like a coward; he told him that no one can doubt his affection and devotion to Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud who accepted all his pieces of advice for the sake of 'Islam'.
4- Rasheed Reda wrote about his first encounter with Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud within the conference of Hejaz: (... Once I arrived to Mecca and met and exchanged greetings with Abdul-Aziz Ibn Saud, I addressed his people of Hejaz by delivering a speech, reminding them of how the Lord God granted him victory after long years of patience and that they are to draw lessons from the Quranic story of Moses and the Israelites: "They said, "We were persecuted before you came to us, and after you came to us." He said, "Perhaps your Lord will destroy your enemy, and make you successors in the land; then He will see how you behave."" (7:129). I told them to appreciate the bounties they have and to count their blessings as God made the Saudi leader as their ruler ... Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud told me he never fears anything in this world except God's Word: the Quran, and this clearly shows his piety, and I do believe that all Muslim and Arab rulers should ponder on these words of Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud ...).
5- Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud admired Rasheed Reda very much; he repeatedly heaped praise on him in public and in many councils, describing him as an unparalleled scholar of theology and Islam, as no one will find a more learned, erudite man all over the 'Islamic' world; Shakib Arslan mentions this fact in one of his letters to Rasheed Reda; Shakib Arslan mentions that the Saudi king donated large sums of money to Rasheed Reda to help him settle his debts. 
6- Because Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud commissioned Rasheed Reda to spread Wahabism in Egypt, Rasheed Reda was financed by him; hence, financial matters/topics were involved with the political and religious ones within their conversations and exchanged letters.  
Thirdly: Rasheed Reda attacked and criticized Al-Azhar because it hated Wahabism at the time:
  When some Sufi-Sunnite Azharite sheikhs and clergymen attacked and criticized Wahabism, which was hated very much in Egypt at the time, Rasheed Reda faced and ridiculed them and refuted their views while accusing them of backwardness and stagnation; he writes: (... all branches of knowledge have widened in terms of disciplines and scope; in contrast, the Azharite people are still blindly following the footsteps and the books of the dead people of the Middle Ages; they never add, change, or sift through the books of the ancient authors; they hate to introduce the required and much-needed reform in order to revive and renew the glory of Islam and the Arabic language; this can be done only by those thinkers taught in foreigners-controlled schools in Arab countries and never by rigid, backward Azharite scholars who are merely blind imitators and will never be the introducers of new thought or new reformist ideas ...). Besides, Rasheed Reda criticized severely books of Christian Arab writers and figures of the literati class such as Gabr Domatt and Jurji Zaydan. 
Fourthly: the devotion of Rasheed Reda towards Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud until the last day of his life:
1- With the passage of time, the relation between Rasheed Reda and Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud grew stronger; he admired the Saudi king very much that he gave him the title: (the sword of Sunna and guidance of the good, holy ancestors); in his turn, Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud admired Rasheed Reda very much; he repeatedly heaped praise on him in public, describing him as an unparalleled scholar of theology and Islam, as no one will find a more learned, erudite man all over the 'Islamic' world. Rasheed Reda wrote that he must support Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud who fought against fabrications and myths which have nothing to do with Islam and that he can never exaggerate in singing his praises as the Saudi king has served 'Islam' in the best and unprecedented ways. 
2- The devotion of Rasheed Reda to Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud continued until the death of Rasheed Reda; the story of his death shows how deep the relation between both men was. The prince Saud, the first-born son of Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud, visited Egypt in 1935 A.D./ 1354 A.H. and Rasheed Reda met with him in private (in the morning of the day when the prince would leave Egypt to return to the KSA) to give him many pieces of advice and tell him his views regarding many issues; Rasheed insisted on accompanying the prince in the car on his way to Suez (where the prince would take the ship to Jeddah) to see him off; he returned to Cairo within the same day; at the time, the roads were not easy; on his way back to Cairo, Rasheed Reda was dizzy because of the movement of the car and had bouts of vomiting and he suddenly died. Thus, the last message within the relation between both men was a telegram addressed by Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud to the family of Rasheed Reda: (... We offer you our sincere condolences; his loss is mourned by all Muslims all over the world, for he was the greatest sheikh of Islam of our era; may the Lord God grant you and us patience to bear with this loss ... We implore the Lord God to make him enter into Paradise ...).  
CHAPTER II: The Role of Hafiz Wahba
  Hafiz Wahba was the number one among the top ten consultants of the Saudi king Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud; this is linked to several factors: (1) he was an Egyptian man who was a former disciple of M. Abdou (but he rejected his reformist school of thought later on like Rasheed Reda), (2) he was an eloquent speaker and he mastered the English language, and (3) he had contacts and connections with very important figures inside and outside Egypt. Indeed, Wahba was the tutor of the princes Saud and Feisal, the sons of the Saudi king, and he taught them all about politics; he was the guide and valued companion of the prince Saud whenever he visited Egypt; he was also the guide and valued companion of the prince Feisal inside Britain. In fact, the influence and assistance of Wahba within the endeavors to establish the KSA entails an entire book. Wahba coordinated everything between the Saudi king and Rasheed Reda and other Wahabi agents inside Egypt; Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud consulted him regarding almost everything; he was the powerful man behind curtains. We confine our words here about how the shrewd Wahba managed to help the Saudi king to avoid the negative results of the incident of the last Kiswah caravan coming from Egypt to Hejaz. Wahba played an invaluable role in the life of the Saudi king who was illiterate and no one (apart from Arabians) could easily hold conversations/negotiations with him because of his Bedouin dialect. Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud was intelligent and shrewd enough to depend on several consultants who had different cultural backgrounds, chief among them was Wahba, of course.  
Firstly: the role of Hafiz Wahba in avoiding the negative impact of the incident of the Kiswah caravan:
Introduction: about the incident of the Kiswah caravan:
1- For centuries, Egypt used to send the Kiswah (i.e., black drapes embroidered with golden and silver threads) of the Kaaba within an annual official and popular festival celebrated by music, dancing, and singing within the streets of Cairo. This indicates that the Hejaz region was controlled by the sultans of Egypt. Such Kiswah festival dates back to the Mameluke Era in Egypt; an official institution wove the Kiswah and sent it, protected by military leaders and soldiers and the Mameluke prince of pilgrimage (or Hajj) along with a delegation of fiqh scholars and musicians, within a caravan that carried also Waqfs money and a huge load of goods and food items given to the dwellers of Mecca and Yathreb who depended on such gifts for their livelihood; at the time, the Mamelukes ruled the Levant, and another caravan that carried a load of goods and food items was sent from the deputies of the Mameluke sultans there; this Levantine caravan stopped when the Ottomans conquered the Levant; the Egyptian Kiswah caravan continued for centuries.  
2- After the establishment of the first Saudi State and when the Saudi prince conquered and annexed Hejaz, he sent an impolite letter to the Ottoman sultan Selim III (who was enthroned from 1789 to 1807 A.D.) which included this paragraph: (... We have conquered Mecca and assured its dwellers that their lives, money, and possessions are secure and protected, after we destroyed all features of paganism and polytheism there ... You are to prevent the governor of the Levant and the governor of Egypt from sending to the Holy City of Mecca the caravans that have musicians and musical instruments; such pagan habits have nothing to do with Islam ...).  
3- When Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud conquered Mecca and controlled pilgrimage by the help of the savage and brutal Najd Brothers who fought for him to annex more regions to his nascent kingdom, he suddenly and unexpectedly faced the problem of the Egyptian Kiswah caravan. The Wahabi Najd Brothers controlled Mecca, even during the presence of Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud inside it, and the clash was bound to occur between them and the military troops of Egypt that protected the Kiswah caravan that reached Mecca annually as was the habit for centuries. 
4- The narratives about the Kiswah caravan incident varied in its details; the summary of it is that the Najd Brothers were surprised that the Egyptian caravan entered into Mecca headed by musicians who paled their musical instruments, and the Najd Brothers attacked the caravan men, and the Egyptian military troops had to defend themselves by shooting at the aggressors; when Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud heard of this incident, he hurriedly came and separated both parties so as not to let the matter exacerbate and aggravate; he feared to provoke the fury of Egypt whose troops destroyed the first Saudi State in 1818 A.D.   
5- We provide more details about the incident of Kiswah caravan in the points below.
Firstly: the historical narrative of Kheir-Eddine Al-Zarkeley:
 In his book titled "Arabia in the Reign of King Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud", Al-Zarkeley mentions in p. 661 that Hafiz Wahba spend 18 years of his life (1934 - 1952) in the service of Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud as his consultant, representing him in Egypt in all occasions, and he helped him solve several political problems on the diplomatic level; Wahba mentioned that the Saudi king never talked about Egypt, in public or in private, unless within the assurance of his eagerness to have excellent and cordial relation with Egypt and the Egyptians. At first, Wahba mentioned, the Saudi kingdom and the Egyptian kingdom were within disaccord and no diplomatic ties existed between them. The Kiswah caravan incident in the pilgrimage season of 1926 A.D./ 1344 A.H. deepened the disagreement between both countries. When some Saudis threw stones and pebbles at the musicians who headed the caravan and the Egyptian troops had to defend the caravan by shooting at them as per orders of the prince of pilgrimage Mahmoud Azmy Pacha, Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud ran to stop this horrid scene from going on by shouting several times: "I'm Abdul-Aziz!", and luckily, no bullets harmed him; he restored order, as per the words of some eye-witnesses. Yet, Wahba mentioned, once the news of this incident reached King Fouad of Egypt, he was furious and his hatred towards the Saudi king increased as he felt that the Saudis have insulted Egypt; he decided never to send the Kiswah caravan (and its money and goods) anymore to Hejaz. Prince Saud was sent to Egypt to try to solve the problem and to appease the fury of the Egyptian King in his royal palace, but in vain; the diplomatic ties remained ruptured. 
 The decision of the Egyptian government: It was proposed to the Egyptian Cabinet in Cairo in 1345 A.H./1927 A.D. that the government should never send the Kiswah caravan to Hejaz anymore; Egyptian pilgrims were warned of possible dangers; they would travel to Hejaz at their own peril and bear full responsibility of their own safety; they were hated by Wahabis there; of course, the Egyptian government did not send delegations of pilgrims within formal travels to Hejaz within the last years of the rule of King Fouad; only the rich Egyptians went there individually on their own without being protected by the Egyptian government. Both Egypt and the KSA severed all diplomatic ties for a long duration; yet, as King Fouad was in his deathbed, the manager of his royal palace advised him to issue a decree to resume negotiations between Egypt and the KSA to please the Egyptians who desired to perform pilgrimage and to please the Lord God; King Fouad agreed. King Fouad died in 1355 A.H./ 1936 A.D., and eventually, the ice between Egypt and the KSA was broken; a treaty of friendship was made and applied between both countries in Nov. 1936.     
Secondly: parts of the Cairo-based Al-Ahram newspaper article by the late Egyptian historian Dr. Yunan Labeeb Rizq: 
  (...  Readers of Al-Ahram issue of 24th of June, 1926, read a piece of news that annoyed them a lot; within the headline "A Battle in Hejaz between the Military Troops of the Kiswah Caravan and the Najdi Troops", news came regarding one Egyptian officer and three Egyptian soldiers injured and 25 Najdi persons died in a clash between Egyptians and Wahabis. This issue of Al-Ahram has published the text of a telegram sent by the prince of pilgrimage, Mahmoud Azmy Pacha, to the Ministry of Interior and, at the same time, the text of the complaint of the kingdom of Hejaz and the sultanate of Najd sent to the Egyptian authorities. The telegram mentions that a group of Bedouins attacked the Egyptian Kiswah caravan by throwing pebbles and shooting bullets, while calling the Egyptians as 'polytheistic infidels' who adored musical instruments, and the troops defended the caravan by their cannons and guns, and some of the Bedouin aggressors were killed; three Egyptian soldier and one officer were slightly injured by pebbles thrown at them; many camels of the caravan were killed by the bullets; official letters were exchanged between the prince of pilgrimage and the ruler Ibn Saud; the Egyptian Ministry of Defense was notified in detail about this incident ... These are the details of the incident: the Egyptian Kiswah caravan reached Jeddah and camped as usual near Mecca; upon entering into the Holy City, while musicians played their musical military march, the Najdi Arabs protested against the music as they assume it is prohibited in Islam, especially near the Kaaba; a crowd of Bedouins gathered and threw pebbles and shot bullets; the Egyptian troops that guarded the caravan had to defend it by shooting their guns and cannons ... The prince Saud asked his father, the king Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud, for more reinforcement troops to stop the Bedouins from attacking the caravan ... Sadly, 25 Najdi persons and about 40 camel were killed; the Saudi king came to the location of the incident and tried to appease the Najdi people that remained and delivered a speech to them, reminding them of the enormity of the sin of committing acts of violence inside Mecca; he said he will defend the Kiswah caravan and all pilgrims with his own life if he has to, and the Najdi people felt shocked by his stance and remained silent and motionless; the Kiswah caravan continued its way in silence while being guarded by Saudi soldiers of the king; no clashes occurred at all after that. This is the Egyptian side of the narrative about this incident ... The Saudi complaint of the king and ruler of Najd mentions the Najdi side of the narrative, asserting that the Egyptian troops unjustifiably fired their guns and cannons and they had no excuse at all and they never had to defend themselves against anyone as they were never attacked (!) ... We mention some details of the history of the Kiswah caravan and then some political circumstances that resulted in this clash ... Dr. Fouad Al-Mawy in his book about the financial and economic relations between Egypt and Hejaz mentions lots of details about the financial burden of Egypt during the Ottoman Era as Egypt spent on the Hejaz region and provided food and goods for it as well as the annual Kiswah of the Kaaba that reached Mecca in the annual caravan heavily guarded by Egyptian troops: about 500 soldiers and some military leaders in normal years; in years of wars and turmoil, the troops comprised 2000 soldiers; this is not to mention the costs of rest-houses and castles in the routes of pilgrims and bribes given to Arabian tribes to protect and not to raid such locations ... The Kiswah was very expensive and the Egyptian Treasury paid for its making and its shipping; its black silk pieces of cloth were typically embroidered with gold and silver threads and encrusted with precious stones; it took six months to weave it in Cairo; the Kiswah caravan also carried crops and food items annually to feed dwellers of Mecca and Yathreb and pilgrims; the caravan moved in a ship from Suez to Jeddah; bags of money were also shipped to be sent to the princes of Mecca and Yathreb of Al-Sharif family members; the head of the Egyptian military troops that defended the Kiswah caravan had the titled "the prince of pilgrimage" ... The Kiswah caravan left Cairo annually within a huge procession of popular festivals of singing, dancing, and music ... Dr. Layla Abdel-Latif in her book about the Egyptian society during the Ottoman Era gives a portrayal of the grand festivals of the Kiswah caravan as it left Cairo every month of Shawwal of the Hijri calendar; all shops in the route of the caravan were decorated and women trilled and ululated in joy while all dwellers of Cairo gathered to watch the processions of festivities of dancing, singing, and music that accompanied the movement of the caravan; the caravan would reach the Cairo Citadel to meet with the military leaders and troops which will join them and receive the victuals and money that will be sent to Hejaz along with the Kiswah of the Kaaba ... We move now from history to politics; several issues of Al-Ahram newspaper mention the fact that Mahmoud Azmy Pacha, a former Defense Minister, was appointed as the prince of pilgrimage by the royal decree in 1344 A.H. and he led troops that guarded the Kiswah caravan: 20 officers, 422 infantry soldiers, 300 cavaliers, 5 doctors, 2 vets, and an overseer appointed by the Egyptian royal palace, as well as enough amounts of ammunitions, cannons, and guns plus the musicians with their musical instruments ... When the Kiswah caravan moved through the streets of Cairo, cannons fired 21 times in its honor; Quran reciters recited the Quran in the streets, and the King of Egypt, long with ministers and members of the royal family sat at special tables along with Al-Azhar scholars, wealthy merchants, and high-rank officials; sweet meats and drinks were distributed for free among the dwellers of Cairo ... His Majesty the King of Egypt endorsed the plan of the journey of the Kiswah caravan from Cairo to Suez, and then to Jeddah, Mecca, and Yathreb; yet, this royal plan was not executed because of radical political changes that took place in Hejaz; six months before the incident of the Kiswah caravan, in Jan. 1926, Al-Sharif Hussein, ruler of Hejaz and prince of Mecca, was defeated by the Wahabi Najd Brothers who formed the troops of Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud, ruler and prince of Najd, and this made Wahabis, who are religious extremists, invade and control the whole of the Hejaz region; this new regime tried to allay the fears of Egyptians and Muslims worldwide within a telegram published in Al-Ahram newspaper in April 1926, reassuring everyone about the freedom and security of pilgrims in Yathreb and in Mecca within the Holy Land; the telegram urged readers never to take heed of rumors spread by the enemies of Al-Saud royal family; Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud assured everyone that he will secure all pilgrimage rituals. Yet, there are reasons to suppose that he was not happy, and was very embarrassed, to receive the Egyptian Kiswah caravan which was heavily guarded with the Egyptian troops; its presence lessened his authority/power and challenged Wahabi habits, because Wahabis assume that music and smoking are prohibited in Islam. Another reason was that Egypt typically paid former rulers of Hejaz (i.e., enemies of Al-Saud) annual sums of money; this is why attacking the Egyptian Kiswah caravan in Mecca was hardly surprising ... When the caravan reached Jeddah, it headed for the Egyptian consulate there and the troops saluted the Egyptian flag and the King of Egypt; they searched for camels to reach Mecca; the attack by Najdi Bedouins were unexpected; the Egyptian government sent its written protests to the embassy of Hejaz in Cairo; accusations of unjustified shooting with guns and cannons were refuted; the Egyptian troops had to defend themselves; the Egyptian government demanded a diplomatic settlement of this dispute ... Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud offered his apologies and promised to tighten diplomatic ties with Egypt; he assured the King of Egypt that all Egyptian pilgrims are welcome and will be helped by the Saudi authorities; he requested that no Kiswah caravans should be sent ever again from Egypt ... The public opinion in Egypt regarding this horrible incident was expressed in several newspapers, especially the ones owned by political parties such as Al-Wafd Party. Many journalists ridiculed and mocked the Najd Bedouins for their savagery and uncivilized manners; they reminded readers that the Hejaz dwellers might have died of hunger if it had not been for the Egyptian Kiswah caravan that carried money, victuals, and goods; they reminded readers that the Holy Land in Hejaz belong to the whole Muslim world; one newspaper reminded the readers that the prince of Najd sent a letter earlier to the Egyptian government to advise the King of Egypt not to send the Kiswah caravan, but no Egyptian response came at all; some traditionalists wrote few articles that the Wahabis of Najd adhered more rigorously to faith tenets than the Egyptians; they quoted hadiths that prohibit music (!). Some newspapers (owned by Levantine Christians and Jews who immigrated to Egypt) never tackled the incident of the caravan because this was deemed as a religious issue and they desired to keep away from stirring more trouble ... Mahmoud Azmy Pacha expressed in a telegram that he feared the love of Bedouins for vendetta and it is for them more important than their dear life; taking revenge for themselves is in the second place of importance for them after religion, and this is why he did not go to Yathreb by land and preferred to return to Jeddah at once after the incident of the Kiswah caravan and to take the ship to the Arabian port of Yanba' and then to Yathreb to avoid the Najdi Bedouins; he got the approval of the Egyptian government and the Saudi ruler for this idea, as per the report written later on by this last Egyptian prince of pilgrimage; the Saudi ruler insisted that Mahmoud Azmy Pacha will not fire cannons in Yathreb to salute the Egyptian troops and will never allow the musicians to play their instruments so as not to provoke the ire of Wahabis there; both requests were refused; the Wahabis of Yathreb protested against cannons and music and insisted that cars hired by the Egyptians frighten their camels! Hafiz Wahba, the consultant of the Saudi king, advised Mahmoud Azmy Pacha to leave Yathreb in the same day to avoid stirring more trouble and to head straight to Jeddah; Mahmoud Azmy Pacha wrote that some of the high-rank men of his troops were taken seriously ill and he had to change the course of the journey; several newspapers mentioned that this was not true, as this was rumor made to spread to avoid embarrassment and so as not to rupture diplomatic ties with the Saudi king ... Eventually, the caravan entered Cairo ten days earlier than the expected date; the typical festivals were held as usual, and people felt that this is the last time they will attend such festivals; the Egyptian government announced officially that it will no longer send Kiswah, merchandise/goods, victuals, money, and food and beverages to the Hejaz region, despite doing so throughout the Ottoman Era; the report of Mahmoud Azmy Pacha about this last journey got published in Al-Ahram newspaper; he advised the Egyptian government to save it’s the annual sum (about L.E. 31,000) as he is no longer sure that the poorer classes in Hejaz would receive anything within the new regime established there ... This was the story of the last Egyptian Kiswah caravan; the era of sending it and appointing a "prince of pilgrimage" was over; the Egyptian pilgrims went there in the pilgrimage season and their journey was headed by a high-rank governmental employee who had no titles at all  ...).
The Kiswah caravan and the crisis of Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud with Egypt:
1- As per Al-Zarkeley in his book titled "Arabia in the Reign of King Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud", after the Saudi/Wahabi conquest of Hejaz and after the spread of the news about the massacre of Al-Ta'if, Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud was apprehensive about the stance of Egypt whose most people hated Wahabism very much; the Kiswah caravan incident made him feel afraid because the Egyptian King was furious and this might have posed a threat to the nascent Saudi kingdom. The Saudi king never forgot that the Egyptian troops of M. Ali Pacha destroyed the first Saudi State in 1818 A.D.
2- Al-Zarkeley mentions that after conquering and annexing Mecca and before conquering and annexing Jeddah, during its siege while the son of Al-Sharif Hussein was inside it, as he retreated to it after his earlier defeat, Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud called for holding a conference in 1925 in Mecca during the pilgrimage season by inviting representatives of all kings and rulers of Muslims and Arabs, and heads of Islamic institutions and centers, to discuss the issues of reforming and ameliorating the conditions of Hejaz and pilgrimage. Ironically, Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud received no response from any of the invitees and the conference was never held.
3- Al-Zarkeley writes that Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud renewed his invitation for holding a conference in Mecca in 1926 A.D. during the pilgrimage season to discuss the affairs of Hejaz and pilgrimage; some people from some countries arrived and some others refused; of course, the King of Egypt refused to attend and adamantly refused to send any representatives of Egypt; this deepened the rupture between Egypt and the Saudi kingdom; the conference had no recommendations or decisions; participants in it kept disputing over many issues and problems and nothing was solved. Of course, Rasheed Reda attended this conference and met with his master, Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud, for the very first time. The Egyptian King refused to acknowledge the Saudi conquest of Hejaz; yet, the liberal epoch in Egypt allowed Rasheed Reda to attend this conference without representing Egypt. This means that Rasheed Reda knew about the Kiswah caravan incident that took place in the same year during pilgrimage; Rasheed Reda participated actively in the conference activities though he contracted a fever.    
4- Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud readily sent his first-born son, Saud, to Egypt along with Hafiz Wahba to settle matters peacefully with Egypt after the incident of the Kiswah caravan, but the endeavors of Saud and Wahba were not successful; Al-Zarkeley writes: (... Although King Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud sent his son, the Prince Saud, to Egypt in 1926 A.D./ 1346 A.H. to appease the Egyptian royal place and to try to settle matters with Egypt, the gap between Egypt and the Saudi kingdom widened ...).
5- The journey of Saud Ibn Abdul-Aziz to Egypt widened the gap between the Saudi king and the Najd Brothers who helped him establish his kingdom and to annex Hejaz; they apparently felt that their master and leader, Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud, sided with Egypt during the Kiswah caravan incident and he tried hard to please and appease the Egyptians and he never cared about the Wahabi side at all; the Wahabi Najd Brothers considered Egypt as a country of Sufi polytheists; as per Wahabi tenets, it is prohibited to befriend and to ally oneself to the polytheists/disbelievers (i.e., all non-Wahabis).   
6- It is noteworthy that during Saud's visit to Egypt, Wahba advised him to appeal to the religious and emotional nature of the Egyptians by going against the Wahabi tenets by visiting and worshiping at the mausoleums/mosques of Al-Shafei and Al-Hussein in Cairo, and Saud was about to do so, but he did not, because Rasheed Reda (who returned to Egypt after the conference of Hejaz) sent a letter to the Saudi king to warn him against allowing Saud to worship at mausoleums of Cairo so as not to give the Najd Brothers a chance to make more trouble and accuse the Saudi king of violating the Wahabi teachings. The Saudi king secretly sent a letter to his son to prevent such a visit to the Cairene mausoleums (see the book titled "The Saudis and the Islamic Solution", by Jalal Kishk, p. 540-541). To clarify this point, we are to tackle the years before this visit of Saud to Egypt to give an overview about the clash and disagreement between Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud and his Najd Brothers before and after the Kiswah caravan incident.     
The Kiswah caravan and the crisis of Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud with the Najd Brothers:
1- Once Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud contacted the British and felt the vital importance of such contact for the future of his kingdom, the gap widened between the political necessities and Wahabi strict teachings; the Wahabi sheikhs/clergymen and their disciples were furious and began their clash with the Saudi king. This was first expressed in the conference of Wahabi scholars in 1919 A.D., which tackled religious issues but for the political purpose of telling the Saudi king that they must share the rule of the kingdom with him because their swords helped him establish it. Within the 1st conference of Al-Artaweiyya in 1924, headed by the leader of the Najd Brothers, Feisal Al-Daweesh, to convince Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud to conquer Hejaz soon and to stop the long period of planning such a conquest, Al-Daweesh tried to appear as a better Wahabi than Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud; when the Saudi king agreed to conquer Hejaz at once to please them, they committed the massacre of Al-Ta'if; news of such a heinous crime reached the newspapers of Egypt, the Levant, and Iran; Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud had to send telegrams (signed by his son, the prince Feisal) to such newspapers to protest against publishing 'fake', 'exaggerated' news. Hafiz Wahba, his Egyptian consultant, sent a letter signed by the Saudi king that he ensured the security and safety of all civilians and their possessions. 
2- So as not to aggravate matters, Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud decided to prevent the Najd Brothers from committing any massacres as the world changed because of the media that would expose everything, unlike the case during the era of the first Saudi State that was destroyed in 1818 A.D. Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud decided to siege the cities of Jeddah, Yathreb, and Mecca instead of attacking them so that he would force the dwellers of Hejaz to negotiate surrendering their cities instead of fighting. Al-Daweesh led the troops heading to Yathreb and he and his men massacred and looted a village near Yathreb and he intended to use cannons to strike Yathreb and kill off its dwellers; Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud prevented such evil plans and he later on dismissed Al-Daweesh from his post as a military leader; he was replaced by Mohamed Ibn Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud; i.e., one of the sons of the Saudi king. Negotiations of surrendering Yathreb without fighting ended in Dec. 1925, and Al-Daweesh was furious for being rejected by Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud and he went to Al-Artaweiyya citadel and he delivered speeches against the Saudi king for preventing him from killing off the 'infidels'.  
3- After annexing Hejaz, the political aims of Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud were fulfilled and he no longer needed the Najd Brothers; he could no longer bear patiently with the troubles they cause; he decided to depend on modern systems to cope with the modern world but without expecting any protest from anyone; protecting his nascent, spacious kingdom entailed modern weaponry and techniques and the Najd Brothers will never cope with such modernization. The Saudi king decided to send them back to the Najd region after giving them large financial rewards, stretches of land, and shares of spoils. They refused because they desired more battles to annex more regions and to spread Wahabism through military 'jihad'. They never realized that the international scene and Britain will never allow them to annex more regions; they have reached the borders allowed by Britain and the international powers at the time. The Najd Brothers resented very much the fact that Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud treated the British 'infidels' kindly and respectfully and he did the same with 'polytheists' from Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, the Levant, and Hejaz, and also because he sent his son, Saud, to Cairo, Egypt, and his son, Feisal, to London.
4- The incident of the Kiswah caravan made Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud realize the importance of sending the Najd Brothers back to Najd so as not to allow them to cause more troubles in Hejaz which had its diversity of cultures and people; besides, centuries-old, deep-seated enmity between Hejaz and Najd cannot be forgotten; the Najd Brothers treated the dwellers of Hejaz with contempt because of this enmity. Of course, the 2nd conference of Al-Artaweiyya focused on the incident of the Kiswah caravan among other issues.  
5- The 2nd conference of Al-Artaweiyya in Dec. 1926 was held directly once Saud went to Egypt; Al-Daweesh prepared this conference without inviting Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud to it; the Najd Brothers were angry because their king allied himself to the 'infidels' of Egypt and Britain. This conference was attended by tribal leaders of Mateer, Otaybah, and Ajman; all of them criticized Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud for (1) sending his son, Saud, to the Egyptian capital, Cairo, and his other son, Feisal, to the British capital, London, as both Egypt and Britain were deemed by the Wahabis as the countries of 'infidels' and 'polytheists', (2) allowing the Egyptian Kiswah caravan to enter into Mecca despite the fact that its men carried arms/weapons and musical instruments, (3) the use of 'devilish' inventions of the 'infidels' such as telephones, cars, and telegraphs, (4) never allowing trade with Kuwait; for those Wahabis, if the Kuwaitis were Muslims, trading with them is OK and should not be prevented; if they were infidels, they must be fought to annex their region to the kingdom, (5) imposing heavy taxes on the people of Najd and issuing man-made laws, (6) never forcing Shiites of Al-Ahsa and Al-Qatif to embrace 'Islam' (i.e., Wahabism), and (7) allowing the Bedouins in the south of Iraq and Transjordan to make their animals graze in areas ruled by 'Muslims'.        
