( 7 ) : Part 1
CHAPTER III: The Ideological Formation of the Najd Brothers Is the Basis of the Saudi Opposition Mov

CHAPTER III: The Ideological Formation of the Najd Brothers Is the Basis of the Saudi Opposition Movement during the Reign of Abdul-Aziz


Introduction: about corrupt education:


1- Wahabism, as the ideological formation of the Najd Brothers, is the factor that had turned the desert Arabs (i.e., Bedouins) into savage terrorists. Such ideological formation of the Najd Brothers was inculcated to them by Wahabi sheikhs and scholars in the colonies established to them by Abdul-Aziz. In general, previously, ordinary Bedouins were illiterate, but once they entered the Wahabi colonies, they were transformed into learned ones who retained the Bedouin practice of raids and looting, under the pretext of 'Islamic' jihad, with the addition of committing heinous massacres for all non-Wahabis, including mass killings of women, children, and old people.      


2- In such case, education played a destructive role; originally, education is supposed to be an active element to spread modernization and civilization, especially if such education is linked to Islam: the religion based on peace, justice, political and religious freedom, tolerance, mercy, and all values that have come later on to be called human rights. The ideological formation of the Najd Brothers was a betrayal to the civilizational role of education and a betrayal of Islam and its higher values found in the Quran. This Wahabi education had caused the Bedouins to be transformed into human savages that committed several massacres in Arabia and in its neighboring countries. These human savages tried to attack Abdul-Aziz himself, but he killed them off before they would devour him.  


3- Within societies dominated by religiosity and religiousness, corrupt and bad religious education exists and produces ignoramuses of clergymen who specialize in spreading and propagating ignorance within schools, institutes, universities, media, and houses of worship. Within such societies, no one would dare to criticize the clergymen; as the dominated religiosity lends them sanctity and awe, allowing them to say whatever falsehoods they desire to spread, especially if they are typically copying those falsehoods written by the ancient forefathers and scholars. Thus, when a certain society tried to catch up with the train of modernization and of the civilized world to cope with the modern age, such clergymen would endeavor to thwart such plans to force people to re-live the past of the ancestors, as if this were 'real' Islam. Of course, the above applies to Egypt and its Cairo-based Sunnite Vatican-like Al-Azhar institution, especially at the time when myths of Sunnite Sufism dominated Al-Azhar. Soon enough, with the Saudi influence and money since the 1970s in Egypt under the rule of Sadat (1971-1981), Al-Azhar has turned gradually into a fortress of Wahabism. Wahabism has infiltrated into religious books of the curricula of Egyptian non-Azharite public education, thus aiding the spread of the culture of fanaticism, extremism, bigotry, and permission of killing the innocent, peaceful ones. This volatile, dangerous situation is on the increase in Egypt: to allow education to spread the Wahabi culture that permits massacring all non-Wahabis around the globe.            


4- In Egypt, all educational institutions and media propagate Wahabism and protect it from being questions and criticized, as it is being presented as if it were the only 'true' Islam. Yet, at the same time, the Egyptian State chases and imprisons whoever embraces the Wahabi ideology and wants to apply it by force and terror. Thus, the Egyptian State wants the youth to be an ever-silent passive Wahabi group. Of course, this is impossible; Wahabism urges its followers to commit massacres and loot under the motto of jihad and ''the promotion of virtue and prevention of vice''. Hence, if Wahabis remained silent and passive, this is temporary; when the chance comes, they will practice their ''jihad''.     


5- Accordingly, the Egyptian State managed to create a silent, passive, Mubarak-supporting Salafist/Wahabi trend. Yet, history tells us that this seemingly passive and apparently silent trend consists of a punch of deceitful hypocrites; once the chance comes near, such trend will be worse than Moghuls and other barbarians in history. This Salafist/Wahabi trend is gradually infiltrating slowing but steadily all over Egyptian aspects of life, using the State apparatuses in media and mosques, and eventually, such terrorist trend will make pacts with those accused by the State as being terrorists who seek to confiscate rule and to topple the Mubarak regime. Salafists will never forsake their fellow Wahabis (i.e., the terrorist MB group members) for the sake of the Mubarak regime; rather, both will join forces to destroy this regime. Yet, later on, inevitably Wahabis will be divided and will fight one another for power and authority, with as much momentum as in the case of the Najd Brothers fighting and rebelling against Abdul-Aziz, or maybe in a more violent manner; as Egypt would never have a character like Abdul-Aziz and his geopolitical circumstances and conditions. Sadly, the Egyptian State now (i.e., 2001 A.D.) rear and bring up all Salafist/Wahabi trends inside the country and help them spread to counter and face the spread of the terrorist MB group members and all extremist trends that has sprung out of the MB. Yet, this is an extremely dangerous and volatile situation that might lead to the destruction of Egypt.           


6- The root of this tragedy of harboring Salafist/Wahabi trends inside Egypt is the fact that the Egyptian State sponsors the Sunnite thought, the basis of Wahabism, and protects by law its being criticized; as the Egyptian authorities of the Mubarak regime persecutes whoever put the Sunnite religion to question to discuss and refute it from within Islam; i.e. the Quran alone, and we personally have suffered such persecution for years in Cairo.  


7- In 1982, we have finished our book titled "Al-Sayed Al-Badawi between Truth and Myths", and we have written in its conclusion an urgent call for sifting and modifying all curricula in school and universities textbooks, especially heritage traditional ones of history, theology, and religion, in order to eradicate all signs of terrorist and extremist culture that ascribe itself forcibly to Islam, so as not to let Egyptian education be a means to produce generations of fanatics and extremists. We have warned against possible bloodshed between the youth and the Egyptian State Security Apparatuses, but no one paid heed to our warnings. Ten years later, in 1992, confrontations occurred between the Egyptian State and the terrorist, extremist groups of religious fanaticism, and the authorities contained the situation with the greatest difficulty. As usual, security solutions and confrontations do nothing but to exacerbate the problem and to aggravate matters; even if all religious terrorists got killed, as their thought and theories are never put to question to be refuted, more generations of terrorists will soon emerge.          


8- In 1998 and 1999, we have been the leader of a team that adopted the project of educational reform in Egypt in Ibn Khaldoun Center. This project began as an idea within an article published by us in 1997 in the Cairo-based leftist Rose Al-Youssef Magazine, calling for the reform of both Al-Azhar and the curricula of religious education within public schools in Egypt. Within the Ibn Khaldoun forums, we have discussed such a topic, and related issues, at length; we have discussed and rejected the project of establishing a Coptic Christian university in Egypt, as such project will increase divisions within the Egyptian society by turning it into two warring camps. We have urged the idea that the better notion is to reform the current Egyptian public education to make it a means to reinforce the culture of tolerance and religious freedom. Ibn Khaldoun Center received at the time a European grant to implement the project of reforming Egyptian education to spread the culture of tolerance instead of bigotry. We have set alternatives for the curricula of the subjects of history, religious studies, and Arabic reading textbooks. We have called all parties concerned to discuss our suggestions; yet, to our surprise, the Egyptian parliament, cabinet, media and Al-Azhar institution under the Mubarak regime attacked the project severely and accused our person of being a spy/agent who betrayed Egypt and Islam! Thus, the project was nipped in the bud, and as a punishment, the Ibn Khaldoun Center was closed down by the Egyptian authorities in 2000 A.D. since that date, we expect to be arrested anytime to pay the price of our reformation project proposed by us, as we are now writing this book (2000-2001), expecting policemen or the State Security Apparatus men to arrest us every time the door of our Cairo apartment was knocking.           


9- Before the Ibn Khaldoun Center was closed down, several Quranists were arrested among those who used to attend the weekly forums of the Center, forums that were presided by us on Tuesdays at night to host thinkers, politicians, and the cultural elite among Egyptians, Arabs, and foreigners from all trends. Within each weekly forum, a certain prepared-in-advance topic was discussed. With such forums, some Shiite Egyptians were given the chance for the very first time to express themselves freely. Among famous attendees of the forums was the Sudanese political figure Sadiq Al-Mahdi, apart from the secretary council members of the Ibn Khaldoun Center. Within such forums, topics discussed included the following: the Arab-Israeli struggle, the future of the Islamist movements in Egypt, transparency, the means to apply democracy, elections between legislations and actual reality, and projects to reform and modify the Egyptian Constitution. Such forums used to be a headache for the Egyptian State Security Apparatus men, especially because they were attended by foreign correspondents and journalists as well as some people working in foreign, Western embassies in Egypt to measure the cultural trends of public opinion in Egypt. As a leader and coordinator of such forums, naturally, some of our fellow Quranists attended the forums to voice their Quranist views about topics being discussed. Such forums brought forth some projects that provoked the ire of the Egyptian State Security Apparatus men, especially the projects of transparency, educational reform, and teaching Egyptians their political rights. We personally led the previous two projects. Later on, some Quranists who used to attend the forums were arrested, and the owner of the Center, Dr. Saad Eddine Ibrahim, was arrested after the closure of the Center in June 2000. As we write this now (Dec. 2000), we expect to be arrested anytime. We hear news of some of the arrested Quranists being tortured to extort certain confessions from them, and such confessions might justify our being arrested later on. May God come to the aid of all of us!         


10- As we write this book now, we cannot be sure if we would finish it or not; we keenly write these lines to register, for the sake of history, the persecution we suffer and for another reason: to use it as an introduction to this chapter of the book about the ideological formation of the Wahabi Najd Brothers, to record our views about what is going on in Egypt now; the culture of the terrorist MB group members dominates Egypt and such corrupt culture is a replica of the Wahabi education in colonies in Najd established by Abdul-Aziz. We fear that the coming generations in Egypt will not differ a great deal from the Wahabi Najd Brothers, about whom we write this book of the Wahabi opposition movements. The Wahabi Najd Brothers rebelled against their master Abdul-Aziz using Wahabism taught to them by his Wahabi scholars. What about the Wahabi generations being prepared in Egypt now within both public education and the Azharite one?!    


The problems of the ideological formation of the Wahabi Najd Brothers:

1- The main basis of the issue of the opposition of the Najd Brothers is their ideological formation, which is rooted in the sharia of Middle Ages in its very extremist and fanatical forms. Such ideological formation and mindset had to face the modern age that would never be compatible with the Middle-Ages culture. Abdul-Aziz was the one that taught them such culture and shared it with them; yet, the difference was that he realized the changes of the modern age around him and tried to cope with modernity. Thus, this stance brought about the disputes and then the rift and the struggle between him and the Najd Brothers. If hypothesis is ever allowed in historical research, we may safely say that even if the Najd Brothers had managed to defeat and kill Abdul-Aziz, their inevitable fate was to be history; they would have been extinct by now anyway, because they did not belong the same age of ours. The dinosaurs with their might dominated the face of the earth for long eras, and when their age ended, the age of mammals began and dinosaurs went extinct. We see similar examples in many cases in human history, especially history of Muslims.      


2- In fact, even the Yathreb city-state established by Prophet Muhammad was in direct contrast to its era, when tyrant rulers and clergymen were deified and sanctified within empires of the Persians and Byzantines. Muhammad had established a city-state that followed and applied the Quran; we can call such a city-state in our modern-age terms as the city-state of direct democracy, peace, social justice, human rights, freedom of speech, expression, thought, and religion, a city-state actually based on both power and justice for all. This city-state applied the true Islamic sharia in the Quran within the very best possible human application. The divine revelation corrected and directed Muhammad, allowing for the establishing of a real Islamic rule within applicable sharia found in the Quran. Yet, such a city-state created in real life, or utopia sung and advocated by philosophers for centuries, did not last after Muhammad's death. The reason: the Qorayish Umayyads as well as Bedouins/ dessert Arabs who converted to Islam shortly before Muhammad's death never left the Yathreb city-state to thrive and go on. Both the Qorayish Umayyads and Bedouins represented the tyrannical and violent culture dominant during the Middle Ages that contradicted Islam in the Quran. Within the struggle between Qorayish Umayyads and Bedouins for loot and rule, the gradual, slow change occurred within the State of Muslims: from Al-Thaqeefa pact to Arab conquests to civil wars until the establishment of the tyrannical military Umayyad caliphate and empire and then the Abbasid theocracy. Such empires carried inside the Middle-Ages culture and its tyrannical traits, including forged and carefully tailored religiosity and religious life that suited the dominant corruption and oppression of the Middle Ages. The contrast is clear between the Yathreb city-state of Muhammad and the Abbasid caliphate, when writing down of man-made fabricated religions of Muslims began, embodying the Middle-Ages culture. Hence, the Yathreb city-state never lasted but ten years, despite its being a utopia dreamt of for long by the weak and the oppressed who wished to see a human paradise on earth. In contrast, the Abbasid caliphate lasted for five centuries. The reason is obvious, of course; the Yathreb city-state contradicted the dominant Middle-Ages culture, whereas the Abbasid caliphate embodies such culture so honestly. The Abbasid caliphate went on, even after the downfall of Baghdad, within the Mameluke Era in Egypt to lend legitimacy to the rule of Mameluke sultans who were previously slaves who received military training and their rule lasted from 1250 to 1517 A.D. In Egypt and the Levant, people had no qualms accepting the rule of the unjust Mameluke sultans as long as such rulers enjoyed legitimacy and acceptance of the Abbasid caliphs who used to acknowledge the Mameluke sultans that reached the throne of Egypt using their ruse, power, might, and conspiracies. After the Ottomans had put an end to the Mameluke Era in Egypt, the Ottoman caliph Selim I had to carry off the last Abbasid caliph from Cairo to Istanbul to declare himself as his caliph, in order to rule with the same Abbasid sharia formulated centuries ago. The Ottoman caliphate had many successors until it was finally abolished by Mustapha Kemal Atatürk in 1924 A.D., within about the middle of the era of the Najd Brothers (1910:1930).                  


3- Abdul-Aziz began establishing his kingdom within the period from 1902 to 1930, on the basis of the religion of Wahabism, which was in its turn based on the Sunnite extremist Ibn Hanbal doctrine and the sharia of Ibn Taymiyya, revived by Ibn Abdul-Wahab. Abdul-Aziz struggled against the Shiite and Sufi religions dominated the areas around him, and he realized the need to transform the ever-changing and the loot-driven military power of the Bedouins into a creed-based unified force solidified by Wahabism. That was why he formed the Najd Brothers and inculcated into them Sunnite extremist Ibn Hanbal doctrine and the sharia of Ibn Taymiyya revived by Wahabism, and such creeds belong actually to the Middle Ages and never fit the modern age of the 20th century. Of course, euripi, especially GB, spread and imposed the modernization and its culture within their colonies and areas of influence. Thus, as the Sunnite fundamentalist culture of the Najd Brothers contradicted the modern age in the 20th century, the might and power of the Najd Brothers was bound to vanish one day. Even if Abdul-Aziz had retained the Najd Brothers and kept their culture alive, he would have ended with his KSA soon enough such as previous mobile Bedouin states and their owners (i.e., the Zanj movement and the Qarmatians) who excelled in destruction and massacres and ended as mere history and came to nothing at the end even during the Middle Ages to which they belonged. Hence, we can say that the Yathreb city-state of Muhammad, despite its higher values, was stranger to the Middle-Ages culture surrounding it in the 7th century A.D., and thus, it ended soon as if it were a parentheses and a prominent exception contradicting what was familiar at the time. Within the same logic, the Najd Brothers was a movement that belonged to the Middle-Ages culture, but revived in the modern age that contradicts with it for a certain purpose, and it had to end soon enough despite its might and power as well as brutality, savagery, and massacres and finally its bigots who thought themselves as loyal servants of a creed they thought of as 'Islam'. The same fate is expected for all Wahabi political movements, or the so-called political Islam or Islamism, such as the terrorist MB group and their secret and known societies and organizations subservient to it.             


4- The problem of Abdul-Aziz was that he had to change Bedouins into Wahabi fierce fighters to make sure that under his disposal a group of creed-based soldiers directly linked and related to him as one might be linked and related to one's creed, in order to make Bedouins shed their opportunist vein and tribal fanaticism. Accordingly, he would use such fighters to recapture lands and regions invaded before by his great-grandfather Saud. Thus, the problem was that he prepared and educated the Najd Brothers within a religion that belonged to the Middle-Ages culture and logic, in its extremist, most fanatical, and bigoted traits, fit only for fighting zeal and never for building a stable State, and such culture always holds within itself its seeds of self-destruction; if such creed-based fighters would not fight a certain foe, they will fight one another until they go instinct. When GB (the representative at the time of the international community and the modern age) forced Abdul-Aziz to cope with the modern age and to stop his conquests and ''jihad'' in order to live as king within a stable kingdom, disputes and rifts occurred between him and the Najd Brothers who turned against him instead of fighting for his sake as they used to do before, and he was patient with them until he thought that this situation was no longer bearable; inevitably either of the two parties had to annihilate the other, and thus, Abdul-Aziz had to eradicate and kill off the Najd Brothers before they destroy him and his burgeoning kingdom.        


5- The problem of the Najd Brothers was that they were Bedouins isolated in the deserts away from the outside world, and the Salafist/Wahabi call came to them as an ideology in the colonies that suited their mentalities and mindset at the time, to justify using that creed their centuries-old oral and written Najd traditions of looting and raiding, from rejecting Islam once Muhammad died, passing periods of Al-Zanj movement and the Qarmatians, until the Ibn Abdul-Wahab movement. Such historical events always began in Najd and its surrounding areas. Thus, the Bedouins lived a phase when past and present mixed and temporal and local aspects intertwined. Thus, at one point, these Bedouins turned into the Najd Brothers; fierce fighters who wanted ardently to re-established the Yathreb city-state of Muhammad, NOT as we read about it in the Quran, but rather like the one written by historians in the historical accounts about the Abbasid caliphate. When the Najd Brothers emerged into the world with such ideology, they found the whole world against them, not only the Christian infidels represented by GB that controlled the region, but also by non-Wahabi Muslims in Iraq and the Levant described by Wahabis as polytheists. Wahabis the time thought that such infidels and polytheists would never allow the chance for the Najd Brothers to conquer Iraq and the Levant and other countries as was the case in the Arab conquests of the 7th century. The Najd Brothers felt furious because of fortresses built at the borders to ward off raids! It was strange enough for Wahabis that Abdul-Aziz agreed with such infidels and polytheists and held talks with them; this contradicted what they had learned in the colonies by Wahabi scholars brought to them by Abdul-Aziz himself.       


6- Another problem was the Wahabi scholars themselves; as the Islamic/political solution to the disputes between Abdul-Aziz and the Najd Brothers entailed innovative, creative thinking that would assert facts of Islam and its higher values like absolute religious freedom, political freedom, justice, peace, charity, and tolerance. Of course, they are the same higher values reached by humanity in the 20th century and recorded in international agreements and documents; hence, human rights documents are the nearest human writing to Islamic sharia in the Quran applied by Muhammad. Thus, it was no longer reasonable or acceptable that a state would be established raising the motto of Islam apparently while actually applying extremist sharia contradicting the Quran and the modern-age culture. The basis of the problem of the Wahabi scholars of Najd was that the stale, stable, and unchangeable geography and atmosphere of Najd allowed no room for innovative, creative thinking in religious thought; Najd was an isolated by its very nature, and there was no sense of the passage of time among its inhabitants, as they felt the monotony of time without any noticeable change. Outsiders and strangers who passed by Najd, on their way to perform pilgrimage or for the sake of trade, were merely victims and preys to inhabitants of Najd who specialized in raiding, looting, and embezzlement. Wahabi scholars of Najd held the same mentality and the same ultra-conservative mindset. Historians call the Mameluke and the Ottoman eras in Egypt, Iraq, and the Levant as eras of thoughtless, blind imitation of the traditions of forefathers and ancestors in theology and religious thought, but such status turned into staleness and stagnation within deserts of Najd, and Wahabi scholars felt they must be guardians and stalwarts of such stagnation. When M. Ibn Abdul-Wahab imbibed the writings of Ibn Taymiyya, left Najd, and returned to it later on as a preacher, he never came with something novel in his call which might differ from the school of thought of Ibn Taymiyya, and he never went deeper in research like Ibn Taymiyya in his many writings in terms of theology, jurisprudence, or in any other aspect. Thus, the Najdi Ibn Abdul-Wahab differed with Ibn Taymiyya in that respect: the former did not add anything new and the latter came with many new unprecedented items or ideas (even if we, Quranists, do not agree with them) in theology and jurisprudence. Yet, both were better in the field of knowledge they specialized in, more than the scholars in their times and scholars that emerged in later eras and followed the same schools of thought.            