6- The political opposition of the Wahabi Najd Brothers developed within several conferences; armed rebellion ensued as they fought against their king; eventually, the Saudi king managed to get rid of the Najd Brothers forever as his mercenary troops (and the British troops) defeated them in the battle of Sabilla 1929-1930 A.D.; Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud ruled his kingdom alone as an absolutist ruler; he gave his kingdom the name of his family (i.e., the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia or the KSA) in 1932 A.D.  
 The incident of the last Kiswah caravan reaching Mecca from Cairo, Egypt, caused the very first public clash between Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud and his Wahabi Najd Brothers; he thought of the vital importance of establishing another group of Brothers to serve him inside Egypt (i.e., the terrorist MB organization) who would reach power one day, help spread Wahabism, and turn Egypt into the strategic depth of the Saudi State. In order to allow such political changes to take place in Egypt, he financed the establishment of many Salafist/Wahabis groups, centers, and organizations whose mission is to turn Egyptians gradually from Sunnite Sufism to Wahabism. This is why Rasheed Reda was the most important agent of the Saudi State; another important figure for Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud was his Egyptian consultant Hafiz Wahba who arranged for the reception of an unknown Egyptian journalist into the Saudi State to bribe him to write a propaganda book about king Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud and his kingdom in order to remove the negative effect of the incident of the last Kiswah caravan coming from Egypt. Within the lines below, we tackle the book of this unknown Egyptian journalist brought by Hafiz Wahba, the shrewd consultant who masterminded this theatrical show behind curtains.  
The unknown Egyptian journalist brought by Hafiz Wahba: his journey and his book: preparing a grand reception for this journalist by Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud:
1- In order to avoid the negative impact of the Kiswah caravan incident and to beautify the very hideous face of Wahabism and the Wahabi/Saudi ruler who conquered Hejaz, the shrewd consultant Hafiz Wahba invited an unknown Egyptian journalist to write articles about the Saudi king and kingdom to be published in Egyptian newspapers (and this series of articles appeared in a book form later on, titled "Inside the Heart of Najd and Hejaz"). This unknown Egyptian journalist was M. Shafiq Mustafa; he was never known for anything outstanding but this book of articles about Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud and his kingdom; we conclude, then, that several famous, prominent journalists and writers inside Egypt refused this mission when contacted by Wahba.
2- Even the Arabic style of writing of this unknown Egyptian journalist is very bad; he mentions wrong information and appellations and he heaps praise and words of flattery on the Saudi king in an unprecedented manner  – no respectable journalist during this liberal epoch in Egypt would do that. This unknown Egyptian journalist apparently plays the role of a traveler; yet, he has never written any dates (i.e., the days, months, and year) of the beginning, end, and movements of his journey within Najd and Hejaz; this is silly; as if he wrote this book only to amuse himself like those who write undated diaries that never get published.    
3- This series of articles within the book titled "Inside the Heart of Najd and Hejaz" was published soon enough in Cairo, Egypt. We provide more details in the points below.
Who is the journalist M. Shafiq Mustafa?:
1- We have never found any (auto)biography of M. Shafiq Mustafa; because of his being unknown, we assume he readily accepted this well-paid mission when contacted by Hafiz Wahba; we draw our own conclusions about his character, circumstances, views, etc. from what he writes in the introduction to the book titled "Inside the Heart of Najd and Hejaz".  
2- We quote from p. 7: (... I seek help and aid only from the Almighty Lord God Allah ... I cannot deny that I knew very little about Arabia - like most educated Egyptian men - until I met last summer with his excellence the Crown-Prince Saud Ibn Abdul-Aziz, whose father is King Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud of Najd and Hejaz ... The only thing I knew was that Arabia and Egypt share the one religion of Islam like all Arab countries ...).
2/1: He never mentions the date of the beginning of his journey, and he merely mentions his meeting with the prince Saud inside Egypt, without any details of the date, time, and location of such encounter.
2/2: The stress on the term (Arab) shows the sentiments of Pan-Arabism (or Arab nationalism) even before the emergence of the nationalistic ideology of Pan-Arabism of the Egyptian President Gamal Abdul-Nasser in 1954. At the time, the West named such region as the Orient or the East; by the way, it is silly that despite the fact that Pan-Arabism died with the death of Nasser in 1970 (and the union of Egypt and Syria failed miserably), Saddam Hussein of Iraq and Kaddafi of Libya adhered to it for a longer while; the Middle-East is the region of strange phenomena indeed! This journalist was never aware of the endeavors of spreading Wahabism in Egypt and elsewhere. 
3- We quote from p. 8: (... the Crown-Prince Saud Ibn Abdul-Aziz invited all Egyptian writers and thinkers to visit his kingdom, as they had little pieces of information about Arabia ...). This means that the prince Saud during his visit to Egypt urged thinkers to visit Arabia; no one cared for such an invitation; this made the journey of M. Shafiq Mustafa very important for the Saudi royal family. 
4- This journalist writes the following about the reasons for his journey: (... I dreamt since my childhood to be a traveler who writes about different regions ... I liked very much the fact that his excellence the Prince Saud and his retinue members were amazed by modern inventions in Cairo and its civilization; the Saudi wished that they can modernize Arabia in a similar manner ...). This means that he visited Najd when the Najd Brothers were still there; they refused all modern 'devilish' inventions (cars, telephones, motorcycles, etc.) and this caused much trouble to the Saud king; this journalist here spontaneously shows the contrast between the modernity of Egypt and the backwardness of Najd.
5- He writes further: (... The Saudi Prince was surprised by the buildings he saw in Cairo and admired the greatness of the ancient Egyptian civilization and the modern aspects of the Egyptian capital; he bought many items and things, which were new to him, from several markets and shops, and I accompanied him and his retinue members as a journalist ...).
5/1: This implies that this unknown journalist was introduced to the Saudi prince and his retinue; out of curiosity, he readily accepted the offer of the Saudi prince to accompany them in their moving about the streets, markets, and shops of Cairo. This means that Hafiz Wahba was behind all this; he even made the prince reject the Wahabi tenet of never to contact or deal with non-Wahabis, as this was a grave sin for Wahabis of Arabia at the time.
5/2: This paragraph shows that Saud was a spendthrift who spent money in an extravagant, irresponsible way; he bought everything that caught his attention in Cairene shops; of course, his extravagance increased when he became the king of the KSA after the death of his father Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud in 1953.
6- This journalist listened attentively, of course, to words of prince Saud and his retinue members about praising the Saudi king Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud: (... What made me readily accept this kind, generous invitation to visit Najd and Hejaz, within this very difficult journey, is what I have heard about the King Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud and how he wisely rules Arabian region and manages all political, social, and economic affairs, and how his subjects are very loyal and devoted to him as they (i.e., Bedouins of the desert and dwellers of cities) love and admire him very much ...). 
7- Briefly, he was an unknown Egyptian journalist within the liberal epoch in Egypt, when he, as well as other journalists at the time, of course, was given the freedom to write anything he chose. This unknown Egyptian journalist seized the chance to embark on this adventurous journey and the historical document he wrote is a good material for those historians/researchers like the writer of these lines. 
Plans before this journey and how such plans were implemented:
1- Of course, the only aim of such a journey is to make propaganda for Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud by writing about his 'achievements' which included providing and maintaining security inside Arabia especially in Hejaz (for pilgrims) and his preventing desert-Arabs and Bedouins from raiding and robbing any visitors or pilgrims. This journalist moved about inside Arabia in Bedouin garments and he rode a camel in the desert; he did not met with Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud directly at first; he had to spend days in Arabia to absorb the ambiance or atmosphere there before such encounter would take place. 
2- As per the commands of Hafiz Wahba and Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud, wherever this journalist went, people surrounded him and welcomed him warmly and generously as the guest of honor; the intention of this was to make him convey a great image of Arabia in his writings which will be published in Egypt. 
3- We quote from p. 9: (... I feel grateful for the success of my journey in Arabia because of the generosity and kindness of the Saudi King Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud (even before I actually met with him) and the tribal leaders inside Najd; the security measures are tightened inside Najd; peace and serenity reign supreme in the region of Najd now; my reaching the capital, Riyadh, coincided with the return of his majesty the Saudi king Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud from Hejaz ...).
3/1: Of course, the region of Najd (with its belligerent xenophobic Najd Brothers) intimidated foreigners, but this journalist asserts that Najd was a safe region and its people were peaceful thanks to the strict security measures of the Saudi king Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud; this journalist admits here that the Saudi king commanded his being received as a guest of honor under his protection.  
3/2: Instead of mentioning the date of the beginning of the journey, this journalist marks its beginning with the event of the return of the Saudi king from Hejaz to his capital in Riyadh. It is as if his potential readers would know the day, month, and year of this event. 
How this unknown Egyptian journalist was celebrated during his stay in Arabia:
1- From p. 13: (... Once I reached the village of......, the first one within the Saudi kingdom after I passed the borders, I expressed my wish to the Saudi guards and servants who accompanied me that I should visit the capital of Najd and meet with tribal leaders there; soon enough, a caravan of five camels was prepared for me and the guards and servants ...).
2- From p. 14: (... The tribal leader....... welcomed me inside his tent of reception and he wore his sword as he sat on a divan, surrounded by his retinue members; his servants poured the special Najd coffee to me; he proposed that I stay several days as his guest of honor, but I politely refused so as to visit other locations in Najd ...).
3- From p. 15: (... During the congregational prayers, the men around me who knew that I'm an Egyptian man supplicated to God and implored him to bless Egypt and its King Fouad; this compliment made me forget the fatigue of the journey and it touched my heart very much; indeed, Islam is the strong bond that united all Arab and Muslim nations ...).
4- From p. 17: (... Once I reached Al-Jouf, its prince........ and his retinue members greeted and received me warmly at the gates of Al-Jouf as the guest of honor protected by his majesty the Saudi king Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud; I stayed several days as per the invitation of the prince of Al-Jouf who insisted upon it ...).
5- From p. 21: (... Within the seventh day of my visit, I visited the town of.......with its white-brick small houses; I and my guards settled there for some time to have some rest; the dwellers of this town celebrated my presence and asked about my name ...).
6- From p. 21: (... We were miles from Hael, and its prince........ was the paternal uncle's son of the Saudi king Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud; he received me warmly at the gates of Hael and celebrated my arrival ...).
7- From p. 24: (... Upon entering the palace of the prince of Hael, a special wing for guests was prepared for me as the guest of honor, and several servants attended upon me ... The prince of Hael was a very powerful man, after the Saudi King Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud of course ...).
8- From p. 26: (... Arriving at Brida, the Prince of Brida......... readily received me at its gates, assuring to me that I am very welcome as the guest of honor protected by the Saudi King Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud himself; the kindness and generosity of the Prince towards me as a guest in his palace cannot be described in words ...).
9- From p. 29: (... Once news came that his majestic the Saudi King Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud arrived from Hejaz to Riyadh, for the first time after he annexed Hejaz to his kingdom, I decided to speedily travel to Riyadh to attend the royal reception party there ...).
10- From p. 31: (... The Saudi King knew of my arrival, as he sent his representative to receive me at the gates of Riyadh; we walked until we reached the royal palace ... Once the King Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud saw me, he welcomed me warmly and talked to me as if we were old friends; he asked me if I had a pleasant journey in the previous days and he kindly approved of our desire to visit as many regions in Arabia as possible to write about them; he made me stay in a very special, spacious house as his guest of honor ... Plans were arranged for my tour around Riyadh, the capital of Najd, in order to gather material for my articles, especially about fighting the Hashemites in Hejaz ... I met with several dignitaries, princes, consultants, and tribal leaders ...).
11- From p. 39: (... I was invited to the wedding party of the princess Sarah, the daughter of King Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud, who got married to her paternal uncle's son the Prince..... ...).
12- From p. 56: (... Upon leaving Riyadh, I was accompanied by dignitaries such as............ and the servants who carried the royal gift for the Egyptian Crown-Prince Farooq: four Arabian horses that will be shipped to Egypt soon enough before my leaving Arabia ...). 
Why was there such grand reception of such an unknown Egyptian journalist?:
 Such grand reception and celebration of such an unknown Egyptian journalist indicate that Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud used him as a propagandist who would write good articles about Arabia and the Saudis; the interview between him and the Saudi king is of course filled with messages to the Egyptian press intended for the Egyptian readers; the gift sent for the Egyptian Crown-Prince Farooq aimed at removing the negative impact of the Kiswah caravan incident. The Saudi king desired that the Egyptians would forget about such insult and about the conquest of Hejaz and the massacre of Al-Ta'if so that the Egyptians would admire the Saudi regime and Wahabism later on. The Saudi king was not that intelligent to plan hiring an Egyptian journalist to defend Wahabism and Saudis during the liberal epoch of Egypt; this plan was masterminded by Hafiz Wahba, for sure. This journey was at the lowest cost possible: no cars, no plans, and no hotels; the journalist would sleep in any palace or house and eat from whatever food already there. The cost of this propaganda was very little; yet, Abdul-Aziz gained a lot by the articles (grouped in a book later on) of such an unknown journalist which created the desired type of propaganda needed by him inside Egypt. This paved the way to make Egyptians accept the existence of the KSA as the protector of Mecca or the whole of the Hejaz region and gradually accept Wahabism (under the name of Sunna and Salafism) later on.   
Messages of Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud to the Egyptians through this unknown Egyptian journalist:
 The Saudi king Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud and his two sons, the princes Saud and Feisal, were interviewed by this unknown Egyptian journalist and they conveyed messages of 'love' intended for the Egyptians and their journalism. They knew that the term (Wahabism) was still very much hated by Egyptians who were horrified by news of the massacre of Al-Ta'if. This unknown Egyptian journalist swallowed the bait by the grand reception and celebration he received in Arabia; he was convinced that he conveyed something 'truthful' to his Egyptian readers. We provide more details in the points below.
When this unknown Egyptian journalist met with prince Feisal:
  From p. 57: (... At night, I arrived at the gates of Mecca; the first thing I made was to circle the Kaaba seven times and to walk seven times between Mount Al-Safa and Mount Al-Marwa; this is required from all those who arrive to Mecca for the first time. The high-rank officials of the Saudi government there prepared a very special house for me. In the very next day, I met with his excellence the Prince Feisal who was the ruler of Hejaz in the name of his father, his majesty the Saudi King Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud, and he was an eloquent, kind-hearted prince; he praised Egypt, the Egyptians, the Egyptian press, and the Egyptian King Fouad and Crow-Prince Farooq very much and expressed his love, respect, and admiration of Egypt ...). Such flattery was intended to appeal to the Egyptians and their King and Crown-Prince, of course. From p. 62: (... Because his majesty the Saudi King Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud remained in Riyadh, in Najd, the Prince Feisal was the ruler of Hejaz now, deputized by his father the Saudi King ... Prince Feisal was 20 years old but very wise and eloquent; his journey in European capitals last summer managed to change the Europeans' negative views of Arabs and Arabia as a place and a nation who are more than willing to be civilized and modernized  ...). This journalist defends the Saudi conquest of Hejaz and assumes that Hejaz enjoys better conditions under the rule of prince Feisal. He heaps praise on prince Feisal and he indirectly criticizes the former ruler of Hejaz, Al-Sharif Hussein, who was defeated and was accused of allying himself to the British; the term "Arabia" in this book of the unknown Egyptian journalist meant Najd and Hejaz only at the time; the West looked down upon Arabia; it is as if Feisal managed within his meeting some European persons to change their views about Arabs and Arabia.    
When this unknown Egyptian journalist met with prince Saud:
  From p. 40: (... and his excellence the Prince Saud invited me to visit him in his palace ... and he told me that he shall never forget the pleasant days he spent in Egypt; he said that the Cairene people welcomed him warmly and celebrated his presence with their generosity and kindheartedness; he said that King Fouad of Egypt treated him with fatherly kindness; he said that he gave his thanks to the Egyptian journalists who proved their love of Islam and its people of Arabia; he wishes all the best for Egypt and the Egyptian nation; he sincerely hopes that Egypt and the Saudi Kingdom would have strong, cordial relations very soon one day ...). This is a message of 'love' towards Egypt indeed!
When this unknown Egyptian journalist met with king Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud for the first time and the warm welcome he received:
1- From p. 36: (... Within the first interview, his majesty the Saudi King Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud greeted me in a friendly way and made sure that I had a pleasant journey and safe arrival; he listened attentively when I talked about the fatigue of the journey and what I saw in several locations; he smiled at me several times ...). This means that the Saudi king wanted to make sure that this hired journalist was impressed very much by what he saw; he made sure everything was accordingly to his plan.
2- From p. 36: (... and his majesty began to talk to me as I pose my interview questions to him one by one ... and he said that the Saudi Kingdom has but one religion and one doctrine which is Hanbalism, which is for him the nearest doctrine to the Holy Sunna of our Holy Prophet Muhammad ... and he said that all Muslims are united with the bond of monotheism; the Saudis never desire rule and monarchy for the sake of transient gains of this world; rather, they aim to serve Islam and fight all signs of polytheism in Arabia; the Saudis never care about fighting non-Muslims; they seek to guide all people peacefully to Islam; yet, the Saudis never like foreigners coming to their regions and they dislike their habits and clothes ... real Muslims for him are those who abide by Sunna and fiqh rules and never imitate the ways of the foreigners and non-Arabs ...).
2/1: After being very much impressed for several days, this unknown Egyptian journalist was ready to believe the lies and falsehoods propagated by Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud in the interview; in fact, the Hanbali Sunnite religion/doctrine has nothing to do with tolerance and has nothing to do with the Quran. 
2/2: The words of the Saudi king indicate that Wahabis deem themselves as the only Muslims who monopolize the name of Islam and the 'right' to declare others as 'disbelievers', 'apostates', and 'infidels'.
2/3: This is the warped, twisted meaning of monotheism for Wahabis; i.e., to never imitate the ways of foreigners and non-Arabs! This journalist could never guess that non-Wahabi/non-Hanbali Muhammadans are deemed as 'disbelievers' and 'infidels' by Wahabi Sunnites.
When this unknown Egyptian journalist attended the council of king Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud with his chancellors and consultants:  
 The Saudi king manipulated and used this unknown Egyptian journalist as much as he liked; within attending the council with chancellors and consultants of the king, a Syrian newspaper was deliberately put before the eyes of this unknown Egyptian journalist that contained fake news of the governor Abdullah Abed leaving Mecca to mobilize troops to rebel against the Saudi king; this unknown Egyptian journalist was surprised because he saw that the loyal governor Abdullah Abed (to whom he was introduced) attended this council of chancellors and consultants of the Saudi king; this unknown Egyptian journalist criticized the Levantine press for publishing lies and scandalous falsehoods and praised the Egyptian press that never published unverified news; Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud, in his turn, heaped praise on the Egyptian press; he urged this unknown Egyptian journalist and the attendees of the council not to readily believe anything in the press unless they verify everything; this means that the Saudi king wanted to impress this unknown Egyptian journalist and to tell him indirectly that detailed news published about the massacre of Al-Ta'if may be untrue or exaggerated; the Saudi king desired to propagate himself and Saudis to the Egyptian nation and to defend himself at the same time by this prank played on this unknown Egyptian journalist.    
When this unknown Egyptian journalist interviews king Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud:
 Of course, we cannot be sure if this is the very first interview of Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud after he conquered Hejaz, but it is the first interview done while he was victorious; this interview is made by an unknown Egyptian journalist. Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud asserts in this interview his victory and his control over Hejaz and pilgrimage. We copy some of the passages of the interview in the points below; each passage is followed by our comment.
The interview and our comments on it:
1- (... I asked his majesty about the nature of Arabian people; he told me that most Bedouins lead a Spartan lifestyle and their being very religious, harsh, and doubtful concerning strangers should not alarm anyone; this is part of the nature of those living in desert areas; on the contrary, the Saudis and their consultants and retinue members are very eloquent, calm, approachable, and civilized. They receive people from all over the world within negotiations and conferences, etc. and do not fight them at all ... and he said that there is no more loyal nation to their king as Arabian people to him; he praises the Lord God for this bounty; this is proved in the war to free Hejaz of its corrupt former ruler and to annex it to the kingdom; all fighters and soldiers fought with honor, courage, and zeal to save the Holy Land of Islam and to serve their king  ...). Our comment: the Saudi king desires the Egyptian readers to make a distinction between himself as a 'civilized' person and his xenophobic, extremist, fanatical Wahabi Najd Brothers who hate all non-Wahabis; he overlooked the fact that he taught those Bedouins military fighting and Wahabi tenets in the settlements/colonies that he established in order to brainwash them so that they commit heinous crimes and massacres and feel as if they have served God, but in fact, they have served the Saudi king to annex more regions to his kingdom. Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud assumed that he was 'tolerant' with non-Wahabis coming to him from all countries; he condescendingly said that he preferred negotiating with them instead of fighting them! For sure, fighting them was not among the options available to him, as he feared that they might unite and gather all forces and troops to destroy his kingdom.   
2- (... I asked his majesty about if he would be kind enough to tell me the reasons for the war inside Hejaz; he told me that he desired to save all pilgrims (those coming from Najd and all regions and countries) from mistreatment and abuse as well as lack of security they suffered because of the gangsters of Al-Sharif Hussein who robbed, killed, and harassed people; he never desired to fight him; no other choices were there since no reforms have been introduced in the Holy Land of Islam; Hejaz had to be purified in order to ensure the protection and security of pilgrims; he told me that he knew that annexing Hejaz to his kingdom will cause some trouble at first; most people of Hejaz have different faith tenets from those of the Najd people. European powers might have interfered but this did not happened; he said that God has lent him victory in order to save Hejaz; the Hejaz people hated the misrule and lack of wisdom of Al-Sharif Hussein who risked and compromised the security and independence of his subjects; most cities of Hejaz welcomed the Saudi troops; all people of Hejaz swore fealty to him as their king; Hejaz is now ruled as per the Quran and Sunna; all leaders, tribesmen, and fiqh scholars of Hejaz can bear witness to this fact  ...). Our comment:
(A) Al-Sharif Hussein might have admitted his mistreating his subjects and his taking advantage of pilgrims; yet, his mistakes are nothing when compared to the heinous crimes and massacres of the Wahabi troops during the first, second, and third, current Saudi kingdoms when they conquered Hejaz; they have committed the first and second massacres of Al-Ta'if; they killed off hundreds of thousands of people in Arabia within other massacres, raids, and battles; they prevented their foes and many non-Wahabis from entering Mecca during several pilgrimage seasons. Abdul-Aziz could never prevent anyone from coming to Mecca as pilgrims; rather, he sought desperately to neutralize Egypt and to win it over to his side later on; yet, after his death, his sons prevented Egyptians from pilgrimage within certain years during the Nasser Era and prevented Iranians at certain years later on from ever entering into Hejaz to perform pilgrimage.    
(B) Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud lied to this unknown Egyptian journalist when he said that he conquered Hejaz because of the corruption of its ruler Al-Sharif Hussein; no one commissioned him to discipline and punish this ruler; in fact, he conquered Hejaz for one reason: his ancestors ruled it within the first Saudi State and the second one. Hence, he would have conquered the Hejaz region anyway even if its ruler was a very pious one.
(C) Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud lied to this unknown Egyptian journalist when he said that the people of Hejaz welcomed him and his troops; most cities of Hejaz surrendered out of fear when they were sieged, because the Hejaz dwellers heard of the massacre of Al-Ta'if. This massacre was perpetrated as per the commands of Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud in order to terrorize and intimidate the people of Hejaz so that they would surrender without resistance. The people of Hejaz, after the Saudi conquest, felt threatened all the time by the Najd Brothers who assumed that the bloodbaths and other heinous crimes would lead them to Paradise in the Hereafter as per the Wahabi mythology; this is why they never rebelled against Abdul-Aziz and they swore fealty to him out of fear; they knew that their defeated ruler Al-Sharif Hussein, and his family members, will never come back to Hejaz.   
3- (... I asked his majesty about if changes have been introduced by him in the ruling system and laws of Hejaz or not; he told me that the basic system has not undergone any radical changes; governmental officials keep their posts after swearing fealty to him as king, but laws contradicting Islamic sharia, issued by the former ruler of Hejaz, were abrogated and removed; the people of Hejaz felt content and happy for this action; no more chaos or disorder will be allowed in Hejaz; security and peace reign supreme; all pilgrims will feel this from now on ...). Our comment:
(A) Forcing governmental officials to swear fealty to him and allowing them to keep their posts was the Saudi king's way to make them loyal to the Saudi regime; thus, he subjugated the Hejaz people in the name of man-made sharia of Wahabism and not Islam as he supposed; Wahabism is merely a revival of outdated, obsolete, obscurantist Hanbali fiqh rules and fatwas ascribed forcibly to Islam; man-made, secular laws of Hejaz before the Saudi/Wahabi conquest were OK, and at least, they were not attributed to the name of Islam and its sharia. 
(B) The previous laws of Hejaz were modern and coped with the civilized world, as Hejaz was open to all nationalities and its civilized people respected the other, unlike the backward, close-minded, xenophobic people of Najd. By the way, before the oil era, the Saudi government was very primitive and dysfunctional; men of the Saudi family ruled with their swords still; when the oil era has commenced, Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud had to issue new laws and systems to cope with the modern age; no one dared to accuse him of violating or rejecting Wahabi tenets.    
4- (... I asked his majesty about if some countries interfere in the affairs of Hejaz or not, he told me that Europeans and the British chiefly rule over Islamic countries and they care for the security and comfort of their Muslim pilgrims when they reach Hejaz without interfering in the affairs of Hejaz; the Egyptian government allows representatives of Islamic countries to care for their students at Al-Azhar without interfering in the Egyptian government. Likewise, no one interferes in political affairs of Hejaz; each country has the right to only care for the security and comfort of their pilgrims; since pilgrims feel now safe and secure, no country has the right to interfere in the political affairs of Hejaz ruled by the Saudis ...).  Our comment: the Saudi king tried to say indirectly here that the Egyptian government should never interfere in the affairs of Hejaz as long as Egyptian pilgrims feel safe and secure. The Saudi king forgot that Egypt has its historical rights in Hejaz since it controlled it for more than 1000 years before Ibn Saud (who allied himself to Ibn Abdul-Wahab in 1745 A.D.) was born. If Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud saw he has the 'right' to conquer Hejaz because his ancestors ruled it temporarily during the 19th century A.D., what about Egypt that ruled and controlled Hejaz for centuries?
5- (... I asked his majesty about the Islamic caliphate and if he would announce his being the caliph and sultan of all Muslims; he told me politely that he refuses to talk about this; he sees that the idea of caliphate does not match the adherence of his Arabian people to sharia laws and faith tenets; he does not see it courteous to talk about this issue now ...). Our comment: Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud was tactful enough as he insisted on avoiding talking about caliphate; he knew that King Fouad of Egypt desired to be the caliph of all 'Muslims' after the collapse of the Ottoman caliphate. Of course, Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud saw himself as a theocrat and a sultan/caliph, but it was not the suitable or favorable time to talk about such ambitions; he had to take heed of the dominant climate in the Arab and 'Muslim' world at the time; he desired to neutralize Egypt so that it would be easy to infiltrate it with his Wahabism within the religious, cultural, political, and social levels. When the dominant religion of Egypt has become Wahabism, Egypt is now dependent on the Saudi royal family. This dependence of Egypt on the KSA continues now: the KSA, which was born in 1932, is deemed in the Egyptian newspapers of today (2014 - 2015) as the 'bigger sister' of Egypt, though Egypt has emerged 50 centuries before the emergence of the KSA on the world map.
6- (... I asked his majesty about his view of offering brilliant Egyptians jobs inside the Saudi kingdom, he told me that he admires Egyptians very much and no words can describe his love for Egypt; he said that his nearest friend, confidant, and consultant is the Egyptian Azharite sheikh Hafiz Wahba whom he admires very much for his loyalty and brilliant mind; he told me that he hopes very much that resources of the kingdom would increase and new cities would be established so that he would recruit and hire more Egyptian brethren in faith inside his government and in Egypt and elsewhere ...). Our comment: Abdul-Aziz said here frankly that he desires Wahabi brethren on his side serving him inside Egypt; at the time, he funded the process of spreading Wahabism in Egypt under the name of Salafism and he sought to establish Egyptian 'flexible', open, and venal Brothers (or the terrorist MB organization members) to be an alternative to his quarrelsome and belligerent Najd Brothers; he realized he must get rid of the Najd Brothers very soon. 
7- (... I asked his majesty about the incident of the Egyptian Kiswah caravan; he looked at the floor for a few seconds, and then, he told me that he wished that such terrible event could never have taken place at all; he described the Bedouins who caused it as furious bigots; he thanked God for the safety of the Egyptian troops that protected the caravan; he told me that Egypt is the nearest Islamic country to his heart; he asserted to me that he admires, respects, and reveres King Fouad of Egypt; he asserted to me that the passage of time will prove that Egyptian pilgrims, and indeed all pilgrims, enjoy security, peace, and comfort in Hejaz  ...). Our comment: this is the crux of the matter; the reason for hiring this unknown Egyptian journalist to meet and serve Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud was to remove any negative impact of the Kiswah caravan incident by the 'sweet talk' of Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud to be published and read inside Egypt. 
8- This unknown Egyptian journalist ends the interview with the Saudi king this way: (... Thus ended the interview I made with his majesty the Saudi King Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud ... I thanked him very much for his generosity, protection, and support within my stay in Arabia ... I took his permission to visit Mecca before my return to Cairo ...).
 We do not think that Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud was the one who answered these questions of this unknown Egyptian journalist; we tend to think that the one who wrote both the questions and the answers was the shrewd Egyptian consultant of Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud; i.e., Hafiz Wahba. 
This unknown Egyptian journalist made propaganda for Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud:
  This book of the unknown Egyptian journalist M. Shafiq Mustafa has been intended as a tool of propaganda serving Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud. Part of this propaganda is indirect and implicit and the other part of it is direct and flagrant. We provide examples of the direct, flagrant propaganda in the points below.
Firstly: heaping praise on Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud and his family members:   
1- This unknown Egyptian journalist flatters the Saudi king and his family members with exaggerated, repeated phrases of hypocrisy and honorifics; he is never objective: from p. 43: (... After the council members are dismissed, his majesty the Saudi King Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud went to the palace of his father who is over 90 years old ... and he visits his sisters their royal highnesses the princesses.............as he respects women very much as the case inside Arabia regarding women who are respected by men .... I thanked his royal highness for his generosity and the generosity of their royal highnesses the princesses ... This is the typical generosity of all Arabians ...).
2- This unknown Egyptian journalist tells a lie when he writes that the Saudi king chatted and talked in a friendly way with the Najd Brothers and tribal leaders; he was the foe of the formers and he expected to inspire awe inside tribal leaders who must respect and fear him; this unknown Egyptian journalist expresses his being annoyed by Bedouin tribal leaders who addressed the Saudi king by his first name without honorifics or titles as if he was equal to them. This was normal behavior at the time by Bedouins and continued for many years; this unknown Egyptian journalist stresses this issue to make Egyptian readers compare between the 'simplicity' and 'modesty' of Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud and the haughtiness of King Fouad of Egypt as Pachas and ministers kneeled before him and kissed his hand while addressing him with several honorifics and titles.  
3- As part of propaganda addressing Egyptians and King Fouad, this unknown Egyptian journalist asserts that the above is a sign of sincere love and loyalty of the subjects towards their Saudi king; this unknown Egyptian journalist is overjoyed because the princes Feisal and Saud asked about him on a daily basis and this is unexpected condescension and modesty; he mentions that the Saudi king has several fancy cars; he sent the most expensive one of them as a gift to King Fouad of Egypt. 
Secondly: about the topic of the Najd Brothers:
1- The pro-Saudi historians who wrote about Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud rarely quote anything from this book titled "Inside the Heart of Najd and Hejaz" allegedly written by this unknown Egyptian journalist, though the book covers the time shortly before the Saudi king fought and exterminated the rebellious Najd Brothers after a period of mutual tension and doubt; this unknown Egyptian journalist mentions the fact that the Saudi king sided with Egyptians against the Wahabi Bedouins among the Najd Brothers who attacked the Egyptian Kiswah caravan.
2- From p. 44: (... Rumors have it that there were some disputes among tribal leaders and his majesty the Saudi King of Arabia, Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud, but his majesty met with their two tribal leaders Feisal Al-Daweesh, leader of Al-Artaweiyya tribe, and Ibn Bejad, the leader of Al-Ghatghat tribe ... I attended this meeting inside the royal palace in Riyadh; the tribal leaders felt insulted as some of their tribesmen were killed during the Egyptian Kiswah caravan incident and his majesty did nothing to take revenge or to exact retribution as per sharia laws ... after his majesty explained some matters to them, and how he never violated sharia laws, they understood, felt grateful, and thanked him; the dispute was over; the endeavors of those elements in Hejaz and Najd who sought to throw seeds of discord in Arabia certainly failed ...).
3- This unknown Egyptian journalist mentions here wrong information for the sake of propaganda addressed to the Egyptian readers, of course; Al-Artaweiyya and Al-Ghatghat are not tribes; they were Wahabi colonies or settlements established by Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud for the military training of the Najd Brothers and for teaching them Wahabism. The Najd Brothers had three leaders and not two; this unknown Egyptian journalist forgets to mention the third leader Didaan Ibn Heithlein. The dispute was between the Najd Brothers (not any tribes) and the Saudi king, because he sided with the Egyptians in the Kiswah caravan incident. This unknown Egyptian journalist tells a lie; the Najd Brothers never reconciled with the Saudi king; enmity continued to grow between both parties; the Najd Brothers rebelled and raised arms against the Saudi king deemed by them as an 'infidel' who violated Wahabi tenets and befriended and sided with 'infidels'/non-Wahabis of Egypt and Britain. The only thing which is true in the above quotation is that the Najd Brothers felt insulted as the Saudi king sided with Egyptians during the Kiswah caravan incident; in Al-Artaweiyya conference, they condemned and reproached him for sending prince Saud to Egypt (a country of 'polytheists') and prince Feisal to Britain (a country of 'disbelievers') as this certainly violates their Wahabi tenets.   
4- The message conveyed to the Egyptian readers within this propaganda is very clear; Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud sided with the Egyptians against his Najd Brothers. 
Thirdly: undermining Al-Sharif Hussein and praising Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud:
 After tackling pilgrimage and its rituals, this unknown Egyptian journalist undermines Al-Sharif Hussein and praises Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud: from p. 64: (... before the reign of his majesty King Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud in Hejaz, Egyptian pilgrims were mistreated and insulted by employees and officials and robbed by swindlers; this has been a gross effrontery against the dignity and stature of Egypt; many needless laws issued by Al-Sharif Hussein restricted Egyptian pilgrims and aimed to force them to pay more money to him! ... The Saudi rule of Hejaz restored order, security, and peace in the Holy Land by the wisdom of his majesty the Saudi King Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud; no caravans of merchants or tradesmen paid exorbitant taxes upon entering into the Hejaz region, even if they carried huge amounts of goods; no Egyptian pilgrims filed any complaints within the pilgrimage seasons under the Saudi rule; I do believe that all pilgrims enjoy security and safety; an Egyptian woman, for instance, can travel alone and perform pilgrimage here alone in peace and will find no difficulties or harassment of any type; she will not need the protection of anyone accompanying her; in fact, security is the holy mission of Saudi guards spread all over Mecca and Yathreb; no groups of Egyptian or non-Egyptian pilgrims need any troops to guard them; no raids of Bedouins will ever occur; this is guaranteed by his majesty the Saudi King Abdul-Aziz Ibn Saud himself ... Thanks to him, peace and serenity reign supreme in Hejaz and pilgrims are protected and served ...).
Fourthly: tackling the incident of the Kiswah caravan:
 This quotation is part of the propaganda addressed to the Egyptian readers and the Egyptian King; from p. 65: (... it is regrettable that the Egyptian Kiswah caravan will not be sent to Hejaz ever again; the poor ones in Hejaz feel deprived from the goods and money of the Egyptian Waqfs which they have enjoyed for so many years ... the Egyptian government should carefully reconsider its decision ...).
Lastly: about the conclusion of the book titled (Inside the Heart of Najd and Hejaz):
 It contains nothing but exaggerated propaganda for Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud, mere obsequious hypocrisy, and countless lies. From p. 69-70: (... Conclusion of the Book: ...  the two kingdoms of Hejaz and Najd are now united and merged as one kingdom; Najd has rejected its centuries-long isolation to follow the procession of the rest of the Islamic civilized nations ... people in Najd and in Hejaz feel prosperous, safe, and happy ... and his majesty the Saudi King, Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud, has purified the Holy Land from polytheistic abominations, corruption, and injustices of the former ruler Al-Sharif Hussein ... his majesty the Saudi King, Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud, exterminated the highwaymen and thieves that raided and robbed pilgrims, peaceful travelers, and caravans; all souls of pilgrims, visitors, and merchants are protected and so are their possessions; the Saudi King has proven his worthiness to rule the spacious land of Arabia; reforms have been introduced to Hejaz and this ameliorated all levels and conditions there; justice is upheld in Arabia ... there is no distinction among his subjects in Najd and Hejaz; there is no partiality or bias ... everything is being modernized to make Arabia join the civilized world ... the pilgrims, from Egypt and elsewhere, no longer need to get guards and troops to protect themselves on the journey to Hejaz ... as for the Kiswah caravan incident, it should be forgotten; the wisdom of his majesty the Saudi King, Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud, enabled him to contain the situation; disagreements between the Egyptian government and the government of Hejaz should cease; soon enough, both governments should cooperate regarding the comfort of Egyptian pilgrims ... enemies of Hejaz and Egypt try to spread rumors and lies to make both governments hate each other; yet, I am sure that with the passage of time, Egypt and Arabia will have cordial relations ... one should never pay attention to rumors and lies about religious views and stances of Wahabi people in Najd and in Hejaz; such rumors aim to distort the image of his majesty the Saudi King, Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud, who respects all Islamic nations especially the Egyptian nation; such rumors are being spread by haters of the Saudi royal family members, such as the family members of Al-Sharif Hussein and his supporters; rumors of such type usually spread after conquests and defeats; people should never take heed of mean words of lowly, base persons who are the scum of the earth; their evil ways will never harm Arabia and its King ... I implore the Almighty Lord God to unite all Muslims within one word and one banner within the bond of mutual love and respect among all Arab kings and rulers in order to please the Lord God and to preserve the dignity of all Muslims worldwide ...).
Hafiz Wahba is the real author of the book titled (Inside the Heart of Najd and Hejaz):
1- Wahba, as the favorite consultant of the Saudi king, had to remove the negative impact of the Egyptian Kiswah caravan incident which took place directly after the Saudi/Wahabi conquest of Hejaz, a region which was controlled and nominally ruled by Egypt for centuries. Wahba accompanied prince Saud when he visited Egypt; he made a deal with the young, unknown Egyptian journalist to visit Najd and Hejaz along with a party of Wahabi helpers, servants, and guards within this journey; this means that Wahba planned this journey and arranged a procession of helpers, servants, and guards to accompany this impressionable journalist who was surprised by his being warmly received and celebrated wherever he went inside Arabia. 
2- The style of writing shows how this young, unknown Egyptian journalist had little experience; in our view, it was Wahba who edited, changed, and added to the articles of the book titled "Inside the Heart of Najd and Hejaz"; time was of essence and the crisis had to be solved very soon; this is why Wahba disregarded writing any dates inside the book within the itinerary of the unknown Egyptian journalist M. Shafiq Mustafa. This book had to be published very soon inside Egypt to address the King of Egypt, Egyptian journalists, the cultural elite members in Egypt, and the Egyptian readers in general who felt insulted by the Kiswah caravan incident and its repercussions.   
3- Despite the brilliant mind of Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud when compared with other men inside Arabia, he was an illiterate man; he could not deliver a speech with his Bedouin dialect; he could not have possibly addressed any Egyptians. In contrast, Wahba was an eloquent Azharite man, an orator, a writer, and a shrewd politician and diplomat who perfectly mastered the Arabic and English languages; he learned from his life experience in Egypt and Kuwait never to collide against those in authority, but to serve them obsequiously to control and ride them. It served his interests to be the director of the scenes of the movie without making an appearance it; he was the man behind curtains who remained in the dark; it is quite impossible that this unknown Egyptian journalist interviewed the Saudi king; for sure, Wahba prepared and wrote both the questions and the answers; he was the one to write the views of Feisal and Saud about Egypt as well. Wahba had to use the name of the unknown Egyptian journalist to better serve the Saudi king.    
4- This young, unknown Egyptian journalist could never have understood the Bedouin dialect of the people of Najd, especially that of Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud; this illiterate king could not have responded in that manner to any questions within any interview; this means that Wahba dictated or wrote everything inside the book titled "Inside the Heart of Najd and Hejaz"; Wahba was like puppeteer or a marioniste who moved the strings of his marionettes or moved his puppets in the most clever manner; he put carefully chosen words in their mouths.  
5- In addition, Wahba was the unknown soldier behind the treaty of Jeddah signed in May 1927 between Britain and the Saudis; the British acknowledged the independence of Najd and other annexed territories ruled by Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud; the terms and style of this treaty differ from those in the treaty of Darin signed in 1915 and made Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud a ruler of a British protectorate, as the British aim of the treaty of Darin was to guarantee the sovereignty of countries invaded by Britain; Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud agreed not to attack British protectorates and was given international recognition to the fledgling Saudi State. As for the treaty of Jeddah, Wahba represented Saudis and made Egypt lose any rights concerning the Hejaz region. The one who signed this treaty was prince Feisal who was at the time 20 years old and did not know the English language and could never have negotiated anything with the shrewd British; Wahba, of course, was the negotiator on behalf of prince Feisal.     
Hafiz Wahba and the kingdom of Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud:
1- Wahba was born in 1889 A.D. in the Cairene low-class Boulaq district, and upon his graduation from Al-Azhar University, he worked as a judge in Egypt; he was one of the disciples of the imam M. Abdou. Because of his political activism, the British banished Wahba from Egypt when WWI commenced; he settled for a while in Kuwait since 1914; he worked there as a merchant, a tutor, and a preacher; he had close relations with notables and dignitaries of Kuwait; he caused some trouble to the ruler of Kuwait when he supported a Kuwaiti sheikh in his inciting Kuwaitis to rebel against the British by joining the Ottoman troops in a battle in Basra against the British. Wahba thought about leaving Kuwait because he was rebuked severely by its ruler.    
2- In 1916, Wahba met with the at-the-time prince Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud who visited Kuwait when Britain made a treaty to define the borders between Najd and Kuwait. Wahba felt that the ruler of Kuwait deemed him as a troublemaker, and he approached and contacted Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud and became friends with him; within his letters, his brilliant pieces of advice were admired very much by Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud who was keen on maintaining the correspondence with Wahba; the dear wish of Wahba was fulfilled when Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud finally offered him the post of a consultant; Wahba moved to Riyadh in 1923 to be the special and favorite consultant of Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud regarding internal affairs and foreign relations, especially with Britain and Egypt.     
3- In fact, the influence of Wahba in the Saudi State of Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud is incomparable; he was the most important foreign (i.e., non-Arabian) consultant to the Saudi king. Wahba was the unknown soldier behind how Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud dealt with the Najd Brothers and how he got rid of them eventually. Wahba masterminded everything for Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud, including the subjugation of the Wahabi sheikhs and scholars who were backward, obscurantist ignoramuses and hated modern inventions and education, but they eventually submitted to the will of Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud. Wahba established modern education in the KSA. Despite being in the dark and always behind curtains, he modernized the Saudi State; he was the tutor of princes Saud and Feisal; he was the deputized representative of Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud in London in 1930, when the KSA had for the first time its Ministry of Foreign Affairs, with prince Feisal as its first minister. Wahba became the ambassador of the KSA in London since 1948 and he remained in this post for 30 years. Wahba made the KSA have good relations with The Netherlands and he was the deputized representative of Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud there in 1931; he made the KSA have good relations with Japan. Wahba designed the Saudi flag himself; he was the most important member of the board of Aramco. Thus, the influence of Wahba in the Saudi State of Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud reached from Najd to Europe and Japan and from education inside the KSA to Aramco and Amsterdam. 
Hafiz Wahba and Wahabism:
1- Wahba initiated the process of spreading Wahabism among Muslims inside Britain; he was a preacher in the very first mosque built in London in 1910; he co-founded the Islamic Cultural Center in London built under the auspices of King George VI in 1944. The influence and authority of Wahba in London made the British government dedicate the location for this Center inside London from the stretches of land owned by the British Crown; this Center has now its grand mosque built by king Feisal in 1978; king Fahd renovated and widened this mosque in 1994. Hence, Wahabism has infiltrated deeper inside Britain and later on inside Europe; the seeds of such infiltration were thrown first by Wahba; Britain and Europe still pay the heavy price for it until now: Wahabi terrorist operations shake Britain and the Continent now and pose as a veritable threat to the citizens of the EU. The influence of Wahba who spread and propagated Wahabism is still there among the Anglophones who read the Wahabi (and therefore faulty) English translations of the Quran by Abdullah Yusuf Ali and M. Marmaduke Pickthall who were disciples and friends of Wahba. Wahba died in Rome in 1967.      
2- Wahba helped a great deal within the endeavors to spread propagate Wahabism in Britain and Europe, and also in his homeland: Egypt; he was the first Wahabi sheikh of the trio that includes the Levantine Wahabi sheikhs who settled in Egypt Rasheed Reda and Moheb-Eddine Al-Khateeb. This trio helped establish all Wahabi/Salafist institutions, societies, and groups in Egypt to turn Sufi-Sunnite Egyptians into Wahabi Sunnites within a gradual process. Unlike both Levantine sheikhs, Wahba was an Egyptian and he had roots, acquaintances, connections, friends, and relations inside Egypt who helped him by readily helping Reda and Al-Khateeb; this trio helped Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud to spread Wahabism in Egypt, as he feared that Wahabism-hating Egypt would one day destroy the Saudi State.
3- We have quoted before this paragraph before from the book titled "Inside the Heart of Najd and Hejaz":  (... I asked his majesty about his view of offering brilliant Egyptians jobs inside the Saudi kingdom, he told me that he admires Egyptians very much and no words can describe his love for Egypt; he said that his nearest friend, confidant, and consultant is the Egyptian Azharite sheikh Hafiz Wahba whom he admires very much for his loyalty and brilliant mind; he told me that he hopes very much that resources of the kingdom would increase and new cities would be established so that he would recruit and hire more Egyptian brethren in faith inside his government and in Egypt and elsewhere ...). This means that Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud needed 'flexible', open, and venal Wahabis who were 'enlightened' (N.B.: this is quite impossible; Wahabism has nothing to do with enlightenment, of course) to be an alternative to the obscurantist, quarrelsome, backward, close-minded Wahabi sheikhs and clergymen whose bovine stupidity caused much trouble to him; this is why he recruited Hafiz Wahba and other Egyptian Wahabis inside the Saudi State in addition to his Wahabi agents inside Egypt and elsewhere. 
4- Within the several times when Wahba visited Egypt, he was approached by impoverished Sunnite writers who thought help to get money and to publish their books; among them was Ahmad Abdel-Rahman M. Al-Banna, the father of Hassan Al-Banna, the founder of the terrorist MB organization, who was born in a village in the eastside of the Egyptian Nile Delta but worked as a watchmaker who repaired watches and clocks in Alexandria, but he was an amateur Sunnite writer; Wahba helped him publish several books, chief among them was the book of arranged hadiths of Ibn Hanbal and another book for the arranged hadiths of Al-Shafei.    
Lastly: Hafiz Wahba is among the reasons of the plight of the Egyptians in the past and until today:
1- There is a huge difference between (1) the photo on the internet of Hassan Al-Banna (i.e., the founder of the terrorist MB organization) kneeling before Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud and kissing his hand, and (2) the prominence of Egypt during the existence of the first and second Saudi kingdoms and the emergence of third, current one during the reign of Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud.  
2- The last ruler of the first Saudi State used to correspond with M. Ali Pacha of Egypt while signing the letters by describing himself as: (Your obedient slave and humble servant: Abdullah Ibn Saud). The letters from the ruler Abdullah Ibn Feisal Ibn Turki (the grandfather of Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud) during the second Saudi State addressing Khedive Abbas of Egypt were signed as follows: (Your obedient slave and humble servant Ibn Saud). 
3- At the time when Al-Banna kneeled and kissed the hand of Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud, no Saudi princes dared to sit down within the presence of King Farooq of Egypt inside in palace in Cairo; the only one permitted to be seated in the presence of King Farooq was Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud. On the internet, there is a photo of King Farooq sitting on a chair and behind him all Saudi princes who remain standing, including Feisal Ibn Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud. 
4- It is a source of shame and a disgrace that the Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah Al-Sisi now describes the KSA as the 'bigger sister' of Egypt and he has ceded two Egyptian islands in the Red Sea to the KSA. Al-Sisi kneeled before the Saudi king Abdullah Ibn Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud while he sat on his throne inside his plane when he visited Egypt shortly before his death. This is in contrast to the fact that Egypt used to rule the Hejaz region for centuries. This means that Egypt has deteriorated as it needs the Saudi money inside its empty Treasury.
5- We tend to think that Hafiz Wahba typically kneeled in a similar way to Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud and his enthroned successors in Riyadh!  
CHAPTER III: The Role of Moheb-Eddine Al-Khateeb in Spreading Wahabism in Egypt 
Firstly: an overview of the life of Moheb-Eddine Al-Khateeb:
 Al-Khateeb was born in July, 1886, in Damascus within a very religious Sunnite family; he was tutored by Sunnite scholars in Damascus; he also received Sunnite education in Beirut and Istanbul; he cared very much for Sunna and Pan-Arabism (or Arab nationalism); he co-founded in Istanbul the Society of Arab Renaissance; he was therefore persecuted by the dominant Turkish political party (i.e., Committee of Union and Progress); he ran away and settled in Damascus for a short while; he moved to Yemen, and then, he returned to Damascus to demand rights of Arabs compromised by the Committee of Union and Progress members who were the de facto rulers of Turkey; the Turkish authorities chased him in Damascus and Beirut; he moved to Cairo, Egypt, and he made acquaintance with Rasheed Reda; this marked a new stage of his life as he decided to settle in Egypt; both Al-Khateeb and Reda cooperated with each other within the endeavors of spreading and propagating Wahabism/Salafism inside Egypt under the name of Sunna and Salafism. Al-Khateeb died in Cairo in Dec. 1969. At first, Al-Khateeb contributed articles within the Cairo-based nationalistic daily newspaper Al-Moayyad; in 1913, he taught in the school for the preparation and qualification of Sunnite (i.e., Wahabi) preachers established by Rasheed Reda. During WWI and the revolt of Al-Sharif Hussein in Hejaz against the Ottomans, Al-Khateeb joined and supported the ruler of Hejaz and went to Mecca, where he worked as a consultant to the ruler of Hejaz and he established a printing house and edited the newspaper (Al-Qibla), the mouthpiece of Al-Sharif Hussein. When the prince Feisal Ibn Al-Sharif Hussein entered with his troops into Damascus in 1918, Al-Khateeb went to Damascus to work for prince Feisal Ibn Al-Sharif Hussein; he edited his Damascus-based newspaper (Al-Assema). Yet, Al-Khateeb had to flee Damascus when the French invaded Syria in 1920; he decided to settle in Cairo, Egypt, for the rest of his life.     
About Moheb-Eddine Al-Khateeb spreading and propagating Wahabism inside Egypt:
1- He worked as an editor in Al-Ahram newspaper for five years; he established the publishing and printing house known as (The Salafist Library) to publish many Salafist books; he was the editor-in-chief of Al-Azhar newspaper for six years; he founded the Salafist Al-Fath newspaper; he established the Muslim Youths Society in Cairo. Of course, he used all such venues to spread and propagate Wahabism under the name of Sunna/Salafism. In fact, this Wahabi sheikh was a fanatic, extremist man who openly expressed hatred towards non-Muslims and non-Sunnites. 
2- Undermining non-Muslims: the Levantine Wahabi sheikh Al-Khateeb never hid his hatred towards non-Muslims during the liberal epoch in Egypt; he hated the liberalism of the Egyptian society and its evolving, interactive trends and schools of thought; in his writings, he attacked the Protestant Church charity societies and he criticized and harshly attacked secular thinkers and atheists; he was once accused of libel and he got arrested and sentenced to one month in prison.  
3- Undermining Shiites: when an Iranian Shiite sheikh, M. Al-Kimmy, arrived in Egypt in 1947 and had his own magazine (The Message of Islam) and had his center that aimed to make Shiites and Sunnites get nearer to each other, as he disliked doctrinal disputes and aimed to settle them, Al-Khateeb harshly attacked him in his articles and accused him of trying to destroy Islam by recruiting agents and bribing them with large sums of money. Al-Khateeb forgot that he himself was the paid Wahabi agent of the KSA. We tend to think that the endeavors of this Shiite sheikh were a reaction to the activities of Al-Khateeb and Reda. Al-Khateeb disputed with Hassan Al-Banna who admired and welcomed very much the idea of Sunnites and Shiites getting nearer to each other and work together to remove doctrinal differences. Of course, Al-Banna was a hypocrite and he adopted the policy of combining all religious trends in his MB organization to achieve one political aim: to reach power and to rule all Arab and 'Islamic' countries. When Al-Banna welcomed the endeavors of the Shiite sheikh, despite the fact that he was the close friend of Al-Khateeb and he contributed articles to Al-Fath newspaper, Al-Khateeb argued and quarreled with him; by the way, this dispute is typical and often occurs between MB members and Salafists, despite the fact that both groups are Wahabis.    
4- Sunnite Sufism was the dominant religion in Egypt in the first half of the 20th century; therefore, Al-Khateeb never dared to criticize and attack centuries-old Sufi orders in Egypt; instead, he attacked (in a series of articles that appeared later on in a book form) relatively new Sufi orders established in Egypt by people who were not of Egyptian origin. 
5- Al-Khateeb did his best to spread Wahabism and he harshly attacked and criticized, in his articles and books within his publishing house, the enemies of Wahabism; he called them "the foes of the faith of the people of Sunna".   
5/1: Al-Khateeb authored and published several books; e.g., one about commentary on Al-Bokhary hadiths, one about attacking Shiites and their faith tenets, one about attacking Baha'is and their faith, one about defending the companion Othman Ibn Affan, and one about defending the so-called 'companions' of Muhammad.
5/2: Al-Khateeb published major Sunnite books of traditions and heritage; e.g., books of Ibn Taymiyya, books of Ibn Hajar, books of Ibn Al-Araby (the extremist Sunnite author who tried in vain to undermine historical narratives about civil wars of the so-called 'companions' of Muhammad), and books of commentary on Al-Bokhary hadiths, besides books of contemporary Wahabi authors like Ibn Baz.  
6- Al-Khateeb established the Wahabi society known as the Muslim Youths Society with the aim of spreading Wahabi tenets among Egyptian young men in Cairo and other cities, through several branches, and to recruit young men who can serve Wahabism and to choose later on those who are willing to join the terrorist MB organization. 
Secondly: Moheb-Eddine Al-Khateeb writes about himself in his autobiography:
  Within the introduction of this autobiography, the publisher heaps praise on Al-Khateeb, posthumously, and he lauds his endeavors that included authoring several 'valuable' books, helping to establish the MB organization, writing articles within the MB newspaper and several other newspapers in order to serve 'Islam' and Arabs, and preaching and teaching Islam to young men.  
His early close relations with the two pillars of Wahabism: Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud and Rasheed Reda:
1- From p. 57: (... as for the Gulf countries ... the stances and views of Arab governments affiliated with the Ottoman State must be taken into consideration ... deputies are to be sent to negotiate the matter with Arab rulers; sheikh Rasheed Reda took great interest in the Arab Unity group ... I was sent as the deputy to address the Saudi prince of Najd and Al-Ahsa Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud in 1914 ...).
2- From p. 57: (... and upon my arriving to my house, I found a letter signed by sheikh Rasheed Reda, the owner and editor-in-chief of Al-Manar magazine ... he informed me that Mr. ........ and Mr. ........ were about to travel from Cairo to Basra within this political mission, but they were arrested by the Egyptian police; he beseeched me to interfere and help both men ...).
3- From p. 66: (... the aim of this journey was to coordinate endeavors and plans with the Imam Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud regarding shared Arab affairs and all general issues, as Arab and Islamic countries should avoid the negative impact of the results of the WWI  ...).
Thirdly: Moheb-Eddine Al-Khateeb writes about establishing the Muslim Youths Society:
1- Al-Khateeb assumed that endeavors to Arabize Egypt on the cultural level, and indeed all levels, is a must; this was the aim of establishing the Muslim Youths Society; i.e., to face secular Egyptians who were deemed by him as non-Muslims; of course, as a fanatic, extremist Wahabi sheikh, he assumed that all non-Wahabis were non-Muslims; from p. 78: (... the cultural climate and thought trends inside Cairo are heavily influenced by the evil West culture ... secular writers and thinkers hate Islam and consider it as a backward faith; they propagate ideas of Kemal Ataturk and his secularism, and they propagate corrupt ideas of Taha Hussein and Ali Abdel-Razik which contradict sharia laws and Islamic knowledge ... such ideas must be faced by the Muslim Youths Society ... a generation of Muslims educated by our sheikhs will change the cultural climate for sure ...).   
2- Conspiracies filled the atmosphere inside Egypt during the endeavors to establish the Muslim Youths Society: (... many journalists and thinkers as well as the cultural elite members wrote articles to warn readers in Egypt against the Muslim Youths Society; they cast doubt on the motives behind it; the 300 members of the Muslim Youths Society had no permanent headquarters at the time; they had to meet in secret until the smear campaign ended; they met in different places such as............. donations were paid to get permanent headquarters one day ... in one meeting, sheikh M. Khedr Hussein, who became the head of Al-Azhar later on, delivered a speech to congratulate all members ...).
3- This is about temporary locations to hold meetings: (... when the smear campaign ended and no conspiracies or intrigues  were expected by those haters of Islam who consider Salafism as a form of backwardness and stagnation, meetings became public in the temporary headquarters of the Muslim Youths Society ... a meeting was held in a movie-theater by day, rented for some hours by the money donated by the Egyptian great poet Ahmed Shawki ... some members suggested at first to hold the meeting in a theater rented by Talaat Harb Pacha, but most members refused because Talaat Harb Pacha had business dealings with Jews and Christians ...).
4- This is about choosing the head of the Muslim Youths Society: (... within a meeting in a temporary location at a movie-theater rented for one day, discussions were held about choosing the head of the Muslim Youths Society ... this head must be a cultured man who enjoyed stature and good reputation, but not among Azharite clergymen and sheikhs so as not to make outsiders describe the Muslim Youths Society as a religious group ... sheikh M. Khedr Hussein suggested Mr. Abdel-Hamid Saeed, whom he met in Europe and Turkey, and he felt he had the desired qualities ... after contacting Mr. Abdel-Hamid Saeed to propose to him to become the head of the Muslim Youths Society, he desired to meet some members to get to know more about the regulations and aims of this society before he would agree to head it ...).