7- The problem did not confine itself to the geographical location and the environment of the Najd region and to its Wahabi ultra-conservative scholars hostile to innovation; the most problematic element was the temporal aspect, not just the spatial aspect and location. Both the spatial and temporal aspects were frozen in the Najd region within one point in time within the Middle-Ages culture. When Abdul-Aziz tried to move Najd into the modern age, the problem aggravated and exacerbated; the Najdi Middle-Ages raids and revolts were extremist even in terms of the Middle Ages, what about the same traditions facing and challenging the modern, contemporary world? The worst problem of all was to ascribe their thought and crimes to Islam (the Quran alone), as the Quran clearly contradicts bloodshed, bigotry, fanaticism, and extremism. The problem might have confined itself to the Najdi deserts if Abdul-Aziz strove against his foes inside Najd among its tribes alone. Yet, because of the location of Najd within borders with the Persian Gulf, the Levant, and Iraq, and because of the history and traditions of the inhabitants of Najd, Abdul-Aziz had to spread his conquering culture outside the borders of Najd and had to deal with the neighboring countries, where the British influence was great, as GB was the most powerful nation in the world at the time. Hence, collision and confrontation were inevitable with the European powers, modern-age culture, as well as regional powers of Sufi and Shiite Arabs and Turks. Since Abdul-Aziz had but one clear goal, to establish a Saudi state, and the means by which to achieve this goal was the Najd Brothers, it was expected that he must get rid of the Najd Brothers, as they posed a veritable threat to his burgeoning, nascent kingdom. Besides, he could not possibly be expected to 'rectify' and 'reform' the Najd Brothers by simply inculcating into them the higher values of Islam and its Quranic facts which fit the contemporary modern age and cope with it, unlike the case with the obscurantist Wahabi teachings. First of all, Abdul-Aziz was never aware of such higher values of Islam and its Quranic facts; secondly, these Quranic facts and values contradict his political aims. It is against Islam to use is name as a means to attain worldly, transient possessions and glory. Let us remember that he spent countless hours teaching those Bedouins Wahabi teachings; it was too late to forsake and/or refute such teachings later on, even if he wished to. Lastly, the Wahabi scholars and sheikhs were far from innovative, creative thinking as far as jurisprudence and theology were concerned; as they had nothing to do with modern, contemporary age. Despite the influence and power of the Wahabi clergymen and their subservience and obsequiousness to the Al-Saud ruling family, they were the root of the problem of disputes arising between Abdul-Aziz and the Najd Brothers. The reason: they were the stalwarts, guardians, and keepers of the religious thought of Wahabism, imbibed and imbued by them within chronological and historical accumulation that fit their closed, ultra-conservative environment and lifestyle. Hence, it was impossible for Faisal Al-Daweesh to stop raiding, looting, and massacring; similarly, it was impossible for Wahabi clergymen and sheikhs to describe such crimes by any other words except ''jihad'' against the infidels and the polytheists, regardless of the fact that such non-Wahabis were peaceful or warring groups. Thus, the Najd Brothers as faithful students of such Wahabi clergymen, they learnt Wahabism as the only 'true' form of Islam, and such clergymen had a mindset that stopped at the age of Ibn Abdul-Wahab, who in his turn had a mindset that stopped at the age of Ibn Taymiyya. In his turn, Ibn Taymiyya had a mindset that stopped at the age of Ibn Hanbal, who in turn lived through a series of ordeals that was reflected in his extremist school of thought in his writings. The same goes for Ibn Taymiyya whose trials and tribulations were reflected in his extremist school of thought in his writings. Likewise, Ibn Abdul-Wahab found no other way to face his foes in creed except by using such school of thought that negates the other and calls for its annihilation. Clergymen of Abdul-Aziz imbibed such traditions and heritage and faced their age with it, and their age rejected them more than they rejected it. They found in such religious traditions what would justify their turning rejection of their Wahabi faith by others into a pretext to allow massacres, looting, and raiding of innocent peaceful people. Hence, the Najd Brothers had ready fatwas (religious edits or views) in messages written by Ibn Abdul-Wahab to use violence whenever possible, and they applied it without taking permissions from Abdul-Aziz, making him bear with its negative or positive results, which influenced his position as a king and his future as well as the rights of other neighboring countries, urging GB to interfere; thus, Abdul-Aziz had to interfere against the creed of the Najd Brothers. As per Wahabi teachings, Abdul-Aziz himself was accused of befriending infidels and polytheists, and when such accusations were leveled by the Najd Brothers against the king and posed as queries to the Wahabi scholars, the latter felt helpless and could not reform or modulate Wahabism to fit into modern age. This led them unawares to agree with the Najd Brothers in essentials of Wahabism and in accusing the king implicitly if not vociferously. Thus, such disputes between the king and the Najd Brothers turned from theological disputes into a full-fledged political opposition movement which was, in its turn, turned into armed rebellion and civil strife. It was as if history repeats itself, a bad habit that reoccurred a lot, especially in the region of Najd.       


The problem of "the promotion of virtue and prevention of vice" within the Wahabi Najd religion:

Firstly: the cultural background of the disputes over "the promotion of virtue and prevention of vice" between Abdul-Aziz and the Najd Brothers: 


1- The ideological and theological formation of the Najd Brothers was based on the principle of "the promotion of virtue and prevention of vice", and this prevention did not mean denying or rejection, but it rather meant introducing change by sheer force: by the sword, mass-killings, massacres, coercion, and compulsion, as per the Wahabi religion. In Islam found only and exclusively in the Quran, the principle of "the promotion of virtue and prevention of vice" means simply and merely pieces of advice said among Muslims to one another, without specifying a certain committee or group to preach to people without being preached to by people. Thus, this principle differs a lot in the Quran in comparison to Wahabism. Within Wahabism, this principle means to kill off non-Wahabis who rejected 'true' faith of Wahabis! Of course, moderate Sunnite doctrines do not endorse such barbaric savagery and violence under the pretext of change or "the promotion of virtue and prevention of vice". Apart from the Sunnite religion, Sufism and Sufis believe in the tenet of non-protest: to let everybody be, leave everybody alone to live as they wish, and never to deny anyone the right/freedom to commit sins or to embrace different ideas concerning doctrinal views or in religious stances and opinions. Such a Sufi stance dominated for three centuries before the emergence of Ibn Abdul-Wahab. Wahabism came with a bloody, jihadist vision in changing what is deemed as ''vice'' using violence, compulsion, and coercion to impose by force what is deemed by Wahabis as ''virtue''; hence, Wahabis committed massacres under the motto of jihad and changing ''vice'' by sheer force. This violent trend began within the very first Saudi kingdom destroyed in 1818. When Abdul-Aziz established the third current KSA, disputes emerged between Abdul-Aziz and the Najd Brothers in how to apply jihad in order to go on with "the promotion of virtue and prevention of vice". Such theological dispute turned into military rebellion and confrontations between two parties who shared the same creed of Wahabism. In ordinary situation, religious and political disputes could be settled peacefully; yet, within the circumstances and conditions of Najd during the reign of Abdul-Aziz, the Najd Brothers held a certain view about applying the principle of "the promotion of virtue and prevention of vice" that ran contrary to the view held by Abdul-Aziz who cared about the political aspect of his being king. Thus, the basis on which the KSA was established – "the promotion of virtue and prevention of vice" – was the basis of the opposition movement that led to military rebellion which was about to end the KSA.


2- The historical experience of the Najd dwellers in their geographical isolation, xenophobia, and belligerent nature led them to resort to arms to settle all theological and political disputes. This tendency began in the Arab civil war in the first Hijri century in Arabia. This was shown clearly in the stance of the Najd dwellers vis-à-vis the caliphs Othman and Ali, and how they revolted against the latter in the battle of Siffein. Despite the fact that Al-Khawarij died out and that the Najd tribes scattered and changed and in many cases were replaced by other tribes, the nature of Najd stamped its dwellers with the same traits, especially because of the isolated geographical location and historical isolation, plus their habit of raiding over other tribes and over caravans, thus retaining bad pre-Islamic nature despite the emergence of Islam.      


3- When Wahabism emerged, it relied on arms and violence, making use of certain hadiths, falsely ascribed to Muhammad, and the views within the books of the Ibn Hanbal doctrine and of Ibn Taymiyya to support all sorts of violence theoretically and practically. Within the years of the very first KSA, collapsed in 1818, the cities within the Islamic world were dominated by Sufism, and Sufis everywhere rejected and condemned the strict, extremist Sunnite Ibn Hanbal doctrine. Thus, Wahabism was an intellectual coup that dazzled and horrified everyone, despite that it never came with something new in the theological history of Muslims. The only thing new with Wahabism was that it made Sunnite traditions – within Ibn Hanbal extremist fanatical doctrine – to replace the Sufi traditions that dominated before. The Ottoman Empire was dominated by Sufism, and it had to face the Wahabi movement in the very first KSA with the help of the governor of Egypt at the time, Muhammad Ali Pacha, who fought with the Egyptian army led by his eldest son to crush the KSA in 1818. Yet, the Wahabi call was by no means defeated or crushed; rather, it spread more all over Arabia and outside it, unifying all its adherents everywhere without doctrinal disputes. Even during military disputes and rebellions among Saudis within the second KSA which collapsed soon enough, Wahabism was not influenced at all by the downfall of the royal family and the collapse of the second KSA. On the contrary, the Wahabi/Salafist call led somehow to more qualitative intellectual awakening within the milieu of the Sufis who lived within three centuries of intellectual stagnation; many thinkers began to discuss and refute Wahabism in many books. Yet, Sufis failed miserably to defend their myths especially sanctifying and worshipping mausoleums/tombs, thus leading to more propagation of Wahabism that gained more ground with the passage of time disguised as a 'reformist' movement, a falsehood of course; any reformist movement should be based on peaceful call, mental reasoning, and discussions to appeal to people to gain their approval by persuasion, NOT by massacres, swords, invasions, conquests, and coercion in religious matters and faith. Let us bear in mind that the French Expedition in Egypt had drawn the attentions of Egyptians toward a reformist alternative that contradict he Wahabi one based on violence to change ''vice'' by force: this alternative was to learn from the West to join the modern world. This alternative was adopted by the governor of Egypt at the time, Muhammad Ali Pacha, who took a reformist view or stance regarding all ancient traditions (Al-Azhar, Mameluke knights, and the Ottoman armies) as he made military reforms and created a powerful modernized Egyptian army based on Egyptian men instead of foreign mercenaries. Within the margin of such reforms, the governor-later-made-king Muhammad Ali Pacha made other reforms within the civil educational system, built factories, and created the very first Egyptian fleet. His successor, Khedive Ismail, continued such reforms and made Cairo similar to European cities, and he ordered the formation of the very first Egyptian parliament and political parties later on. Yet, Muhammad Ali Pacha failed and despaired as far as reforming Al-Azhar was concerned; its sheikhs and clergymen adamantly refused to accept or introduce even the slightest reform. The cultural awakening or renaissance initiated by Muhammad Ali Pacha and developed by Khedive Ismail had its influence over Al-Azhar gradually. Typically, Al-Azhar heads and clergymen would wake up after it is too late and after they would fiercely resist change at first, and then endorse it later after society would approve of it. Such renaissance in Egypt was influenced by the western models, theories, and views, resulting in the establishment of a secular trend and in the emergence of the very first school of reformist thought in Al-Azhar by its head at the time: Muhammad Abdou, the imam who tried to introduce radical reforms in Al-Azhar institution and managed to defend Islam against erroneous and fanatical orientalists' and atheists' views and accusations leveled against it. The imam Muhammad Abdou tried to reform Muslims by refuting of both the Sufi myths and the extremist fanatical Ibn Hanbal doctrine, as clearly seen in his writings, especially in his unfinished interpretation of the Quran published by Al-Manar publishing house, the first of its kind to produce books on theology at the time, apart from Al-Azhar, and which was later on specializing in publishing Wahabi/Salafist books. The Egyptian tendency to imitate the West to achieve modernization increased in its pace after the British occupation of Egypt and after the collapse of the Ottoman caliphate, after the Turks were defeated, who were the major patrons of ancient traditions, Sufism, and stagnation.     


4- Hence, within the circumstances and conditions that accompanies the rise of the third current KSA (1902-1932), there were three dominant intellectual trends: 1) the Wahabi thought of Ibn Abdul-Wahab taught to the Najd Brothers in the colonies, urging its adherents to kill and destroy anything and anyone rejecting or defying 'Salaf'; i.e., ancestral Sunnite Ibn Hanbal doctrine sheikhs and clergymen, 2) the secular trend that aimed to separate religion and the State and to rely on the West and its models in all aspects of life, and 3) in medial position the school of thought established by Muhammad Abdou that tried to use creative, innovative thinking to make Islam cope with new things and unprecedented items and to understand the holy text (i.e., the Quran alone) in light of sharia general aims and higher values without literal interpretations of the Quran authored centuries ago by forefathers, whose eras differed from the present, as every age needed its own innovative thinking regarding Islam. Within the backdrop, the majority of the Islamic world was dominated by Sufism and its myths, like a type of opium, with a Shiite minority in the margin that bewailed and bemoaned historical events of murdering Ali and his offspring and of certain battles, waiting for the supreme Shiite god, Ali, to come back in the form of one of his descendants as their imam.


5- Hence, circumstances and conditions of Abdul-Aziz when he established the third current KSA differed from the first and second ones; he had to deal with a different age that harbored totally new politics and intellectual trends in the 20th century, which had nothing to do with the life, mechanisms, and logic of 18th and 19th centuries at all in Arabia. The biography of Abdul-Aziz shows that he was flexible in his policies, and such policies entailed moderate theology and jurisprudence, away from extremism. He needed more open Wahabi line of thought to support his policies and to control the Najd Brothers to obey him and use force for his sake alone. Hafiz Wahba was the one writing the most authentic biography of Abdul-Aziz, as he was his formal consultant, but he exerted no control or influence over the Najd Brothers of course. Yet, Wahba had great influence on the way of thinking of Abdul-Aziz. Wahba was one of the students of Muhammad Abdou, reformist head of Al-Azhar who died in 1905, but Wahba rejected reformatory thought of Abdou, as he worked for Abdul-Aziz and served Wahabism instead. Thus, Wahba knew all enlightened anti-Wahabism ideas of Abdou but consciously overlooked most of them. Reading carefully what Wahba wrote, we discern that he still remained a dim flicker of the reformist spirit of Abdou. This is shown in the lines where Wahba criticized the Najd Brothers. Pieces of advice presented by Wahba to Abdul-Aziz were mostly convincing to him; he told the king that he was right to stand against the Najd Brothers and their Wahabi zeal. Wahba told the king that his interests lied in coping with modernized life items and inventions and in peaceful dealing with the British and the Egyptians. Though the Wahabi king never rejected Wahabism, but he was ready to accept novel items, and found in Wahba, the Egyptian man, a good supportive consultant. Thus, the king faced the Najd Brothers and the Wahabi clergymen and sheikhs thinking he was more knowledgeable than they were. This was the cultural background on which disputes and conflicting visions went on between the king and the Najd Brothers over the topic of ''the promotion of virtue and the prevention of vice''.      


The political influence of the hadith of changing vice by force:


1- The so-called hadith of changing vice by one's hands, i.e., by force, was fabricated and forged by the Ibn Hanbal doctrine theologians during their struggle against the Abbasid caliphate, as Ibn Hanbal was severely persecuted by the Abbasid caliph Al-Mamoun and his successor, Al-Mutasim, and even the scholar-cum-activist Ahmed Ibn Nasr Al-Khuzaay, was killed for political reasons during the reign of the caliph Al-Wathiq. This silly hadith had launched a new Sunnite sharia law to allow room for forcing change by individuals who forbid and permit as they saw fit. Hence, any persons, as per this silly hadith, could undertake the initiative to change by force what they deem to be vice or sin. Sultans and caliphs or any rulers at the time would perceive this as bypassing their authority and interfering in their power to govern and rule their subjects. Within such conditions and circumstances, havoc wreaked in Iraq in the Second Abbasid Era, when thousands of the Ibn Hanbal doctrine adherents joined forces with hundreds of thousands of men among the masses to control streets of all Iraqi cities, especially Baghdad. Such rabble rooted out two Sunnite groups: Al-Mu'tazala thinkers as well as followers of Al-Ashaary doctrine. During such chaos caused by the rabble, Baghdad fell easily as prey to the Moghuls. Later on, one theologian among the Ibn Hanbal doctrine scholars became prominent within the 8th century A.H.; his name was Ibn Taymiyya. He raised high such silly hadith, which contradicts the Quranic command of non-violence and not to commit acts of aggression,          as motto or banner in the Mameluke Era in Egypt against Shiites and Sufis, at the time when Sufism dominated the religious life of most Muslims. Ibn Taymiyya and his followers in his school of thought were persecuted; moreover, a latecomer brilliant adherent and scholar of this school of thought, named Al-Biqaay, suffered persecution in the 9th century A.H.   


2- As for Najd and its belligerent tribes and strict atmosphere, it was easy for any persons to claim themselves as deserving authority that they must recover using brandished swords, especially using religious ideology, like the silly above-mentioned hadith, to change vices, sins, and wrongs by sheer force. This led inevitably into disputes between such persons and the rulers, especially when such persons had enough influence and power inside the State they helped in its establishment. This is the crux of the matter and the essence of the crisis; the above-mentioned hadith was certainly forged to incite rebellion or revolt against rulers/sultans using religious pretext from the Sunnite sharia. If the existing ruler was a Wahabi one, other ambitious Wahabis who want authority and rule would claim ruler as infidel or apostate and declare themselves as more religious than he was. Thus, Wahabis, inside and outside the ruling circle, create disputes, struggles, and rifts among one another for the sake of more power and authority. Disputes, struggles, and rifts are traits always carried within any political project adopted by any Wahabi movement, within stages of revolt, rebellion, opposition, or establishment of a state. We discern this clearly in the relation between the Najd Brothers and their king, Abdul-Aziz, and now in Egypt within the terrorist MB group and how it has been divided as some of its members rejected it to form themselves into other smaller secret and overt groups that all of them embrace Wahabism and the same mottoes, references, and goals, but they declare others as infidels and themselves as more loyal to Wahabism as a religion, even before they would reach power and authority. If such Wahabi terrorists would ever reach the throne to rule in any country, they will certainly compete with one another for more power, turning the struggle into political disputes and later military confrontation. Each group would claim itself as more Wahabi than the others and would eradicate the other groups as 'vice' or 'wrong' that must be eliminated by force as per the Sunnite sharia!


3- Focusing on the Najd Brothers, they learned in the Wahabi colonies that the principle of ''the promotion of virtue and prevention of vice'' had but one traditional meaning fit for the age of Ibn Abdul-Wahab and his extremist fanatical doctrine and for the belligerent nature of the Najd tribes. Once Abdul-Aziz settled in his throne of the KSA, he felt the urgent need to reconsider such principle when applied within real life and everyday politics; new Sunnite innovative sharia or legislation was needed to get rid of Wahabi bigotry and the Ibn Hanbal doctrine fanaticism and to apply more moderate Sunnite doctrines that forged other hadiths that require blind obedience to the ruler/monarch. Thus, Abdul-Aziz aimed to alleviate the Wahabi bigotry and zeal to allow absolute political authority for his sake as a Wahabi king. Yet, such innovative thinking in sharia matters did not manage to exist; thus, disputes lingered over what was the exact definition of ''the promotion of virtue and prevention of vice'' between Abdul-Aziz and his Najd Brothers in political and theologian issues. Such disputes led later on to armed rebellion, as weapons and swords impose what was deemed 'right' regardless of reasonable thinking in all issues, as military might grants political legitimacy as per Wahabi teachings. Thus, as in the case of any past theocracy in the history of the Middle East, disputes would never cease, fueled by the above-mentioned silly hadith of changing vice and wrong by sheer force.         