5- From p. 80: (... the first meeting inside the permanent headquarters of the Muslim Youths Society tackled the stipulations and conditions to accept new members and to choose board members, deputies, and secretaries ...).
6- From p. 81: (... the permanent headquarters was a spacious mansion in  Kasr Al-Ainy Street in downtown, near the Egyptian Parliament ... Ahmad Taymour Pacha, who sympathized with us, donated a large sum to pay the rent of this mansion ...).
7- Al-Khateeb writes the following, within a Wahabi viewpoint that monopolizes the name of Islam, about the influence of establishing the Muslim Youths Society: (... establishing the Muslim Youths Society has been a great event in the history of Islam in Egypt; its existence annoyed very much those atheists and secularists who hate Islam and those Christian missionaries working inside Egypt ... some Azharite people felt troubled because they assumed that Al-Azhar had the 'right' to monopolize establishing Islamic societies and groups inside Egypt ... writers who joined the Muslim Youths Society will refute ideas of Taha Hussein, Ataturk, Ali Abdel-Razik, etc. ... haters of Islam tried in vain to stop the emergence of the Muslim Youths Society and to tarnish my reputation; it is through God's Will that the Muslim Youths Society has emerged ... many youths and elderly men have joined it ...).
8- From p. 81: (... thus, atheists, secularists, missionaries, and other Islam-haters assumed that the emergence of the Muslim Youths Society represents a fatal blow to them ... they began examining my articles in Al-Fath newspaper in order to have anything in their hands to level any accusations against me and to criticize and attack me harshly ... one of them accused me of libel because of my article published in issue No. 119 in Oct. 1928 ... I was taken to court and I had to defend myself; their aim was to tarnish any Islamic movement and to take revenge against me ... sadly, the judge was more secular than Ataturk himself; I decided not to appeal against the sentence of one-month imprisonment term; it was of no use ...).
PART III: The Terrorist MB Organization 
CHAPTER I: The Terrorist MB Organization Has been Created by the Wahabism of the Saudi State 
 We are not delving deep into a detailed research about the terrorist MB organization; we have written a lot of articles and other writings about them; we only here give an overview of the role of the KSA in establishing the terrorist MB organization and the role of MB members in serving the KSA until political divorce occurred between the MB members and the KSA, despite the fact that both of them are Wahabis. We begin with the relation of the terrorist Hassan Al-Banna with the KSA. 
Al-Banna and the KSA:
Firstly: Al-Banna and his relations with Saudi agents:
Al-Banna and his close relation with Rasheed Reda:
1- Al-Banna graduated in 1927 from Dar Al-Olom Faculty in Cairo University, and this faculty teaches Arabic language, heritage, and literature; during his university years, he attended lectures delivered by Rasheed Reda in this faculty and the sermons at the building of Al-Manar magazine; he became one of the close friends of the Levantine sheikh Rasheed Reda.
2- After the death of Rasheed Reda, Al-Banna undertook the mission of preparing and editing the last issues of Al-Manar magazine before it stopped forever. Al-Banna was the new editor-in-chief and wrote the editorials for these last issues; the first editorial is filled with praises heaped on the late Reda as the 'grand' sheikh who revived the glory of 'Islam' by his endeavors on several levels and in many fields; he mentions that it is an honor that the 'MB group' members would edit and contribute articles to the magazine, and he writes about how Reda strove to help establish the 'MB group' that aims to serve 'Islam' and to introduce 'reform' in Egypt on all levels and how the late Reda used to laud and praise its members and gave them invaluable pieces of advice; Al-Banna heaped praise on the role of Reda to serve Islam via Al-Manar magazine which has revived the interest in 'Islamic' culture and raised 'Islamic' awareness within the political, social, civil, and intellectual levels; he praised the writings of Reda that refute falsehoods and lies and show the greatness of 'Islam'. 
3- This means that Al-Banna took the position and stature of Reda in the field of Salafist/Wahabi call, besides his being a member of the Muslim Youths Society and the founder of the MB organization; at the time when Reda died, the Saudi economy thrived because of the oil revenues; Al-Banna received lots of money from Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud after he did his best to get introduced to the Saudi king. 
4- The thinker and writer Gamal Al-Banna (1920 - 2013), the younger brother of Hassan Al-Banna, in one of his books that groups and comments on letters of Hassan Al-Banna to his father, asserts that both Hassan Al-Banna and his father, Ahmad Abdel-Rahman Al-Banna, had a close relation with the Saudi authorities. The Egyptian thinker and writer M. Hussein Heikal in his autobiography asserts that it is a very well-known fact in the political circles in Egypt that Al-Banna had close ties with Saudi authorities and received money from the Saudi king; Heikal met with Al-Banna during the pilgrimage season in 1936.    
5- Al-Banna controlled the budget of the MB organization himself and allowed no MB member to get to know about or interfere in the budget and sources of financial aid; those who deserted the MB organization accused Al-Banna of corruption and confiscating money to himself; no senior members in the 'guiding bureau' of the MB organization knew anything about the budget. This might be one of the reasons for the theory or the hypothesis by some historians that Al-Banna was assassinated, in Feb. 1947, by some angry and frustrated MB members. Anyway, the Saudi financial help allowed Al-Banna – who was a simple teacher of Arabic in a primary school – to establish 50 thousand branches of the MB organization all over Egyptian cities, from Alexandria in the north to Aswan in the south. 
Al-Banna and his close relations with Moheb-Eddine Al-Khateeb and Hafiz Wahba:
1- During his university years, Al-Banna contacted Al-Khateeb and visited him so often in his publishing and printing house known as (The Salafist Library), and he was the prominent member of the Muslim Youths Society established by Al-Khateeb; in fact, Al-Banna and the Levantine Wahabi sheikh Al-Khateeb became very close friends. 
2- In his autobiography, Hassan Al-Banna writes about his relations with Wahba and the Saudi circles; when Wahba came to Cairo on a short visit to get some Egyptian teachers to work in Saudi schools in Hejaz, he contacted Al-Khateeb and members of the Muslim Youths Society; of course, Al-Khateeb nominated Al-Banna (among others) for such posts; both Wahba and Al-Banna met in the headquarters of the Muslim Youths Society on 6th of Nov. 1928; in fact, Al-Banna never worked as a teacher in Hejaz (he remained as a teacher in a primary school in the city of Ismailia, in Egypt), but this encounter was a very good opportunity for Al-Banna to get acquainted with Wahba and to gain many benefits from such a relation later on, especially when Wahba introduced him to the Saudi king.  
Secondly: when Al-Banna met with Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud:
1- Al-Banna and his followers were keen on catching the attention of Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud and the Saudi circles; after the Saudi king survived an assassination attempt (by a Yemeni assassin) inside the Sacred Kaaba Mosque, the third conference of the MB organization sent a letter to the Saudi king to congratulate him, while considering that Divine Providence saved him, and to denounce the attempt on his life.  
2- In 1936, Al-Banna performed pilgrimage for the first time in his life; the Saudi king typically invited high-rank 'Muslim' scholars and sheikhs/clergymen to attend the annual conference in Mecca during the pilgrimage season; of course, Al-Banna and his MB members were not invited; Al-Banna was resolved to perform pilgrimage accompanied by a group of one hundred men of his MB members and to catch the attention of the Saudi king (most probably, this was planned by the shrewd consultant Hafiz Wahba). In order to catch the attention of Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud, Al-Banna and his MB members attended the conference, uninvited, while wearing a uniform: white headwear and white gowns/djellabas; to the surprise of the Saudi king, their rows marched suddenly into the conference hall; Al-Banna introduced himself as the supreme guide of the 'MB group' and he delivered an 'improvised' speech that was very much admired by the attendees; this speech was published in the Hejaz-based Um Al-Qura newspaper.     
3- This scene was the best theatrical piece to introduce Al-Banna and his followers to the Saudi king, who met privately with Al-Banna soon enough; Al-Banna requested from Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud to allow him to establish branches of the MB organization inside the KSA; the Saudi king adamantly refused and said that all Muslims are brothers/brethren in faith.
Thirdly: the policies of Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud regarding Al-Banna and the MB members:
1- It is most probable that Al-Banna did not understand the reason for the refusal of the Saudi king about allowing MB branches to exist inside the KSA; the experience of Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud with the quarrelsome Najd Brothers taught him never to repeat the same mistake; the Saudi king donated large sums of money to the MB organization to help them reach power in Egypt one day as this will make Egypt a Wahabi country that will submit, on the political and religious levels, to the Al-Saud royal family. The Saudi king never desired power seekers to compete with him inside his kingdom or to cause more trouble. Of course, he relied on the MB organization (along with other Wahabi institutions) to spread Wahabism in Egypt and elsewhere; he desired that the Wahabi MB members would reach power and rule all Arab and 'Islamic' countries which will be led by the KSA on the political and religious levels. Thus, the Saudi king sponsored and funded the MB organization to channel their activities outside the KSA and make them confined to Egypt and other countries; he never allowed MB members to work and settle inside the KSA.  
2- Of course, Al-Banna maintained correspondence with the Saudi king; this was encouraged by Wahba who planned and masterminded the change of the dominant religion inside Egypt from Sunnite Sufism to Sunnite/Hanbali Wahabism through the MB members and Salafist groups and institutions.
3- Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud allowed the prominent MB members, along with the supreme guide Al-Banna, to attend the annual conference during the pilgrimage season in Mecca and to actively participate in the activities of the conference. At one point in time, Al-Banna knew of a plan to assassinate him inside Egypt, and this drove him to go to Mecca to perform pilgrimage; rumors have it that the Egyptian government made a plot to assassinate him inside Mecca while blaming/framing some Yemenis as if they desired to punish him for his active role in the failed Al-Waziri coup in Yemen; part of the rumors was that the Egyptian prince of pilgrimage (who was also the head of the Egyptian Parliament) was accompanied with some criminals within the Egyptian delegation; upon sensing this danger and in order to protect Al-Banna, the Saudi authorities made Al-Banna their guest of honor and his residence inside Mecca was heavily guarded; the Saudi authorities provided him with a car with armed bodyguards to ensure his safety. 
4- The MB members were deemed as the 'nation' of Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud inside Egypt; they used their influence within the liberal epoch of Egypt to celebrate (and to prepare a grand reception on a non-official level) the visit of the Saudi king to Egypt in 1945; hundreds of MB members received him in Cairo Airport while chanting 'Islamic' slogans and carrying torches to welcome him and to celebrate the KSA and the renewed Egyptian-Saudi relation. The same occurred in the other places visited by the Saudi king; e.g., inside the railway station in the city of Alexandria and near the royal palace of King Farooq in Alexandria where he met with Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud.
5- The supreme guide of the MB, Al-Banna, and his MB members held an Arab conference for the sake of saving Palestine; this conference, held in the main headquarters of the MB organization in Cairo, was attended by many Arab and 'Muslim' leaders and rulers, including prince Feisal Ibn Abdul-Aziz; in this conference, the attendees discussed with Al-Banna and representatives of the Egyptian government what should be done to save Palestine.   
6- During the British mandate within Palestine, Britain held the a Round-Table Conference in London to discuss the Palestinian problem; representatives of Jews and Arabs attended this conference as well as deputies from the British government; prince Feisal Ibn Abdul-Aziz attended this conference as well as some MB members who were secretaries and translators for this Saudi prince and for other Arab princes.   
7- The MB members organized a demonstration in the Opera Square in Cairo to support Palestinians in Dec. 1947 after the UN partition plan for Palestine; Al-Banna and many other men delivered eloquent speeches; the demonstration was attended by prince Feisal Ibn Abdul-Aziz. 
 We have to bear in mind the scarcity of scientific material in history books about the relation of the terrorist MB organization with the KSA; the MB members have many overt and covert groups and their relation with the Saudi family members has been shrouded in secrecy; few pieces of information are revealed about this relation either by the so-called ex-members of the terrorist MB organization or by some MB members who brag of their close ties with the KSA. The Saudis never talk about their relation with the MB organization in public. Of course, allusions and indirect remarks by Wahabi agents serving the KSA justify and support the claim that a very close relation is held by the KSA with the MB organization. Of course, as a historian and a researcher, we trace only public events and draw our own conclusions. The terrorist MB members assassinated the Yemeni imam/ruler and planned a revolt to cause his abdication/ouster so that Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud would wreak his revenge against Yemen and its ruler.    
The terrorist MB organization members drew nearer to Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud by assassinating the ruler of Yemen:
Firstly: the relation between Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud and the ruler/imam of Yemen:
1- The region of Aseer was disputed over between Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud and Yahya Hamid-Eddine the ruler/imam of Yemen. Both the Saudis and the Yemenis were engaged in a war in 1934; the Saudi troops were victorious and retrieved Aseer; they even reached Tehama and the port of Al-Hadida city in Yemen; yet, the Saudi king preferred to make a peace treaty with the ruler/imam of Yemen within the treaty of Jeddah; John Philby, the British consultant of Abdul-Aziz, blamed him for never seizing the chance to conquer Yemen to annex it to the KSA; the Saudi king told him that his ancestors never ruled Yemen; the war aimed at retrieving and securing the regions of Aseer, Najran, and Jizan in the south of the Saudi kingdom; he told Philby that he never desired to annex Yemen as it contains quarrelsome Shiites and belligerent tribes that will endanger the Saudi kingdom.  
2- As per Al-Zarkeley in his book titled "Arabia in the Reign of King Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud" (p. 619), an attempt to assassinate the Saudi king took place while he was circling the Kaaba during the pilgrimage season in March 1935. A Yemeni man holding a dagger screamed and lunged himself at the Saudi king; one of the guards of the Saudi king shot the criminal in the head, killing him instantly; seconds later, two more men ran towards the Saudi king while screaming and brandishing their daggers; one of them was shot dead and the second one was injured; interrogations with him showed that he and the other two men were from Yemen. Yet, the imam Yahya of Yemen sent a telegram to denounce the assassination attempt and to disown the criminals; rumors spread in the Saudi kingdom that that eldest son of the imam Yahya of Yemen planned this assassination attempt.  
3- The MB members sent a letter to the Saudi king to congratulate him for his safety and to denounce the assassination attempt; the MB members assassinated the Egyptian Prime Minister Ahmed Maher and all their actions were known and endorsed by their master and sponsor Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud; naturally, it is expected that he would enlist the help of the MB members to take revenge against the imam Yahya the ruler of Yemen who never respected the peace treaty and sent assassins to murder the Saudi king inside the Sacred Kaaba Mosque. We infer this from our study of the policies of Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud who was a very patient man and who enlisted the help of others to do dirty work for him; he used the Najd Brothers to establish his Saudi kingdom by their guns and swords; he bore patiently with their opposition, insults, and rebellion until the suitable time came to exterminate them after his agents in Egypt spread Wahabism inside Egypt and established Wahabi/Salafist institutions as well as the MB organization. The Saudi king never desired to conquer and annex Yemen; he wanted to secure the border regions located in the south of the Saudi kingdom near Yemen; he had to take revenge for the attempt on his life; in fact, the Yemeni leader Abdullah Ibn Al-Waziri was in Mecca during the assassination attempt and he was present when the letter of congratulation reached the Saudi king from the MB members. It is not an excluded hypothesis that the Saudi king bribed and helped this Yemeni leader to begin the revolt of the covenant known later on as Al-Waziri coup, and he promised him to enlist the help of the MB members who will be in his service.   
4- Before such events took place, the MB members had their contacts with some Yemeni figures and leaders since 1929; the Saudi funding of the MB organization allowed its branches to reach all Arab countries; the Algerian MB member Al-Fudayl Al-Wartilani reached Yemen (along with an in-law of Al-Banna), and the number of Yemeni MB members increased and the business and trade of the MB organization there thrived; this was a cover or a façade to hide the connections and political alliances that led to the so-called revolt of the covenant or Al-Waziri coup in 1948; this coup was led by Abdullah Ibn Al-Waziri; the MB members involved in the coup managed to assassinate the ruler/imam Yahya of Yemen; yet, the coup failed because the Yemeni tribes stood against Al-Waziri who sent letters for Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud to request his (financial and military) help and support; the Saudi king let him down and refused to help him, as he wanted only to get rid of his arch-enemy the ruler/imam of Yemen who ruled Yemen for 47 years. Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud won to his side the new ruler of Yemen, Ahmad Ibn Yahya, who became the chief ally of the Saudi king once he was enthroned as a successor to his father the assassinated ruler/imam of Yemen.  
5- The events of Al-Waziri coup lasted for only two months (Feb. and March 1948); yet, it shook Yemen and its repercussions shook the entire Arab world for several reasons, chief among them is that this failed coup and successful assassination prove the veritable danger posed by the terrorist MB organization that had branches ad members all over the Arab and Islamic countries. Al-Wartilani and other MB members met with the Crown-Prince of Yemen, Ahmad Ibn Yahya, shortly before the assassination of his father, and he refused the covenant of rule they proposed (which was like a draft of a constitution). Al-Wartilani planned the assassination of the ruler of Yemen which took place on 17th of Feb. 1948; five armed assassins were in a car owned by the company of Al-Wartilani, and this car stopped near the procession of the ruler of Yemen at a village 10 kilometers away from the capital, Sana'a, and they fired their guns; 50 bullets were later on extracted from the corpse of the dead ruler of Yemen; other people around him, including a child, were injured by the bullets. Some historians assert that Hassan Al-Banna wrote this covenant or constitution draft in 1947 before the coup would take place. The short-lived government and parliament of Al-Waziri coup had many MB members from Yemen and Egypt; the Yemeni radio station (whose transmission was only 4 hours a day) employed several Egyptian MB members (who worked as teachers in Yemen) including Dr. Mustafa Al-Shaqaa (the author of books published in Egypt later on about 'Islamic' thought). The newspaper owned by the MB organization described on 21st Feb., 1948, Abdullah Al-Waziri, the new ruler of Yemen, as the pious, knowledgeable imam/ruler loved by all Yemenis (!). MB members roamed Yemen with loudspeakers fitted into several cars to urge Yemeni tribes to support the new imam/ruler Abdullah Al-Waziri. A delegation of the Al-Waziri coup headed by Al-Wartilani visited the Saudi king in the Saudi capital, Riyadh, and the shrewd Saudi king knew the coup will fail as all Yemeni tribes were against it and supported the son and successor of the assassinated imam/ruler; the Saudi king deliberately wasted the time of the delegation by making them stay longer days in Riyadh so that Ahmad Ibn Yahya would gather troops (with the help and support of the Saudi king) and re-conquer Sana'a. This way, the Saudi king betrayed the MB members who helped him get rid of the ruler of Yemen; he made Ahmad Ibn Yahya as his ally and friend without consulting the MB supreme guide Hassan Al-Banna. The new ruler of Yemen commanded the beheading of the leaders of the coup; yet, Al-Wartilani, who was in Yemen at the time, managed to escape in as ship after stealing a large amount of gold and he settled in Lebanon for some years under the protection of the Lebanese MB members. A final remark: Al-Banna was the first one to know the news of the assassination of the ruler of Yemen and he praised the role of the MB members in Al-Waziri coup. The details of this role are unclear; Al-Banna was secretive about this topic; yet, the covenant/constitution of the coup government was edited and written by the Egyptian MB members; the role of Al-Wartilani in planning the events in Sana'a was known and tackled within history books and many journalist articles of the period; there are reports that indicate that Al-Banna was asked by the MB member Al-Wartilani to come to Sana'a and he rented a plane for him (but Al-Banna never made this journey); he also rented loudspeakers to address Yemeni tribes to urge them to obey Abdullah Al-Waziri; the MB-affiliated newspapers criticized and attacked the ruler/imam Yahya of Yemen in 1947 to pave the way for the planned coup; for more details about the role of the MB members in Al-Waziri coup in 1948, we urge readers to read this article (in Arabic) by the Yemeni Quranist and activist Mr. Abdel-Wahab Al-Nawary, found on this link:      
CHAPTER II: The Political Divorce between the Terrorist MB Organization and the Saudi State 
Firstly: the failure of the Al-Waziri coup (known in Arabic as "the revolt of the covenant", an appellation formulated by the MB members) made Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud reject the MB members:
1- We tend to think that Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud decided to take revenge against the imam Yahya, ruler of Yemen, for obvious reasons: he made a peace treaty with him to preserve his dignity (and make him keep his throne) and he never conquered and annexed regions of Yemen after he defeated the Yemeni troops, and yet, this Yemeni ruler sent assassins to murder him inside the Sacred Kaaba Mosque during the pilgrimage season to get rid of him and to prove to 'Muslims' worldwide that he could not protect himself, let alone protecting all pilgrims inside Hejaz. This was a grave insult that would have undermined the Saudi royal family; despite the fact that Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud survived this assassination attempt, he felt that the insult would not be removed unless the ruler of Yemen is assassinated in a humiliating manner.
2- Hence, we tend to think that Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud put the plan to assassinate the ruler of Yemen and enlisted the help of the ambitious Yemeni leader, Abdullah Al-Waziri, and Hassan Al-Banna and his terrorist MB members who have specialized in assassinations. Hence, Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud never thought of conquering and annexing Yemen; he sought to change its regime into a friendly one which will not pose any threat to the KSA; seeing that Al-Waziri coup failed, the Saudi king had to sever all relations with Yemeni and Egyptian MB members involved in the coup and with the Algerian MB member Al-Wartilani; he readily supported and sided with the newly enthroned ruler of Yemen, Ahmad Ibn Yahya, who succeeded his assassinated father. The coup failed because the Yemeni tribes were hostile to Abdullah Al-Waziri and supported Ahmad Ibn Yahya as the legitimate ruler/imam of Yemen. Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud disowned the coup and supported the new ruler of Yemen and made him his ally.
3- Protecting the southern borders of the KSA was not the only reason for this stance of Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud; he had his doubts regarding the Egyptian MB members; he felt that they were not real Wahabis; they have embraced Sunnite Wahabism only as a façade to cover their real motive: to reach power and rule Egypt and other countries; despite their Wahabism, their social and political background is linked with the liberal epoch of Egypt; this contradicts the Bedouin culture of Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud that makes the boundaries between tribal leaders and rulers/kings hazy or almost nonexistent. Besides, Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud hated the covenant/constitution written by the MB members for Yemen and introduced during the short-lived Al-Waziri coup; the reforms included in this document posed a veritable threat to the Saudi kingdom of Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud; he felt that the Egyptian MB members are more dangerous than the Najd Brothers; they may covet to reach power inside the KSA one day. This is why Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud let the MB members down and let the coup fail; he felt he can no longer trust the MB organization; he kept them at bay by never allowing them to settle and work inside the KSA and by funding them generously all the time to spread Wahabism in Egypt and elsewhere; he never cared whether they ever reach power in Egypt and in other countries or not as long as they are outside his Saudi kingdom.       
4- Thus, Al-Banna and the MB members felt that they were betrayed by Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud; they relied on his aid to make the coup in Yemen succeed. They knew that the Saudi king was hostile to their proposed covenant/constitution in Yemen; they showed their anger to Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud for letting them down; the MB member and historian Mahmoud Abdel-Haleem mentions that the Saudi king deliberately made the MB delegation who reached Riyadh from Yemen linger there for several days so that he would secretly help Ahmad Ibn Yahya retrieve his throne; Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud distrusted the MB organization and preferred that monarchy should remain in Yemen. He mentions also that when Al-Banna performed pilgrimage in 1948, the Saudi authorities forced him never to deliver any political speeches and never to hold any meetings with anyone; he felt that he might be assassinated or imprisoned when he would return to Egypt, but he had to return anyway as the Saudi regime became more hostile towards him and his followers. The Saudi king knew that after the failure of Al-Waziri coup, many people inside the KSA sympathized with the MB members; they desired that the MB members would settle inside the KSA or that a similar organization of Wahabi 'brothers'/brethren would be established inside the KSA; the absolutist ruler and tyrant, Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud, feared this possibility very much; he made his kingdom take the name of his family and made Wahabi clergymen, scholars, and sheikhs blindly obey him and impose obeying him on the subjects as part of Wahabi tenets. This caused frustration among reform seekers inside the KSA and among those Wahabis who coveted to reach power in Arabia and assumed that the MB members are 'good' examples to be followed. Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud made sure everyone understood he was the owner of the KSA and no one would dare to question his stances and deeds. Many Wahabis felt they had the right to share rule and authority inside the KSA; the MB organization members raised this awareness because of their covenant/constitution introduced to Yemen for a very short while during Al-Waziri coup that failed.
Secondly: many of the MB members immigrated to the KSA after the death of Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud:
1- The failed Al-Waziri coup and the role of the MB members in wreaking havoc in Yemen made the Egyptian government realize the fact that the terrorist MB members pose a veritable danger to Egypt; this is because Hassan Al-Banna managed to control and plan such violence in Yemen while he was in Egypt, and this means he controlled many dangerous elements inside Egypt and in several countries. After such escalation of events, the Egyptian Prime Minister at the time, Mahmoud Fahmy Al-Noukrashi, issued a law about banning the MB organization on the 8th of Dec., 1948; twenty days later, the terrorist MB members assassinated him. This caused a severe clash between the terrorist MB organization and the Egyptian State; Al-Banna was assassinated on the 12th of Feb., 1949, in Cairo, and the new supreme guide of the MB was Al-Hodeiby who replaced Al-Banna in Oct. 1951. The MB supported the 1952 military coup against the royal family, and Egypt turned into a republic; this marked a new era for the MB members.     
2- A more severe clash took place between the MB members and President Gamal Abdel-Nasser who banned the MB organization as an outlawed organization and he initiated many arrest waves of MB members since 1954 until 1964. At the time, the Saudi king was Saud Ibn Abdul-Aziz; some MB members who managed to flee from Egypt before being imprisoned settled in the KSA and other Gulf monarchies.  
3- Thousands of Egyptian MB members, along with their families, settled in the KSA; many of them received the Saudi nationality and assumed top positions and high-rank posts and received diplomatic passports. This was not merely a sign of Saudi generosity; rather, the Saudi royal family feared Nasser and his ideology of Pan-Arabism (a.k.a. Arab nationalism) that included getting rid of backward, hated monarchies in the Arab world. Nasser helped several Arab countries to become republics (e.g., Libya and Yemen); the Egyptian warplanes attacked the south of the KSA; the Saudis had to face Nasser in Yemen and to support the MB members who raise 'Islamic' (or rather Wahabi/Sunnite) banners against Nasserists, Baathists, nationalists, communists, Marxists, leftists, etc. in the Arab world. After the death of Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud who had a strong character, the Wahabi fanatics and extremists among sheikhs/clergymen decided to protest against the modernization of the KSA and issued fatwas to declare as infidels/apostates those who use or agree with new inventions, laws, and systems introduced inside the kingdom. This might have caused the repetition of the tragedy of the Najd Brothers with Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud; his son and successor, king Saud, had to resort to the help of MB members inside the KSA to modernize Wahabism and make it fit the modern era and to refute and stand against the Wahabi fanatics and extremists.         
4- The MB members in the KSA made use of their situation there by controlling the educational sector and the so-called 'Islamic' charity institutions; with their experience within secret activities, they infiltrated into all of the Saudi governmental sectors; thus, the MB members thrived inside the KSA; this increased once Nasser died in 1970 and Sadat who took over released Al-Hodeiby, the supreme guide of MB organization at the time, and other MB members from prison in 1971. Al-Hodeiby performed pilgrimage in 1973 and seized the chance to hold an international conference in Mecca for all the MB members who came from the four corners of the world; this is their first international conference since their ordeal that began in 1954. Because most MB members were in the KSA and the other Gulf monarchies, and very few were in the West countries at the time, there were three MB committees inside the KSA (in Riyadh, Al-Dammam, and Jeddah), one in Qatar, one in Kuwait, and one in UAE. This allowed Al-Hodeiby to easily make them gather in Mecca for this international conference. The MB Shura (or consultation) council consisted of 38 top male members, three of which are appointed by the supreme guide (an Egyptian, a Saudi, and a Syrian), and the rest from the other Arab countries, but mostly from Gulf monarchies because funding from their countries was needed all the time.         
5- The control and influence of the MB members inside the KSA reached its zenith during the reign of king Feisal in the 1970s; the MB members fully controlled both the Saudi media and education sectors. The Saudi king Feisal enlisted the help of the MB organization (and its branches in all countries, especially in the West) to spread Wahabism inside the USA and Europe. The Saudi king Feisal managed to make a reconciliation between the MB members and Sadat; hence, the Egyptian MB members returned to Egypt and controlled the educational sector and most mosques; the MB organization spawned many Salafist groups that cared for the religious call and many others who were terrorists who sought to reach power and rule; such violent extremists and terrorists assassinated Sadat in Oct. 1981. Thus, king Feisal spent tens of billions of US$ in order to spread Wahabism worldwide in the name of 'Islam' so as to make his Saudi royal family members as leaders of 'Muslims' of the world; the whole world is paying a heavy price for it; bloodbaths caused by religious terrorism of Sunnite Wahabis worldwide have not ended yet; the KSA is to blame for such bloodshed.     
6- When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1991, the Saudi regime realized the veritable danger of the MB organization members; the MB members supported and sided with Saddam Hussein; the Wahabi opposition members and leaders (e.g., Al-Masaary and Al-Faqeeh) were taught by teachers/tutors who are MB members. This means that the MB members took revenge against the Saudi royal family after the failure of Al-Waziri coup by teaching some cultured Wahabi Saudis that they have the right to share rule, power, and authority alongside with the Saudi royal family members or to rule as theocrats instead of them; the MB members inside the KSA since 1954 taught Saudis that they have rights which are confiscated and that rule and authority should be for the fittest and not for the mightiest or the most powerful; they have created the Wahabi opposition movement and its ambitious people who desired to reach power inside the KSA; those cultured Wahabis were taught in the universities of Egypt, Britain, and Europe; yet, they studied Wahabism to excel in it and to outsmart the Wahabi scholars of the Al-Sheikh family members who were loyal to the Saudi regime and monopolized Wahabism; those ambitious persons later on declared themselves as the better candidates to rule Arabia in the future; such ideas were inculcated into them by their MB teachers and tutors who were allowed to settle in the KSA since 1954 when the Nasser regime in Egypt persecuted them severely. When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, the KSA readily enlisted the help of the USA; this means that KSA had no real military forces to defend itself despite spending hundreds of trillions of US$ to buy weapons and arms; the Saudi family members feared that Saddam Hussein might annex Saudi regions to Iraq. The emergence of the Wahabi opposition movement inside the KSA in the 1990s led to a political divorce between the KSA and the MB organization members; for more details about this topic, we refer readers to our book, in English, titled "The Wahabi Opposition Movements in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in the Twentieth Century" found on this link:    (http://www.ahl-alquran.com/arabic/book_main.php?main_id=85).      
7- The prince Nayef was the Saudi Interior Minister who faced the opposition movement inside the KSA in the 1990s; in his interview published in a Kuwaiti newspaper, he asserted that the root of this evil was the MB members who settled inside the KSA and were given its nationality after they were being persecuted in Egypt and other countries; he mentioned that these MB members are hypocrites who declared to Saudi circles that they opposed the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, but once some of them arrived to Baghdad, Iraq, within an 'Islamic' delegation, they readily declared to Saddam Hussein their support of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, despite the fact that the other delegation members denounced this invasion.
1- Within the last decade of the 20th century, the sons of Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud seem to have realized the veritable danger posed by the Egyptian MB members who resided inside the KSA; of course, before his death, Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud knew this and made sure to keep this danger at bay because of his bitter experience with the Najd Brothers.
2- What is never realized by the sons of Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud is the fact that their Wahabi religion of Satan allows ample room (1) for tyrants to commit grave injustices and atrocities and (2) for seekers of the throne to commit more grave injustices and more heinous atrocities to prove their religious and political 'worthiness' to rule instead of the enthroned tyrants (also in the name of Wahabism!) and to urge revolts/revolutions against those tyrants in power. Hence, one of the Sunnite tenets is that rule is for the most powerful one who defeats the others: this strange tenet gives a sort of 'legitimacy' for the new rulers whose military might brought them to power. Hence, Wahabi opposition figures among the power-seekers desire to defeat the Wahabi tyrants and rule instead of them – until another Wahabi opposition figures would dethrone and abdicate them, and this goes on and on within a vicious circle, and all this is under the umbrella of Wahabi creeds/notions. More details about this topic in our book, in English, titled "The Wahabi Opposition Movements in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in the Twentieth Century" found on this link:    (http://www.ahl-alquran.com/arabic/book_main.php?main_id=85).     
3- In light of the above point, we understand that the arch-enemies of the KSA are Wahabis they have created and planted inside and outside the KSA. There are no differences at all among the terrorist MB organization, Al-Qaeda, and ISIS. 
4- Therefore, the only solution to make bloodshed cease is that the Al-Saud family members would declare the end of the pact made between their ancestor, M. Ibn Saud, with M. Ibn Abdul-Wahab in 1745. We mean this pact that made an insignificant city in Najd, Al-Dariyya, became a center of invading troops who expanded in Arabia and annexed stretches of land to form the first Saudi State destroyed by the Egyptian troops of M. Ali Pacha, the governor and later on king of Egypt, in 1818. It is high time that the KSA should free itself from Wahabism and become a secular kingdom like Jordan and Morocco; reforms are required to be introduced to eliminate Wahabi control over citizens and to grant them religious freedom. Of course, political reforms must be introduced so that the KSA would be a constitutional kingdom.    
5- These reforms would be applied only if the KSA desires to go on existing on the world map amidst the earthquakes that shatter the Middle-East region (from 2010 until now) caused mainly by the Saudi Wahabism.
The root of the political divorce between the terrorist MB organization and the Saudi State:
Firstly: as for the KSA:
1- Since the alliance formed in 1745 A.D. between Ibn Abdul-Wahab and Ibn Saud, the Saudi State is established based on the unwritten agreement that power/authority is shared between the princes of the Al-Saud family and the Wahabi clergymen of the Al-Sheikh family (i.e., the family and descendants of Ibn Abdul-Wahab) who privately owned the man-made terrestrial/earthly Wahabi religion. The religious/spiritual authority over 'the subjects' was monopolized by the Al-Sheikh family, whereas the Al-Saud family monopolized the political authority. After the emergence of the first Saudi State (1745 – 1818 A.D.), the specified role of Ibn Abdul-Wahab was to issue fatwas to declare others as 'infidels' or 'disbelievers' (i.e., non-Wahabis who deserve to be massacred, robbed, and conquered), whereas the specified role of the Saudi prince was to fight them to annex their regions and stretches of land to the Saudi kingdom. Hence, both Al-Saud and Al-Sheikh agree on declaring non-Wahabis as infidels and on applying the Wahabi sharia of Satan by fighting, massacring, looting, and conquering as well as persecuting others in annexed regions ruled by Saudis in order to force them to convert to Wahabism.   
2- The circumstances of the first Saudi State were simple; when Saudi/Wahabi troops annexed more stretches of land in Arabia and fought other rulers of regions and cities, no outsiders or foreign powers interfered at all. Yet, once Saudis collided with the Ottoman State by conquering the Hejaz region, the Ottomans enlisted the help of the Egyptian military troops of M. Ali Pacha; the first Saudi State was destroyed in 1818 A.D. because of this external factor of foreign interference. This means that this first Saudi State might have continued to exist if it had not been for the military troops of M. Ali Pacha. Of course, the Hejaz region is the window of Arabia to the outside 'Muslim' world or the governorates and regions of the Ottoman caliphate. The European powers at the time never cared to interfere in the first Saudi State because the Saudi local expansionist ambitions had no negative impact on their interests and colonies at the time.     
3- The circumstances were very different within the endeavors to establish the third, current Saudi State by Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud and the Wahabi warriors known as the Najd Brothers within the period (1902 – 1932). At the time, the emergence of the third Saudi State coincided with the fact that Britain controlled and occupied the River Nile Valley (i.e., Egypt and Sudan), Mesopotamia (i.e., Iraq), Palestine, and the Gulf region; this means Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud had to have political relations with Egypt (whose people were deemed by Wahabis as polytheists) and Britain (and the British were deemed by Wahabis as infidels and disbelievers). These political relations and dealings contradicted Wahabi tenets (regarding non-Wahabis who are to be shunned, despised, avoided, or fought) formulated by Ibn Abdul-Wahab as per the prevalent worldview of his era in 1730s and 1740s. The problem was that Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud taught his Najd Brothers nothing but the books and teachings of Ibn Abdul-Wahab; thus, they never realized the vital importance of coping with the modern world and its radical changes in the 20th century. This problem of Wahabi sheikhs opposing international, regional, and local policies of Saudi rulers never occurred during the first Saudi State and the second one. Thus, the Wahabi clergymen/sheikhs and their followers the Wahabi Najd Brothers (whose swords helped establish the kingdom and who were taught Wahabism in military colonies/settlements by preachers appointed and paid by Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud) were united in their fierce opposition to Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud who allied himself to the Egyptians and the British; they declared their king and leader as an apostate who rejected the 'true' faith. Such fatwa drove the rebellious, belligerent Najd Brothers to fight against their leader and king; during such a clash, Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud funded the process of spreading Wahabism inside Egypt and made his agents there do their best to recruit and form a group of Egyptian Brothers (i.e., what came to be known later on as the MB organization) to replace the rebellious Najd Brothers who were later on defeated and sank into oblivion forever before the Saudi king named his kingdom after his family (i.e., the KSA) in 1932 A.D.     
4- There is a huge difference between the Egyptian MB members and the Najd Brothers, despite the fact that both are Sunnite Wahabis. The MB members seek only to reach power and authority by whatever means; they are flexible, compromising, flattering, chameleon-like hypocrites. On the contrary, the Najd Brothers never sought compromises or piecemeal solutions; they saw no grey areas, only black or white ones. They deemed those who never join them as 'infidels' and never as 'Muslims'; they monopolized the name of Islam and felt they have the 'right' to fight and kill off all non-Wahabis as per the teachings of their wicked religion. Hence, the Wahabi Najd Brothers typically forced people either to join their forces and religion or to be among their foes and preys/victims. Even when the Najd Brothers fiercely fought against their master Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud, they massacred many peaceful Wahabis inside the kingdom (men, women, and children) for merely siding with the king and never joining their battles to defend the Wahabi tenets violated by Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud.  
5- There is also a huge difference between the Egyptian MB members and the Saudi State of Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud; the Saudi king was keen on preserving his kingdom and preventing its collapse; he knew quite well that the first Saudi State collapsed because of the external, Egyptian interference and that the second Saudi State collapsed because of internal conflicts within the Al-Saud family members. In order to avoid familial conflicts, the Saudi king established a system of appointing heirs of the Saudi throne; to avoid any Egyptian threat that might endanger his kingdom, he funded the spread of Wahabism in Egypt in order to make it a strategic depth to the KSA. Of course, Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud never desired to expand his kingdom by annexing Yemen, Kuwait, etc. so as not to collide with European powers and so as not to lose everything he achieved; he desired only to retrieve the regions (including Hejaz) ruled at one time by his Saudi ancestors during the first Saudi State and the second one. Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud saw no danger in case any Wahabis outside Arabia would reach power in any country; this is why he was keen on propagating Wahabism inside Egypt and establishing the MB organization there as well.    
6- Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud realized that the Egyptian MB members pose a veritable danger to the KSA and he prevented them from entering into his kingdom before he died in Nov. 1953; maybe he did not realize that the reason for such danger was the fact that the Egyptian MB members emerged during the liberal epoch in Egypt and this made them very different from the Najd Brothers – despite the fact that the Najd Brothers, Saudi clergymen/sheikhs, and the Egyptian MB members share one terrestrial/earthly, man-made religion, which is Wahabism of course.   
Secondly: as for the terrorist MB organization members:
1- The writings, articles, and books authored by the MB members rarely contain the term "Wahabism" or any reference to Ibn Abdul-Wahab, despite the fact that the Sunnite/Hanbali Wahabi doctrine have been followed by Hassan Al-Banna and his MB members who were at first members of the Muslim Youths Society established by the Wahabi Levantine sheikh Moheb-Eddine Al-Khateeb and the fact that Al-Banna edited the last issues of Al-Manar magazine after the death of the Wahabi Levantine sheikh Rasheed Reda. The writings of Al-Banna stress the terms "Salafism" and "Sunna"; yet, the content of his writings shows Wahabi tenets and notions, of course.
2- Yet, unlike the Wahabis of Arabia, Al-Banna and his MB members never urged the destruction of mausoleums inside Egypt or anywhere else; they cared only for one aim: to reach power inside Egypt (and other countries) as theocrats. This means that Al-Banna in his writings disregarded many other Wahabi tenets mentioned in the books of Ibn Abdul-Wahab; e.g., to disown non-Wahabis and regard them as foes to be avoided or fought; in fact, Al-Banna welcomed the Sufis, the masses, and even ordinary, simple persons to join his terrorist MB organization and he cooperated with political parties in Egypt, and this is deemed as blasphemy (i.e., befriending polytheists) within the Wahabi religion of Satan. Few people know that the hypocrite Al-Banna during his youth joined a Sufi order at one time. This means that he used all available tools to reach power and rule; this mentality means that the MB members naturally dared to criticize Wahabi rulers inside the KSA as they followed the footsteps of their supreme deity, Al-Banna, and they disregarded the teachings of the deity of Wahabism: Ibn Abdul-Wahab.    
3- The Saudi Wahabism focuses on massacring, raping, and robbing non-Wahabis and invading their regions; in contrast, the alleged Wahabism of Al-Banna was more 'tolerant'; i.e., he allowed all Sufis and non-Wahabi Sunnites to join his terrorist MB organization; all members were unified by one aim: to reach power and rule. This was the source of dispute between Al-Banna and his master and sheikh Rasheed Reda who served the British and the ruler of Hejaz, Al-Sharif Hussein, temporarily to serve his Wahabi religion and his master Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud; this means that Rasheed Reda adhered to his Wahabi tenets; he never stopped attacking the Sufi-Sunnite non-Wahabi Azharite sheikhs and scholars; he took pride in his Wahabism and propagated it openly; in contrast, his disciple Al-Banna was a hypocrite and he had his hopes on unifying the 'Muslim' masses and all trends in the religious and political spectrum to join his MB members who aim at reaching power, this is the only aim of the MB organization and many members were ready to die for it, and he raised empty slogans and banners (e.g., linking themselves loosely to Quran and to Sunna & considering 'Islam' as the real nationality of the MB members) without mentioning the term Wahabism at all. This is why Al-Banna banned all types of doctrinal discussions and debates; in fact, he inculcated into his followers the tenet of blind obedience and to never question anything linked to the MB organization and high-rank members of its hierarchy; he expected all his men to care only for one aim: to reach power in Egypt and elsewhere as one caliphate or theocracy.  
4- The aim of Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud, who used Wahabism to serve his purpose, was to restore the kingdom of his forefathers and to keep it from collapsing; he never cared for the revival of the notion of caliphate. In contrast, Al-Banna stressed the idea of caliphate or theocracy; he never cared about his homeland (i.e., Egypt); he saw Egypt as a mere governorate/province among so many ones in his MB caliphate that included all Arab and 'Islamic' countries. The liberal epoch of Egypt (1920 – 1950) allowed Al-Banna free movement on the political, social, and organizational levels and to call for whatever ideas; yet, he despised the idea of nationality and he looked for another homeland which was his dream of establishing a caliphate and he would be on top of it as a theocratic ruler.    
Thirdly: the degree of dangerousness of the Saudi Najd Brothers and the Wahabi MB terrorists in Egypt:
1- The degree of dangerousness of the Wahabi MB terrorists exceeds that of the Saudi Najd Brothers and Al-Saud family members in general; this is because the founders of the first, second, and third, current Saudi kingdoms knew the limits of their borders and geographical location within setting a clear ideology (i.e., Wahabism); even the communist countries did the same and so did the Abbasids (i.e., Sunnite ideology) and the Fatimids (i.e., Shiite ideology). In contrast, Al-Banna never defined what his ideology is; he never defined sharia laws which he called for their application; his ambitions led him to envision the MB State within all over the countries of the Muhammadans, regardless of their differences, languages, geographical locations, etc., and he never thought of modernizing the Wahabis Sunnite sharia laws; he advocated them without clear definition so as not to make his followers divided or lose some of them; he disliked the fact that his MB followers are actually divided into Sufis, followers of Hanbali, Maliki, Al-Shafei, and Abou Hanifa Sunnite doctrines, Wahabi extremists, and secular power-seekers.        
2- We have written a lot before about the big problem which will face the Wahabi terrorist MB organization if it will reach power in Egypt or elsewhere; i.e., they will face the burden of applying Sunnite Wahabi sharia laws which are vague and remain undefined by the MB members and Al-Banna the founder of the MB. When Sunnite Hanbali sharia laws were applied in the era of the Mameluke sultan Qaitbay in Egypt (and we refer readers to our book, on our website, about this topic), grave injustices were committed and heinous crimes were perpetrated, though this is typical in general in the obscurantist Middle-Ages where injustices dominated. Of course, the Wahabi sharia laws of Satan cannot be applied in our modern era of democracy and human rights as the awareness of nations is raised now in the era of the internet. Within our heading the weekly forums of Ibn Khaldoun Center in Cairo, Egypt, in the 1990s and within our writings later on, we have asserted that the challenge that will be faced by the Wahabi terrorist MB organization if it ever reached power in Egypt is how to apply the so-called Sunnite sharia laws (with its contradictory fiqh fatwas and hadiths), as the MB members will never make these sharia laws compatible with modern laws; besides, such sharia laws of Satan are filled with endless contradictory hadiths and Wahabis consider those who reject or try to sift through hadiths to exclude some of them as infidels and apostates! Discrepancies are also endless in the fiqh laws and fatwas. When the MB members reached power in Egypt within the rigged 2012 presidential elections, we have written in our articles at the time that the MB members dreamt of this moment for 80 years, but they never spent 80 minutes to think about how they will rule Egypt and how they would fulfill their empty promise of applying Wahabi Sunnite sharia laws. We have predicted their failure before the ouster of the MB president in the aftermath of the 30th of June 2013 revolt in Egypt (when 30 million Egyptians [i.e., more than one-third of the population at the time] joined massive peaceful sits-in and demonstrations in all major cities in Egypt to demand the removal of the MB regime). We have written at the time that the only true law for the MB members is to either rule Egyptians or to massacre them as 'infidels'!          
3- We remind our readers of the above facts because vague, undefined, generalized, empty mottoes of Al-Banna helped spread his Wahabi MB call all over Egypt and elsewhere; branches of the MB organization mushroomed like cancerous cells inside Egypt as well as in the Middle-East countries, Europe, and the USA. The gullible, ordinary people who joined the lower ranks of the MB organization sought a mirage which will never be realized (i.e., the restoration of caliphate theocracy) and they assumed that it is OK to resort to acts of violence and crimes of terrorism to achieve this end and to pick and choose from hadiths and Wahabi fiqh what would serve their purposes, as per rules set by their spiritual leader Al-Banna. Of course, the stronger and more powerful adversaries of the MB members are the ruling regimes in any country; the MB members have to adopt political hypocrisy and to claim in public they are 'moderates', while they have secret armed groups at their service; the MB members disowned in public, during the era of Mubarak, such armed groups of terrorists and claimed that these terrorists never belonged to the MB organization; this is how the manipulative MB members assign roles to one another to deceive the Egyptian nation; of course, such armed MB groups or militias of terrorists cannot face the Egyptian Armed Forces or any other military army of any other country; they only commit terrorist crimes and assassinate persons, as per Wahabi sharia laws and rules; Wahabism is the root of religious terrorism worldwide.     
Fourthly: the generation of Hassan Al-Banna was deprived, angry, and frustrated:
1-  In contrast with the arid desert Najd region with its cruel, extremist, belligerent, fanatic people who committed bloodshed throughout the centuries (and this is a historical fact, before and after the descent of the Quran), Egypt had its River-Nile environment and moderate climate that have made its people tolerant, patient, and peaceful and they tend to submit to any rulers (and this is a historical fact in B.C. and A.D. eras), and the main feature of the Egyptians in all previous eras is religious tolerance – and this feature has ceased to exist when Sunnite Wahabism dominated Egypt in the second half of the 20th century, as Wahabism has invaded and permeated through all aspects of life in Egypt.   
2- Before this Wahabi invasion, the generation of Al-Banna was deprived, angry, and frustrated; Al-Banna lived within an impoverished family and his father, Abdel-Rahman Al-Banna, was an educated Sunnite Hanbali man who found that most Egyptians followed the dominant religion of Sunnite Sufism which combined Sunnite sharia laws and deification/sanctification of Sufi saints; Hassan Al-Banna witnessed all this heritage besides the bitterness of the class of educated youths who never had the chance to participate in the political life in Egypt.  
3- The 1919 revolt in Egypt caused radical social changes in Egypt among those middle-class members who participated in this revolt; after they got educated, they felt they would remain as servants and servile employees to the affluent class of feudal lords and Pachas. There was no room for those who desire to climb to social ladder within the so-called social mobility; even engaging in political parties was a useless effort that never led to changing the conditions to the better; the affluent class members sided with the Egyptian King and the British occupiers of Egypt; hence, the middle-class members had no place under the sun, as most jobs were preserved for the sons of the affluent class members through bribes and mediators; hence, the generation of Al-Banna was the deprived, angry, and frustrated Egyptians; this was the ideal atmosphere for recruiting Wahabi agents and those willing to assume they can serve 'Islam' while getting money, jobs, and the chance to climb the social ladder.     
4- In addition to the above, the increase in the number of printing and publishing houses allowed the educated class to read and get cultured; they knew about their rights and how they are deprived of them, especially real, active political participation; the class of writers, authors, journalists, engineers, governmental employees, and lawyers insisted on educating their offspring during the liberal epoch of Egypt in the first half of the 20th century, which was an epoch that lacked social justice; they could not make wealth and they had to remain in their social classes however well-educated they were. 
5- The generation of Al-Banna was ambitious and deprived of political participation; it longed for being more socially and politically involved inside all aspects of life inside Egypt in spite of the British occupiers, the King of Egypt and the royal family, and the wealthy class of Beys and Pachas. The frustrated, angry youths protested this despicable conditions by joining three main trends as follows.     
5/1: The nationalistic trend people in Egypt admired and were influenced by German and Italian chauvinism; Ahmed Hussein established in 1923 the political party known as the Young Egypt, which was later on affiliated with the terrorist MB organization; the nationalist leaders Mustafa Kamel and M. Fareed established the political party known as the National Party.    
5/2: The Marxist trend in Egypt admired the USSR that emerged in 1917; the Egyptian Socialist Party was established in 1921, headed by the thinker Salama Moussa and others; yet, it was persecuted by the government of Saad Zaghloul Pacha in 1924 and it experienced divisions.
5/3: The MB organization, established in 1928, was more successful in recruiting more men because the MB members concealed very well their Wahabism and feigned at first their preaching Sunnite Sufism with a focus on applying the so-called Sunnite sharia laws; they also concealed very well their ties with the Saudi State and that the Saudi royal family funded them in secret; their success is also due to the fact that they allowed anyone to join them inside Egypt and the Arab world; they stood with the crisis/plight of the Palestinians and with their revolt led by the sheikh Amin Al-Husseiny. Hence, the MB organization turned from merely a small group in Ismailia of 'religious' police who patrolled the streets to enjoin good deeds and to eliminate 'vice' into an unofficial political party with known headquarters inside Cairo where dignitaries and delegations of VIPs among Egyptians and non-Egyptians met with MB leaders; even the secretary-general of the Arab League once went there to meet with them.   
6- Al-Banna took advantage of such momentum and established 50.000 branches of the MB organization inside almost every Egypt city and village, apart from the MB scouts; thus, he and his men taught recruited MB novices blind obedience. Soon enough, Al-Banna established the international MB organization and bought arms/weapons for the MB secret assassination group to get rid of enemies of the MB organization who posed a threat to it. Al-Banna commissioned this MB secret assassination group to get rid of two Egyptian prime ministers and one Egyptian judge; the armed groups of the MB organization participated in the war of 1948 in Palestine; this paved the way for the MB organization to infiltrate into the Egyptian military army; i.e., it is said often that some of the so-called Free Officers of the 1952 coup d'état in Egypt belonged secretly to the MB organization.  
  It is a sad fast that the terrorist MB organization is deemed still by some people as a factor within the equation of the regional and international policies despite the military clampdown on them and security measures undertaken against by the police against them in Egypt and the Arab world; it is deemed as an outlawed, terrorist organization now in Egypt, the KSA, and the UAE, for instance. Of course, the terrorist Wahabi MB organization is weakened now and its members are not that clever; yet, they continue to pose a threat in Egypt and worldwide because no one (in Egypt and in the West countries) have thought to employ Quranism to peacefully defeat, eliminate, and undermine Wahabism and the MB organization within an intellectual war of ideas.   
CHAPTER III: The Terrorist MB Organization Applies its Wahabi Sharia Laws within the Liberal Epoch of Egypt
Firstly: the myth of the 'moderation' of the terrorist MB organization:
1- The Najd Brothers, trained and taught by Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud, were frank and never resorted to hypocrisy; they considered non-Wahabis as enemies who must be fought and killed in the name of their wicked Wahabi religion. In contrast, the MB members of Egypt were hypocrites who feigned being 'moderates' and concealed very well their Wahabi affiliation and their ties with the KSA. Thus, the Najd Brothers were frank polytheistic aggressors, whereas the MB members were hypocrites who changed their colors like chameleons as per what would fit their era and location.      
2- The MB members had to adopt flattery and hypocrisy because they began to emerge in the 1930s inside Egypt within the liberal epoch of different doctrines of Muhammadans, Christians, foreigners of different, seculars, Levantine immigrants, Jews, British occupiers, the power and influence of the Egyptian King and the royal family, and the secular culture that dominated the social and political climate at the time.   
3- Accordingly, the MB members were hypocrites who never showed in public what they secretly believed in; i.e., they believed in Wahabism but never mentioned its name in their speeches and writings; they adopted, preached, and applied the Sunnite sharia only as per what they see as fit for their immediate purposes and tactfully avoided controversial, thorny issues and postponed applying their hidden agenda; they publicly feigned being people whose focus is on religion while their real focus was on politics and reaching power; they raised banners of 'Islam' and feigned that their goal is the please the Lord God, while their real ends were to establish theocracy and to reach power/authority to control every aspects of Egypt and all 'Islamic' countries. The MB terrorists feigned that the Quran is their constitution and that Muhammad is their role-model; yet, they have committed heinous crimes of terrorism in Egypt and in many countries. God has sent Muhammad with the Quran as a mercy to the humankind and NOT to terrorize, intimidate, and destroy the humankind. It is a grave sin for those who are engaged into the political life to assume that God has chosen them and that He sides with them and curses their political foes! This negates the right of other parties and political figures to exist in the political scene; politics is all about protesting, competition, and participation. Besides, the very appellation of MB (i.e., Muslim Brotherhood) implies that as if non-MB members were not Muslims and as if the wicked, evil MB members monopolized speaking in the name of Islam. This means that if the MB members were to have the chance to rule Egypt for a longer duration to apply Wahabi sharia laws of Satan, they would have massacred Egyptians with cold blood while assuming that it is OK to kill off non-MB members, as per Wahabi laws, after deeming them as 'infidels' and non-Muslims who deserve to be put to death if they would dare to protest against MB regime and its dictates and decrees!  
4- The so-called 'moderation' of the MB members is negated by the fact that they have assassinated several of their political foes; they could not massacre the vast majority of Egyptians who protested against them in 2013, as this was beyond their capacity, even if Wahabi sharia laws of Satan permit massacring and killing entire nations off after deeming them as 'infidels'. This means that the MB members applied Wahabi sharia laws of massacre/murder only against the foes feared by the MB organization that defended its existence by assassinating these foes who posed a veritable threat. These assassinations were perpetrated by the secret MB armed militias/groups of violence and assassinations which were established in the 1940s, long before they reached power in 2012 inside Egypt; such acts of violence and murder is the only 'political' dialogue known by the Wahabi terrorist MB organization members.   
5- Thus, the secret MB armed militias/groups of violence and assassinations which were established in the 1940s but they were regarded as separate secret organizations that never showed their ties with the MB organization in the 1970s, during the Sadat era in Egypt, when the MB members infiltrated into the deep state, governmental sectors, syndicates, etc., and until this very moment, the hypocritical MB members typically disown in public terrorist crimes and assassinations committed by such secret groups. Sadly, we, Dr. A. S. Mansour, still find and meet with gullible Egyptian and non-Egyptian persons/thinkers who assume that the MB members are 'moderates' and are quite harmless activists! These persons/thinkers must be undeceived as soon as possible.    
Secondly the crimes of the MB terrorists during the liberal epoch in Egypt before the 1952 coup:
The assassination of the Egyptian Prime Minister Ahmed Maher:
1- The terrorist MB organization assassinated him on the 24th of Feb, 1945, because they deemed him as their enemy who interfered to stop Al-Banna from getting a seat in the Egyptian Parliament within the parliamentary elections in Ismailia, Egypt, by rigging the elections. When Ahmed Maher was inside the Parliament to deliver a speech to convince its members to allow the Egyptian Military to fight against Germany in WWII so that Britain would stop offering excuses for its occupying the Suez Canal, as he was getting out of one hall to the other, the MB member Mahmoud Al-Eissawy (who was affiliated at the same time with the National Party) shot him and Ahmed Maher died instantly. The assassin was arrested at once, and later on, Al-Banna and some high-rank MB members were arrested when the assassin admitted that he was an MB member commissioned to assassinate the Prime Minister; yet, since the assassin was a member of the National Party, Al-Banna and the other arrested high-rank MB members were set free as no one could prove that they commanded the assassin to commit the crime. At the time, some MB members infiltrated into all political parties and all trends/groups to spy on them as per the commands of Al-Banna.  
2- Within his autobiography, the ex-MB sheikh Al-Baqoory (who left the MB organization to be appointed as the Minister of Waqfs in Egypt in the 1950s) mentions the existence of the MB secret group of assassins and how Al-Banna put the plan for the assassination of the Egyptian Prime Minister Ahmed Maher to punish him for never allowing Al-Banna a seat in the Egyptian Parliament; the assassin was convinced that he would get rid of an 'enemy' of Islam (or rather, the enemy of the Wahabism of the MB terrorists) who was also about to make the Egyptians fight and get killed within the WWII for no reason.   
Explosions in Cairo, Egypt:
 Within the period June-Sept. 1948, many houses of Egyptian Jews were set on fire; the arson was committed by MB members; many big shops, companies, and assets owned by Egyptian Jews (known shops like: Benzion, Cicurel, Arco, and Gattegno) were exploded by several bombs; many Egyptians among passers-by and customers died as a result. 
The Jeep car:
  On the 15th of Nov., 1948, a Jeep car was stopped by the Egyptian police; it was owned by an MB member; the police found inside the Jeep car documents about plans to explode certain locations in Cairo and a list of people who would be assassinated; the other documents found in the Jeep car were about other explosions and assassinations which have been committed already in the same year; there was also a list of 32 name of those MB members who joined the MB secret group of assassins.