4- The abyss grew deeper between both parties as priorities of each of them were different; Abdul-Aziz had a political vision to settle his kingdom, whereas the Najd Brothers had one theological vision of applying literally, or to the letter, ''the promotion of virtue and prevention of vice'', as a motto to destroy and eliminate everything and everyone they deemed as non-Wahabi, including all things they did not know of and would never approve of. They began by declaring the British as infidels with whom Abdul-Aziz made pacts and agreements. Even when John Philby, the British consultant to the king, converted to Wahabism, the Najd Brothers hated him so much because he was different in race and color from them. This reflected the notion that people of Najd never trusted outsiders and strangers, especially those coming from the West. Their animosity toward the West included all modern inventions coming from it like motorcycles, cars, wireless, and phones. Their desire to eliminate all non-Wahabis led them to harbor the ardent desire to kill off all Shiite people in Al-Ahsa region, as this fit into their vision of applying the principle of ''the promotion of virtue and prevention of vice'' by killing off Shiites or coercing them to convert to Wahabism. Such hatred extended to even Wahabis outside the Najd Brothers, who must be forced to immigrate into the colonies and wear their headdress instead of their traditional headwear. Hence, this was a series of exclusion and negation of others: the West people and even some Wahabis who did not obey the orders of the Najd Brothers in their view of the principle of ''the promotion of virtue and prevention of vice''. As for the king, he adopted a real-life vision to use the principle of ''the promotion of virtue and prevention of vice'' in light of his political interests and in service of his kingdom. Abdul-Aziz would never have allowed any authority to rise above his own; he was a king that has his own consultants, with known-to-all information and top-secret information as well that was not to be divulged except to him alone. He was a king that must take into consideration the framework of internal, external, regional, and international political facts to act wisely. Thus, such royal vision would never go hand in hand with the vision of the Najd Brothers in applying the principle of ''the promotion of virtue and prevention of vice'', in dealing with Shiites in Al-Ahsa and subjugating Wahabis living in cities and in dealing with the British as infidels and all Muslims in Egypt, Hejaz, Iraq, and the Levant as polytheists. The priority of the Najd Brothers was to invade and conquer more lands and to apply Wahabi teachings to the letter, whereas the priority of the king was to preserve his burgeoning, nascent kingdom as a success and how to ward off intrigues of the enemies of the kingdom. Thus, conflicting visions led inevitably to disputes and military confrontation.           


5- The principle of ''the promotion of virtue and prevention of vice'' means for them that the different other must be militarily faced inside and outside the kingdom within Wahabi jihad. Of course, Abdul-Aziz made use of such zeal of the Najd Brothers to annex lands to his kingdom by their swords to 'retrieve' what he thought to be lands of his ancestors of the Al-Saud family. Such was the priority of the king, whereas that of the Wahabi Brothers was the absolute necessity for incessant jihad to conquer more lands to convert the whole world into Wahabi rule and creed. Of course, the Saudi family members in the first and second KSA tried to annex Iraq and the Levant, in an era when borders were not defined. The ideological formation of the Najd Brothers was Wahabism: the teachings of M. Ibn Abdul-Wahab written within historical stage of the rise of the very first KSA. The Najd Brothers of the 20th century never understood the difference of new development in the modern era in comparison to the 'glorious' past, as international powers imposed a certain balance after World War I. GB and France controlled the Levant, Iraq, Egypt, and the Gulf coast, especially GB that had the upper word in the whole region of the Middle East, defining borders and establishing states, or destroy them as in the case of the Ottoman caliphate. GB used to interfere in all major and minor matters where the British interests lied. This was understood very well by Abdul-Aziz as per his reading of the facts of the political status quo around him; he had to deal with the British (deemed infidels by Wahabis) for the sake of preserving his own interests. He had to stop the Wahabi jihad at certain borders defined by GB within negotiations with him as a Saudi king. The Najd Brothers deemed such negotiations as vice and violation of Wahabism that must be eliminated, among their priorities.          


6- Such disputes and differences in visions between both parties did not impede the existence of some mutual agreements or concessions, within certain conditions; for instance, Abdul-Aziz momentarily agreed to their request to stop including wireless in the kingdom, to stop the Egyptian Kiswah caravan from ever coming to Hejaz, and to establish the committee of ''the promotion of virtue and prevention of vice'' after the conquest of Hejaz, to the consternation of its people. As a historian, we can safely say that the king tried hard to avoid confrontations and collisions with the Najd Brothers and their opposition movement as much as he could, as he realized that the ideological formation of them was done under his orders and led them to adopt extremist stances. The fact that most scholars agreed with the Wahabi Brothers led Abdul-Aziz to realize his urgent need for different type of scholars who would obey him blindly especially in formulating fatwas to serve his political ends. We give below some analytical details about the opposition movement of the Najd Brothers against the king, based on the ideological formation of the Wahabi Brothers.      


The school of thought of M. Ibn Abdul-Wahab is the source of the ideological information of the Najd Brothers:

Introductory overview:


1- We have written in previous sections how Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud established the Najd Brothers in colonies, under strict system and lifestyle, and how he made them to imbibe Wahabi teachings, etc. and how this description provokes the interests of any historian. But for researchers in matters of creed, like us, they care chiefly for the ideological formation that governed the acts of the Wahabi Brothers in their dealing with one another and with their king, as well as the other or non-Wahabis in general (the British infidels + Muslim polytheists). Abdul-Aziz created the Najd Brothers within a certain strict system in colonies with certain new hierarchies that made all Brothers imbued the Wahabi teachings as 'holy' ones.       


2- Within the margin of establishing the third current KSA, Abdul-Aziz was the most influential figure in spreading and propagating Wahabism worldwide, while confiscating the name of Islam as if Wahabism were the 'true' form of Islam. Abdul-Aziz was the one responsible for aborting the reformist school of thought adopted by the enlightened imam and head of the Cairo-based Al-Azhar institution, Muhammad Abdou, because such school opposed Wahabism and if it had thrived and flourished, it would have certainly exposed Wahabism as a creed contradictory with the Quran. Muhammad Abdou emerged as a major religious reformist in Egypt, a country with its great political and civilizational weight as a pioneer in the Arab world and the Islamic one, in the last decades of the 19th century, but he died in 1905; five years before the establishment of the Najd Brothers. After his death, his disciple, the Syrian Rasheed Reda, allied himself to Abdul-Aziz, to achieve the dream of the king to convert Egyptians from moderate Sunnite Sufism to Wahabism, in the name of Salafism, in order to avoid any sort of danger coming from Egypt if its people stood with his enemies one day against him. Rasheed Reda was the Wahabi mastermind behind the establishment of the Salafist societies and organizations all over the Egyptian soil, and he was the one to form the terrorist MB group that Abdul-Aziz relied on to replace the Wahabi Najd Brothers. Abdul-Aziz realized after the conquest of Hejaz that the Najd Brothers began to pose a threat to him. Once he controlled the pilgrimage season, he felt the immediate, urgent need to spread Wahabism all over Egypt and to establish the terrorist MB to make use of them in propagating Wahabism in Egypt and later on in the Islamic countries, without their being a threat to the KSA. Hence, Wahabism spread in Egypt disguised in the name of Sunnite Salafism (as the term 'Wahabism' was so much hated in Egypt and elsewhere in the Arab world), by bodies like the Cairo-based headquarters of the Sunnite Sharia Society, with its branches all over Egyptian governorates, and the Muslim Youths Society, with its branches all over Egyptian governorates, as well as the Sunna Supporters Society, with its branches all over Egyptian governorates. When the right moment came, Rasheed Reda established the terrorist MB group and made its leader one of the ambitious youths within Salafism/Wahabism: Hassan Al-Banna. The terrorist MB is a political Wahabi movement seeking to reach full control, power, and authority in all countries in the name of Islam, manipulating its name to refute endeavors and ambitions of all secular parties in Egypt, despite their different ideologies. The terrorist MB, and its overt and secret groups branching from it, managed to deceive the whole world that their Wahabi political movement is re-christened as an Islamist movement, until now. The terms ''Islamism'' and ''political Islam'' are tricks to fool the gullible masses and are a grave insult to Islam (the Quran). Nobody in Egypt now (in 2000 A.D.) seems to remember the Wahabi origin of the terrorist MB group, despite their Wahabi ideology and terminology in all the secret and overt bodies linked to them. The same ideology and terminology of the terrorist MB are exact replicas of what the Najd Brothers learned in the colonies by the Wahabi scholars under the supervision of Abdul-Aziz, including the racist animosity toward the other: be it non-Wahabi Muslims or foreign infidels of others denominations and creeds or atheists. Oil revenues of the KSA helped to finance branches of the terrorist MB group all over the world in order to spread Wahabism in the West and the East, using the same Ibn Abdul-Wahab teachings that misuse the name of Islam and no one could dare to declare that they obviously contradict the Quran.                              


3- We, Dr. Ahmed Subhy Mansour, consider ourselves to be perhaps the only scholar refuting Sunnite Wahabism, and all Sunnite denominations, and proving that they contradict Islam (the Quran alone), beginning with five books we have authored to teach to Azharite students in 1985. We end up leaving Al-Azhar University after two years of Inquisition-like trials and persecution inside it. In the same year, 1987, we have been incarcerated along with many of our fellow Quranists among the very first generation of them. This incarceration was because of Saudi/Wahabi influence and commands within Egypt and the Egyptian authorities. The second wave of incarceration of Quranists began in 2000 A.D., as tens of them got arrested for no reason, and we expect to get arrested anytime now. Our 'crime' has been the ability to revive the school of thought of Muhammad Abdou, named later on Quranism, which was aborted before by the endeavors of Abdul-Aziz in Egypt and elsewhere. We are still on the same mission of spreading true Islam (i.e., Quranism) to correct, reform, and rectify Muslims from within Islam itself (the Quran per se), using the Quran as a measure stick. This poses a veritable danger to the very existence of the KSA and Wahabism.       


4- Let us re-focus on Wahabism and the role of the Wahabi king Abdul-Aziz in teaching the Najd Brothers the Wahabi terrorist teachings. What are the fundamentals of the Wahabi thought imbibed by the Najd Brothers and held great influence over their movement initially with, and later on against, Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud? Such fundamentals are briefed as follows: hatred of the other, declaring others as infidels/polytheists, and massacring and looting such non-Wahabis. In the following section, we will research such fundamentals and compare them to Islam (i.e., the Quran alone) to show the contradiction between Wahabism and Islam.



Firstly: hatred of the other between Islam and Wahabism:

Within Islam: in dealing with others as outsiders:


1- The Quran tells us about the hatred of polytheists toward peaceful believers: "How? Whenever they overcome you, they respect neither kinship nor treaty with you. They satisfy you with lip service, but their hearts refuse, and most of them are immoral…Towards a believer they respect neither kinship nor treaty. These are the transgressors." (9:8-10).


2- In contrast, peaceful believers are not ordered to face hatred with more hatred; rather, they are commanded in the Quran not to befriend the aggressors: "You will not find a people who believe in God and the Last Day, loving those who oppose God and His Messenger, even if they were their parents, or their children, or their siblings, or their close relatives…" (58:22). This Quranic command is repeated as believers are not to befriend aggressors who fought peaceful ones because of their choice of creed and drove them out of their homes and those supporting such aggression: "But God prohibits you from befriending those who fought against you over your religion, and expelled you from your homes, and aided in your expulsion. Whoever takes them for friends-these are the wrongdoers." (60:9).


3- As for polytheists and disbelievers who never committed aggression against peaceful believers and never drove them out of their homes, they were to be treated justly, kindly, fairly, and charitably: "As for those who have not fought against you for your religion, nor expelled you from your homes, God does not prohibit you from dealing with them kindly and equitably. God loves the equitable." (60:8)


4- Believers in the Quran are commanded to deal fairly with foes and enemies: "O you who believe! Be upright to God, witnessing with justice; and let not the hatred of a certain people prevent you from acting justly. Adhere to justice, for that is nearer to piety; and fear God. God is informed of what you do." (5:8).


5- Believers in the Quran are commanded to compete in goodness and righties acts with peaceful "people of the book" (i.e., the Quranic terms for Jews and Christians) and to wait for God's judgment on the followers of the three Abrahamic faiths in the Last Day: "...For each of you We have assigned a law and a method. Had God willed, He could have made you a single nation, but He tests you through what He has given you. So compete in righteousness. To God is your return, all of you; then He will inform you of what you had disputed." (5:48). As for aggressors among ''People of the Book'', believers in the Quran are ordered not to support or befriend them in such aggression against peaceful believers so as not to be unjust ones like the aggressors: "O you who believe! Do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies; some of them are allies of one another. Whoever of you allies himself with them is one of them. God does not guide the wrongdoing people." (5:51).   


Within Islam: in dealing with others as citizens inside an Islamic country:


1- When dealing with citizens within an Islamic country, all peaceful, law-abiding citizens are equal and they are not to be divided on terms of beliefs and faiths but as per their social and economic rank and position: "Worship God, and ascribe no partners to Him, and be good to the parents, and the relatives, and the orphans, and the poor, and the neighbor next door, and the distant neighbor, and the close associate, and the traveler, and your servants. God does not love the arrogant showoff." (4:36). Being good to such categories here does NOT include a condition that those deserving goodness, charity, or aid be believers in terms of faith. There is no denominational or sectarian classification in Islam; rather, social and economic classification for the sake of charity and the general good of the society, as the poor, the impecunious, the impoverished, the traveller, the orphaned…etc. need financial help from affluent citizens. The same principle applies to the notion of distribution of alms and zakat: "Charities are for the poor, and the destitute, and those who administer them, and for reconciling hearts, and for freeing slaves, and for those in debt, and in the path of God, and for the traveler in need-an obligation from God. God is All-Knowing, Most Wise." (9:60) as well as distribution of spoils: "And know that whatever spoils you gain, to God belongs its fifth, and to the Messenger, and the relatives, and the orphans, and the poor, and to the wayfarer, provided you believe in God and in what We revealed to Our servant…" (8:41) "Whatever God restored to His Messenger from the inhabitants of the villages belongs to God, and to the Messenger, and to the relatives, and to the orphans, and to the poor, and to the wayfarer; so that it may not circulate solely between the wealthy among you…" (59:7). Traits of the righteous ones include spending money for charity: "…who gives money, though dear, to near relatives, and orphans, and the needy, and the homeless, and the beggars, and for the freeing of slaves…" (2:177).       


2- Another indicator of equality among citizens regardless of one's faith is greetings: "When you are greeted with a greeting, respond with a better greeting, or return it. God keeps count of everything. " (4:86). It does not matter if such greetings are in any tongue, language, or dialect, verbal or non-verbal, we have to reply to it as it is or in a better manner, even if a Jew says to us ''Shalom'', as God will reward us when we obey this command, as the case in all Quranic commands.


3- Believers in the Quran are commanded to pardon and tolerate those who follow other creeds apart from Islam and to wait for God's judgment on all humanity in the Day of Resurrection: "...The Hour is coming, so forgive with gracious forgiveness." (15:85), "As for the statement: "My Lord, these are a people who do not believe."Pardon them, and say, "Peace." They will come to know." (43:88-89), "Tell those who believe to forgive those who do not hope for the Days of God. He will fully recompense people for whatever they have earned. Whoever does a good deed, it is for his soul; and whoever commits evil, it is against it; then to your Lord you will be returned." (45:14-15). Believers in the Quran are commanded to reply with peace to those who verbally attack them: "The servants of the Merciful are those who walk the earth in humility, and when the ignorant address them, they say, "Peace."" (25:63), "And when they hear vain talk, they avoid it, and say, "We have our deeds, and you have your deeds; peace be upon you; we do not desire the ignorant."" (28:55).


4- This was the real life of Prophet Muhammad who followed nothing but the Quran, and God describes him in the Quran as mercy to the humankind, as people followed him because they loved him: "It is by of grace from God that you were gentle with them. Had you been harsh, hardhearted, they would have dispersed from around you…" (3:159), "…He believes in God, and trusts the believers, and is mercy for those of you who believe…" (9:61), "There has come to you a messenger from among yourselves, concerned over your suffering, anxious over you. Towards the believers, he is compassionate and merciful." (9:128), "We did not send you except as mercy to the humankind." (21:107). 


Within Wahabism: hatred of others:


1- In contrast to real Islam, Ibn Abdul-Wahab made hatred of others as a basic tenet in the Wahabi creed; as he confiscated the name of Islam to himself and made it confined to his views that came to be later on known as Wahabism. Ibn Abdul-Wahab commanded that those denying or refusing his notions are to be declared infidels and apostates that must be fought, massacred, and robbed and their women enslaved. Ibn Abdul-Wahab urged hatred of all non-Wahabis within all religious denominations on earth and even among non-Wahabi Muslims, called by him as polytheists, who followed other doctrines inside and outside Arabia. This includes Sufis and Shiites in particular. Of course, this harkened back to the struggle of the Sunnite Ibn Hanbal and Ibn Taymiyya against Sufism. Upon such bases came the false, erroneous understanding of Ibn Abdul-Wahab of the Quranic verses that mention polytheists. Thus, for Ibn Abdul-Wahab, polytheists included all peaceful and non-peaceful Shiites, Sufis, and non-Wahabi Sunnites. Wahabis were taught to hate all non-Wahabis as part and parcel of the Wahabi creed notions. Ibn Abdul-Wahab writes: (…a man is not deemed Muslims if he just acknowledged God's monotheism and forsook polytheism, as he must hate from the bottom of his heart all polytheists and declare such hatred in public…) (1). Hence, those Wahabis who did not hate the other non-Wahabis were not deemed as believers! 


2- Ibn Abdul-Wahab links closely in his writings between such hatred of non-Wahabis and declaring them as infidels, polytheists, and apostates. (…For God's sake, O brethren! Adhere lovingly to the roots and fundamentals of your faith: there is no God but Allah, and then love your brethren in faith, and hate with all your might all infidels and polytheists and hate those love or defended them or refuse to declare them as infidels and polytheists, as such liars lie to God, and we must disown them to obey God's commands, even if such persons are our brothers or progeny! May God receive our souls as monotheistic Muslims…) (2). Ibn Abdul-Wahab asserts in his writings linking hatred with declaring others as apostates, infidels, and polytheists: (…If anyone would ask you, O brethren, what is your faith? You should say it is Islam, which has two fundamentals: the belief in Allah with no other gods or associates and urging others to adopt the same belief, and warning against polytheism and hatred of those who reject or attack our faith and to declare them as infidels and polytheists…) (3). (…Those believing in One God should never treat those rejecting faith kindly, even if they are their own fathers…) (4). Ibn Abdul-Wahab writes about denying Taghut that (…one is to declare the worship of other gods apart from Allah as nullity and should hate infidels and apostates and polytheists from the bottom of his heart…). Ibn Abdul-Wahab writes the following about the meaning of belief: (…all acts of worship must be dedicated to Allah alone, without other idols and false gods, while loving the faithful ones with all your heart as your brethren and friends, and hating polytheists with full animosity…) (5). Of course, these Wahabi commands contradict the Quranic teachings that warn against befriending only those aggressors who are committing violence against peaceful innocent ones. The Quran contains no command related to fighting those peaceful ones who hold differ faith. Fighting in Islam is only for the sake of self-defense and especially to stop being persecuted by warring enemies. Ibn Abdul-Wahab called for hatred of all non-Wahabis on earth, even if they were peaceful, innocent, non-violent ones. Of course, Wahabis later on applied such teachings so faithfully and minutely; they never greeted any non-Wahabi at all, and we have written in a previous chapter how leaders of the Najd Brothers' rebellion refused to greet Abdul-Aziz in their negotiations when they militarily fought against him.           


Secondly: declaring others as infidels and accordingly permitting their massacring and looting and invading their countries: between Islam and Wahabism:


1- Among the frequently repeated words in the Quranic text are ''Kufr'' (literally: disbelief) and ''Shirk'' (literally: polytheism), within contexts of injustice, inequity immorality, and aggression. This means that the Quran declares some acts, behaviors, notions, and descriptions as part of disbelief; but such declaration does NOT mean any punishment in this life applied by a human being on others/disbelievers; rather, such Quranic declarations mean giving people a chance to reform themselves by knowing and avoiding acts, behaviors, notions, and descriptions which are part of the disbelief in the Quran. Besides, the Quran describes all acts, notions, tenets, and traits of belief and believers (e.g., piety, charity, justice, peace, good deeds…etc.) for everyone to follow. Hence, the Quran paves the way and shows the righteous path and warns against misguidance and the wrong path, leaving for human beings the freedom of choice between the two paths and postponing judgment until the Last Day: the Day of Resurrection. Accordingly, within Quranic stories of prophets and their peoples and about the time when the Quran was revealed, we find descriptions of ''Kufr'' and ''Shirk'' in terms of acts, tenets, notions, and demeanors in order to rectify and correct ourselves and to guide oneself to the righteous path, along with the Quranic command to avoid the religious route, or lack of it, of disbelievers and polytheists, waiting for judgment of all humanity in the Day of Judgment. 