The assassination of the judge Ahmed Al-Khazendar: 
 The reason for his assassination was that he sentenced some terrorist MB members to a 25-year imprisonment term in Nov. 1947; he was about to judge another case in March 1948 involving some terrorist MB members who have exploded a movie-theater with bombs to terrorize the Egyptians, but he was shot dead by two terrorist MB members as he was getting out of his house in Helwan District, in Cairo, while he was carrying the papers of the case. Some of the dwellers of Helwan who saw the crime taking place chased and caught the two MB assassins; one of the assassins threw a grenade at the chasers and some of them were injured. When the assassins were searched in the police station, they had papers that prove they were MB members; yet, Al-Banna, when interrogated, said he never knew both men and he denounced their crime (!).  
The assassination of major-general Selim Zaki in Cairo, Egypt:
 To assert his leadership, Al-Banna made himself the number-one defender of Palestine; his motive was also to militarily train his MB members; the MB university students at the time were furious because the Egyptian government (as King Farooq sent the Egyptian Military troops to Palestine earlier) accepted very insulting terms in the truce treaty in Palestine; Al-Banna desired to remove some of the security pressures imposed on him by the Egyptian government; he planned the assassination of the major-general Selim Zaki, who was in charge of security in the Egyptian capital, Cairo, under the pretext that the MB youths had to vent their anger somehow; he planned a massive demonstration at the gates of Faculty of Medicine, in Kasr Al-Ainy Street, Cairo, to denounce the truce; the anti-riot police forces fired bullets and the MB demonstrators threw grenades and explosives; within such a scene, an MB member throw a bomb at the car of Selim Zaki (who gave orders to the anti-riot police forces) and he died because of its explosion; the Egyptian government issued a statement to accuse the MB organization of assassinating Selim Zaki; the marshal laws at the time allowed the closing down of the MB newspaper on the 4th of Dec. 1948.       
The assassination of the Prime Minister Al-Nokrashi Pacha:
1- The year 1948 was filled with bad surprises caused by the MB organization. After the failed Al-Waziri coup in Feb.-March 1948, the Egyptian State was aware of the danger posed by the terrorist MB organization, especially that MB members committed the above-mentioned crimes and fought, uninvited, inside Palestine against Zionists. 
2- Confronting the terrorist MB organization became inevitable; security pressures imposed on Al-Banna increased and he felt he was constantly watched; he contacted the royal palace, the police, the government, the Interior Minister, and all his foes and friends to help him save the MB organization from what seemed to be an imminent collapse; he was losing his grip on the frustrated, angry MB members; yet, the Egyptian Radio aired the decree of the Egyptian Cabinet to outlaw the MB organization and to arrest its MB members; the headquarters of the MB organization in Cairo and other cities were sieged and the police arrested all those who were inside it; yet, Al-Banna was not arrested under the pretext that no orders were issued to arrest him; he felt free but tormented; he felt that his MB organization was about to collapse and many of his former friends became his foes as his not being arrested aroused many suspicions.     
3- The Egyptian government issued a memo about the accusations leveled at the MB organization as a violent, terrorist organization that endangered the general peace in Cairo, Egypt, and that committed many crimes of arson, sabotage, and assassination.  
4- As per this memo, Al-Nokrashi Pacha, the military governor-general and Prime Minister of Egypt at the time, issued a decree to ban and outlaw the MB organization, to confiscate all its possessions and headquarters, and to prevent its members from any secret or overt activities/meetings linked to it. The decree also prevented any non-MB persons from helping the MB organization by any means (i.e., financially or otherwise) and to arrest any suspected people who may belong to the MB organization until proven otherwise.
5- It is noteworthy that the journalist Mustafa Amin of the Cairo-based Akhbar Al-Yom newspaper warned Al-Nokrashi by telling him that the MB members might assassinate him; this prophecy or prediction was fulfilled; the assassin was the MB member Abdel-Meguid Hassan (a student at the Veterinary Medicine Faculty) who wore a policeman suit as a camouflage; he entered the Ministry of Interior building and once he saw Al-Nokrashi Pacha entering into the elevator to get to his office there, he shot him dead with three bullets and surrendered himself at once, confessing everything calmly to the policemen who interrogated him.  
The clampdown on the MB terrorists by the Prime Minister Ibrahim Abdel-Hadi: Al-Banna disowned his followers:
1- The new Prime Minister Ibrahim Abdel-Hadi made his security forces arrest all MB members they could find; Al-Banna lost all contacts with them and with the secret MB group of assassins; this was a chance seized by Abdel-Hadi; more than 4000 MB members were arrested and tortured in prison cells; because the MB members used some Quranic verses against the Egyptian government and King Farooq, the police wrote in signboards in most cells this verse to justify this wave of arrest: "The punishment for those who fight God and His Messenger, and strive to spread corruption on earth, is that they be killed, or crucified, or have their hands and feet cut off on opposite sides, or be banished from the land. That is to disgrace them in this life; and in the Hereafter they will have a terrible torment." (5:33).  
2- During this plight of the MB members, Al-Banna delivered his famous speech, before his own assassination in Feb. 1949, to disown his followers who were imprisoned; he said his famous phrase that they were neither (brothers) nor (Muslims), and he described their crimes as a form of terrorism. This made the arrested MB members lose their morale; they bore patiently with torture because of swearing fealty to their leader Al-Banna in a dark room while being blindfolded (i.e., imitating the Masonic practices of Freemasons when they accept new members) and because they thought that they have served Islam; they were thoroughly shocked as they read in the newspapers (distributed to them on purpose by the Egyptian government) that Al-Banna delivered a speech to disown them, to denounce their 'jihad' by describing it as terrorism, and to deny their being (Muslims). Many of the MB members told everything they knew about Al-Banna and the MB organization hierarchy and crimes to the police interrogators in order to take revenge against Al-Banna.   
3- Two days after the speech of Al-Banna was published in several Cairo-based newspapers, one MB who belonged to one of the secret groups of MB assassins got arrested while he was trying to explode the Cairo-based Court of Appeal with bombs. After negotiations with the Egyptian government, Al-Banna had to write yet again another article to disown and denounce such a heinous crime and to assert that true Muslims are peaceful people who never commit acts of violence and terrorism; he wrote again that such criminals were neither (brothers) nor (Muslims); hence, many MB members considered Al-Banna as a traitor.
The top MB members are the ones who assassinated their leader Hassan Al-Banna:
 This dominant view in Egypt is based on the fact that the Egyptian government in the 1940s had no motive to assassinate Al-Banna after he disowned his followers and kneeled before Farouk, the King of Egypt, and before the high-rank people of the Egyptian government. Many Egyptian historians guess that some of the top MB members have assassinated their leader Al-Banna after accusing him of being a traitor. It is expected that they would apply Wahabi notions (and also notions/rules set by Al-Banna in his books) and murder traitors. This view is supported by the fact that Al-Banna was assassinated (by many bullets shot at him by an unidentified group of men who fled the scene of the crime at once) at the gate of the Muslim Youths Society (which was managed mostly by MB members) as he was getting out of it after a secret meeting, on 12th of February, 1949.     
 The political history of the terrorist MB members in the period (1928 - 1949) inside Egypt during its liberal epoch shows quite clearly that they never believe in democracy even if they praised it when they address audiences in the West. The only political dialogues or policies of the MB are resorting to acts of violence and assassination among other heinous crimes. We pose this question here: what did the terrorist MB members commit during the military rule of Egypt?
The Wahabism of the terrorist MB members and the military rule in Egypt:
1- Within his early career in Ismailia, Egypt, Hassan Al-Banna used to advise others about virtue and against sinning in the streets and cafés along with some followers; of course, he and they had not the power to apply the Hanbali/Wahabi notion of changing 'vice' or 'sin' by sheer force; this would have entailed power and authority in terms of the number of followers, the amount of funding, and the degree of the military might.  
2- Al-Banna left Ismailia and settled in Cairo in order to seek to befriend powerful figures and those in authority; rumors have it that the British gave him L.E. 500 and that the royal palace gave him L.E. 500, and he was the chief ally, disciple, and friend of the Levantine Wahabi sheikhs Rasheed Reda and Moheb-Eddine Al-Khateeb; he was introduced to Hafiz Wahba and became  the secret agent of Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud who funded him for several years. Hence, Al-Banna used all his connections and contacts to establish his MB organization whose members blindly obeyed him without questioning anything, and all MB members had one, clear goal: to reach power and rule Egypt and the Arab/'Islamic' world within a theocracy in order to apply the Hanbali/Wahabi tenet of changing 'vice' by sheer force; this is against liberalism and the mechanisms of democracy; this means they would have to use all possible means to create the suitable atmosphere that will allow them to ascend to power and rule and to face any resistance of the military and police forces of the State in Egypt and elsewhere.  
3- This is why Al-Banna formed his own secret armed militias; he knew that reaching power; e.g., in Egypt, would entail two things: (1) to spread Wahabism (under the name of Sunna and Salafism) to prepare all citizens to accept the MB theocratic rule, and (2) to get prepared to face the Wahabism-hating resistance of the military and police forces in any given country. Al-Banna established the MB organization in 1928; ten years later, in 1938, he formed his armed militias and made them get trained secretly; he carefully selected elements who would serve in the secret MB groups of assassins so that he would get rid of some persons who may pose a threat to his MB organization or become obstacles in his way to reach power.
4- To allow his armed militias to get trained in real-life situations, Al-Banna sent about 10000 MB members of these militias to Palestine to fight and terrorize Zionists there; they were led there by the MB member Ezz-Eddine Al-Qassam. 
5- The MB armed militias used to get their military training in secret locations inside Egypt; for instance, in Jan. 1948, the police in Cairo came across a group of MB youths in a desert area near Al-Muqattam Mount in Cairo who were being trained about how to use guns, rifles, and grenades; when they were arrested, after resisting the police for a short while, the police found with them more than 100 guns and rifles and 165 grenades; the head of this arrested militia claimed they were getting this military training as they volunteered to fight inside Palestine against Zionists; this was not true.   
6- Al-Banna befriended some of the military officers who called themselves the Free Officers who planned a coup d'état because they hated the despicable conditions of the Egyptian Military and of Egyptian political life and its corruption. Those officers belonged to the same frustrated, angry generation of Al-Banna and his followers; Al-Banna needed allies inside the Egyptian Military; those officers needed him to pave the way for the coup by convincing the Egyptian people to support the coup as a revolution to change Egypt into a republican country by overthrowing King Farooq. This is why some of the Free Officers at first cooperated with Al-Banna and his MB members.    
7- Outlawing the (MB group) and the assassination of Al-Banna did not crush or bring an end to the MB organization; thousands of MB members (even high-rank ones) were not known by the Egyptian authorities; e.g., the supreme guide Al-Hodeiby who succeeded Al-Banna was not known by the Egyptian State nor even to most ordinary MB grassroots until he resigned from his job as a judge to become the supreme guide of the MB organization in Oct. 1951.   
8- In 1950, Al-Wafd Party made an agreement with the MB organization members to support Mustapha Al-Nahhas Pacha (head of Al-Wafd Party) in the parliamentary elections in return for releasing all imprisoned MB members; once Al-Nahhas Pacha became the Prime Minister of Egypt, he revoked the decree of outlawing the MB organization; he needed the MB members' support and their control over the masses after he annulled the 1936 treaty (which made him lose much of his popularity as a leader); this way, the MB returned with a vengeance to the political scene in Egypt because of the fierce struggle among political parties and the weakness of the ruling regime shortly before the 1952 coup. 
9- The royal family in Egypt became very weak; King Farooq sensed that he might get dethroned at any moment; the 1952 coup was a success, and not even a drop of blood was shed, and the MB members took to the streets and convinced the masses inside Cairo to support the '1952 Revolution' (the appellation of the 1952 coup used until now inside Egypt) and to chant slogans showing this support of turning Egypt into a republic that would put an end to the era of injustice and corruption. 
10- Nasser became the President of Egypt in 1954; he suspended all political parties; he allied himself at first with the MB organization; he got rid of the first president M. Naguib (1952 - 1954) by insulting and incarcerating him (i.e., he was kept in his house for life); Nasser was bent on getting rid of the MB members even if this would entail a long struggle. When he survived an assassination attempt in 1954 and the MB assassin got arrested and confessed his crime, a clampdown (which was like a witch-hunt) began as the Egyptian authorities arrested and tortured as many MB members as they can; all those MB members they could lay their hands on were arrested in 1954 - 1955; yet, the Nasser regime let many MB members leave Egypt apparently forever (they settled mostly in the KSA). The military rule in Egypt in the past decades until now (1954 - 2015) is in constant struggle against the terrorist MB organization; for instance, the MB members (as per their Wahabi notions of destruction and massacres) have committed many terrorist operations in Egypt in the period 2013 – 2015. The current Egyptian regime has arrested hundreds of MB members who were tried in Egyptian courts and sentenced to different imprisonment terms and some of them received the death sentence.    
11- We provide some more details in the brief points below.
Firstly: the MB terrorist organization and the Egyptian military: 
1- In the period 1946 - 1948, the military officer Mahmoud Labeeb, who was an MB member, managed to convince several Free Officers to join the MB organization, including Gamal Abdel-Nasser who became the President of Egypt in 1954. The initiation ceremony was like the Masonic one of Freemasons; i.e., to make the new member enter blindfolded into a dark room and to touch a copy of the Quran and a revolver while swearing the solemn oath of loyalty to the MB organization and its supreme guide Al-Banna. Thus, some Egyptian historians assume that most Free Officers of the 1952 coup were either MB members or sympathizers with (or friends of) the MB organization without joining it.   
2- Abdel-Nasser distrusted the MB organization very much and he joined it in order to spy on its members; this is the view held by most Egyptian historians now; some of them also assert that Nasser kept the MB members away from the founding committee of the Free Officers Movement. 
3- However, it is NOT true that the MB organization founded the Free Officers Movement; what is true is the fact that some military officers joined the MB organization and the Free Officers Movement at the same time. Meanwhile, Al-Banna continued to make his own MB armed militias and secret groups of assassins get their military training in secret locations inside Egypt.
4- After the success of the 1952 coup, Egypt has become a republic, and in 1954, President Nasser requested from the MB organization to nominate three of their members to be appointed as ministers in the new cabinet; Nasser rejected the names they gave him; he chose the well-known and popular sheikh (and MB member) Al-Baqoory as the Minister of Waqfs (i.e., religious endowments) but he demanded from him to leave the MB organization forever, and Al-Baqoory readily agreed. The MB member sheikh M. Al-Ghazaly left the MB organization in 1952 (after his unresolved disputes with some MB members) and was nominated in 1954 by Nasser to become a minister, but he refused in order to dedicate his lifetime to write books and to deliver sermons and lectures to serve Wahabism (under the name of Sunna and Salafism). The MB supreme guide, Al-Hodeiby, was furious because Nasser refused the names he offered as nominees or candidates for some ministries in the new cabinet; the gap widened between Nasser and the MB organization and enmity increased because Nasser refused to make Al-Hodeiby as the religious authority and reference to the Egyptian government; because Al-Hodeiby denounced and criticized the Agricultural Reform Law introduced by Nasser, Al-Hodeiby was incarcerated for about two months for insulting Nasser; yet, upon getting released, some high-rank police officers and military officers apologized for Al-Hodeiby presumably on behalf of Nasser, as per the view of some Egyptian historians.   
5- After the MB member/assassin Mahmoud Abdel-Lateef tried to assassinate Nasser (by shooting bullets at him) as he delivered a speech in a square in Alexandria in 1954, Nasser issued a decree/resolution to outlaw and ban the MB organization and its activities and to arrest all MB members; many of them were tortured in prison cells. Many MB members fled to the KSA and to other MB-friendly countries. In Dec. 1954, the imprisoned MB supreme guide was sentenced to death but the sentence was changed later on to a 25-year imprisonment term, but because of his old age and bad state of health, several months later, he was sent to his house while being heavily guarded to force him never to leave his house for the rest of his life or to hold meetings with anyone. Torturing incarcerated MB members resulted in the extremist, violent ideas of the MB trend of the MB thinker/theorist and leader Sayed Qutb since 1955.     
6- President Gamal Abdel-Nasser released all MB members in 1960 and allowed them to receive their financial dues and to return to their jobs (provided that they leave the MB organization forever) and he hoped to reintegrate them into the Egyptian society as citizens. This was a false hope; the released MB never forgot their being tortured and thought of nothing but revenge as per theories and teachings of Sayed Qutb. The Egyptian MB members managed to receive funding from the Saudi royal family and from other MB branches of other countries. They prepared a list of Egyptian persons which would be assassinated; Nasser was on the top of this list that included many judges, politicians, ministers, high-rank governmental officials, journalists, writers/authors, thinkers, artists, and university professors (the list included both men and women). Their plans included recruiting new members and infiltrating the Egyptian Military and Armed Forces and the Egyptian Police Academy. The MB organization recruited some students of the Faculty of Engineering and the Faculty of Science to help prepare grenades and bombs to commit terrorist crimes in case the MB members have to engage into a war against the Nasser regime. The plan of assassination failed; Nasser had his own spies inside the MB organization hierarchy; in 1964, he readily imprisoned the recently released MB members, including Sayed Qutb and other MB leaders and members; the MB thinker Sayed Qutb was sentenced to death in 1966 along with five MB high-rank leaders; many MB members were tortured in prison; about 350 MB members died of torture in prison as per the estimates of some Egyptian historians.  
Secondly: the alliance between Sadat and the terrorist MB organization and how the MB members have applied their Wahabi sharia laws:
1- In 1973, Sadat closed prisons in Egypt that formerly housed political figures and members of opposition movements, and he made an alliance with the terrorist MB organization; its members began to express their Wahabism openly; their supreme guide at the time, Omar Al-Tilmisani, urged Sadat to impose tributes on Copts of Egypt based on the fiqh notion of dhimmitude as if Orthodox Christians were not Egyptian citizens who pay taxes like the rest of all citizens. The MB terrorists began applying their Wahabi sharia by throwing the seeds of sectarian strife in Egypt; many terrorist attacks against churches and possessions of Copts were committed; in 1977, another MB prominent leader, Maamoun Al-Hodeiby, issued a fatwa that Copts must be prevented from being recruited in the Egyptian Armed Forces and Military and he accused them of being traitors who betrayed Egypt and allied themselves to its enemies (!).      
2- In 1974, the terrorist MB members planned a secret coup in order to reach power by force, but their attempt failed; their plan included to invade the Cairo-based Faculty of Military Training and Martial Arts. In June, 1977, the MB secret assassination group assassinated the Minister of Waqfs, sheikh M. Al-Zahaby, because he authored anti-Wahabism writings to prove that Wahabism has nothing to do with Islam.  
3- Both Sadat and the terrorist MB organization began to voice views that revealed serious troubles and disputes between them; at a conference in Cairo University in 1977, Sadat felt insulted when an MB-affiliated student (who is now the prominent MB leader Abdel-Moneim Abou Al-Fotoh) accused Sadat of appointing corrupt, hypocritical ministers in the Egyptian government. Within another gathering in 1979, Sadat felt insulted as the supreme guide of the MB, Al-Tilmisani, accused him of showing contempt to Sunnite sharia laws by never deciding to introduce them into the Egyptian Law. In 1981, Sadat declared to the Egyptian nation, in a speech aired on TV, that he regretted his alliance with the MB organization; in Sept. 1981, Sadat incarcerated many Egyptian thinkers, writers, journalists, leftists/communists, and political opposition figures as well as a large number of prominent MB members; the terrorist MB organization assassinated Sadat in Oct. 1981. 
1- The policies of Mubarak resulted in the Jan. 2011 revolt; after his ouster in Feb. 2011, the Supreme Council of Armed Forces (SCAF) ruled Egypt momentarily until the presidential elections held in 2012. The Egyptian military withdrew one step to the back within a tactic planned to allow the terrorist MB to rule Egypt within rigged presidential elections in 2012. Everyone in Egypt, in the military and outside it and all thinkers within the spectrum, predicted that the MB members will fail miserably when they assume power. Their quick failure in (A) solving chronic problems within economy and within other levels and (B) protecting the borders with Sudan and the Gaza Strip (MB leaders in both regions desired to annex stretches of land inside southern Egypt and the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula, respectively!) resulted in the June 2013 revolt; in fact, the MB members posed a veritable threat to the already-limited margin of religious and political freedom and free artistic expression in Egypt, and most Egyptians at time felt for sure that Egypt was on the verge of utter ruin and total collapse at the time. After the ouster and imprisonment of the MB-affiliated president, the military rule returned to Egypt within the support of the majority of Egyptian citizens who voted for Abdel-Fattah Al-Sisi (the former Minister of Defense) in the 2014 presidential elections. The military rule has become popular to most Egyptians at the time, because they feel deep hatred and animosity towards the terrorist MB organization (until now, of course), especially as its members have committed terrorist attacks (some of them were suicide attacks) in 2013 and 2014 to wreak vengeance against the Egyptian citizens in Cairo and in other Egyptian Governorates.       
2- When President Abdel-Fattah Al-Sisi ascended to power in the 2014 presidential elections, to rule in the name of the Egyptian armed forces and military, he has made peace with Wahabism, prostrated to the KSA, and humiliated and deprived the Egyptian citizens.  
CHAPTER IV: The Wahabism/Salafism in Egypt
1- The tree of the MB organization is planted by the Saudi king, Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud, through his Wahabi agents inside Egypt (see our article in English: http://www.ahl-alquran.com/English/show_article.php?main_id=15322). This began by several Salafist institutions inaugurated by the Levantine Wahabi sheikhs Rasheed Reda and Moheb-Eddine Al-Khateeb who settled in Egypt and this continued by the terrorist MB organization established in 1928. We have mentioned before how Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud needed 'Egyptian brothers' as an alternative to the quarrelsome Najdi Brothers exterminated by him later on after their guns and swords annexed several regions in Arabia to his Saudi kingdom. Once Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud conquered Hejaz and controlled pilgrimage, he readily recruited Wahabi agents in Egypt via his Egyptian consultant Hafiz Wahba; Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud funded such Salafist/Wahabi agents and institutions, including the MB organization, desired that Egypt would be dependent on the KSA on both the political and religious level and that Egypt as a regional power would be a strategic depth to the Saudi kingdom so as not to let it get stronger as a non-Wahabi State that might pose a threat to the KSA. Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud wished that Wahabis/Salafists and/or MB members would reach power in Egypt as theocrats one day to serve the purposes of the Saudi royal family members; he knew that the Sunnite Sufism of most Egyptians must change gradually and be replaced by Sunnite/Hanbali Wahabism under the name of (Sunna) and (Salafism) posing as if they were 'true' Islam.     
2- The MB organization and Salafist groups and institutions share one religions; i.e., Wahabism; yet, they differ in aims and methodology; this entails some explanation. The Salafists/Wahabis care mostly for converting most Egyptians to Salafism/Wahabism under the name of Sunna and they are keen on undermining the Shiite and Sufi religions; they assume that they monopolize 'Islam'. Salafists inside Egypt are frank and never hide their Wahabi sentiments; they never hide their stances against democracy (deemed by them as apostasy or blasphemy) and against all non-Sunnites, and they openly advocate theocracy/caliphate; they practiced Taqiyya (http://www.ahl-alquran.com/English/show_article.php?main_id=17632) by hiding their true stances only after the ouster of Mubarak in 2011 as they sought to get engaged into the political scene in Egypt and reach power upon their receiving Saudi commands to that effect. In contrast, the MB organization members are hypocrites; they are adamant in hypocrisy and hide their true stances and feelings very well; they seek only to reach power and authority in order to rule Egypt and other Arab/'Islamic' countries within a theocracy, but they use religious mottoes only to deceive the naïve, gullible masses; they are very flexible and fickle/changeable in their alliances and stances; they never really care about applying Wahabism. Salafists are more obscurantist and backward since they learned by heart (and are keen on applying) tenets and notions of Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn Al-Qayyim, and Ibn Abdul-Wahab even if their writings never suit the modern, civilized world in the era of human rights; the Salafist sheikhs' Freudian slips of the tongue expose them whenever they appear in Egyptian media and in YouTube videos; the Salafist/Wahabi laughter-inducing ideas and notions make young people in Egypt mock and ridicule Salafist sheikhs and clergymen.      
3- Within the era of Mubarak in Egypt (1981 - 2010), the Salafist groups, institutions, schools, and mosques mushroomed like cancerous cells all over Egyptian soil, and the Egyptian State Security Apparatus men used Salafist sheikhs to serve certain purposes; rumors have it that many Wahabi terrorists who committed terrorist crimes inside Egypt (esp. to harm Orthodox Coptic Christians and their churches) were incited by Salafist/Wahabi sheikhs of terrorism who served the Mubarak regime that desired to elongate the duration of its Emergency Law. Salafists in general are more frank and naïve in comparison to the shrewd, secretive MB members who are evil hypocrites who follow the footsteps of their hypocritical deity/god Hassan Al-Banna who was assassinated in Feb. 1949. When Salafists were no longer controlled by the Egyptian State after the ouster of Mubarak in 2011, they surfaced within the foreground of the political scene in Egypt; some Salafists resorted to terrorist crimes to take revenge against the Mubarak regime whose men tortured them in prisons; some terrorist Salafists, unawares, served the Mubarak regime by their terrorist crimes  and suicide bombings while they assumed that they served 'Islam' as per the teachings of high-rank Salafist/Wahabi sheikhs.   
4- We provide brief details in the points below.
Firstly: between the terrorist MB members and Salafists:
1- Hassan Al-Banna desired to make as many Sunnite Salafists/Wahabis (sheikhs/clergymen or otherwise) as possible join his MB organization; he won the trust of Rasheed Reda and Al-Khateeb and became their close friend; both Levantine Wahabi sheikhs admired Al-Banna for his zeal, brilliance, eloquence, oratory skills, convincing skills, patience, fortitude, and leadership spirit; as a hypocrite, Al-Banna changed colors like a chameleon to appeal to different audiences and to win over as many Salafist and non-Salafist people as possible to his side even those who refused to join the MB members but supported and sympathized with the MB organization. Al-Banna controlled thousands of MB members who blindly obeyed him as they admired and adored him passionately; many of them assumed they served Islam by serving him; yet, high-rank MB members in the upper levels of the MB hierarchy had but one aim: to reach power in Egypt and elsewhere as theocrats who expect blind obedience from their 'subjects'.  
2- Of course, when Al-Banna was the editor-in-chief of Al-Manar magazine, he managed to brainwash and control a large group of Salafists/Wahabis who admired him; they readily joined his MB organization; years later, 50.000 branches of the MB organization spread all over Egyptian soil like cancerous cells; more Salafist mosques were built in most Egyptian cities and villages; unlike MB members who got involved in politics, Salafists at that point never engaged into the political life in Egypt; they focused on the Salafist/Wahabi call and to teach Egyptians Wahabi tenets under the name of 'Islam'. The MB members struggled against the values and figures of the liberal epoch of Egypt (1920 - 1950) and then struggled against the military rule of Nasser and Mubarak (and they assassinated their ally, Sadat, in 1981, when he tried to curb their measure of power and authority, granted to them by him, in the 1970s). In contrast, the Salafists/Wahabis never struggled overtly and openly against the military rule in Egypt that has commenced in 1952; they focused instead on infiltrating into the Egyptian society to make most Egyptians convert to Salafism/Wahabism under the names of 'Sunna'/'Salafism', posing as if they were Islam, via thousands of Salafist societies, institutions, centers, and mosques that spread the terrorist, extremist Wahabi tenets that have poisoned minds of thousands of people and tarnished the image of Islam.        
3- Several disputes and then separation occurred between the KSA and the MB organization; yet, Salafists have been and are still sponsored and protected by the KSA because they are loyal to any enthroned sultan/ruler and they are keen on spreading Wahabism, re-labeled as Sunnite Salafism; of course, Salafists in Egypt and elsewhere receive millions of US$ from the KSA and other Gulf Monarchies; this is derived from countless Wahabi mosques built by Salafists who desire to get rich and to amass wealth; such Wahabi mosques/centers have become lucrative business as they include shops, private-lessons centers, hospitals, and halls for funerals and weddings.     
4- The late Egyptian President Nasser never thought about or cared for the existence of Salafists when he imprisoned and chased away the terrorist MB members in the 1950s and the 1960s because he never felt that Salafists might pose any threat to him; this is why he never closed down their centers and mosques and never hindered or banned their activities; this is why Salafist/Wahabi societies such as Al-Gamiyyia Al-Shariyya (The Sharia Society) and Gamiyyiat Ansar Al-Sunna (The Society of Sunna Supporters) continued to thrive within the Nasserist Era of secularism and Pan-Arabism (or Arab nationalism) within the Egyptian regime which was very hostile towards the KSA.  
5- The spread of Wahabism gained more momentum during the era of Sadat (1970 – 1981) when he allied himself to the KSA; the Saudi rulers of the KSA reconciled with the terrorist MB organization and kept their close ties with Salafists in Egypt. Sadat assumed to control both MB members and Salafists and thus to control the Egyptian nation whose majority converted to Sunnite Wahabism; Sadat took the title "the believer president" and declared that he took caliph Omar Ibn Al-Khattab as his example and role-model; shortly before the assassination of Sadat in 1981, the Parliament was about to endorse the Sunnite Wahabi sharia laws (relabeled as 'Islamic'!) as part of the Egyptian Law and this might have led Egyptian courts to apply the Wahabi penalty for apostasy (i.e., putting 'apostates'/'infidels' to death). Many Wahabi leaders and sheikhs grew famous during the Sadat era, including the MB sheikh Salah Abou Ismail (1927 – 1990); his fame continued to grow during the era of Mubarak; he struggled against the military regime inside Egypt by his sermons and his political activities; e.g., he won his seat in the Egyptian Parliament within many elections because of his popularity and the widespread of Salafism/Wahabism in Egypt. After his death, his son, sheikh Hazim, allied himself to the MB organization and participated in terrorist heinous crimes committed inside Egypt after the ouster of Mubarak in 2011. Of course, neither Salah or his son Hazim (who is imprisoned now in Egypt for his crimes) had any distinction within any branch of knowledge; their popularity as eloquent preachers was an indicator that the Salafist/Wahabi trend has controlled many Egyptians among the ignorant masses.    
6- When Sadat and the MB members disputed and quarreled, this never hindered the Salafist influence that gained more ground in Egypt with the passage of time; Salafism/Wahabism expanded and spread as Sadat needed Salafists inside and outside Al-Azhar to retain the vestige of theocracy in his regime to face his foes among secularists, Arab nationalists, leftists, and Marxists. Thus, Sadat allowed Salafists/Wahabis to build thousands of mosques and to control thousands more mosques all over Egyptian soil; in every small/big city, village, and district. Sadat (after the victory in Sinai, in Oct. 1973 war) allowed the Salafists and MB terrorists to control Al-Azhar, Egyptian media, the education sector, and the Ministry of Waqfs (i.e., religious endowments). The masses have been brainwashed in the 1970s that Salafists and MB members represent 'true' Islam! Thus, during the era of Sadat, many Salafists of the spectra had their own overt originations, groups, and headquarters; they named themselves as 'Islamists'. Once Sadat tried to curb and control the Wahabi Salafists and MB members after he sensed they posed a veritable threat to him, they assassinated him in Oct. 1981.         
7- After the assassination of Sadat, the Mubarak regime and the men of the Egyptian State Security Apparatus recruited groups of Salafists to win them to the side of Mubarak. Mubarak allowed them to go on thriving and declaring the falsehood that they represent 'Islam' to the Egyptian masses, provided that they never seek any measure of political participation. Hence, this deal allowed Salafists to serve the Mubarak regime (by brainwashing the people with the opium of the masses) in return for their continuing to thrive and make money and to have a measure of power and authority among the gullible masses, within the Mubarak era of corruption (1981 – 2010). Hence, corruption, obscurantism, and backwardness have been maintained by Wahabis/Salafists inside Egypt. Many Egyptian free thinkers and journalists wrote about the link between the spread of corruption and the spread of ostensible signs of Wahabi/Salafist religiosity within the Egyptian society; everyone blamed the Mubarak regime and its alliance with Salafist sheikhs/clergymen. At the same time, Mubarak fought against the terrorist MB organization members and chased/imprisoned many of their overt and covert groups that had many names; the men of the Egyptian State Security Apparatus controlled and supported most figures of the Wahabi/Salafist call inside Egypt, especially Salafist societies funded by the KSA. This allowed Salafism/Wahabism to spread all over Egypt within unprecedented momentum during the era of Mubarak; the Wahabi/Salafist trend spread in thousands of mosques, centers, clubs, governmental sectors, etc. and within Al-Azhar, media outlets, and all Egyptian schools and universities. Women have been deceived (and sometimes forced by their husbands/fathers) to wear hijab (veil or head-cover) and niqab (full-veil that covers the body and the face). The Quranists inside Egypt have been persecuted in the 1980s and the 1990s because they have undermined and refuted Sunnite Wahabism from within Islam (i.e., the Quran). The Salafist trend in Egypt grew more powerful that its members chased and persecuted Copts, religious reformists, and secular thinkers by Hisbah or inquisition-like interrogations for what they do, say, or write. For more about Hisbah, we refer readers to our book in English, titled (Hisbah: A Historical Overview), found on this link: (http://www.ahl-alquran.com/arabic/book_main.php?main_id=99).        
8- Sadat committed fatal mistakes when he allied himself to the axis of evil; i.e., the Wahabi KSA, and to its agents inside Egypt, without realizing the extreme danger of Wahabism that threatens Egypt; he assumed that he can rule Egypt for as long as he would live as "the believer president" who would never be ousted as this is prohibited in Sunnite Wahabi sharia and fiqh laws; he amended the Egyptian Constitution to allow himself an unlimited number of presidential terms; in order to please Wahabi Egyptians, he introduced in this Constitution the Article No. Two which stipulates that principles of 'Islamic' sharia is a main source of legislation in Egyptian Law (the intended one is Sunnite Wahabi sharia, of course). Among the amendments he introduced to the Constitution is to make presidents have absolute power without being questioned – exactly as per Wahabi teachings that deify sultans/rulers. Rumors have it that when Sadat became the vice-president of Nasser (who appointed him in this post when pressurized by the KSA whom Nasser had to befriend after being defeated within the 1967 war; a.k.a. the Six-Day War), Sadat assassinated Nasser presumably by poisoning to take his place; many Egyptian historians and political analysts assume that Sadat himself was an agent recruited, since the 1960s, by the Saudi Central Intelligence. Sadat chose Mubarak as his vice-president after making sure he was not an ambitious, power-seeking man and that he was not very intelligent. Hence, the fatal mistakes of Sadat led to his own assassination; Mubarak reached power as president, and rumors have it that he knew about (and participated in) the plot of the assassination of Sadat, who was shot dead by the MB terrorist and extremist Salafist young man named Khaled Al-Islambouli (who was later on tried and sentenced to death in Cairo, Egypt). Thus, Mubarak reached power while keeping the Constitution that gave him unlimited power, without being questioned or impeached, and an unlimited number of presidential terms. For many years, Mubarak refused to appoint a vice-president so as not to get assassinated like Sadat and Nasser (he had to appoint in 2011, shortly before his ouster, Omar Suleiman as vice-president). Hence, Mubarak felt afraid of the terrorist MB members and he persecuted, chased, and imprisoned them; he gratified and supported Salafists who were loyal to (and recruited & watched by) the Egyptian State Security Apparatus men. This means that the Mubarak regime supported the spread of Wahabism/Salafism as if it were Islam in order to please the KSA, to keep the evil of the MB terrorists at bay, and to brainwash the Egyptians with the opium of the masses (because Wahabi tenets include blind obedience to, and deification of, rulers because they are assumed to be appointed by the hand of God Himself!). The Mubarak regime incarcerated and/or tortured those Quranists and non-Quranists who dared to criticize Wahabism in public or in writing.             
9- Within this context, the cooperation and coordination between the Egyptian State Security Apparatus men and Salafists reached a very dangerous level during the Mubarak era; many Egyptian historians and political analysts assume that Mubarak used Salafist terrorists to commit terrorist attacks (against Copts and others) to allow Mubarak to elongate the duration of the application of the Emergency Law. Of course, the Egyptian State Security Apparatus men controlled and watched many Salafist groups and they exchanged services and favors. The Egyptian press in the 1990s, after the end of the wave of terrorist attacks by Salafists and MB members, published that the Egyptian State Security Apparatus men managed to convince prisoners (involved in terrorist crimes) who belong to Salafist groups and the MB group to 'review' their stances and to make a deal with the Egyptian government so as not to resort to violence ever again in return to allow them a measure of political participation. Of course, Salafist groups in service of the Mubarak regime helped in this respect. Thus, some Salafists and MB members managed to become elected/appointed in the Egyptian Parliament within the period (2000 - 2010); rumors have it that within this period, the Egyptian State Security Apparatus men recruited the secret groups of terrorist Salafists to execute terrorist attacks inside Egypt; e.g., the explosion of the Two-Saints Church in Alexandria in Dec. 2010 and the terrorist operations in Sinai years before.   
Secondly: after the ouster of Mubarak:
1- By the ouster of Mubarak in Feb. 2011, his regime has collapsed and so is his State Security Apparatus men; this means that Salafists felt free for the first time from being watched and controlled and they decided (despite their bovine stupidity shown later on in the Egyptian media and the internet videos within the period 2011 – 2013) to make use of their widespread influence and authority inside the media, Al-Azhar, the educational sector, and the Ministry of Waqfs and their spiritual control/influence over millions of impoverished, ignorant followers all over Egyptian cities and villages. The Salafists voiced their political ambitions for the first time within the fluidity and volatile situation in 2011 after the ouster of Mubarak, as chaos and lawlessness spread in many areas of the capital, Cairo, and other major cities and people no longer felt secure in the streets for several months; demonstrations spread by several groups who had certain demands from the interim government. The members of SCAF (i.e., the Supreme Council of Armed Forces) deputized by Mubarak to run the affairs of the State temporarily were not ready to rule the civil Egyptian State; the police state has ended; the old regime men worked hard, secretly and in the dark, to restore their authority and stature by spreading chaos and to make sure they would be spared from being tried in courts for crimes committed by them during the era of Mubarak (who was arrested for a long duration along with his two sons). Rumors have it that the remnants of the Mubarak regime and his State Security Apparatus men cooperated still with Salafist extremists and some thugs to create chaos everywhere in the Egyptian capital, Cairo, and its suburbs; e.g., many Sufi mausoleums/mosques and Coptic churches were destroyed and burned down as part of the plan of spreading chaos.         
2- Within this period of fluidity and chaos, Salafists had to choose between either cooperating with SCAF and remnants of the Mubarak regime or siding with the fellow Wahabis the MB members. They choose the formers because Salafists served the Mubarak regime and his State Security Apparatus men for 30 years. Salafists secretly told the military men that they are against the ambitions of the MB members; the MB members felt they were deceived by Salafists, though both are agents of Wahabism of the KSA. Salafists drew nearer to the MB members when they got the majority of seats within the 2011 rigged parliamentary elections and 2012 rigged presidential elections in Egypt, but the Salafists continued to serve the men of the Mubarak regime by committing terrorist crimes that intimidated the Egyptian nation; after the ouster of the MB-affiliated president in the 3rd of July, 2013, after the massive revolts of 30th of June, 2013, Salafists supported the military men until now (upon commands of the KSA, as Saudis continue until now to finance Salafist groups inside Egypt) – even if this meant that political Salafists had only 11 seats in the Egyptian Parliament within the parliamentary elections of 2014 and they vowed never to resort to violence of any type – this is a lie, of course; sectarian strife and violence against Copts continue to be planned and fomented by Salafists in Upper and Lower Egypt, especially in rural areas and villages. The Salafists in 2014 and 2015 asserted in the Egyptian media that they have been deceived by the MB members in 2012 and 2013. Thus, the existence of Wahabism is maintained (by both the KSA and the deep-state in Egypt) even after Salafism/Wahabism received a fatal blow within the revolts of 30th of June, 2013, against theocratic rule of the MB guide and MB members.       
3- Thus, Salafists who have served the State Security Apparatus men are terrorists by default (and those who have not served them are would-be terrorists) as per Wahabi teachings of massacring and robbing non-Wahabis as a 'religious' duty within their wicked religion of Satan. The same applies to the terrorist MB members who served (or not) the State Security Apparatus men during the Mubarak era (1981 - 2010). This means that Salafist preachers are terrorists or are used to recruit and spiritually prepare and train terrorists and suicide bombers; of course, many young Salafists and MB youths who were tortured in Mubarak prisons were keen on taking revenge by committing heinous terrorist crimes and suicide bombings inside Egypt while senior Salafists, supported and funded by the KSA, made deals with the State Security Apparatus men during the era of Mubarak. Hence, there are two types of Wahabis terrorists that threaten Egyptian citizens and the very existence of Egypt until now – Salafists and the MB members.    
4- We tackle in the points below the major groups/societies of Salafists in Egypt.
The major groups/societies of Salafists in Egypt:
The Sharia Society (Al-Gamiyyia Al-Shariyya):
Firstly: its establishment and imams:
1- The Sharia Society was established in 1913 A.D. by the Azharite sheikh Mahmoud Al-Sobky (1858 - 1933) who was at first devoted to the Sufi religion and he authored a four-volume book titled "Al-Mahmoudiyya Methods in Sufism and Fiqh Rules" about making Sunnite fiqh rules submit to Sufism as per the Sufi order of the Sufi author/'saint' Al-Shaarany; of course, the term (Al-Mahmoudiyya) was coined by him (from his first name: Mahmoud) to make himself a Sufi sheikh/saint; yet, in 1926, he changed his mind; his other 26 books contain a very harsh attack on Sufism and a lengthy defense of Sunnite Hanbalism (or Wahabism) under the motto of defending Sunna and undermining and refuting Sufi myths. 
2- This means that The Sharia Society was loyal and devoted to Sufism and dedicated to undermining Wahabism (i.e., the last version of the Hanbali Sunnite religion) and Wahabis/Sunnites who hate Sufi saints and mausoleums until 1926; it underwent an abrupt change to the opposite direction; it began in 1926 to defend Wahabism/Hanbalism and to undermine Sufi saints, notions, and practices. Al-Sobky authored 26 books within 7 years to attack and criticize Sufi notions and to defend and praise Wahabi/Hanbali notions and tenets and he assumed for himself the title of (the imam of the people of Sunna); he did his best to propagate Wahabism until he died in 1933. The Sharia Society never received its fame and stature until 1926, and within the Saudi funding inside Egypt, it became the biggest Wahabi society inside Egypt, and until now, it controls more than 6000 mosques, thousands of imams/preachers, and millions of followers. The Sharia Society is the strategic reserve of the MB members (even after the end of the MB theocratic rule in 2013 in the aftermath of the 30th June 2013 massive revolt in Egypt); this is how the MB members still control Salafist thought and movement inside the Egyptian society. In fact, imams of The Sharia Society were the first men inside Egypt to propagate the so-called congregational eight-Raqa Taraweeh prayers during Ramadan nights.   
3- After the death of sheikh Mahmoud Al-Sobky in 1933, his footsteps were followed by his son sheikh Amin Al-Sobky, who wrote 9 books to defend and propagate Wahabism under the name of Sunnite Hanbalism; Amin Al-Sobky died in 1968, and before his death, he edited and published many editions of the books of his father and he headed The Sharia Society as a successor to his father. One of his known books is titled "Al-Fatawa Al-Aminiyya" (roughly in English: the fatwas of the method of sheikh Amin); this book includes all his Salafist, extremist fatwas that cover most aspects of life. Amin Al-Sobky managed to establish hundreds of mosques controlled by The Sharia Society all over Egyptian cities.   
4- The activities of The Sharia Society increased and thrived inside Egypt when its new head, the famous Salafist sheikh Abdel-Lateef Moshtahry, assumed responsibility for it; he died in Aug. 1995. 
5- After the death of Moshtahry, he was succeeded by the Azharite sheikh and scholar Mahmoud Abdel-Wahab Fayed who wrote many articles in several newspapers and authored several Salafist books that include the one titled "The Call of Truth" before he headed The Sharia Society; he died in June 1997.  
6- Fayed was succeeded by sheikh Dr. Fouad Ali Mekheimar; he was devoted full-time to The Sharia Society; he left his job and his house and stayed in the headquarters of The Sharia Society 24/7. Dr. Mekheimar died in April 2002; his Wahabi/Salafist books include the following titles: "Sunna and Fabrications between Fundamentals and Application", "Muslim Youths and the Issues of the Modern Age", and "About Education and Upbringing Methodology Derived from Sunna". 
7- Dr. Mekheimar was succeeded by sheikh Dr. M. Mukhtar Al-Mahdi, who was a professor at Al-Azhar University and a member of high-rank Azharite committees and panels in Egypt; he was also the editor-in-chief of a Salafist magazine, (Al-Tibyan), and he put the curricula of the institute of Sunnite preachers, endorsed by Al-Azhar and the Ministry of Waqfs. He managed to establish branches of The Sharia Society outside Egypt in several countries; this increased and widened the scope of the activities of The Sharia Society; Dr. Al-Mahdi died in Feb. 2016.     
8- It is noteworthy that the Egyptian government decided in 1967 to merge The Sharia Society and The Society of Sunna Supporters as both were Salafists/Wahabis; few people know that the extremism in the Salafism/Wahabism of the members of The Society of Sunna Supporters exceeds that of the members of The Sharia Society. This merge ended in mid-1970s because of several disputes among members of both societies. The Sharia Society remains the biggest and most influential entity within the Salafist/Wahabi call in Egypt; it received the King Feisal Award in 2009 for its endeavors to serve 'Islam'.  
Secondly: our comments on The Sharia Society:
1- Its support of, and its being endorsed and authorized by, Al-Azhar attracted to it many Azharite and non-Azharite followers; most of its imams/preachers have been graduates of Al-Azhar University. The Sharia Society has its ''supreme authority of high-rank scholars'' whose members are Azharites and they issue fatwas. The Sharia Society controls, under the auspices of Al-Azhar, 26 institutes of male and female preachers who join such institutes to be educated and trained to become preachers; only non-Azharites (i.e., those who never received Azharite education) enroll in these institutes to become preachers.     
2- In the 2000s, The Sharia Society has become the biggest Wahabi/Salafist entity in Egypt; it controls more than 6000 mosques in major Egyptian villages and cities. Those non-Azharites who enroll in the 26 institutes of preachers controlled by The Sharia Society are given jobs as imams, sermonizers, and preachers in the mosques controlled by The Sharia Society. Besides, The Sharia Society has its 'call caravans'; i.e., groups of its imams that roam Egyptian villages and cities in different governorates to serve the Wahabi/Salafist call (as 'missionaries') under the pretext of defending 'Sunna' against corrupt notions spread by 'enemies' of 'Islam' inside Egypt. The Sharia Society has its own weekly magazine; it also has its charity foundations funded by the KSA and wealthy Salafist Egyptians; such charity foundations help the poor, the needy, the ill, etc. and thus bring more financial gains, fame, followers, and supporters to The Sharia Society.     
Thirdly: the relation between the terrorist MB organization and The Sharia Society:
 Of course, the funding received by The Sharia Society from the KSA and other Gulf monarchies is the primary cause of its becoming the leading Salafist/Wahabi entity whose mosques and institutes mushroomed like cancerous cells all over the Egyptian soil so that it now controls thousands of thousands of followers; hence, it was naturally expected that the terrorist MB organization members would take advantage of The Sharia Society to reach, recruit, and control as many Egyptians as possible and convince them to join the MB members. Hence, many MB leaders (esp. who were university professors) have been prominent sheikhs/imams inside The Sharia Society; chief among them is The Sharia Society member and the MB mufti (i.e., fatwa-issuer) Dr. Abdel-Rahman Al-Bar, who is referred to in Egyptian media now as (the mufti of bloodshed). 
Fourthly: about Abdel-Rahman Al-Bar:
 This terrorist MB member exemplifies the Wahabi control over Al-Azhar, the MB organization, and The Sharia Society. We provide some details about this terrorist MB member in the points below.
1- Al-Bar was born in a village in Al-Daqahliyya Governorate, in the Nile Delta or Lower Egypt, in 1963, and he graduated from the Osol-Eddine Faculty, Al-Azhar University, Al-Mansoura branch, in 1984. In the 1990s, he obtained his MA and PhD degrees in the field of hadiths, and he was a professor in the same faculty besides his being a high-rank, senior MB member in the 'guiding bureau' of the MB organization; he was the mufti (i.e., fatwa-issuer) of the MB organization; he was a member in several Wahabi/Salafist bodies and entities; he participated as a member in the 100-member committee that formulated the MB-controlled 2012 constitution of Egypt, which was replaced by the 2014 Constitution; he participated in the two terrorist, armed MB-organized six-week sits-in in Cairo that ended on the 14th of Aug. 2013 when armed MB members were dispersed by the Egyptian police. Al-Bar was hunted down and arrested by Egyptian security apparatuses and policemen months later.      
2- Al-Bar, as the MB mufti, issued extremist, terrorist fatwas to the MB members that include allowing them to massacre and fight all non-MB members as part of 'Islamic' jihad, especially in order to kill peaceful Egyptians and all Egyptian policemen and military officers to punish them for fulfilling the demand of demonstrators of the 30th of June 2013 revolt by deposing, trying in court, and imprisoning of the MB president on the 3rd of July, 2013. Al-Azhar and its committees, bodies, and scholars had to disown, reject, and denounce the fatwas of Al-Bar as they have nothing to do with Islam.  
3- In 2015, Al-Bar was sentenced to death for inciting massacres and violence (and also to a five-year term of imprisonment for committing acts of terrorism and sabotage in the road between Cairo and the city of Qalyoub) by Egyptian courts.
The Society of Sunna Supporters (Gamiyyiat Ansar Al-Sunna):
  It was established by the Azharite sheikh and scholar M. Hamid Al-Fiqi in 1926; its aim is to spread and propagate Wahabism under the name of Salafism/Sunna. Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud funded him, and the money he received from the Saudi king allowed him to build a three-story house in the Cairene district of Abdeen; this house was a center of spreading the Wahabi call in Egypt. Until now, The Society of Sunna Supporters specializes in spreading and propagating Salafism/Wahabism and it publishes books of Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn Al-Qayyim, among others. The Society of Sunna Supporters has its own magazine, (The Prophet's Guidance), whose first issue was published in 1936.  
Imams of The Society of Sunna Supporters:
(A) M. Hamid Al-Fiqi (1892 - 1959): he was born in a rural village; his family members were religious Sunnites; he received an Azharite education and adhered to the Hanbali Sunnite doctrine (i.e., the root of Wahabism); he preached and propagated Wahabism/Salafism before and after his graduation from Al-Azhar University in 1917. The endeavors of Al-Fiqi caught the attention of the agents of Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud inside Egypt; the Saudi king funded him to help establish The Society of Sunna Supporters in 1926; Al-Fiqi was known for his books of 'exegeses' or 'interpretation' of the Quran; he published many editions of the books of Middle-Ages Hanbali authors.     
(B) Abdel-Razak Afifi (1905 - 1994): he was an Egyptian Azharite sheikh and professor at Al-Azhar University; he specialized in fiqh, and he claimed that his ancestors came from Najd; he died in Riyadh in 1994; Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud appointed him as a professor in the Sharia Faculty in Riyadh; he was a head/member in most Azharite committees, panels, councils, and bodies in Egypt; he oversaw several MA and PhD theses of students; his famous disciples/students include the Wahabi Saudi scholars Ibn Otheimein, Al-Jibreen, and Al-Fawzaan.     
(C) Abdel-Rahman Al-Wakeel (1913 - 1970):
 He was born in a rural village in Egypt; he was an excellent student upon graduating from Osol-Eddine Faculty, Al-Azhar University; he taught at a high school at first in Cairo and then in a school in Riyadh in 1952. In the 1960s, he became a professor in Osol-Eddine Faculty. In 1936, he joined The Society of Sunna Supporters and became its deputy and secretary; he wrote articles in the magazine of The Society of Sunna Supporters; he was the favorite of Al-Fiqi because such articles refuted and undermined tenets of Sufis, Shiites, Baha'is, etc., and his column in the magazine was given the name (Undermining Fabrications), which was the title of a book that grouped his articles. At one time, he was interrogated by the police in Cairo as heads of Sufi orders filed a complaint against him and accused him of libel. His readers and admirers gave him the title (the destroyer of fabrications); his articles against Sufism was grouped in one book titled "The Truth behind Sufism"; it was translated into English and Indonesian. Al-Wakeel became the deputy, vice-president, and president of The Society of Sunna Supporters and he became the editor-in-chief of its magazine until it closed down; he left the presidency of The Society of Sunna Supporters when he grew old and he moved to Mecca to teach as a professor in one 'Islamic' university there; he died in Mecca in 1970. Unlike most Wahabi sheikhs and authors, Al-Wakeel was an excellent, high-caliber researcher; his books undermine Shiite doctrines and sects, Sufi tenets of most Sufi orders, the Qadiyani religion, and Baha'ism. He authored other books about Sunnite theology/fiqh to praise, explain, and comment on the ideas of modern-age and Middle-Ages imams/authors and thinkers of Salafism/Hanbalism.  
(D) Dr. M. Khalil Hassan Harras (died in 1975): he graduated from Al-Azhar University in 1940, specializing in philosophy; he admired Ibn Taymiyya and embraced Wahabism; his PhD thesis is about ideas of Ibn Taymiyya; he became a professor at Al-Azhar University. The Wahabi Saudi scholar Ibn Baz appointed him as a professor in an 'Islamic' university in Riyadh and then in another one in Mecca for some years; he returned to Egypt and became vice-president (and then president) of The Society of Sunna Supporters; he published and edited Hanbali Sunnite books of authors of the Middle-Ages; he had his own students/disciples among Wahabi Saudis.   
Secondly: our comments on The Society of Sunna Supporters:
1- Al-Fiqi was a traditional Wahabi scholar; he ridiculed the MB members and denounced their hypocrisy and political activities and deplored their having good relations with non-Wahabis; thus, the stance of Al-Fiqi (which was similar to the stance of Najd Brothers towards non-Wahabis) was like Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud who did not like the political engagement of the MB members inside Egypt; the Saudi king preferred that they would have confined their activities to spreading Wahabism; he feared that their political ambitions would make them covet ruling the KSA instead of him.  
2- The Society of Sunna Supporters (more than the Sharia Society) belonged and was loyal to Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud and never to Egypt and the Egyptians; it never cared about political, social, economic etc. aspects inside Egypt as its sole aim is to make as many people as possible convert to Wahabism.
3- In 1967, the Egyptian government merged together The Society of Sunna Supporters and The Sharia Society; after several disputes, The Society of Sunna Supporters became independent again in mid-1970s, seizing the chance of Sadat forming alliances with Saudi and Egyptian Wahabis (including the MB members who assassinated him later on in 1981). The new magazine of The Society of Sunna Supporters was (Al-Tawheed), launched by Rashad Al-Shafei who caused the merge to cease, and it replaced the former magazine (The Prophet's Guidance). Rashad Al-Shafei became the president of The Society of Sunna Supporters. 
4- Gameel Ghazi, one of the prominent figures in The Society of Sunna Supporters, left it forever to establish his own independent Wahabi/Salafist society; i.e., Al-Aziz Billah Mosque, and likewise, Dr. S. Al-Taweel left The Society of Sunna Supporters forever to establish his own Salafist society; i.e., Gamaat Dawat Al-Haq, or Group of the Call of the Truth. Both Salafist societies attracted thousands of followers in Egypt.    
5- The Society of Sunna Supporters now has 150 branches inside Cairo and major Egyptian cities, and it controls more than 2000 mosques; it has branches now in several African countries.    
Al-Aziz Billah Mosque:
Firstly: the Cairene district (Al-Zaytoun) and Al-Aziz Billah Mosque:
1- Many middle-class Christian Copts inhabit the Cairene district Al-Zaytoun; at one time, this district had no grand mosque; among the inhabitants of the same district was the Sufi sheikh Abdel-Haleem Mahmoud (1910 - 1978) who became the head of Al-Azhar during the Sadat era from 1973 till his death in 1978. The Salafists/Wahabis of The Society of Sunna Supporters used part of the money they received from the KSA to build a grand mosque that would be a powerful Salafist/Wahabi center to face Christians and Sufis in this district. 
2- Hence, the money donated by the KSA and other Gulf monarchies were used to establish Al-Aziz Billah Mosque (which carried the name of the street inside which it is built) near the house of Abdel-Haleem Mahmoud and near one of the biggest Egyptian churches. Gameel Ghazi was appointed as the imam/preacher/sermonizer of this mosque; he had excellent oratory skills and the masses were infatuated by his eloquent Friday sermons about 'interpreting' the Quran; Gameel Ghazi became more famous and popular than the famous Salafist sheikh Kishk (1933 -1996) who was prevented from sermonizing and preaching in 1981 by Sadat.     
3- Al-Aziz Billah Mosque turned Al-Zaytoun district into a powerful center of Salafism/Wahabism in Cairo; Salafist books, cassette tapes, Wahabi garments for men and women, hijab/niqab, miswak, camel's urine and milk, incense, wooden footwear (or clogs), and bloodletting and cupping therapy tools are being sold around this mosque. Of course, tapes of Gameel Ghazi sold more (inside and outside Egypt) than those of Kishk.    
4- Al-Aziz Billah Mosque has a section for women and a section for men; it has its hospital, clinic, and chambers of charity donations for the poor and the needy families. Many wealthy Egyptian and non-Egyptian Salafists/Wahabis donated money, food items, clothes, etc. to this mosque in particular to be distributed among the needy. Al-Aziz Billah Mosque can be filled with more than 2000 people at one time during its Friday congregational prayers and its daily sermons. 
5- Al-Aziz Billah Mosque has its institute to train non-Azharite Sunnite/Wahabi preachers; Azharite sheikhs teach and train them at such an institute; a panel of Salafist sheikhs inside this mosque issue fatwas for people who seek religious edicts or pieces of advice; an annual conference is being held in the mosque; now, sermons are being videoed and transmitted via videoconference and through the internet. The mosque has its spacious library of Salafist books, CDs, audiovisual aids, etc. Many 'stars' among Salafist preachers who have now their own satellite TV programs like M. Hassaan and Abou Ishaq Al-Huweiny used to have their own popular cassette tapes of sermons which were delivered and recorded in this mosque. Because of Al-Aziz Billah Mosque in Al-Zaytoun district, Wahabi terrorism pockets spread in the nearby low-class Cairene districts of Al-Matariyya, Ain Shams, Al-Zawya, and Shoubra; by the way, a Salafist mosque located in Shoubra had sheikh Abdel-Badee' Ghazi as its imam; he is the son of the paternal uncle of Gameel Ghazi.        