2- Hence, the Quran as the last divine message to humanity until the Last Day had to contain descriptions of ''Kufr'' and ''Shirk'' to indicate and demark them clearly for us to avoid and for another reason: to make us discern how such descriptions will be repeated after the Quranic revelation, in later eras, as it were repeated during the revelation in Arabia, and were repeated by other disbelievers and polytheists in the eras before the Quranic revelation. This is part of the miraculous predictions of the Quran; descriptions of ''Kufr'' and ''Shirk'' have been indeed repeated within Wahabis and Wahabi teachings concocted and formulated by Ibn Abdul-Wahab. Such hatred, inculcated by Ibn Abdul-Wahab as part and parcel of Wahabism, was shown within feelings and sensibilities of the aggressive polytheists who hated Prophet Muhammad during his lifetime, and God describes such people in the Quran as aggressors: "How? Whenever they overcome you, they respect neither kinship nor treaty with you. They satisfy you with lip service, but their hearts refuse, and most of them are immoral…Towards a believer they respect neither kinship nor treaty. These are the transgressors." (9:8-10). The same description applies to hypocrites and their feelings of animosity and fear that drove them to retain such hatred in their hearts for ear of fighting early Muslims, but God exposes them in the Quran to warn true believers against them: "O you who believe! Do not befriend outsiders who never cease to wish you harm. They love to see you suffer. Hatred has already appeared from their mouths, but what their hearts conceal is worse. We have made the messages clear for you, if you understand. There you are, you love them, but they do not love you, and you believe in the entire scripture. And when they meet you, they say, "We believe;" but when they are alone, they bite their fingers in rage at you. Say, "Die in your rage; God knows what is within the hearts." If something good happens to you, it upsets them; but if something bad befalls you, they rejoice at it. But if you persevere and maintain righteousness, their schemes will not harm you at all. God comprehends what they do." (3:118-120).             


3- In contrast to the above-mentioned Quranic facts, declaring persons as infidels within Wahabism is never a step for reform; rather, a leap for committing grave injustices, violence, massacres, and aggressions. Thus, Wahabis in Arabia at the time have repeated to the letter all bad acts and crimes of the disbelievers of Qorayish during the lifetime of Muhammad; at the time, they accused Muhammad and believers with him as apostates who rejected the 'true' faith of the forefathers. The same accusations were leveled at the same persons by desert-Arabs (i.e., Bedouins) at the time, whom the Quran describes as those adamant in hypocrisy and disbelief. After the death of Muhammad, a movement of rejecters of Islam was led by a false prophet named Museilama the Liar in Najd, where centuries later Ibn Abdul-Wahab was born and brought up. The Najd region, throughout history of Arabia, remained the source of all movements of rebellion, looting, destruction, and massacres that used religious mottoes and declared others as infidels or disbelievers: such as Al-Zanj movement and the Qarmatians. Their massacres were perpetrated within Middle-Ages Muslims communities in Arabia, the Levant, and Iraq. When Ibn Abdul-Wahab emerged in Najd, he allied himself to the family of Al-Saud using the same motto: ''Blood for blood and destruction for all enemies!'', and declaring non-Wahabis as infidels or polytheists was the pretext to justify crimes such as committing aggressions, fighting innocent ones, massacring them, invading their lands, and confiscating their possessions. Within such faulty notions, the very first KSA was established and collapsed in 1818 by the Egyptian army whose aid was enlisted by the Ottomans. Using the same Wahabi teachings of Ibn Abdul-Wahab, Abdul-Aziz prepared, trained, and educated desert-Arabs and Bedouins to become the Najd Brothers who declare all non-Wahabis as infidels to fight, massacre, and rob them and invade their lands to confiscate all wealth and possessions. Thus, there is a vast difference between the Quranic style of showing certain notions and acts as signs of lack of faith for us avoid and correct ourselves, and declaring others as infidels to commit crimes of aggressions and violence against them.               


Wahabism and declaring others as infidels:

  Ibn Abdul-Wahab declared in his writings that all Shiites are infidels and must be fought: (…all Shiites testify that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is His Messenger and perform congregational prayers daily, and on Fridays, but because they violate sharia in things we deem vital, all scholars agreed unanimously to declare them as infidels and polytheists who must be fought, and their lands are a camp of war that must be conquered to convert them to Islam…) (6). Ibn Abdul-Wahab used to declare others as infidels for merely just uttering one word, which was the stance of Ibn Taymiyya: (…a man might turn into an infidel when he would utter a word, ignorant of its impact, and thinking it would draw him nearer to God, as some polytheists think now…) (7). Within the same writings, Ibn Abdul-Wahab quoted views of ancient scholars of Sunnite jurisprudence on the subject of apostates, who must got killed and their possessions and lands be confiscated by Muslims, and turning into an apostate might be done simply when a person unawares utters a word even jestingly or as a joke. Thus, Ibn Abdul-Wahab declared all people around him in Najd as infidels and apostates whose ''Kufr'' and ''Shirk'' were worse than those who lived during Prophet Muhammad's lifetime: (…polytheism of ancient infidels and disbelievers was lighter in comparison to that of people in our times, because of two things: firstly, the ancients never invoked and worshipped angels and saints and idols alongside with God except in prosperous times and in times of calamities, they invoke and worship God alone, unlike polytheists of our times; secondly, the ancients invoked persons, creatures, or things near to God, whereas polytheists of our times invoke beside God the most immoral infidels…) (8). Ibn Abdul-Wahab protested against the views of scholars of his time about calling Bedouins as Muslims who should not be fought or killed off, as Ibn Abdul-Wahab saw that Bedouins forsook Islam and denied resurrection and mocked believers in resurrection. Ibn Abdul-Wahab compares in his writings between scholars of his age and those renegades and apostates during the era of the very first caliph, Abou Bakr, and declaring Bedouins of his age as more dissolving group in comparison to renegades during the time of the caliph Abou Bakr: (… the devilish ignoramuses of scholars claim that Bedouins had converted to Islam merely because they testify that there is no God but Allah… their erroneous edict propose that such Bedouins are Muslims just because they testify that there is no God but Allah! This is a scandalous falsehood!)(9). Ibn Abdul-Wahab concluded his argument that once a Bedouin came to him to hear about Islam, but eventually adamantly refused to convert and declared himself as a disbeliever.  



Wahabism and permitting the massacring, looting, and enslaving of women of others:



1- We have asserted above how declaring others as infidels, disbelievers, or apostates within Wahabi teachings was enough to commit massacres, destruction, and looting, as Ibn Abdul-Wahab links in his writings between infidels and disbelievers on the one hand and those who fought Prophet Muhammad and he had to fight them back on the other hand, thus permitting massacres against apostates and infidels as per the Sunnite creed and to propose that battles fought by Prophet Muhammad were for the purpose of coercing others to convert by force; of course, such falsehoods contradict the story of Muhammad in the Quran and the Quranic facts we will detail later on in this chapter.


2- We give here examples of lines written by Ibn Abdul-Wahab on the topic of linking between infidels and the religious permission of massacring them. The following are among rules set by Ibn Abdul-Wahab to differentiate believers from polytheists: (…Polytheists fought by Prophet Muhammad used to know Almighty God very well, and this was not the reason they converted to Islam…Prophet Muhammad emerged within people who worship God in so many different ways, and he fought them without setting them apart…) (10).  Ibn Abdul-Wahab distorted the meaning of part of the following verse: "Fight them until there is no more persecution, and religion becomes exclusively for God…" (8:39), by deliberately misinterpreting it in order to justify prevention of revolts and wars in the political sense as per Muslim history; he deliberately ignored the meaning of the Arabic term ''fitna'' in the context of this Quranic verse, it means religious persecution. This is repeated about polytheists in Mecca in the 7th century A.D. who persecuted early Muslims to coerce them to return to their earlier polytheistic creed: "…And persecution is more serious than killing. They will not cease to fight you until they turn you back from your religion, if they can …" (2:217). This is repeated about the powerful disbelievers who ordered a trench to be dug to burn believers alive in it if they did not get back to their former polytheistic creed: "Those who persecute the believers, men and women, then do not repent; for them is the punishment of Hell…" (85:10). This is repeated within the context of temptation of sin; when some hypocrites asked Muhammad for permission not to participate in fighting: "Among them is he who says, "Excuse me, and do not trouble me." In fact, they sunk into trouble…" (9:49), as they accused Muhammad of forcing them to join forces of self-defense in Yathreb. ''Trouble'' in the last verse here in Arabic is the term ''fitna'', which means in that context, in the relation between God and human beings, a test for their fortitude and faith. Thus, the hypocrites in that situation failed the test of faith. Even the term ''fitna'' is used in the context of God testing human beings: "…We burden you with adversity and prosperity as a test. And to Us you will be returned." (21:35). Accordingly, Ibn Abdul-Wahab intentional distorts meanings of Quranic verses. Let us quote him here writing about one issue or the other: (…it is clear in God's Quran that polytheists fought by Prophet Muhammad worshipped almighty God along with other gods in their times of prosperity …Yet, such polytheists were less guilty than infidels of our times…) (11). Ibn Abdul-Wahab writes the following falsehood about monotheism and Prophet Muhammad: (…polytheists were fought by Prophet Muhammad, and he killed them, confiscated their property and possessions as spoils, and enslaved their women, though they were worshipping God the Almighty, but they ascribed to Him associates of the saints in their tombs…) (12). We discern here that Ibn Abdul-Wahab slyly writes the expression "fought by Prophet Muhammad…" repeatedly to concoct a notion foreign to Muhammad as he is described in the Quran; the Quran tells us that he was a mercy to the humankind, not sent by God to declare war and terror to the world and all human beings as Ibn Abdul-Wahab tried to convince his contemporaries. Ibn Abdul-Wahab asserts his false views by citing as evidence the renegades' wars during the caliphate of Abou Bakr, as its battles were mostly in Najd. Ibn Abdul-Wahab likens in his writings these renegades to Bedouins in Najd at the time when he wrote his venomous writings, asserting that such Bedouins were more infidels than polytheists of Mecca in the 7th century (13) who deserved to die!  Ibn Abdul-Wahab declared as infidel who deserved to die anyone who rejects the so-called hadiths ascribed to the Prophet, and those denying the Quranic verses partially or wholly, as well those rejecting prayers and denied or verbally abused the Prophet…etc. even if he prayed and uttered the testimony of Islam (14). Thus, Ibn Abdul-Wahab in all his writings repeats the expressions ''deserved to die'' and ''money looted as spoils'', and such expressions reflect the creed of assassins and highwaymen, NOT the true Islam as the religion of Almighty God the Compassionate. Hence, the application of such fatwas entails massacring and looting and raping indiscriminately every non-Wahabi, with Wahabis as exceptions, except when they differ and fight one another within civil strife. Of course, such fatwas appealed to belligerent, loot-seeking Najd people within the very first and second Saudi states, by turning raids into 'Islamic' jihad after declaring all people in neighboring countries as infidels to be massacred, their lands conquered, their women enslaved, and their possessions and money looted. In the early 20th century, such notions were revived by Abdul-Aziz who gave momentum to Wahabism and established the colonies of the Najd Brothers to teach them Wahabism and to train them militarily, amidst long hours of continuous worship. Yet, Wahabi scholars who taught them were illiterate sheikhs unknown outside Najd, but they established the ideological formation of the Najd Brothers. Such scholars turned fatwas of Ibn Abdul-Wahab into real-life hell and bloodbaths within the 2nd and 3rd decades of the 20th century. Such atrocities contradict Islam, a religion based on peace, freedom, justice, charity, and warning against injustice, unfairness, inequity, compulsion, and coercion.      



Lastly: an overview about the Islamic/Quranic legislations on self-defense fighting:


 Several verses of the Quran record and comment on the aggressions committed by the polytheistic Qorayish tribesmen in the 7th century during Muhammad's lifetime against early Muslims, as early believers were driven out of their homes and possessions by force because they converted to the new religion and left the one of their forefathers. The very first Quranic permission for early Muslims to engage into self-defense fighting had a reason: peaceful weak ones were expelled from their homes and cities and then were fought in Yathreb and could not defend themselves because no divine permission reached them yet, and it did eventually come at last: "Permission is given to those who are fought against, and God is Able to give them victory. Those who were unjustly evicted from their homes, merely for saying, "Our Lord is God", were it not that God repels people by means of others: monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques-where the name of God is mentioned much-would have been demolished. God supports whoever supports Him. God is Strong and Mighty." (22:39-40). And because they were a peaceful group of people who used to bear patiently with harm and did not defend themselves before, some of them refused self-defensive fighting and stuck to the earlier divine command of non-violence: "Have you not considered those who were told, "Restrain your hands, and perform your prayers, and spend in regular charity"? But when fighting was ordained for them, a faction of them feared the people as God is ought to be feared, or even more. And they said, "Our Lord, why did You ordain fighting for us? If only You would postpone it for us for a short while." Say, "The enjoyments of this life are brief, but the Hereafter is better for the righteous, and you will not be wronged one bit."" (4:77). This means that they hated to engage in self-defense fighting that would prevent their annihilation by an archenemy fighting them and making use of their being weak and defenseless. That is why God tells them the following in the Quran about self-defense fighting: "Fighting is ordained for you, even though you dislike it. But it may be that you dislike something while it is good for you, and it may be that you like something while it is bad for you. God knows, and you do not know." (2:216). Aggressive polytheists went on with their aggression against early Muslims in Yathreb even during the four sacred months of pilgrimage and non-violence, and some believers felt awkward for having to fight within such months and asked Muhammad about that, and he and they waited for the reply that came eventually in the following verse: "They ask you about fighting during the Holy Month. Say, "Fighting during it is deplorable; but to bar others from God's path, and to disbelieve in Him, and to prevent access to the Holy Mosque, and to expel its people from it, are more deplorable with God. And persecution is more serious than killing. They will not cease to fight you until they turn you back from your religion, if they can. Whoever among you turns back from his religion, and dies a disbeliever-those are they whose works will come to nothing, in this life, and in the Hereafter. Those are the inmates of the Fire, abiding in it forever." (2:217). Within the same Quranic Chapter, God says clearly that fighting is for the purpose of self-defense only, as He does not like 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). Thus, if polytheists stopped their aggression, Muslims can no longer fight them: "And kill them wherever you overtake them, and expel them from where they had expelled you. Oppression is more serious than murder. But do not fight them at the Sacred Mosque, unless they fight you there. If they fight you, then kill them. Such is the retribution of the disbelievers. But if they cease, then God is Forgiving and Merciful." (2:191-192). Hence, the higher aim of self-defensive fighting is to prevent religious persecution and compulsion in religious matters or affairs, so that religious freedom is established and everyone would choose his/her creed freely to be held responsible for that choice before Almighty God in the Day of Judgment: "And fight them until there is no persecution, and religion becomes exclusively for God alone. But if they cease, then let there be no fighting except against those persecutors." (2:193). Thus, if persecution ends, no fighting is allowed: "Fight them until there is no more persecution, and religion becomes exclusively for God. But if they desist-God is Seeing of what they do." (8:39). Hence, within real Islam, found exclusively inside the Quran, hatred and animosity toward enemies or foes are never justifications to commit aggressions against them, even if such foes stopped Muslims entering the Kaaba Mosque in Mecca: "…And let not the hatred of people who barred you from the Sacred Mosque incite you to aggression. And cooperate with one another in virtuous conduct and conscience, and do not cooperate with one another in sin and hostility. And fear God. God is severe in punishment." (5:2). Thus, cooperation in Islam is for righteousness, piety, and goodness, whereas in Wahabism, cooperation is for aggressions, massacres, and scramble for loot. We thank Almighty God for preserving for us the Holy Quran so as to remain forever the means to refute views of enemies of Islam who use its name to commit acts of violence and aggression.                   



1- Ibn Abdul-Wahab (Muhammad), "Kashf Al-Shubuhat" + 13 Messages, 4th edition, Cairo, 1399 A.H., edited and published by Moheb Eddine Al-Khateeb, from the message on six events from Prophet Muhammad's history, page 28.

2- From the message on monotheism, page 35.

3- From the message on fundamentals of faith for the general public, page 41.

4- From the message on three issues, page 42

5- From the message on the meaning of Taghut, page 43.

6- Kashf Al-Shubuhat, page 12.

7- Kashf Al-Shubuhat, pages 5 and 12.

8- Kashf Al-Shubuhat, page 10, from the message on monotheism, page 35, and from the message on fundamentals of faith for the general public, page 39.

9- From the message on six events from Prophet Muhammad's history, pages 31 and 32.

10- From the message on faith rules to differentiate believers from infidels, pages 37 and 38.

11- Kashf Al-Shubuhat, pages 3, 4, 6, 10, and 11.

12- From the message on monotheism, page 34.

13- From the message on six events from Prophet Muhammad's history, pages 31 and 32.

14- Kashf Al-Shubuhat, pages 11 and 12.



The reflection of the thought school of Ibn Abdul-Wahab on the disputes between Abdul-Aziz and the Najd Brothers:

The pact between the Wahabi scholars and the Najd Brothers against Abdul-Aziz:

An overview:


1- The principles of the real Islamic city-state established in Yathreb by prophet Muhammad are retained in the Quran; it was akin to the direct-democracy secular state, with its dwellers as the only source of authority and power, with experts in many fields to be consulted in their fields of expertise, and all responsible persons in it will be judged by God in the Last Day, and for more details, please refer to our research on Islamic Shura consultation, published in 1990 in print and later on within our website here. Within another research of ours published by Ibn Khaldoun Center on the judicial system and the civil society, where we have explained that the role of the state within Islam is NOT to guide people in religious matters to make them enter Paradise, because guidance is a personal matter and individual responsibility in Islam. The role of the State is confined to providing rights of citizens in relation to absolute religious freedom and political freedom in political participation, as well as providing justice, security, safety, and social solidarity for the needy.       


2- The Quran was revealed as a vociferous and vehement opposition against clergymen who confiscate, wrongly and unjustly, the right to speak in the name of God as His spokespersons. Such self-deifying clergymen are made holy and worshipped and sanctified, though sanctity, worship, and holiness are God's exclusively. Secular despots and tyrants enlist the aid of clergymen to control and 'ride' them in order to control and 'ride' citizens. In many cases in history, clergymen had reached the throne in many instances after deposing previous tyrants; we read several examples of this in the Pharaonic history in Ancient Egypt. This occurred recently in 1978 in Iran when Al-Khomeini ruled. Once clergymen reach the throne to rule a country, theocracy is established; the worst ruling régime ever, as it commits injustices toward God and people. Theocracies are known to commit injustices, murders, mass-killings, rapes, and coercion and compulsion in religion, using God's name and raising religious banners and mottoes. In fact, a theocratic ruler practices and applies man-made whimsical views that forcibly present themselves as the 'true' religion of God. All theocracies are based, as far as we know, on certain denomination, sect, or doctrine: Shiite, Sunnite, Catholic, Protestant, etc. and theocrats persecute others who do not belong to the same sect or denomination. Later on, theocracies get fissured and cracked as they carry seeds or factors of its collapse and downfall inside them; disputes arise and warring factions fight one another and declaring one another as apostates.                 


3- Theocracies carry seeds or factors of its collapse and downfall inside them because of the interference of such states in religions to manipulate them to serve their purposes, instead of the State serving religious freedom. Thus, religious mottoes of theocracies are mere banners and slogans chanted every now and then, but never applied to the letter by people within power and authority circles, who know this fact very well. Yet, clergymen of all ranks insist on applying all religious teachings regardless of consequences; it is easy to declare oneself more religious and righteous with slogans and mottoes, whereas people in power and authority know they can hardly apply every motto literally or to the letter and the suffer for it.      


4- For instance, Al-Khomeini in Iran believed in the theocratic rule and that clergymen must apply their views and edicts thoroughly – regardless of catastrophes that would result from that vision. For no reason, Al-Khomeini raised the motto of holy enmity toward the USA, calling it the Greater Satan, and disregarded all international treaties and agreements, and disregarded Islam in the Quran, when he invaded the American embassy in in Tehran on 4th Nov. 1979, holding people inside the embassy as hostages, who were later on set free on 20th Jan. 1980, and the USA too revenge by involving Iran in a war against Iraq in Sept. 1980 that lasted until Aug. 1988. This futile war lasted that long because of long borderlines between Iraq and Iran. Thus, the USA wreaked its revenge on Al-Khomeini's Iran. Successors of Al-Khomeini learnt the lesson; they kept photos of him as holy relics after his death in June 1989, but they disregarded his policies by keeping the Shiite religion in service of their State and not the vice-versa to cause gratuitous troubles.        


5- The same problem faced the Wahabi king, Abdul-Aziz, in the KSA, as he could not possibly apply all views of Ibn Abdul-Wahab literally or to the letter, though he taught them to the Najd Brothers in the colonies as 'real' Islam. Yet, the Najd Brothers as a military force and the Wahabi scholars could declare themselves as more pious and religious than the king in application of 'true' faith in order to embarrass him in public. Abdul-Aziz wanted Wahabism to be in service of his nascent kingdom, whereas scholars and the Najd Brothers wanted the Saudi state in service of Wahabism. 


6- The same problem emerged more often than not within all Wahabi opposition movements after the decease of Abdul-Aziz; all opposition figures wanted the Saudi state in service of Wahabism, whereas successors of Abdul-Aziz wanted Wahabism to be in service of their authority within the kingdom. Of course, the real motive of opposition figures was not to serve religion; rather, to share in authority and power and to increase their might and supremacy over people, whereas any Saudi king wanted all Wahabis in his service alone.    


7- Hence, the real motive and ultimate goal of all men in Arabia has been more wealth and power, as in the case of any clergymen caste or category outside or inside ruling authority circles. This fact is never understood by the delusional masses who are deceived by mottoes and slogans, and later on pay a dear price or pay their life for their folly in following blindly any clergymen; thus, they lose both this life in this world and the next world, as they will be in Hell for eternity with their religious leaders, cursing one another. "The Day when their faces are flipped into the Fire, they will say, "If only we had obeyed God and obeyed the message." And they will say, "Lord, we have obeyed our superiors and our dignitaries, but they led us away from the way. Lord, give them double the punishment, and curse them with a great curse."" (33:66-68).   


8- Finally, let us in the following segment invoke some basic issues and topics that caused disputes between Abdul-Aziz and the Najd Brothers, to see how the Wahabi thought of Ibn Abdul-Wahab was ever-present within utterances, letters, and speeches of the Najd Brothers.


Firstly: within the conference of Wahabi scholars:


  Within the conference of Wahabi scholars held by the king, five issues or disputes were discussed, which reflected the dominant mentality and mindset at the time. Let us recall two issues of them here. 1) Can adherent practicing Muslims who obey God within cities dwellers and Bedouins be declared infidels? This question reflects how the Najd Brothers declare other Wahabis as infidels just because they never desired to live in colonies, and thus, even Wahabis could declare one another as apostates, based on their understanding of writings of Ibn Abdul-Wahab, as he misused and distorted verses of the Quran about immigration to avoid religious persecution: "…"Our Lord, deliver us from this town whose people are oppressive…" (4:75). As God orders immigration for those who can to avoid religious persecution, but God will pardon those who could not immigrate as well; see 5:98. But as for immigrants who do so without being persecuted and for the purpose of getting trained to kill, fight, invade, rape, and hate others, this is not Islamic demeanor at all. Yet, Ibn Abdul-Wahab and later Wahabi scholars declared those who did not immigrate to the colonies as infidels, even if they adhere to Wahabism! This posed a serious trouble and dispute. 2) The second problem was headwear of the Najd Brothers that imitated Ibn Abdul-Wahab instead of the traditional headdress in Arabia, if those who did not wear the Wahabi headwear might be called infidels that believers may never eat with them from their cattle? What about non-Wahabis, then? As this query posed a veritable danger as it allowed room for civil wars, scholars at the conference were firm in their answering it, especially when most of these scholars live in cities and never in colonies. Scholars declared that those who declare Wahabis as infidels were themselves infidels to do so; the king was the one to have the right of such declaration along with his panel of scholars to decide who were infidels that will be fought and conquered and enter Hell! Scholars, naturally, took sides with the king, in all sharia issues and queries, as he was the one giving them their salaries. By the end of that conference, the Najd Brothers in colonies were supposed not able to dare to declare other Wahabis in cities and villages as infidels or apostates.




  The Najd Brothers returned to Najd with feelings of despair after conquest of Hejaz, and their leader Feisal Al-Daweesh threatened to raise the sword against Abdul-Aziz if he followed the footsteps of Al-Sharif Hussein, former ruler of Hejaz, in dealing peacefully with foreigners and non-Wahabis. In 1927, the Najd Brothers leveled eight criticisms against the king that carry features of Wahabi extremism. Such criticism points include sending his son to London to study and his other son to Egypt to study, i.e., into lands of the infidels and polytheists. This contradicted Wahabi teachings of showing enmity and hatred toward all non-Wahabis. Another point was reception of Kiswah caravan from Egypt, a caravan that contained musical instruments and singers. Another point was the introduction of modern inventions from the west like cars, motorcycles, telephones, etc. another point was forbidding trade with Kuwaitis and not fighting them if they were infidels. Of course, such points were the direct result of the notion of declaring anyone as apostate for trivial reasons. Another point was that the Najd Brothers rejected modern taxes system and wanted to apply another one related to the Abbasid era. Another point was the king's leniency toward Shiites in Al-Ahsa, not fighting them and not coercing them to convert to Wahabism. Another point was allowing cattle of Bedouins of Iraq and Jordan in the borders to graze within Saudi lands of believers (i.e., Wahabis alone!) as a tradition going on for centuries ago must be stopped because such people were infidels. Another point was the reason behind the king's reluctance to demolish tombs and mausoleums in the kingdom. Such criticism points were leveled at the king and his policies, unlike the previous ones linked to Wahabi scholars. Scholars found an opportunity then to revive words of Ibn Abdul-Wahab after his death, especially that about 15 scholars were from the family of Ibn Abdul-Wahab who strove to defend and preserve his traditions and teachings. We demonstrate their fatwas and responses in the coming lines. The Wahabi scholars felt bewildered at issuing a view over modern inventions, as such things were never mentioned in books of Ibn Hanbal, Ibn Taymiyya, or Ibn Abdul-Wahab, and this showed their inability to use innovative thinking in religious issues. They urged the king to destroy all tombs and mausoleums as per Wahabi teachings cherished by the Najd Brothers, and to apply Abbasid laws of taxes instead of modern laws, as the ancient laws were not denied by Ibn Hanbal. Scholars agreed with the Najd Brothers about preventing Egyptian Kiswah caravan from ever entering Mecca again carrying arms and singers and musical instruments, as acts of blasphemy and polytheism must be prevented in public. Scholars supported the aggression of the Najd Brothers against this Egyptian caravan, deemed as changing vice by force as per Wahabi and Sunnite teachings. It seems that scholars agreed with the Najd Brothers beforehand to raise such questions and disputes, as both parties were livid with anger because of the king's leniency with Shiites in Al-Ahsa and Al-Qatif by leaving them alone and not forcing them to convert to Wahabism. The fatwas of scholars regarding such issue was very fanatical and extremist in addressing the king as for what was best to be done: Shiites must be forced by the king to convert to Islam (i.e., Wahabism, in their views) and be prevented from performing all their rituals. This was coercion in religion of course. It is noteworthy that Shiites in Arabia, in their turn, at the time declared Wahabis as infidels and apostates who gained more strength and power in the land and thus became more outspoken and vociferous. Such fatwa urged the king to promptly do so if he were a real believer; this is an overt threat to Abdul-Aziz that he might be declared as an infidel. Their fatwa about Shiites included Shiites declaring their new faith, along with their Wahabi ruler Abdullah Ibn Jalawy who helped the king to establish his kingdom, before the supreme Wahabi scholar Ibn Bishr, to assert the supreme power of Wahabi scholars over governors of regions. The scholars lamented the fact that the Wahabi ruler Ibn Jalawy was lenient with Shiites in Al-Ahsa, as this governor was strict with the Najd Brothers and the Ajman tribesmen who were inclined to revolt against the king, and prevented them from performing any inquisition in Al-Ahsa. Thus, Shiites lived in peace and felt grateful and loyal to their Wahabi ruler Ibn Jalawy. Hence, this governor was much hated by both scholars and the Najd Brothers, who declare Shiites as polytheists who rejected 'true' faith. Shiites of Iraq and Arabia paid a heavy price for this in the very first KSA; they were massacred and persecuted for years in inquisition-like efforts typical of the Middle Ages. The Wahabi opposition movement of the Najd Brothers wanted ardently to revive such inquisition and persecution as religious duties to wipe out Shiite creed altogether from Arabia gradually by forcing Shiites to pray five daily prayers in Sunnite Wahabi mosques and never to perform Shiite rituals at homes and in public, and to demolish all mausoleums held as holy sites by them. The fatwa urged the demolishing of all Shiite mosques as well, while banishing those who reject such orders to locations outside Arabia. Hence, this fatwa urged the king to re-locate Shiite people of Al-Qatif and Al-Ahsa away from their homelands. Ibn Bishr volunteered to rule Al-Qatif to force its population to stick to such fatwa, while leaving Al-Ahsa to the king. This made the king feel that some Wahabi scholars grew presumptuous as to ask to assume royal missions on his behalf. This reminds us of Shiite scholars in Iran as having more power and authority than political leaders and presidents. This fatwa about Shiites included an item never requested by the Najd Brothers; namely, that the king should send scholars to inhabitants of all villages and Bedouin areas to watch over them to see if they stick to Wahabi teachings and avoid vices and prohibited things in their daily life or not. This was plainly asking for more political power and authority for Wahabi scholars all over the KSA, more than governors of cities and regions. The fatwa included that the king must prevent Iraqi Shiites from ever coming near the Saudi borders again in grazing areas and to annul modern taxes system. Scholars had to confess that jihad must not be declared or be mobilized for unless with royal decree as per sharia laws and the general benefit. It is noteworthy that the fatwa did not include any reference to the king's sons who study in Egypt and GB, so as not to embarrass the king any further, supposedly. The fatwa ignored as well trade or fight with Kuwait, as jihad must be initiated by the king alone with consultancy with the panel of scholars. This maneuver made them wish to gain more power and authority from the king as much as they could. Scholars in this fatwa had to appeal to the Najd Brothers, their allies, and the king reluctantly had to feign agreeing with them to gain more time to think how to get rid of them. Hafiz Wahba writes: (…After issuing such fatwa, the king had to stop receiving the Egyptian caravan of the Kiswah, to demolish the Hamza mosque, and to stop the wireless, in order to ward off, or rather postpone, the final confrontation with the Najd Brothers…) (15). We notice here that Wahba is alluding to the fact that the king had done this reluctantly and most unwillingly to have time enough to prepare for a final, decisive victory over the Najd Brothers. It is most likely that the king acted in accordance with the advice of Wahba in this matter. Sure enough, the king never forgot or forgave the scholars for embarrassing him that way in order to restrict him; he realized that they were manipulating him and wanted to deceive him by allying themselves to the Najd Brothers, especially that after this conference, Feisal Al-Daweesh attacked with his troops the fortress of Boseih as per fatwas of the scholars who wanted to prevent Iraqi Shiites from entering grazing areas within Saudi borders. Al-Daweesh revolted against his king to the extent that he refused adamantly to come to the king as he called him into his palace, urging the Najd Brothers to increase their anti-Abdul-Aziz propaganda. It is probably that the Najd Brothers in colonies who attacked the fortress were joined by some fighters/scholars as they accused the king of being an apostate because he allied himself to the British, thus forsaking Wahabi teachings.     




  Within the conference of Riyadh in Nov. 1928, Abdul-Aziz managed to control his panel of scholars to urge them to take his side, as the dangerous situation escalated. Scholars, clergymen, and sheikhs felt that this was a matter of life and death for their king; he might kill them off if they would not comply with his wishes. Hence, they had to take his view of things. Their resulting speeches and fatwas seemed like offering an apology for their previous stance of accusing him of being an infidel. They unanimously agreed that the king never relented in his support for the only true religion in Arabia; his faults can be redeemed and pardoned, and later on rectified, and such faults could not possibly justify the Najd Brothers' revolting against him. Scholars were afraid that the Najd Brothers might accuse them of being frightened by the king, and thus, they asserted in their fatwa that they were not afraid of him, but they stance was driven by the desire to offer pieces of advice and guidance for all parties concerned. Representatives of the Najd Brothers in this conference realized that scholars backed off and withdrew their previous support for the Najd Brothers; they had to embarrass the scholars by posing the same previous queries to force them to say Wahabi views that differed from the stance of the king. The posed their questions within theological terms and stances to embarrass the king more than the embarrassment they caused to him during pervious conferences in 1926 and 1927. They accused the king of being lenient and indecisive with Shiite infidels and their Wahabi ruler Ibn Jalawy in Al-Ahsa who tolerated the Shiites. They accused the king of violating the agreements between M. Ibn Abdul-Wahab and M. Al-Saud, the forefather of Abdul-Aziz, during the rise of the very first Saudi state. Among such agreements was the one about allowing scholars to practice their inquisition-like notion of ''the promotion of virtue and the prevention of vice'' within committees formed by them to watch over all city dwellers and villagers and to share authority with the king that way. The king reneged on his promise to allow them to form such committees, especially in Al-Ahsa region of the Shiite population. In the Riyadh conference, however, scholars allowed modern inventions to be introduced to the kingdom, such as telephones and the wireless, under the pretext that Ibn Abdul-Wahab and Ibn Taymiyya never mentioned them as prohibited, and they could not find any evidence from theological ancient views to prohibit such inventions. Thus, scholars offering such fatwa embarrassed the Najd Brothers to force them to allow modern inventions into the Saudi state. The king, on his part, asserted in this conference that he sent preachers and scholars to watch over people and engage into ''the promotion of virtue and the prevention of vice'', and that he must be notified if they were lax in their mission. The king asserted as well that fortresses on the borders were erected because of the raids organized by Al-Daweesh and the Najd Brothers without his royal permission. Yet, the Najd Brothers insisted on their stance against such fortresses and scholars had to agree this time with the Najd Brothers. The king had to acquiesce this time, but he announced to hold a meeting with 50 representatives of hem to discuss later on the notion of conquering neighboring countries. In such meeting, the Najd Brothers feigned being convinced by the king's views; in fact, this was the last straw that caused the emergence of the military revolt of the Najd Brothers leading to the battle of Sabilla. To transform the political opposition of the Najd Brothers into such rebellion was an endeavor done by scholars in the colonies to incite everyone with anti-Abdul-Aziz propaganda to mobilize more supporters. Thus, Al-Daweesh insisted on discussing the notion of jihad and conquest before to embarrass the king and to accuse him of apostasy because he allied himself to the British Christian infidels.        



  After the victory won by the king in the battle of Sabilla, Abdul-Aziz bared his fangs to both the scholars and all leaders of all tribes, threatening them to meet such a fate of the Najd Brothers: being killed off with is forces and the British forces f they dared to disobey of disagree with him. Hence, in the next two conferences, scholars remained silent out of fear, and no one asked for their stance of views at all about topics related to the state or to the king. Abdul-Aziz became the one controlling sharia laws and threatening potential foes outspokenly. Thus, authority of scholars diminished and the king had leeway in all political policies and maneuvers away from Wahabi restrictions of scholars and the annihilated Najd Brothers. Thus, finally, Abdul-Aziz put an end to the system that he established, the Najd Brothers, and forced Wahabism to be in service of his kingdom.



15- Wahba, "Arabia in the 20th Century", pages 291:293.



Inculcating the Bedouins to turn them into the Najd Brothers to kill women and children:


Firstly: the mechanism of inculcating the Bedouins to turn them into the Najd Brothers to kill women and children:


1- This mechanism was based on two aspects: leaders of tribes were brought to be told harshly that they were infidels who must get to know Islam and were forced to enroll in Riyadh Wahabi schools run by scholars, while six scholars were sent, heavily guarded, to each tribe to teach tribesmen Wahabi teachings. When leaders of tribes became a learned scholar, they would reside in a house in Riyadh to be under the control of Abdul-Aziz. 


2- Persons working with the committee of ''the promotion of virtue and the prevention of vice'' spread all over cities and villages to preach and convince people in all tribes to adhere more to Wahabism and apply its teachings in daily life, and such persons of this committee used the art of personation in their talks very well and they used to fight in times of Wahabi jihad with the Najd Brothers, before the latter were killed off, and they used to wear ascetic clothes and to lead Spartan life; they acted as mediators between the king and his subjects as well as his governors.    


3- The cultural content of the Bedouin mentality, who turned into the Najd Brothers, was a group of brief letters written within a simple style by sheikh Abdullah Ibn M. Abdul-Latif, and such letters were distributed among all tribesmen, and were taught by all scholars to leaders of tribes and all tribesmen. Such letters contained severe warnings against unjust and forbidden practices and rituals especially Shiite ones and the urgent need to 'guide' and 'enlighten' the errant misguided ones even by force and by disciplining them if necessary, with severe punishment to those opposing Wahabism and Wahabis in public to cause harm to Muslims…etc.   


Secondly: threatening others to massacre their families and robbing their money and possessions:


1- We quote below models of letters that preach and call people to convert to Wahabism and warning those who shun or oppose the call to 'righteousness' that they will be murdered along with their families and their possessions will be confiscated.


2- (…In the Name of God the Compassionate, from Al-Dahasi to Al-Abboud the tribal leader, peace be upon those who follow God's guidance, we guarantee you and your tribe peace and security, provided that all of you will join us to gain God's satisfaction and all your families and possessions will be safe, as those joining us will be submitting themselves to God and enjoy the condescension and protection of Sultan Ibn Bajad and the Wahabi brethren…). (…In the Name of God the Compassionate, from Al-Dahasi to Ibn Samran, above all and before anything else, we guarantee all of your tribe, males and females, all peace and security, if you will join us to enjoy safety of yourselves and your property and families, by submitting yourselves to us, you will be submitting to God Himself, and you will enjoy the protection of  the Wahabi brethren, and the peace of God as well as protection for you possessions, houses, and camels, and so, convert all of you to Islam very soon…). (…In the Name of God the Compassionate, from Al-Dahasi to Al-Dahasa tribe, we call of your tribesmen to convert to Islam; those joining us will enjoy the protection of God and the protection of Sultan Ibn Bajad and the Wahabi brethren …). (…In the Name of God the Compassionate, from Assaf Ibn Hussein Al-Mansour to Rasheed Ibn Sameer, greetings, you know quite well that the Imam and Sovereign of all Arabs is King Abdul-Aziz Ibn Abdul-Rahman Al-Feisal Ibn Al-Saud and he ordered me to stay in Al-Jouf and to write this letter to you to inquire about your following the path of Islam led by the Imam Abdul-Aziz or not; peace will be granted only to the reasonable ones! The King and all Muslims in Arabia are posing this question to you; thus, we have warned you and you cannot blame anyone but yourself. That is all, greetings to all of you from your Wahabi brethren, 1340 A.H., Assaf Ibn Hussein…).


3- We conclude from these letters that Wahabis assume that they have confiscated Islam and speaking in its name as well as in the name of God, as if they were His representatives on earth. Their Wahabi call was based on coercion and compulsion in religion by sheer force and by threatening people to massacre them and to loot their possessions and money and lands. The Najd Brothers did this along with their leaders like Sultan Ibn Bajad, sending letters with ultimatums using the name of Abdul-Aziz with or without his consent and talking in his name within verbal orders. As for people outside Arabia, threatening letters used to be received and they were written in a way to enable Abdul-Aziz to deny his being linked to them.  


4- To convince Bedouins to massacre women and children, Wahabis told them falsehoods about Paradise pleasures in the Afterlife to those following their orders blindly; such images appealed to Bedouins who suffered within their life of scarce water in desert environment, and thus, Wahabi jihad meant to Bedouins the ''salvation'' in this life and in the Afterlife, with permitted looting and spoils to be enjoyed in this life and Paradise as prize for massacring ''infidels''. Thus, massacring all non-Wahabis and all those whose faith is doubted for the slightest reason became a pleasure for Wahabi fighters. Abdul-Aziz and his Wahabi scholars played very well the game of declaring others as infidels, a game manipulated to serve their own purposes anytime (16).