6- After the death of Gameel Ghazi in 1988, Wahabis in Egypt have been keen on providing Salafist imams/preachers to Al-Aziz Billah Mosque; such preachers have become very famous later on; e.g., Omar Abdul-Rahman (the terrorist who later on died in an American prison as he received an imprisonment term for life), M. Hassaan, and M. Hussein Yacoub. Thus, with such 'stars' of the Salafist call, Al-Aziz Billah Mosque has become the biggest and leading Salafist center in Greater Cairo; its popularity among the masses exceeded that of any Salafist centers, groups, and societies in Egypt.  
Secondly: Dr. Mohamed Gameel Ghazi:
1- He is the son of the late Gameel Ghazi; he was born in 1936 in a rural village in the Nile Delta or Lower Egypt. Dr. Ghazi have obtained his MA and PhD degrees in Arabic literature in 1972, from the Faculty of the Arabic Language, Al-Azhar University; he joined for a short while both the Muslim Youths Society and The Society of Sunna Supporters. He is passionate about Arabic poetry and literature in general; like his late father, he had excellent oratory skills and he delivered eloquent speeches and sermons; he succeeded his late father in managing the activities of Al-Aziz Billah Mosque; his books reflect the fact that that he never delved deep into Salafism/Wahabism; his Wahabi writings contain superficial remarks and never show serious research; some of his books are about Quranic studies, Arabic literature, and attacking Sufism. He kept his job at the Egyptian Ministry of Culture and he got promoted (though he rarely went there!).      
2- Dr. Ghazi has grown famous and popular because of his eloquent style and oratory skills shown in his sermons and because of his books about 'interpreting' the Quran; despite his attacking Sufism, he had a very good relation with his neighbor the Sufi Azharite sheikh Abdel-Haleem Mahmoud: both lived in Al-Aziz Billah Street in Al-Zaytoun district in Cairo.  
Thirdly: our relation with Dr. Ghazi (1977 - 1979):
1- We knew him for three years; at the time, we were an assistant professor in the History Department, Al-Azhar University, struggling against Sufi Azharite sheikhs led by the Sufi head of Al-Azhar, Abdel-Haleem Mahmoud, who hated our PhD thesis (titled "The Influence of Sufism during the Mameluke Era in Egypt") that undermines Sufism and shows that it contradicts the Quran. Our foes in Al-Azhar wanted us to change our thesis to make it heap praise on Sufi authors/sheikhs/'saints' instead of criticizing them and analyzing their deeds and words to prove that Sufism contradicts the Quran. We lived at the time in the low-class Al-Matariyya district in Cairo; we used the hear the news of the attack of Dr. Ghazi against Sufism; we have read what he has written in this field; his superficial writings reflect that despite his being a pioneer, like ourselves, in undermining Sufism, he never delved deeper within research; his research skills were not very good; we contacted him as we share one enemy; i.e., Sufism, and to be friends with him might prove beneficial to both of us. At the time, we were a 'moderate' Sunnite; i.e., we rejected most hadiths but believed in some of them when they are 'overtly' do not contradict the Quran. Of course, as we developed the Quranism theory and school of thought, we reject all hadiths and Sunna since the 1980s. what we will write in the coming points are our testimony and bearing witness to events we have seen and attended; we are responsible for the truth of what we say here; i.e., the Dominant Lord God will judge us for this testimony about Dr. Ghazi; we testify here by saying the truth as per what we have experienced when we used to know Dr. Ghazi.    
2- Dr. Ghazi was a master storyteller and orator; people were attracted and amused by his speeches about Sunnite religion, Arabic literature, poetry, jokes, gossips, etc., and he was a generous man and he held a salon inside his house for his group friends, including ourselves, and this group sometimes met with him in his office inside his Al-Aziz Billah Mosque. This means that his character as a serious/solemn sermonizer/preacher differs from his character as a friend who loved having a good laugh, smoking, and telling jokes and narrating stories, anecdotes, and gossips.  
3- Dr. Ghazi never prayed when he was with this group of friends inside his house; he prayed only after he would preach or deliver a sermon to the congregation; at one time, in private, we asked him why he does not pray whereas the friends would pray when the time comes; he laughed and told us he is the owner of the mosque and he is its imam; why should he pray since he delivers sermons to guide others and people come to pray inside his own mosque?!.  
4- This means that Dr. Ghazi was not a real Salafist/Wahabi; he used ideas of this wicked religion to get money; he preferred to talk about literature and poetry in his salon; his eloquence and oratory skills paved his way to wealth and fame; his 'interpreting' the Quran is based on the literary sense and appreciation of the Quranic text to infer new ponderings; people loved his sermons because they got bored of traditional, tedious Wahabi/Salafist sermons that are filled with myths, loud voices, too much warning, and linguistic jargon. Dr. Ghazi has an eye for pretty women; he bragged of his amorous conquests/adventures as he knew (in the biblical sense of the word) several women. Dr. Ghazi was not a hypocrite; he never hid his sexual promiscuity, unlike the immoral, promiscuity Salafist/Wahabi sheikhs who concealed their heterosexual and homosexual relationships (and their crimes linked to pedophilia as well) so as to keep the false appearance of piety before their followers. Dr. Ghazi got married secretly and temporarily to several women; he bragged of his handsomeness and of the fact that women loved him; he once told our person that he knew the marriage-registrar who made the head of Al-Azhar at the time, Abdel-Haleem Mahmoud, marry secretly and temporarily tens of women.
5- The generosity of Dr. Ghazi and his good nature and simplicity made several people take advantage of him to get money; we once saw a bearded man who helped Dr. Ghazi run his mosque coming to him to get a large sum of money, presumably to pay for something linked to the mosque, Dr. Ghazi gave him the sum without questioning him about any details! Later on, the bearded man turned out to be a thief who stole several sums from the mosque; Dr. Ghazi fired him but never notified the police; this means that suspicions would include Dr. Ghazi; most people in Al-Zaytoun district wondered about the source of his wealth as he is a spendthrift who leads an extravagant lifestyle. Rumors have it that most of the millions of L.E. and of US$ that come to his mosque (and to all Salafist centers, societies, and mosques) as donations are being confiscated by thieves/sheikhs who have bottomless pockets instead of being used entirely to help the poor and to help in the endeavors to spread Wahabism.
6- The good-natured storyteller Dr. Ghazi managed to befriend the officer of the Egyptian State Security Apparatus whose mission is to keep an eye on him and to listen to his sermons; the officer's mission was to make sure that Salafist sermons will not drive deluded Salafist/Wahabi youths to join terrorist groups or to commit any terrorist crimes; this officer never harmed Dr. Ghazi who cooperated in most times with the Egyptian State Security Apparatus (as per what may ensure his safety and would never lessen his popularity among the masses) and because incarcerating him might cause thousands of Salafist extremist youths to demonstrate and commit sabotage in the streets to demand the release of their beloved leader. Yet, when Dr. Ghazi consulted the Egyptian State Security Apparatus men about his seeking a seat in the Parliament within the parliamentary elections, they commanded him never to nominate himself as a candidate. 
7- Our brief friendship with Dr. Ghazi never made us draw any benefits during our struggle against Al-Azhar University when we were persecuted there; Dr. Ghazi benefited from our person as he received more pieces information and details about Sufism and how to attack and undermine Sufi notions and this enriched his sermons, speeches, forums, and books; his harsh criticism and attack on Sufism are manifested in his book titled "The Other Face of Sufism".
Group of the Call of the Truth (Gamaat Dawat Al-Haq):
Firstly: Dr. Ghazi, Rashad Al-Shafei, and Dr. S. Al-Taweel:
1- Spotlights were focused on Al-Aziz Billah Mosque and Gamaat Dawat Al-Haq instead of The Society of Sunna Supporters that lost its popularity and people withdrew from it. The grand mosque of Gamaat Dawat Al-Haq is located in the posh Al-Doqqi district in Cairo; it attracted thousands of followers and admirers. 
2- Rashad Al-Shafei, the president of The Society of Sunna Supporters, was a low-rank governmental employee and he used to organize demonstrations for political reasons; he joined The Society of Sunna Supporters in order to get wealthy through the Saudi funding; his endeavors to end the merge of The Society of Sunna Supporters and The Sharia Society were successful; he became the head of the re-launched independent The Society of Sunna Supporters; he was a non-Azharite; he was never an imam, an orator, a preacher, nor a scholar; he knew nothing about the Quran and knew very little about Sunnite fiqh, hadiths, etc., but he was a very good manager; he tried to prove his being a good researcher by criticizing, refuting, and undermining some Sunnite hadiths of Al-Bokhary; he imitated the views of the few Egyptian authors and sheikhs at the time (in the 1970s) who have criticized some of Al-Bokhary hadiths, and this caused a furor in the Salafist milieu as Salafists deify and sanctify Al-Bokhary and his book. Before Rashad Al-Shafei, Abdel-Rahman Al-Wakeel, the previous president of The Society of Sunna Supporters, used to criticize few Al-Bokhary hadiths, which insult Muhammad, in his sermons; e.g., the hadith about Muhammad being bewitched by a Jewish sorcerer, the one about Muhammad pawning his shield to an Arab Jew, and the one about Muhammad drinking water that contained a dead fly. Many Egyptian and Saudi Salafists were furious because Rashad Al-Shafei and others dared to criticize Al-Bokhary hadiths; sheikh Al-Albany interfered in this debate to assert the 'infallibility' of Al-Bokhary hadiths and all Sunna hadiths (!). Of course, this debate made The Society of Sunna Supporters lose its popularity as the masses disliked Rashad Al-Shafei who was criticized by most Salafist sheikhs inside Egypt and the KSA. When Dr. Ghazi emerged on the Salafist scene to solve the problem by focusing criticism on Sufism, the masses and followers joined his Al-Aziz Billah Mosque and the mosque of Gamaat Dawat Al-Haq.       
3- Within a forum held by Dr. Ghazi to discuss with an Iranian Shiite sheikh the topic of surmounting the Sunnite-Shiite differences and disputes, the Shiite sheikh was an excellent orator with an excellent command of the Arabic tongue; he attracted the attention of the audience who admired his words; yet, we have spoiled this forum when we asked this Shiite sheikhs about contradictory Sunnite hadiths and Shiite ones about Aisha, wife of Muhammad deified by Sunnites and demonized by Shiites. The Shiite sheikh fell silent and Dr. Ghazi interfered with his jests and sweet talk; later on, Dr. Ghazi told us in private never to tackle (in forums held in his mosque) thorny issues regarding hadiths, though we never joined his mosque as a preacher or sermonizer. We tend to think that Dr. Ghazi desired to have close ties with Iran; he wanted to draw financial benefits by drawing the two Sunnite and Shiite sects/religions nearer to each other within the shared grey areas between them. Thus, our question in the forum might have embarrassed him. We never saw Dr. Ghazi again after this forum; we decided never to meet with him again; soon afterwards, we joined the Gamaat Dawat Al-Haq of Dr. Al-Taweel. 
Secondly: our relation with Dr. Al-Taweel:
1- The first time we have heard of Dr. Al-Taweel was in 1979 from our paternal uncle's son, Dr. Abdel-Hamid A. M. Ali, who was a professor in the same Azharite faculty where we used to be an assistant professor. When this relative of ours told us that Dr. Al-Taweel defended us within ours struggle against Al-Azhar University and Sufi sheikhs inside it; he praised our person before our foes (who filed a complaint against our person at the office of the head of Al-Azhar University because of our attacking Sufism in our lectures and our PhD thesis) though he did not know us at this point in time and we did not know him. Our relative told us that Dr. Al-Taweel is the head of Gamaat Dawat Al-Haq and a professor at the Azharite Faculty of Islamic Studies. We readily went to his office at Al-Azhar University to get acquainted with him; when we told him our name, he stood up and shook hands warmly with us; soon enough, both of us became intimate friends.     
2- Dr. Al-Taweel had a high moralistic level and he respected all people and was respected by everyone who admired his character; he kept a distance between himself and others; he was not a socialite like Dr. Ghazi; he never had a coterie of a group of friends who met with him daily like Dr. Ghazi. Dr. Al-Taweel dedicated his time only to his family, his students at Al-Azhar University, and to Gamaat Dawat Al-Haq. As far as we saw him, he never missed any of the five daily prayers; his research skills (as a specialist in Arabic linguistics) were greater than those of Dr. Ghazi (who specialized in Arabic literature). Yet, Dr. Ghazi was a gifted and eloquent orator, sermonizer, and speaker, whereas the sermons of Dr. Al-Taweel did not gain the interest of most people for his lack of oratory skills. 
3- What we like most in Dr. Al-Taweel was his stance against most hadiths; he asked our person to work with him in his Gamaat Dawat Al-Haq; we were the editor-in-chief of the magazine of this institution. Later on, we became the secretary general of Gamaat Dawat Al-Haq. We requested from many university professors among our friends to contribute articles to the magazine, including our own brother M. Alaa-Eddine Mansour, the professor of the Persian Language at Cairo University. Our own editorial was titled "Sufi Fabrications"; our articles were dedicated to refute and undermine Sufi myths using the Quranic verses; later on, we began another series of articles titled (This Is Not Part of Sunna); our articles were dedicated  to refute and undermine hadiths that contradicted the Quran; we quoted views on that topic written by Ibn the Middle-Ages Hanbali authors Al-Qayyim and Ibn Taymiyya; yet, our articles provoked the ire and fury of Salafists. Dr. Al-Taweel did not reproach us as he told us that he cast doubts on most Sunna hadiths; yet, his 'mild' and 'indirect' undermining and refuting hadiths about stoning and about other contradictory Al-Bokhary hadiths made us realize that he opposed hadiths only when they clearly contradict Quranic verses; at the time, before our Quranist school of thought evolved, we assumed that it is OK to believe in some hadiths that do not overtly and flagrantly contradict the Quran; however, we never quoted any hadiths in our books at the time, except when we have quoted only one hadith in our first book (written in 1982) about the Sufi 'saint' and Shiite spy Al-Sayed Al-Badawi; for sure, we removed this hadith in later editions of the book. Dr. Al-Taweel wrote the introduction of our book on Al-Sayed Al-Badawi; he mentions in it some details about our being persecuted at Al-Azhar University because of our PhD thesis that undermines and refutes Sufism.    
4- The last time we saw Dr. Al-Taweel was in 1985, shortly before we left Gamaat Dawat Al-Haq forever (as we expressed openly our rejection of all hadiths) and tendered our resignation to Al-Azhar University. We were friends with Abdel-Qader Al-Taweel, the brother of Dr. S.  Al-Taweel; we and our brother Dr. Alaa-Eddine Mansour helped Abdel-Qader Al-Taweel to continue his PhD thesis deserted by him for years, as he worked as a teacher of Arabic in high schools in Cairo. Abdel-Qader Al-Taweel obtained his PhD degree from the Arabic Department, Al-Azhar University, and he felt indebted to our person for helping him. when Dr. Al-Taweel settled for some years inside the KSA to teach at a Saudi university, his brother was the head of Gamaat Dawat Al-Haq and he deputized our person in all things related to Gamaat Dawat Al-Haq; we became the de facto head of it for a while. The KSA funded Gamaat Dawat Al-Haq and Al-Aziz Billah Mosque through a Saudi merchant of Yemeni origin who settled in Cairo; this man collected money from the wealthy people in the KSA to fund Salafist centers and societies. The money of Gamaat Dawat Al-Haq was used to build more mosques (with hospitals and centers attached to them) in Cairo and several major cities and to pay salaries of preachers/imams and writers of articles of the magazine. The main headquarters of Gamaat Dawat Al-Haq in Al-Doqqi district in Cairo had a branch of an 'Islamic' bank that invested the money of its customers in big, 'profitable' projects.   
5- The Saudi fundraiser cast doubt on my person because we never received any money (as per our request, as one cannot serve Mammon/money and God at the same time) from our work as preacher, secretary, and editor-in-chief in Gamaat Dawat Al-Haq. Our popularity as a preacher increased as we tackled rarely researched topics and attacked Sufi notions by proving how they contradict the Quran; we attacked Al-Sayed Al-Badawi and his worshipers in a mosque that belonged to Gamaat Dawat Al-Haq in the city of Tanta (where the mosque and mausoleum of this 'saint' is located); Sufism-hating Salafists inside and outside Gamaat Dawat Al-Haq admired our sermons; many people and preachers who worked in Gamaat Dawat Al-Haq admired our person and became our coterie of close allies and friends that was a power center in the circles of Gamaat Dawat Al-Haq (until we left Gamaat Dawat Al-Haq when we declared our Quranism as the True Islam).  
6- In 1984, our sermons began to tackle debunking and refuting Sunnite myths using the Quran; for instance, we tackled the fact that Muhammad (and all prophets) will never act as intercessors on the Last Day; Muhammad was not infallible (and so were all prophets); Muhammad was not the best human being or the best prophet as we are not to make distinctions among God's prophets as per Quranic commands. Salafists of Gamaat Dawat Al-Haq who previously admired our person and our sermons against Sufism began to hate me very much; the Saudis began to feel that we are a source of threat to their Wahabism. They sent Dr. Al-Taweel from the KSA to Egypt with tens of thousands of US$ distributed among all people who work at Gamaat Dawat Al-Haq (excluding our person, of course, as we never took money from him and refused to preach for money), and all people there at the board of Gamaat Dawat Al-Haq (in a board meeting that included ourselves) turned against our person, rebuked us severely, and demanded that we stop attacking and undermining Sunna hadiths in our sermons; we tendered our resignation and left Gamaat Dawat Al-Haq forever. 
7- Meanwhile, we have refuted the notions of intercession and infallibility of prophets as well as making Muhammad the 'best' one of them within five books we have authored to teach to our students in the year 1984 – 1985. The titles of these books are as follows: "Prophets in the Holy Quran", "The Islamic World between the Era of the Four Pre-Umayyad Caliphs and the Era of Abbasid Caliphs", "Separatist Movements within Islamic History", "Conquests of the Mongols", and "Studies in the Thought Movement within the Islamic Civilization". To our surprise, the dean and the committee members who managed the affairs of Al-Azhar University took the decision on the 5th of May, 1985, to suspend us from work, to stop our promotion and our leaving Egypt, and to interrogate us. This means that in 1985, we left for good Al-Azhar University and Gamaat Dawat Al-Haq and began our intellectual journey of the Quran-only Islam or Quranism as the Only True Islam.
8- We still appreciate Dr. Al-Taweel who bore patiently with our existence inside his Gamaat Dawat Al-Haq despite the Saudi pressure of funders who told him to remove us, Dr. A. S. Mansour, from his Gamaat Dawat Al-Haq forever; we left his Gamaat Dawat Al-Haq on our own accord and we were not fired. Dr. Al-Taweel died in 1998; he witnessed our suffering, being persecuted, incarcerated, watched by security men, etc. He witnessed our publishing of several books and our developing our school of thought in the 1990s; we never met with him after 1985 because the Egyptian media attacked our person within character assassination; all Azharite sheikhs/professors  competed in vilifying our person in the media, except Dr. Al-Taweel who remained silent and did not verbally abuse our person. We are thankful to him for this stance. On the Day of Judgment, the Dominant Lord God will judge all of us and settle our religious disputes and differences. 
Quoted pieces of information about Dr. Al-Taweel:
1- He was born in Nov. 1932 in a rural village in Giza Governorate, he memorized the Quran and got a prize for it in 1944; he graduated from Al-Azhar University in 1959 and worked as a teacher in a high school; he taught the Arabic language; he taught in Saudi schools for two years and then in Libyan schools for five years; he returned to Egypt in 1972, but he was appointed later on as a professor in the Um Al-Qura Islamic University in the KSA from 1982 to 1986. 
2- Dr. Al-Taweel obtained his MA degree in 1967 and then his PhD degree, cum laude, in 1974, and his theses revolve around Arabic linguistics; he taught linguistics as a professor at Al-Azhar University; he became the dean of the faculty for two terms since 1988. He retired in Nov. 1997 but continued to teach for free at the same faculty until he died. He was a member of the Higher Council of Islamic Affairs in Cairo, Egypt, which was an Azharite body; he joined the section of Sunna and Sirah (i.e., the fake biography of Muhammad) in this Azharite body.     
3- At first, Dr. Al-Taweel joined The Society of Sunna Supporters at the age of 18 and established its branch in his native village. He was influenced by ideas of sheikhs Abdel-Rahman Al-Wakeel and Abou Al-Wafa Darweesh; he admired Al-Wakeel so much that when he established his Gamaat Dawat Al-Haq, he named it after one of his favorite books of Al-Wakeel: "Dawat Al-Haq" or the Call of the Truth. Dr. Al-Taweel re-published and reprinted several editions of the books of the sheikhs Al-Wakeel and Darweesh at his own expense. Dr. Al-Taweel established his Gamaat Dawat Al-Haq in 1975 in order to spread and propagate Salafism/Wahabism. The methods/ways of his Gamaat Dawat Al-Haq did not differ much from those of The Society of Sunna Supporters; i.e., to preach the Quran and to spread awareness about and the religious 'knowledge' of Sunna hadiths while undermining and debunking fabrications, myths, and lies (esp. Shiite and Sufi notions). Dr. Al-Taweel was never an extremist; he was a moderate Sunnite thinker who preferred to hold constructive dialogues with all religious trends in Egypt. Of course, his Gamaat Dawat Al-Haq had its branches in several villages and cities in all Egyptian governorates, and these branches controlled tens of mosques that offer religious, social, and cultural services. 
4- Some titles of the books on religious thought authored by Dr. Al-Taweel: "Islam as a Way of Life", "Different Recitation Methods of the Quranic Text", "The Israelites in the Quran and in History", "Islam as the Call of the Truth", "The Methodology of Calling Others to Islam", "On Restoring the Best Umma", "On the Rules of Fasting", "The Companions of the Prophet as Teachers", and "Political Issues Imposed on the Islamic Arena after the Gulf Crisis". 
5- Some titles of the books on linguistic authored by Dr. Al-Taweel: "Disputes of Grammarians: An Analytical Study", "An Introduction to Scientific Research Methodology Concerning Heritage Books", "On Arabic Syntax", "Syntactic Structures of Verbs in the Arabic Tongue", "The Arabic Tongue and Islam Facing the Same War", "On Grammar of the Middle-Ages Arabic Tongue", and his PhD thesis published later in a book form: "The Dispute between Grammarians of Basra and Kufa and its Influence on Grammatical Studies in the 6th century A.H.".
6- Some of the lengthy articles of Dr. Al-Taweel which were published in several magazines: "On the Relation between Grammar and Morphology", "Grammar of Hadiths Texts", "Phenomena within Recent Linguistic Studies", "The Unique Style of Language of the Quranic Text", and "The Language Style of the writings of the Imam Al-Shafei". 
 Every action has its reaction; the Quranist trend has emerged as a reaction to the spread of Wahabism. In our next BOOK, which is the sequel of this one you are reading now, we tackle our own peaceful, intellectual struggle against Wahabism, as this struggle has resulted in the emergence of the Quranist trend worldwide. 
[1] Al-Nafahat Al-Ahmadiyya, p. 175
[2] Al-Bahr Al-Mawrood, p. 319, Fateh Al-Sunna, p. 22, Al-Minan Al-Sughra, a manuscript, sheet No. 4, and Al-Tabakat Al-Kobra 2/62
[3] Qawa'id Al-Sufiyya, by Al-Shaarany, 1/174
[4] Lataeif Al-Minan, by Al-Shaarany, p. 212
[5] Ditto, p. 388
[6] Ditto, p. 543
[7] Lawaqih Al-Anwar, p. 102
[8] Al-Tabakat Al-Kobra, by Al-Shaarany, p. 2/65
[9] Lataeif Al-Minan, p. 396, 405, 424, and 426
[10] Qawa'id Al-Sufiyya, 1/204
[11] Al-Jawaher wa Al-Dorar, p. 170
[12] Lataeif Al-Minan, p. 383, 384, and 294
[13] Al-Madkhal, 2/152
[14] Sohbat Al-Akhyar, by Al-Shaarany, p. 88
[15] Al-Jawaher wa Al-Dorar, p. 77, 82, 83, and 69, Lataeif Al-Minan, p. 293, Manaqib Al-Wafaeiyya, a manuscript, p. 66 and 67, Al-Naseeha Al-Alaweiyya, p. 35 and beyond, Al-Kawakib Al-Sayyara, p. 225 and 291, and Manaqib Al-Hanafy, p. 256, 257, 410, and 412   
[16] History of Al-Biqaa'i, a manuscript, sheet No. 3
[17] Taateer Al-Anfas, p. 203 and 204, and Al-Tabakat Al-Kobra by Al-Shaarany, 2/9
[18] Al-Jawaher wa Al-Dorar, p. 26 and 27
[19] Al-Jawaher wa Al-Dorar, p. 271 and 272
[20] Lataeif Al-Minan, p. 180 
[21] Letters and Fatwas by Ibn Taymiyya, 1/70
[22] Lawaqih Al-Anwar, p. 345
[23] Lawaqih Al-Anwar, p. 193 and 174, Al-Bahr Al-Mawrood, p. 271, and Lataeif Al-Minan, p. 383
[24] Qawa'id Al-Sufiyya, 1/165
[25] Qawa'id Al-Sufiyya, 1/164
[26] Manaqib Al-Wafaeiyya, a manuscript, p. 46, 71, and 93
[27] Al-Tabakat Al-Kobra by Al-Shaarany, 2/90
[28] Mahasin Misr by Ibn Dhahira, p. 204
[29] Khetat by Al-Makrizi, 1/79
[30] Al-Bahr Al-Mawrood, p. 129 and 130
[31] Dorar Al-Ghawwas, p. 75
[32] Al-Madkhal, 2/198
[33] Taj Al-Aroos, p. 71 and Al-Hikam Al-Ataaeiyya, p. 462
[34] Tanbeeh Al-Mughtareen, p. 131
[35] Al-Bahr Al-Mawrood, p. 23 and 24
[36] The book by Tawfik Al-Taweel about Al-Shaarany, p. 136 and 137 
[37] A General Overview of Egypt  (in Arabic); the original title in French: "Aperçu general sur l'Egypte" (1840), by Antoine Clot Bey, one-fifth52
[38] Al-Nojom Al-Zahera, 15/207, and ways of putting men to death indicate extremes of savagery, brutality, and cruelty; e.g., quartering their bodies, halving their bodies, wringing their bodies, nailing their bodies to a wooden board, cutting their bodies to pieces with a saw, flaying their bodies, burying men alive in tombs, and beheading men and tying the severed heads with ropes around the necks of the dead men's wives! 
[39] Al-Nojom Al-Zahera, 14/113
[40] History of Ibn Eyas, 2/368
[41] History of Ibn Eyas, 2/354
[42] History of Ibn Eyas, 2/175 and 176
[43] Al-Solok, 4/1/185
[44] History of Ibn Eyas, 2/1/277
[45] History of Ibn Eyas, 2/1/336
[46] History of Ibn Eyas, 2/125, 134, and 135
[47] Al-Nojom Al-Zahera, 15/38
[48] Al-Solok, 4/2/708
[49] Haz Al-Qohof by Al-Shirbini 
[50] History of Ibn Eyas, 2/13
[51] Tohfat Al-Ahbab, pp. 27 and 28
[52] Within the Manaqib, a manuscript, p. 247, 248, 249, 346, and 347
[53] Al-Solok, 2/4/267, events of 827 A.H.
[54] Al-Mustazraf by Al-Abshihi, p. 37
[55] "Popular Proverbs in Egypt" by M. Taymour, p. 28, 188, 295, and 54 
[56] Al-Tabakat Al-Kobra by Al-Manawi, a manuscript, sheet No. 296
[57] Lataeif Al-Minan, p. 125, 171, and 403, Lawaqih Al-Anwar, p. 341, and Al-Bahr Al-Mawrood, p. 31
[58] Lataeif Al-Minan, p. 171
[59] Al-Bahr Al-Mawrood, p. 16 and 17
[60] Lataeif Al-Minan, p. 244
[61] Manaqib Al-Hanafy, a manuscript, p. 388 
[62] Lataeif Al-Minan, p. 222
[63] Al-Bahr Al-Mawrood, p. 314
[64] Lataeif Al-Minan, p. 234 and 507
[65] Lataeif Al-Minan, p. 234 and 507
[66] Hawadith Al-Dohor 3/598
[67] Al-Tibr Al-Masbook, p. 135
[68] This is mentioned in Rizq Selim in Al-Risala magazine, issue No. 825, Vol. 9,"> [92] Lataeif Al-Minan, p. 480
[93] Al-Bahr Al-Mawrood, p. 304 and 305
[94] Al-Bahr Al-Mawrood, p. 109 and 110
[95] Al-Bahr Al-Mawrood, p. 155 and 156
[96] Al-Mustazraf, 1/29
[97] "Popular Proverbs in Egypt", p. 318, 322, 354, 372, and 383
[98] "Dictionary of Egyptian Customs, Habits, and Expressions" by Ahmad Amin, p. 428
[99] "Popular Proverbs in Egypt", p. 12, 63, 102, 114, 126, 153, 233, and 292
[100] "Popular Proverbs in Egypt", p. 12, 63, 102, 114, 126, 153, 233, and 292
The Emergence of Wahabism in Najd and Its Spread in Egypt
The Emergence of Wahabism in Najd and Its Spread in Egypt
Authored by: Dr. Ahmed Subhy Mansour
Translated by: Ahmed Fathy

This book is the PART TWO of our trilogy titled "A Historical Overview of the Emergence and Development of the Earthly Religions of the Muhammadans". It will be followed by PART THREE about our intellectual jihad against Wahabism in Egypt. We discuss here how Wahabism has emerged in the Arabian Najd region within the Ottoman Era and how it has spread gradually in Egypt during the 20th century.