5- Within such mechanism, the ideology of the Najd Brothers and Wahabi scholars was one reinforced with theologians in times of fighting and non-fighting. Yet, the scholars' share of supremacy and authority was gone forever when the Najd Brothers were killed off by GB and Abdul-Aziz, and their fighting style that reflected the Wahabi culture was gone forever.


Thirdly: waging wars embodies the ideological formation of the Najd Brothers:     


1- The religious education of the Najd Brothers was distributed among performing long prayers and daily readings of Sirah (i.e., false sanctified accounts and biography of Prophet Muhammad) and Wahabi letters of jihad as well as listening to sermons delivered by Wahabi preachers. The notion of Wahabi jihad wars was the enactment of such teachings and religious inculcation: within battles, fighters felt that they were crossing the boundaries between this life and the Afterlife in Paradise, to get rid of the monotony of life in the Wahabi colonies. Such wars were tests for their fortitude and how they would apply the Wahabi teachings, and their chants during battle reflected this ideology of martyrdom: (The winds of Paradise draw near! Who wants to enter Paradise now? We are the monotheists! We are obedient servants of God! You will lose your head, O enemies of God!) And when they began the battle they chant a certain Quranic verse of Al-Fatiha (i.e., the Opening) Chapter; namely, 1:5.  


2- Such chants reflect their longing to enter Paradise once they die, and their notion that war was the bridge on which they will step into that Paradise by committing massacres and declaring themselves as the only monotheists on earth who had the right to kill off all polytheists (17).


3- The fact that they began battle by reciting 1:5 from the Quran reflected their notion of launching wars as akin to performing prayers to them; this showed that prayers overlapped with jihad. In mosques of Wahabi colonies, a list of men's name was there to call out names before performing prayers, and before mobilizing men for jihad in any battle any day. Those absent ones from prayers or battles were punished by being put to violent death. They even performed prayers in mosques while carrying guns and swords, as if they were within a military act behind the imam of prayers who would be their military leader (18). 


4- To exemplify the above-mentioned notions, let us quote the words of Abdul-Aziz, commenting on the battle of Turba when the huge troops of Al-Sharif Hussein were defeated: (…Al-Sharif Hussein had 10000 soldiers in Yathreb and 7000 soldiers in Hejaz, plus 20 cannons, 40 machine guns, and ammunitions and victuals carried over 10000 camels, whereas the Wahabi brothers were just 2000 fighters, from which unarmed 500 fighters except with swords and daggers…Al-Sharif Hussein had dug trenches deep enough to bury men standing, while placing cannons and machine guns in every corner. The Wahabi Brothers crept to the battle after performing dawn prayers and chanting ''there is no God but Allah'' when faced with cannons of Al-Sharif Hussein, and the battle went on for the whole day and night and then the following day…) (19). A Hashemite man of the other side, named Awn Ibn Hashem, was an eyewitness of this battle when he was but 15  years old, and he said to Al-Rihany: (…Bloodbaths in Turba was horrifyingly too much and rivulets of blood went through palm trees into water pools and brooks, coloring them in red for a long time, and corpses piled up in fortresses…As a child, I wondered at the scene when the Wahabi Brothers would stop massacring people suddenly to enter the mosque to pray and then get out of it to continue massacring people!).


5- Linking prayers to Wahabi jihad wars was not signaled only by reciting 1:5, but also by firing bullets in times of calling for prayers and by setting timings of battles to begin after performing prayers of Dawn, Noon, Afternoon, and Sunset, to distinguish their battles from Bedouin raids of looting, and the battle of Turba began after the Sunset prayers (20).


Fourthly: turning Wahabi jihad into massacres of women and children:


1- Such linking between prayers and Wahabi jihad fighting (i.e., Wahabi atrocities and massacres) was a horrid and wicked trick to urge the Najd Brothers to commit their crimes with zeal; they spared no women and children. Their tactic was to raid, massacre, and run or got martyred (i.e., got killed to enter Paradise, as per their erroneous creed), and they massacred everyone without sparing anyone: men, women, children, and the elderly people of both genders. Such massacres filled people of other regions with fright; they feared the Wahabi fighters very much and felt it was no use to resist them. The British representative in Kuwait once wrote that the Kuwaiti Bedouins had for a while to keep the Wahabi headwear as they feared to be murdered by the Najd Brothers, and they had to smoke hookah and cigarettes in doors, fearing Wahabi corporal punishments for the 'sin' of smoking. Such terror allowed Abdul-Aziz to conquer Mecca, Yathreb, and Jeddah with no fight at all, as their people surrendered at once to avoid being massacred.    


2- We can assert here that the Najd Brothers were also victims of such massacres; they used to seek 'martyrdom', and that was why they were reckless in all their fighting methods, as they thought they would enter Paradise, to enjoy carnal pleasures and 'houris', once their souls were set free out of their bodies. Thus, death was the only barrier between them and such 'eternal bliss', as per traditional books they learned in colonies, and that was why they chanted such slogans during their raids. They used to attack and charge at random with primitive arms even when faced with British machine gun, cannons, and armored vehicles on southern Iraq and Jordan when they fought outside Arabia. Crossing Jordanian borders, 1500 Wahabi fighter attacked the region shortly after the conquest of Hael, coming from the midst of Najd speedily, and committed massacres within cities near the Jordanian capital Amman, while razing such cities to the ground. News of such massacres reached GB, as it sent its warplanes that killed off the 1500 men, except 8 of them who had narrow escape. Because of the fact that such news embarrassed Abdul-Aziz and because of the crushing defeat that made him lose many fighters, he punished the 8 survivors, saying that he never authorized such raids into Jordan.        


3- There are long stories of massacres committed by the Najd Brothers against their foes and opponents, as we have written earlier about the battle of Turba. In fact, the Najd Brothers used to attack their targets within a random mixture of soldiers, horses, and   camels that destroyed locations of the foes and slaughter every human being there mercilessly of all genders and age groups. When the Najd Brothers attacked Kuwait in 1920, they killed all women and children, and so did they when they attacked Jordan in 1924 and Ta'if in 1921.


4- Foreign observers recorded that the Najd Brothers never kept any POWs or captives; they killed everyone off sparing no one at all, terrorizing all people of all genders and age groups, as done in Jordan, and such savagery and brutality led GB to build the fortress of Boseih near the borders, which caused the political opposition and military rebellion of the Najd Brothers against their king later on.


5- Two surviving men who were among the Najd Brothers before their annihilation had confessed to John Habeeb that they joined the raid into Iraq, for ten days of relentless fighting day and night, and that both of them killed about 1000 persons, never sleeping but 3 hours daily, eating nothing but dates, bread, and coffee. Imagine such atrocity: if only two men killed 1000 Iraqi persons in ten days, calling their heinous crime jihad, what about the rest of victims and what was their number. Such massacres are ignored and never mentioned in history books, as they were unheard of raids that were repeated a lot at the time, to terrorize and massacre peaceful civilians, in cities and villages, for loot. Such unrecorded and unregistered Wahabi atrocities and massacres ware worse than the Zionist crimes and massacres in Palestine, as the latter were registered and made known to the international community that condemned them, whereas Wahabi crimes are never mentioned or criticized and they are still falsely ascribed to Islam as jihad; hence, such massacres might be repeated in the future as long as Wahabism remains and spreads as if it were Islam.    


6- When the international community got news of Ta'if massacre, Abdul-Aziz had to stop the Najd Brothers from committing more massacres to avoid being embarrassed outside his kingdom. This was among the reasons of the disputes and rift between them and the king. We have written about how Feisal Al-Daweesh and his Wahabi fighters ardently wanted to massacre dwellers of Yathreb and Jeddah, and when the king adamantly refused, Al-Daweesh left the place in fury, as he felt humiliated when residents of Yathreb and Jeddah stipulated that the Najd Brothers would never enter their cities, as part of items of surrender agreement. The king had to send the Najd Brothers back to Najd, and act that marked the beginning of the Najd Brothers' opposition, and the Najd Brothers attacked their fellow Wahabis among those who agreed to the policies and decisions of Abdul-Aziz, killing off all women, children, and elderly men among them, as per their habit typical of them, of course! 



16- Al-Mukhtar, ditto, pages 142:147.

Al-Rihany, "History of Najd", pages 68, 87, 88, and 212:216.

Philip Hitti, ''History of Najd'', page 305.

Habeeb, ditto, pages 68, 69, 85, 86, 93, 112, and 115.

Hopwood, op. cit., page 64.

Howarth, op. cit., page 71.

Meullen, op. cit., pages 78 and 79.

Dickson, op. cit., page 152.

17- Wahba, ditto, page 295.

Al-Rihany, ''Kings of Arabs" page 82 and ''History of Najd'', page 222.

Habeeb, ditto, pages 126 and 127.

18- Dickson, op. cit., pages 126 and 156.

19- Al-Rihany, ''History of Najd'', page 256.

Habeeb, ditto, pages 126 and 165.

20- Umm Al-Qura Newspaper, No. 302, 19-9-1930 and No. 292, 11-7-1930.

Al-Rihany, ditto, pages 406 and 307.

Habeeb, ditto, page 165.

21- Khila (Mahmoud Kamel), an MA thesis, in the Faculty of Arts, Cairo University, titled "The Political Development of Jordan", 1969, pages 317 and 318.

Glubb, ''War in the Desert", pages 193 and 194.

Habeeb, ditto, pages 83:86, 123:125, 163:165, 185:186, 191:193, and 207:208.



The Bedouins/desert Arabs and massacring women and children:

Firstly: the attempt of Hafiz Wahba to defend the murderers:


1- Wahba writes, under the title ''The Brothers", the following excerpt we quote here: (…Terror would seize the hearts of dwellers within borders of Iraq and Jordan an Kuwait if the words ''the Najd Brothers'' were uttered, and even non-Wahabi Bedouins of such regions would leave their desert areas to be near cities to keep themselves safe within its walls and fortresses, as the Najd Brothers were like messengers of earth and terror in all Arabia and its neighboring countries...). Wahba went on recording episodes of their history, and he writes: (…The military might and prowess of the Najd Brothers were asserted in defeating the Kuwaitis as they were crushed within the battle of Hamdh in 1919 and siege of the Kuwaiti ruler within the battle of Jahra in 1920… The Najd Brothers crushed and killed of the troops of Al-Sharif Abdullah within the battle of Turba in 1919…and in their repeated raids into Iraqi, Kuwaiti, and Jordanian lands…). We find in the writings of Wahba an acknowledgement of their aggressions against non-Wahabis and their brutality and savagery that they called Wahabi jihad.


2- Wahba ignores deliberately in his writings to mention the fact that his master and king, Abdul-Aziz, was the one who inculcated such savagery into them as it was urged as 'Islamic' jihad to apply the falsehoods and lies found in the Sirah (i.e., biography of Prophet Muhammad that contains nothing but lies ascribed to him within one century after his death). Such Sirah was written in the early years of the Abbasid caliphate and which contradicts the real life-story of Muhammad as narrated in the Quran. Yet, such falsehoods of Sirah are still that main source of Wahabi legislation and sharia. Wahba tries in his writings to defend his master and king by saying that most aggressive raids outside Arabia were perpetrated without the prior written permission of the king: (…Imam Abdul-Aziz used to urge them to stop such raids and used to order them to adhere to self-restraint and leniency and to stop massacring others, but in vain, and the Wahabi scholars used to urge them not to kill captives or POWs, but they never listened…).    


3- Murdering POWs or captives is against Quranic sharia of Islam; even Prophet Muhammad and early Muslims have been rebuked in the Quran for setting captives free in return for ransom after the battle of Badr: "It is not for a prophet to take prisoners before he has subdued the land. You desire the materials of this world, but God desires the Hereafter. God is Strong and Wise. Were it not for a predetermined decree from God, an awful punishment would have afflicted you for what you have taken." (8:67-68). "O prophet! Say to those you hold prisoners, "If God finds any good in your hearts, He will give you better than what was taken from you, and He will forgive you. God is Forgiving and Merciful."" (8:70). God has ordained in the Quran that captives should be set free in return for getting back captives held by the enemies or to be set free in return for nothing as a kind of charity: "…Then, either release them by grace, or in return for your captives, until war lays down its burdens…" (47:4). The Quran makes captives or POWs as a category deserving zakat and charity as they are in Muslims lands and should be treated as impecunious travellers: "And they feed, for the love of Him, the poor, and the orphan, and the captive. "We only feed you for the sake of God. We want from you neither compensation, nor gratitude." (76:8-9). Even fighters who stop fighting believers in battlefield should be treated kindly: "And if anyone of the aggressive 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). Likewise, if such fighter utters the word of peace, safety is guaranteed to him: "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." (4:94), as Islam is based on peace and on the fact that fighting is allowed ONLY in cases of self-defense: "And fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not commit aggression; God does not love the aggressors." (2-190). 


4- Wahab writes: (…Those who will read letters of scholars who condemned the crimes of the Najd Brothers and the ignoramuses who poisoned their heads would find easily that the scholars of Najd are never to blame as they had done their duty in advising them, but the Najd Brothers violated the Islamic sharia laws and the king and the scholars are not to be blamed for it…) (22). Wahba is trying here to defend his king and the Wahabi scholars, and this contradicts the asserted history of the Najd Brothers and their allies the scholars in all savagery and brutality within atrocities committed on several occasions. Of course, Wahba has written such defense after the Najd Brothers were killed off by GB and the king after their military rebellion against the king as they asked for more power and authority. It was natural that when the king defeated them, with the aid of GB, he would disown and condemn their heinous, savage crimes and he would urge Wahba to clear his name as well as that of his subservient, obsequious scholars of such atrocities. Wahba was the historian and eye-witness of the relation between the king and the Najd Brothers, of their rebellion and revolt, and of their declaring Abdul-Aziz as an infidel. Wahabi scholars of Najd took the side of the Najd Brothers until the king bared his fangs to them, forcing them to take his side.   


Secondly: the savagery of the Najd Brothers in massacring women and children has a historical root within their ancestors:


1- Wahba criticizes in his writings some of the Najd Brothers, and not all of them, after all of them were killed off: (…Some of the heinous acts of the Wahabi Brothers contradicted traits of Arabian men and the Islamic sharia…). Of course, Quranic sharia forbids killings of civilians and aggressions; it allows fighting only in the case of self-defense against warring enemies that begin committing aggressions first. Yet, history of Bedouins and desert-Arab in Najd and its neighboring regions in the Abbasid Era is filled with massacres of women and children during the Middle Ages; Abdul-Aziz and his Wahabi Najd Brothers were just repeating such bloody past in the 20th century.   


2- Al-Tabari, the most famous Arab historian, had witnessed the beginning of the emergence of the Qarmatians who wreaked havoc and destroyed Iraq and the Levant. Al-Tabari feared for his life as preachers of the Qarmatians spread in Iraq, and that is why he writes in brief about the Qarmatians, in his last years, not in detail as in his previous typical style. He writes briefly on the Qarmatians: (…in 286 A.H., a Qarmatian man, named Abou Saeed Al-Janaby, emerged in Bahrain, he preached and mobilized Arabs to join the Qarmatians, and they raided with such troops all neighboring villages, massacring all people in them, sparing no one …).   


3- Al-Tabari writes the following bout the raids of the Qarmatian leader Ibn Zakraweih in the Levant in 290 A.H. and how dwellers of cities had to obey him, giving him full power and authority: (…He moved with his troops toward Damascus, and its dwellers made peace with him on the condition of a heavy annual tribute paid to him, and he left then in peace, but he massacred all residents in nearby villages and other Levantine cities, like Baalbek, who defied him, sparing no children and women, and killing especially children who were learning the Quran by heart in madrassas, slaughtering all cattle, and burning the cities and villages down when its dwellers defied him by trying to protect themselves, causing terror to all caravans of travellers who passed by the Levant as he held them captives…) (23). Of course, readers would pardon Al-Tabari for not writing in detail, as he feared for his life; we have quoted him here to prove that the heinous crimes of the Qarmatians in the Abbasid Era did not differ from those committed by the Najd Brothers in the 20th century.


4- Bedouins and desert-Arabs, for centuries, used to commit their crimes of murder and looting under any motto ascribed falsely to Islam; this began with Al-Khawarij group who massacred women, children, and elderly civilians. We know his from the writings of the Sunnite theologian and historian Abou Al-Hussein Al-Malti, who died in 377 A.H., in his book titled "Al-Tanbeeh Wa Al-Rad", as he writes about the emergence of the very first Al-Khawarij group: (…The very first Al-Khawarij group raided souks and markets with their brandished sword, chanting the slogan ''judgment is God's alone'', murdering as much men as possible, terrorizing people in several cities, but later on, all members of such group were killed off by the troops of the caliph, thank God…). This statement was written in the 4th century A.H.; desert-Arabs and Bedouins used to massacre people of all age groups and genders indiscriminately using religious mottoes to justify their crimes under the notion of 'jihad' and asking for 'martyrdom', just like suicide bombers now. The Najd Brothers had repeated and revived all this in the 20th century, and such notions spread until now, with thousands of innocent peaceful victims all over the world.    


5- Even without religious slogans and mottoes, all Bedouins and desert-Arabs in the Middle Ages used to loot and massacre people caravans loaded with goods and possessions without any religious justification. Such victims who were killed in these (trade or pilgrimage) caravans always included women and children brutally murdered, despite the divine order in the Quran to ensure safety of pilgrims and their possessions and cattle: "O you who believe! Do not violate God's sacraments, nor the Sacred Month, nor the offerings, nor the garlanded, nor those heading for the Sacred House seeking blessings from their Lord and approval. When you have left the pilgrim sanctity, you may hunt. And let not the hatred of people who barred you from the Sacred Mosque incites you to aggression. And cooperate with one another in virtuous conduct and conscience, and do not cooperate with one another in sin and hostility. And fear God. God is severe in punishment." (5:2). Hence, God prohibits all sorts of aggressions during the sacred months and against caravans of pilgrims and even cattle dedicated to the Kaaba; yet, Bedouins looted and massacred all and violated such divine orders. Desecration of the four sacred months was a grave sin committed by Arabs of the Arab conquests and in their civil wars few decades after Muhammad's death, and following their footsteps were the Wahabis.  


Thirdly: the difference between Bedouin raids and Bedouin jihad: the ideological formation of the Najd Brothers made tem differ from ordinary Bedouins/desert Arabs:



1- It is noteworthy that 'secular' raids of Bedouins were essentially for robbing and looting, and killings were not an options except when necessary and they were avoided as much as they could by avoiding attacking strong heavily armed caravans, and by caravan travellers buying their safety with money to avoid being killed and then to go on with their route under the protection of Bedouin raiders themselves, whereas raids for loot carrying slogans and banners of 'Islamic' jihad spared no one even if caravan travellers surrendered peacefully without resistance. Bedouin 'jihad' aimed for both looting and massacring as many infidels as possible! We have exemplified this by the above excerpts from Al-Tabari and Al-Malti. Let us remember that Ibn Zakraweih the leader of the Qarmatians called himself Al-Mahdi, a Shiite religious epithet meaning ''the guided one'', and his jihad for loot was not different from the one by the Najd Brothers under Abdul-Aziz, recorded by Wahba and other contemporary eye-witnesses and historians.       


2- let us quote excerpts about 'secular' Bedouin raids in the 5th century A.H., mentioned by another famous Arab historian, Ibn Al-Jawziyya, who died in 597 A.H. and he writes about this raid that occurred in 545 A.H., when he was 35 years old, in his book of historical accounts titled ''Al-Muntazim'': this even could be summed up in few lines; some Bedouins sent a messenger to a caravan of pilgrims asking for tributes, and the pilgrims refused to pay (…Bedouins attacked the caravan consequently, in the sacred month of Muharram, brandishing their swords to force pilgrims to surrender their valuables, clothes, camels, large sums of money, and previous stones, and men and women of the caravan were forced to walk barefooted and almost naked into the desert, and some died of hunger and thirst, and some women put mud on their bodies out of bashfulness…) (24). Despite the horrid description, but at least this Bedouin raids focused on looting and not on massacring others within jihad of any type under any motto.   


3- Hence, the Wahabi teachings taught o the Bedouins by Abdul-Aziz and his scholars transformed Bedouins from raiders seeking loot and spoils into Wahabi Brothers: seekers of loot and spoils as well as annihilation and martyrdom, hating life. This was the major difference between Bedouins and the Najd Brothers. Islam is innocent of both secular and Wahabi crimes of raiding, conquering, and aggression.



22- Wahba, ditto, pages 285, 288, and 297.

Al-Zarkeley, ''Arabia in the Reign of Abdul-Aziz'', page 332.

Habeeb, ditto, pages 84, 85, 137, 191:207, and 123:125.

Dickson, ditto, page 128.

23- Al-Tabari, ''History of Al-Tabari'', 10/100, 71.

Al-Malti (Abou Al-Hussein), "Al-Tanbeeh Wa Al-Rad", page 47.

24- Ibn Al-Jawziyya, "Al-Muntazim", 78/18.



The influence of the Wahabi culture and the zero equation: to negate and kill the other:

Firstly: within political disputes:



   Hafiz Wahba, as historian contemporary to the Najd Brothers, bears witness to the difference between the Bedouins and the Wahabi Najd Brothers:


1- Wahba writes the following about Bedouins who imbibed and imbued the Wahabi ideological to be transformed into the Najd Brothers: (…I knew the desert-Arabs in their Bedouin life and in their wars and raids, and I knew them very well when they inhabited the colonies, and befriended many of their leaders before and after they converted to Wahabism. I could not help but notice that religion had transformed their life completely; previously, they used to care only for robbing and looting caravans, and taking pride in such acts, raising the banner that money on earth was God's and persons might get rich or poor by chance, as trade caravans were under their mercy and had to pay tributes to go in safety, as Bedouins would not risk their own lives anyway; in times of danger, they would flee, especially if the caravans were heavily armed and guarded with soldiers. Bedouins never knew loyalty for anyone, and they resorted to hypocrisy in all times; they could not be governed unless with strictness mixed with justice… they never feel loyal even to their allies and friends, and no ruler or tribe leader could trust them, as when such leaders or rulers were defeated, they would raid and rob them anyway, under the claim of deserving such honor away from other outsiders…). 


2- Wahba writes the following about the conditions and circumstances of the Bedouins after they were transformed into the Najd Brothers: (…The Wahabi Brothers were no longer afraid of death; rather, they used to hurl into it as they sought martyrdom and meeting God in the Hereafter…mothers would see their sons off by saying that they wish them to die in battle to meet with them in Heaven, and by this way, soldiers would hurl into the embrace of death most willingly as I have seen in many battles, never thinking about anything but to kill off the infidels and foes mercilessly, without sparing anyone, as they consider themselves the messengers of death wherever they fight… ) (25).




 Our commentary:


1- We conclude then that the Bedouins used to specialize in looting, embezzlement, and theft as far as their safety and their lives were not jeopardized, and they would willingly stay away from caravans heavily guarded with armed soldiers; and they would act hypocritically with strong people in power until they would be weak and defeated, ripe for being looted, as Bedouins would not be governed unless with strictness and justice, or as per Quranic expression: "And prepare against them all the power you can muster…" (8:60). 


2- The transformation that occurred to those Bedouins after they had imbibed the Wahabi culture was the fact that they were convinced by their Wahabi teachers and preachers that Paradise is waiting for them after their being martyred, and if they remained alive after battle, they would enjoy spoils of loot. This was way they hurled themselves into death and reckless acts, and they massacred as many non-Wahabis as they could, mercilessly and relentlessly, thinking that their path to Heaven would be paved that way. Their enemies were all non-Wahabis, unlike Islamic teachings - found exclusively in the Quran - stating clearly that foes and enemies are any aggressors who begin to fight the peaceful ones. The other non-Wahabis for them were all peaceful Shiites and Sunnites who did not commit aggressions against Wahabis at all; yet, Wahabis looted and massacred them for no reason at all and invaded their lands within villagers and cities, and their foes included even Wahabis who did not live in colonies and retained the Wahabi headwear. After the conference of Abdul-Aziz and the scholars in 1919, the king himself was declared as an apostate or infidel by the Najd Brothers, who desired to kill him, despite his being their master and imam, and within their revolt against him, they massacred women, children, and the elderly people.       


3- Thus, the Wahabi Brothers differed from ordinary Bedouins and a shift in the Bedouin mentality and mindset was so big after such transformation; desert-Arabs would have run and avoided Abdul-Aziz in cases when fighting would grow fierce, as they knew no loyalty and were adamant in hypocrisy, and they might have revolted against him if they would have made sure of achieving victory and would be able to loot him with impunity. Bedouins forgot all such traits once they turned into the Najd Brothers who adopted the Wahabi ideology that led them to desire massacring and getting themselves killed to enter into Heaven in the Hereafter. Accordingly, their opposition knew no compromise or negotiations or grey areas. They always negated the other; this is the zero-equation imbibed by them via Abdul-Aziz and his Wahabi scholars: either all or nothing, black or white, to kill or get killed, me or you. Abdul-Aziz paid a heavy price for such education. "...But evil scheming overwhelms none but its authors…" (35:43). This heavy price paid as the political scene or arena would not be fit for the king and the Najd Brothers together after such disputes. No party was willing to be convinced with the arguments of the other party, and political opposition turned into military revolt and rebellion, and events had to end with the extermination of one party. Abdul-Aziz could have reached a compromise with Bedouins, but never with the Najd Brothers; but he failed miserably to satisfy them in all held conferences, and they grew adamant and more savage and brutal. When the king pardoned some of their leaders they revolted twice again with their troops against him and declared him as an infidel, and the king had to enlist the help of GB to get rid of them once and for all out of political life of the Saudi state.      


Secondly: the Bedouin tribal fanaticism and the Bedouin Najd Brothers' fanaticism:


1- Bedouins were known for their tribal fanaticism, as desert tribes were akin to mobile states as long as there was no strong State controlling the desert; thus, tribal fanaticism linked Bedouins to their tribes that protect them and needed their protection as well in return in shared interests. Such tribal fanaticism carried inside it the negation of other tribes, as fights were endless for water, grazing areas, looting, revenge, etc., making Bedouins seeing in all other tribes as potential enemies in the present and in the future.


2- When Abdul-Aziz established the Najd Brothers, he mixed both tribal loyalty and loyalty for the Wahabi call, and he made sure to urge whole tribes to join him and to befriend their brethren from other tribes as all of them got a new identity: the Najd Brothers in colonies. Thus, tribes of Mateer and Otaybah, among others, became friends and allies under one banner, in all colonies, to overlap tribal belonging with religious unification factors.  


3- Yet, such mixture never weakened tribal fanaticism; rather, it reinforced it more by merging it with religious bigotry and fanaticism. Tribal fanaticism cared for looting, grazing areas, and water wells, whereas religious bigotry and fanaticism cared for more universal level, as such animosity and deep-seated hatred would be directed to all circles widened or narrowed as per present conditions: against heathen, pagan infidels, the Jews and Christians, Muslims of other denominations (Sunnites, Shiites, and Sufis), all non-Wahabis in general, and then Non-Brothers Wahabis who did not use the Wahabi headwear and never joined the Najd Brothers in the colonies, and finally Abdul-Aziz and his allies, and so on. Thus, those outside the circle of Wahabism would be negated and massacred as infidels, polytheists, or apostates.     


4- Ordinary tribal fanaticism resulted in temporary disputes, skirmishes, quarrels, and fights, even if they lasted for years, and they eventually end up in mutual agreements, tributes paid to wronged parties, and rarely by retribution. In contrast, Wahabi fanaticism and bigotry resulted in ongoing incessant wars until parties involved would be exterminated. At first, the winning stronger party would annihilate the weaker party, but the winners would be split and divided and its members would engage into wars and declare one another as infidels and renegades, and opposition movements and rebellions would thrive. This is part of the zero-equation: extermination and/or divisions within all parties involved eventually.         


Thirdly: no theocracy can ever thrive or settle:


1- According to the above-mentioned facts, no fanatical religious movements can establish a state with firm stability and viability; it will certainly be a temporary and/or mobile state with changing borders however successful it appears to be. Al-Zanj and the Qarmatians established mobile states that spread massacres and wreaked havoc in many regions and vanished eventually. Let us bear in mind that the first KSA (1745:1818) and the second one (1819:1891) were destroyed. The former was destroyed by Muhammad Ali Pacha governor of Egypt, and the latter was established, with Egyptian aid, by Turki Ibn Abdulla Ibn Saud in 1819, and destroyed by Abdullah Ibn Rasheed, the ruler of Hael, in 1891. Hence, two Wahabi Saudi states collapsed and the same fate is expected for the third current KSA established by Abdul-Aziz with the swords of the Najd Brothers, whose rebellion and military revolt against the founder of the third KSA was the very first sign of such downfall. Other Wahabi opposition movements emerged as we will discuss in the coming chapters of this book. Rifts and disputes will go one to create more opposition movements until the third current KSA will collapse, unless it would collapse because of interference by international or regional powers. In any case, sooner or later, the third, current KSA will collapse like the first and second ones. A theocracy grows stronger and expands as long as there are weak countries around it, but once faced by a stronger state, it falls. Even if a theocracy is left alone in peace, it will eat itself up because of the curse of the zero-equation that negates the other and raises the motto of ''to kill all of you or to get killed by you''.      


2- In some cases, fanatical religious movements of bigots could not establish a state in the first place; Al-Khawarij spread their terror in Persia, Iraq, and the Levant, and never established a kingdom despite hundreds of thousands of military and civilian victims who were killed. Al-Khawarij group was later on divided into groups and they sapped the energies and the treasury of the Umayyad caliphate, which hastened its collapse. Al-Khawarij ended as a people shortly after the rise of the Abbasid caliphate, with only some of them living until their descendants, the Ibadi sect of Muslims, survive now, because their forefathers were more tolerant with differences in creeds, despite their Bedouin origin.     


3- Had Abdul-Aziz linked himself to the Najd Brothers, he would have been finished with them; he had to get rid of them quickly so that the KSA would thrive as a viable state. Even during the Middle Ages, with religious (doctrinal and denominational) fanaticism as its main feature, never allowed room for the Shiite Hassan Al-Sabah, leader of the Assassins group, to form a real, viable state; he kept threatening Sunnites and Shiites as well as crusaders and Saladin, with his suicidal assassins who were messengers of death that terrorized all preachers, sultans, leaders, and caliphs at the time. Such assassins were called in Arabic ''Hashasheen'' (i.e., hookah or hash addicts), and the word is the root of the terms ''assassin'' and ''assassination'' in English and other European languages. Hence, in fact, Hassan Al-Sabah was merely the head of a group of gangsters and hit-men who used to reside most of their time in Alamut Castle, which was a very strong fortress, spreading terror until Hulago destroyed their castle. Hence, the idea of reviving religious fanaticism and bigotry by sheer force, terrorism, destruction, and wreaking havoc within regional areas is no longer a good one to establish any state within our modern age.          


4- We address the previous point as a piece of advice to the terrorist MB group, in Egypt and elsewhere, and its overt and covert Wahabi organizations that sprang out of it, bearing and spreading the same Wahabi terrorist ideology. 




25- Wahba, ditto, pages 285 and 286.



Al-Khawarij as the real forefathers of the Wahabi Najd Brothers:

Firstly: between Bedouin extremism and the Najd Brothers' extremism:


1- The above-mentioned words of Hafiz Wahba assert that the ordinary Bedouins were extremists as far as staying alive and survival are concerned in desert environment with scarce water and difficult weather that led them to loot and raid, always on the run in all directions to gain something to survive with. Such extremism was linked to strong enthusiasm and the desire to survive; the Bedouins used to loot and raid in order to live, eat, and drink, not to get killed or martyred. Thus, Bedouins used to ally themselves to some military leaders and if such leaders were about to get defeated, they would forsake them and flee with the spoils or booty before anyone else. Such contradictions, fickleness, and lack of loyalty tell us that Bedouins thought only of immediate interests and gains, even if this meant to turn against one's friends or allies to rob them, as long as those friends or allies would be killed or robbed anyway, a justification to loot those allies with clear conscience.    


2- The worst justification ever for any crimes is a religious one; it turns ordinary Bedouin raids into 'jihad' to massacre peaceful people, including women, children, and elderly people, under the pretexts of merely differences in opinions or views. Thus, swords would be used to settle disputes about intellectual notions, and disputes escalate and increase, qualitatively and quantitatively, to divide all warring parties, with extremist stances and attitudes wavering and changing without prior notice and at a glance, with armed rebellions murdering the peaceful innocent ones. This was reflected in the terror caused by Al-Khawarij, the spiritual forefathers (or Godfathers) of the Najd Brothers, despite the centuries between the era of the so-called companions of Prophet Muhammad, when Al-Khawarij emerged within civil wars, and the early 20th century when the Najd Brothers were formed by Abdul-Aziz. It seems that the Najd environment is the cause of terrorists to appear in both eras! Below, we give a historical overview of the emergence of Al-Khawarij.         


Secondly: the emergence of Al-Khawarij in the history of Muslims:


1- Desert-Arabs, i.e., Bedouins, before the advent of Islam, used to fight on another incessantly within ongoing raids, but they left caravans of the Qorayish tribe untouched every summer and winter, as this tribe guaranteed such security by keeping the stone idol of every tribe within the Kaaba shrine, and this tribe controlled pilgrimage of all Arabs coming from all over Arabia to Mecca. Thus, Bedouins lived in hunger and lack of security, unlike the Qorayish tribe that enjoyed security and prosperity; see the Quranic Chapter 106, 29:67, and 28:57.  


2- The Qorayish tribe, led by the Umayyads, felt the urgent need to fight Islam once it emerged, and within the margin of the struggle between early Muslims and the Qorayish tribe, some desert-Arabs or Bedouins converted to Islam. Debates began about idolatry and worship of gods made of stone, and how Qorayish earned huge wealth because of such myths by manipulating Arabs within the pilgrimage season. Thus, both early Muslims and disbelievers alike realized how Qorayish had deceived Arabs for a long time, and how gods and idols of Qorayish failed to protect Mecca. People began to realize that their interests lied in liberating themselves from the Qorayish influence and control. Of course, as always in all human history, clergymen live off ignorance of people and they had enlightenment and discussions of any stable notions inherited as ancestral traditions. The advent of Islam and is spread peacefully exposed Qorayish and destroyed its authority and power it used to enjoy over Arabs to control them to serve its purposes. Desert-Arabs threatened the trade caravans of Qorayish every summer and winter. Eventually, the majority of Qorayish saw that their interests that dictated before their fighting Islam to nip it in the bud drove them to a sudden, swift mass conversions to Islam; hence, Mecca was conquered by early Muslims peacefully without battle after a period of truce. As per the Quranic Chapter 9, the Qorayish leaders of disbelief revolted at first, but hastily succumbed to the status quo of Mecca that fell into the hands of the state and troops of Prophet Muhammad, shortly before his death. Within short months before his death, Qorayish enjoyed self-rule, and so did all tribes everywhere in Arabia and Bedouins as well. Zakat (alms) money was taken from them willingly to be given to the poorer ones, without coercion; as zakat sharia laws prevent taking it by force. God has prevented Muhammad from taking zakat, to distribute it among the poor, from hypocrites who gave it reluctantly and not piously; see 9:54. The new change enjoyed by Arabs and Bedouins in general was equality and justice, with no superiority for any tribes, especially Qorayish, as per the Quranic rule of equality of all human beings because they descended from one father and one mother, urged to know one another, not to fight one another; see 39:13.  


3- Renegades' Wars: Muhammad fell ill and died, and Abou Bakr became the ruler, or caliph, allowing ample room for the Qorayish power and authority to emerge again, with a vengeance. Bedouins felt apprehension and animosity vis-à-vis the union between immigrants to Yathreb who converted earlier to Islam and the Qorayish tribesmen who converted recently to Islam. The reason for that was they understood that such unity among Qorayish tribesmen in Mecca and Yathreb would mean that the desert-Arabs would be excluded from the new state of affairs. During the final illness period of Muhammad, desert-Arabs of Najd wanted ardently to assert their status after his imminent death. They thought wrongly that since Prophet Muhammad was from Qorayish, this prophethood might bring the tribe some merit to go ahead of all tribes to lead them once more as it used before. Thus, the political opposition of the Bedouins transformed and evolved into the laughter-inducing call of a new religion that caused the renegades wars, as political rebellion was linked with a man who claimed to be a prophet, known as Musailama the Liar, who came from Najd in its Haneefa Valley (astonishingly, the location of the Wahabi call centuries later!), and this false prophet has sent a letter to Prophet Muhammad during his dying illness, saying: (…From Musailama, a new prophet of God, to Muhammad the prophet of God, greetings to you, we have been ordained by God to share prophethood with you, and we have the right to rule and own half of Arabia and Qorayish would rule and own the other half, but the Qorayish tribesmen are an aggressive lot …) (quoted from Al-Tabari; 3/146). Once Musailama died, other renegades; movements emerged, leading Qorayish and the Umayyads understand that such movements of Bedouins indicated resentment against Qorayish assuming back its hegemony; Qorayish tribesmen had to fight and confront such renegades. When renegades were crushed and defeated; Qorayish saw to it that Bedouins must get busy with Arab conquests of neighboring countries to remove them away from Arabia and ward off their evil and sap their military energy and urge for rebellion. Another reason for that was the fact that the Umayyads, prominent ones among the Qorayish tribe, coveted very much the immense wealth, riches, and possessions of river-side lands in Iraq, Egypt, and the Levant. Hence, the Umayyads convinced easily all desert-Arabs to spread 'Islam' with spears and swords within military force, as a form of 'jihad'. This contradicted the Quran of course. Bedouins agreed with joy as they wanted very much to return to their old ways of looting and raiding. This was the very first time in Arabia that raiding, conquering, and looting would be justified with a 'religious' motive in the name of jihad, as per their whims, as they would be winners anyway: martyrdom & paradise or spoils & victory. They fought with all their might and enthusiasm, achieving resounding victories over the two most powerful empires in the Middle Ages (the Persians and the Byzantines), and thus, Qorayish used the sword and military prowess to loot the safes and treasuries of so many countries like Persia, Egypt,…etc.


4- Disputes occurred between Qorayish and the Bedouins over spoils, and military revolts evolved into civil wars among the so-called companions of Prophet Muhammad, and within such civil strife Al-Khawarij emerged, and military battles occurred because of disputes over lands within borders between Najd and Iraq. Bedouins coveted such fertile lands for themselves as they conquered and invaded it with their swords, as they left the Levant, Egypt, Persia, and North Africa to Umayyads. Othman, the third caliph, adamantly refused to give the Bedouin such lands as Marwan Ibn Al-Hakam controlled Othman and advised him to ignore their demand. Revolt against Othman began by Bedouins among others and ended up with his assassination in Yathreb inside his house, which was sieged by desert-Arabs for a while before they burgled into it and killed him. Ali was appointed as caliph instead, and civil strife began for years, and has not ended, in our opinion, until now in the 21th century Middle East and Arab world.         


5- Ali, the new caliph, had to fight Mu'aweiya, but the family of Mu'aweiya, the Umayyads, prepared a cruel surprise to Ali: they urged famous ones among the so-called companions of Muhammad to turn against him: Al-Zubayr and Talha, and both were joined by Aisha, the widow of Muhammad. With the endeavors of Marwan Ibn Al-Hakam Ibn Al-'As Ibn Umayya, war broke out by Ali against both men and Aisha, within the battle of the Camel, and Al-Zubayr and Talha got killed. Thus, at that point, the Umayyads got rid of most of the dangerous elements among the so-called companions of Muhammad, except Ali and some Bedouins with him. Ali was exhausted because of the battle of the Camel, whereas Mu'aweiya prepared for a big, decisive battle to enable his proclaiming himself as caliph; under the pretext that he was the nearest relative of Othman, the assassinated caliph, and that he was to avenge his assassination accordingly. During this decisive battle of Siffein, Ali was about to win victory, but Amr Ibn Al-'As (chief ally and military leader of Mu'aweiya) resorted to a cunning plan: he ordered soldiers and cavaliers to put copies of the Quran on spears to stop the battle and asking for arbitration using the Quran. Ali refused to accept such a device meant to deceive him and his allies, as the Umayyad armies wanted to avoid imminent defeat. Yet, Bedouins among troops of Ali forced him to accept the arbitration and to stop fighting; they threatened Ali to hold him captive to his foe, Mu'aweiya, if he did not accept the arbitration call. Of course, the ploy or trick of arbitration ended up with Amr, representative of Mu'aweiya, deceiving Abou Moussa Al-Ashaary, representative of Ali. Bedouins supporting Ali realized that they were deceived and that Ali had been right to refuse arbitration; but instead of obeying Ali, they revolted against him for accepting results of arbitration! They called themselves Al-Khawarij (i.e., literally in Arabic, those who went out), and they fought against Ali and assassinated him eventually. Al-Khawarij went on fighting Umayyads during their decades of caliphate.             


6- In Sum: within one generation, Bedouins and desert-Arabs were polytheists who converted to Islam shortly before Muhammad's death, and once he died, they became renegades who forsook Islam, and then reconverted to Islam again, and later on, they became conquerors during the caliphate of Abou Bakr and Omar, revolting group during the caliphate of Othman, and became finally Al-Khawarij during the caliphate of Ali. These transformations occurred between Muhammad's death in 11 A.H. /632 A.D. to Ali's assassination in 40 A.H. /661 A.D. this is less than three decades, ending in their being rebels for some decades against the Umayyads. Such transformations were sudden and swift, unprecedented in history, as their shifts and movements were violent and used religious pretexts for looting, spoils, and conquests, as they changed loyalties and focuses suddenly and without prior notice throughout the major events between 11 and 40 A.H.     


7- Using religious pretexts, Al-Khawarij began early the heinous crimes of massacring peaceful, innocent, poor ones as well as women and children, even slashing with diggers the stomachs of pregnant women, horrendous crimes that began by an Al-Khawarij sub-group named Al-Hururiyya, which turned against Ali who shunned them and ignored them, but they murdered civilians and women, and Ali had to fight them to stop their crimes. Al-Tabari narrates that when Al-Khawarij deserted Ali, a group of them named themselves Al-Hururiyya was fought by some of supporters of Ali instead of obeying him in continuing to fight against Mu'aweiya. Ali refused at first to fight Al-Hururiyya, but he had to fight them eventually as they massacred girls, pregnant women and children and innocent non-warring men. Ali killed them off with his troops within the battle of Al-Nahrawan, as per historical accounts of Al-Tabari, who writes that they used to massacre and slaughter men if they mentioned any political views different from theirs (26).         


Thirdly: the difference between Al-Khawarij and the Najd Brothers:


  From the very beginning, desert-Arabs and Bedouins allowed themselves to massacre peaceful innocent men, women, and children, and even pregnant women, using religious pretexts of their own fabrication as per their whims. They never did this before the advent of Islam, when they roamed the Arabian deserts. Ordinary Bedouin extremism used to be confined to deserts within tribal political and looting competitiveness in Arabia. When such crimes would be justified using religious notions or slogans later on, this made desert-Arabs and Bedouins get out of Arabia in conquests to terrorize innocent peoples of the Levant, Iraq, Egypt, Persia, North Africa, etc. who paid a heavy price of such Arab conquerors' aggression in the first century A.H. as Arab conquests were crimes perpetrated in the name of Islam and later-on revolts raised the banner and motto of ''no judgment except by God''. When the modern age has come in the 20th century, desert-Arabs and Bedouins raised Wahabi banners as if Wahabism were Islam, and they followed the footsteps of their ancestors in looting and massacring under religious slogans. Desert-Arabs and Bedouins were infuriated because the British built the fortress of Boseih to guard Iraqis against Wahabi raids and massacres. Because the fortress of Boseih did not exist in the 1st century A.H., it represented a barrier that prevented the Najd Brothers from repeating the history of massacres and looting of their forefathers. Hence, the fortress of Boseih was the center of the Wahabi opposition of the Najd Brothers against Abdul-Aziz, which evolved into rebellion and military revolt until they were killed off by the British and Abdul-Aziz, ironically within a battle near the fortress of Boseih. Al-Khawarij killed Ali and he was more lenient with them; thus, if Abdul-Aziz did not get rid of the Wahabi Najd Brothers, they would have killed him, and the history of Arabia and regions around it would have changed.         



26- History of Al-Tabari, edited by M. Abou-Al-Fadl Ibrahim, 3/146, 5/81:83.





Annex I: This is a commentary to conclude CHAPTER III of this book's PART I, an article published before on our website on 27th of June, 2014.

A Great Step by the Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah Al-Sisi: Reforming the School Curricula of Religious Studies




1- We have read the news about a good step taken by Al-Sisi, on the website mojaznews.com.

2- This piece of news tackles the intention of the Egyptian Ministry of Education, under the auspices of Al-Sisi, to formulate obligatory curricula books, on all school grades, on morals and ethics to replace curricula books of religious studies (both Coptic Orthodox and 'Islamic') in public schools; the Egyptian street has witnessed recently low levels of moralistic values, especially that rates of sexual harassment of female citizens have increased. Such new curricula would be applied in the school year 2014-2015. The Egyptian President urges the completion of this step due to the lack of moralistic values among most Egyptian youth. The new curricula would get the agreement of the Orthodox Church and Al-Azhar, and it would show the values of tolerance in the celestial religions and show their impact on civilization. We have remembered our endeavors during the era of Mubarak to propose projects of reform of education before the year 2000.




1- We have felt pleased to read about such a step; reform we have dreamed of is about to be realized. Some of our 30-year old endeavor would bear its fruits, especially in reform of education and Al-Azhar. Our book published here on our website titled "Tenets of Islamic Sharia and Means of Application" mentions details on such reform in schools curricula of Egyptian education, Al-Azhar, and reform of mosques.

2- One day, we would publish some personal history accounts within our intellectual battles with some personalities, which occurred because of our call for reform on all levels. Among such battles is a major one about reforming Egyptian education. Our projected have been called "Egyptian Education and Tolerance", propagated and discussed within Ibn Khaldoun Center in the period 1989:1999. The main focus of our project has been reforming school religious studies curricula for both Egyptian Sunnites and Coptic Orthodox curricula and the curricula of history and Arabic language. We have written as well teachers' guide about how to teach the new curricula proposed in the project. We have written as well a movie scenario about a famous Coptic character during the Abbasid Era, and its synopsis is published here on our website titled "A Great Copt in the Era of Treacherous Caliph". We have written a documentary movie on the Egyptian phenomenon of Egyptian Sunnites attending Christian saints, especially the Virgin Mary, festivals in churches of Cairo. This documentary movie was produced by Ibn Khaldoun Center. The owner of this center, the sociologist Dr. Saad Eddine Ibrahim, opened the forum to discuss our project and invited personalities from all Egyptian institutions: Egyptian Cabinet, Ministry of Education, the Coptic Orthodox Church, Al-Azhar, media men, some people from the cultural elite and writers. We were surprised to find vitriolic attack and criticism from all parties, especially concerning reforming the curricula of Sunnite religious studies. Our person was verbally abused. No one among these attackers read carefully what we have written; they asked Azharite men about us and attacked us verbally based on the Azharite stance against us. When criticism and verbal abuse dwindled gradually, some others read or project carefully, and discussions took place to apply it on some samples of students and teachers, with proper remuneration and rewards for them. This was never materialized; Ibn Khaldoun Center was closed down, and its owner was arrested. Several Egyptian Quranists affiliated with the center, under our direction, got arrested due to their participation in the project. Before they would get us, we fled to the USA; if we would have been arrested among criminals, we surely would have been got killed in prison!

3- Later on, we will publish all details of the project of reforming education. Here, suffice it to mentions some brief points.


Secondly: An overview of the project "Egyptian Education and Tolerance" and contents of our book Teachers' Guide on how to teach religious studies in schools:


1- from the introduction: "… we mean to offer a reform point of view to change the way religion is taught in school curricula to make them approach the facts and tenets of Islam, based on the Quranist studies over the major values and tenets of Islam that ought to be taught and applied in our lives. Eventually, we propose curricula of moralistic values and ethics to replace books of Sunnite Islam and Coptic Orthodox studies in schools, and the new curricula should have grades/points to be added to the final exams results. Such changes in methodology of teaching religion must not contain any error; otherwise, dangers concerning Egypt and its citizens would occur. A unified curriculum of ethics and morals to all Sunnite and Orthodox students is a good start to focus on avoiding divisions and discriminations among equal citizens. The unified books for all students should urge tolerance, human rights, charity, piety, justice, love, patience, peace, and chastity, values urged in Islam as we read in the Quran, and urged in the Bible. Some other values include resisting injustice, aggression, ugliness, evildoing, wrongdoing, sinning, extremism, violence, terrorism, and enmity. Such a new curriculum would be a balance to create new generations of upright citizens. If such balance would fail, obnoxious impact would be felt on creeds and the nation. For the love of Islam and Egypt, we have written this book. Signature: Dr. Ahmed Subhy Mansour 1998".

2- Contents of the book: Teachers' Guide: A Vision on Teaching Islamic Studies in Schools. PART I: Samples of errors in the public guides for teachers: Firstly: Demonizing the other. Secondly: Ignoring the other. Thirdly: Ignoring Egypt and its stature in the Quran. Fourthly: Ignoring Quranic stories about Egypt and the Egyptians. Fifthly: Ignoring piety as the Islamic uppermost value. PART II: Guiding teachers of Islamic studies in schools. Firstly: Getting to know vales of Islam in the Quran: justice – absolute religious freedom – tolerance (charity and patience) – charity and patience in the call to Islam – pardoning and forgiveness – charity in one's heart – relation between patience and charity. Fighting in Islam is only in cases of self-defense, especially to insure freedom of religion and to achieve peace. Secondly: Belonging to Egypt and allegiance to it is a duty of all Egyptian citizens. Characteristics of Egypt as we read them in the Quran. Conclusions: Concerning new curricula hat unify Sunnite and Orthodox Coptic students within one shared book for all creeds: 1- about acts of worship 2- about demeanor, moralistic values, and ethics and how to combat destructive behavior. Final notes on application mechanisms.





1- Any reformer talks a lot about the bad points, urging their change, and rarely praises anything or anyone; yet we sincerely laud Al-Sisi in this step of education reform, hoping he would be a torchbearer and trailblazer of reformation on all levels: especially legislative and constitutional. Terrorism cannot be fought only by policemen and military men; its roots are deep-seated in tents that claim to be part of Islam, but they are not part of it for sure. Egypt needs comprehensive reform on many aspects, based on justice and freedom.

2- We never lauded or faltered before in our life any ruler of Egypt. We remain specialized in criticizing the bad points and aspects. Yet, we see some goodness in Al-Sisi. May God help him to reform all that has been distorted and corrupted by his predecessors.     



Annex II: an article published before on our website on 19th of June, 2014, as a commentary on events taking place at the time, when ISIS terrorist group members have been wreaking havoc in Iraq and Syria and committing massacres to achieve the aims of Wahabi jihad, just as the Najd Brothers during the reign of Abdul-Aziz; this articles was published while the book of Wahabi opposition movements was serialized in article form.


Turn it into a Motto: ISIS Members Are Infidels and Sons of a Bitch!


Introduction: a contemporary comment during the publishing of our book "The Wahabi Opposition Movements in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in the Twentieth Century":


1- During serializing this book in article form, a book finished in June, 2001, in Cairo, we watch atrocities committed now in Syria and Iraq, and we feel bound to comment and warn again, as we have done before, but the Arab Muhammadans never listen and never understand.


2- ISIS terrorists follow the footsteps of the Najd Brothers of Abdul-Aziz. Trying to achieve what the Najd Brothers failed to make, ISIS members go one massacring to establish their own state. The Najd Brothers had disputes with Abdul-Aziz because they wanted to go on with their Sunnite Wahabi jihad by massacring men, women, and children of Iraq and the Levant. Abdul-Aziz stopped them as the modern age, with which he wanted to cope in the KSA, does not tolerate such raids anymore. Abdul-Aziz helped to establish the terrorist MB group in Egypt to fulfill the dream of unifying all Arab lands under Wahabi rule later on, when the times would be convenient, outside of and apart from his burgeoning kingdom. Sadly, these convenient times might be our sad era now; the MB terrorist organization has countless branches worldwide and several terrorist Wahabi groups branched out of it, such as ISIS. ISIS group is being financed and logistically aided by the USA, the KSA, and Qatar, as well as terrorist organizations like Al-Baath, Al-Qaeda, and the MB. Thus, ISIS is being helped by local, regional, and international circles, amidst doubted silence of the international community. Such powers aiding ISIS might differ with one another in some matters, but they are now unified in one thing: to destroy Iraq and the Levant to spite Iran.


3- ISIS terrorist group represents such diabolical, devilish pact, with the KSA, axis of evil in the world, in its center. Such evils is rooted since the very first KSA 1745:1818, and that evil has grown exponentially in the third, current KSA established by Abdul-Aziz with the swords of the Najd Brothers, who were killed off later on by GB and Abdul-Aziz, and the name of Al-Saud family was given to the burgeoning kingdom in 1932: the KSA: the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.


4- What we write here is not new; we have been reminding readers of it for the past 30 years in hundreds of articles, researches, and books. We summarize the whole thing in a nutshell in this article title: "ISIS Members Are Infidels and Sons of a Bitch!" of course, some readers might not like the coarse language used in this article title, but this is the least that could be said about the ISIS inhuman savages that massacre innocent people in the name of Islam, and get described in the media as ''Islamists'' of an ''Islamic movement'' or the so-called Islamism/political Islam. Such terms are extremely insulting to Islam: stop abusing and tarnishing the name of Islam, you Muhammadans!


5- Make it a motto: "ISIS Members Are Infidels and Sons of a Bitch!", and this motto must be uttered whenever a piece of news is heard, watched, or read about atrocities of ISIS committed against civilians terrorized by it. This motto must be written on all walls in the streets and on banners raised in sit-ins, marches, and demonstrations. This will certainly help in the downfall and collapse of the legend of ISIS. This is the least that could be done in defense of Islam and to notify the world of the rights of the poor victims of ISIS!


Firstly: "ISIS Members Are Infidels and Sons of a Bitch!"


1- There are two types of disbelief in Islam: 1) disbelief in terms of behavior or demeanor, which means unjustified and unjust armed aggression against innocent people, especially to coerce them in matters of religion, and 2) disbelief in terms of faith inside one's heart or mind, which is subdivide into two sorts: A) disbelief in terms of practices: such as worshipping and sanctifying mausoleums and 'holy' tombs, and B) disbelief in terms of knowledge: worshipping and sanctifying ancient theological volumes, tomes, and books of imams and worshipping and sanctifying these imams/scholars. When both types of disbelief (in terms of demeanor and faith) combine in one person/group, this is the worst type of disbelief, which leads to a worse crime: when such unjust criminals and disbelievers ascribe themselves to Islam!


2- Islam is the religion of peace, revealed to the humankind by God, the Merciful, the Compassionate, via the prophet sent as a mercy to the humankind: "We did not send you except as mercy to humankind." (21:107). Prophets of God describe Him as the Most Merciful of the merciful. This is uttered by Jacob: "He said, "Shall I trust you with him, as I trusted you with his brother before? God is the Best Guardian, and He is the Most Merciful of the merciful."" (12:64), by Joseph: "He said, "There is no blame upon you today. God will forgive you. He is the Most Merciful of the merciful."" (12:92), and by Job: "And Job, when he cried out to his Lord: "Great harm has afflicted me, and you are the Most Merciful of the merciful."" (21:83).  


3- Thus, Allah, the Most Merciful of the merciful, has sent Muhammad as a mercy to humankind; yet, ISIS terrorist organization and its likes (e.g., Al-Qaeda and the MB), are worshipping a different god, not Allah/God the Merciful the Compassionate. Such infidels worship a blood-thirsty, violent, merciless god, and their ancestors, the Sunnite Ibn Hanbal doctrine followers, had invented for them an imaginary, false prophet in books of the so-called ''Muhammad's biography'', which differs 100% from the historical character of Muhammad mentioned in the Quran. Their false prophet in their books killed POWs and captives, ordered the assassination of opponents and foes, and committed aggression and atrocities against the innocent, peaceful people. In such books of falsehoods, they created a false creed in which their imaginary prophet was ordained to fight the world and its inhabitant to coerce them to convert to his creed! Of course, such madness contradicts the Quran; yet, such criminals, past and present, has had the nerve to ascribe themselves to Islam!    


4- that is why we vehemently say to them this motto: "ISIS Members Are Infidels and Sons of a Bitch!"


Secondly: "ISIS Members Are Infidels and Sons of a Bitch!"


1- It is most unlucky for the region of Iraq and the Levant, rich in rivers, fertile lands, and ancient civilization, to be located in the north of Arabian Desert, especially north of the Najd region with its arid climate, and tis people desert-Arabs and Bedouins, described in the Quran as the most steeped in hypocrisy and disbelief. We have noted in our writings the relation of such raiding Bedouins with the Levant and Iraq region in history: ongoing Bedouin raids that committed aggressions against this region for the sake of loot, or for the sake of both loot alongside with 'religious' justification that endorsed massacring and enslavement of innocent civilians: peaceful men, women, and children, using a Shiite or Sunnite jihad motto, as we read in the history of Al-Khawarij, Al-Zanj, the Qarmatians, and finally, Wahabism and its recent offshoot: ISIS.    


2- When such groups of history became history and no longer existed, what remains are pages with cries of millions of innocent victims, and no one cared about them. The unjust tyrannical criminals had gone, but after they looted, enslaved, and massacred thousands of poor victims within atrocities registered in history books. ISIS and its siblings, who are offshoots of the Saudi Wahabism: axis of terror and evil now in the planet, follow the footsteps of such criminals mentioned in history, and will end up by turning into mere history after they are crushed one day.   


3- ISIS terrorists are repeating the crimes of its predecessors among criminals committing violence in the name of religion; not only in manipulating the name of Islam but also in committing crimes such as raping (fornication jihad!), enslaving, looting, massacring, indiscriminate, random killings, and premeditated murder.


4- Let us remember the following Quranic verse: "God commands justice, and goodness, and generosity towards relatives. And He forbids immorality, and injustice, and oppression. He advises you, so that you may take heed." (16:90). We beg readers that whenever they watch a video of ISIS murdering and butchering innocent victims, they should utter and spread this motto: "ISIS Members Are Infidels and Sons of a Bitch!"  


Thirdly: "ISIS Members Are Infidels and Sons of a Bitch!"


1- We have published on our website several articles covering the topic of the emergence of the Ibn Hanbal doctrine/creed and its destructive influence over Iraq in history, and as usual, such articles are later on grouped in a book form, titled "Ibn Hanbal Doctrine as the Mother of Wahabism and the Cause of the Destruction of Iraq in the Second Abbasid Era". We have indicated in this book that the Ibn Hanbal doctrine sheikhs and scholars in Iraq in that era had turned the masses, scum of the earth, highwaymen, and thieves into leaders and soldiers in service of extremism and fanaticism. We have explained how followers of the Ibn Hanbal creed followers caused 1) the regress and the backwardness of the intellectual life of Muslims at the time, 2) the extermination of Mu'tazala imams who called for the methodology of using one's mind and intellect and mental faculties in understanding religion, and 3) the persecution and/or marginalization of other Sunnite scholars who rejected the Ibn Hanbal doctrine, such as Al-Tabari and the imams of the Ashaary doctrine. Wahabism since the establishment of the very first KSA, and until now within the third current KSA, has spread religious ignorance and myth along with the Ibn Hanbal doctrine extremism and fanatical bigotry and expansionist jihad, invasion, and conquest that led to the massacring civilian innocent and peaceful men, women, and children. By recruiting the masses using oil revenues and within the conditions of the struggle for Gulf oil, on both the regional and international levels, savage organizations of terror emerge, recruiting thousands of frustrated, revengeful youths who find in joining such terrorist groups a chance of leadership and heroism to wreak revenge on their societies' based supreme authority, power, wealth, and affluence. Such furious youths find enjoyment in killing their foes in creed, doctrine, or religion, as they by this manner vent their fury, chronic frustration, inferiority complexes, and psychological ailments.       


2- It is impossible to eradicate and eliminate terrorism using security and military solutions alone; if all extremists and terrorists of the globe would be collected in one place to be killed off, this will never put an end to terrorism. Thought must be faced and refuted by thought; hence, terrorist thought would remain dominant and strong enough to murder millions of people and to spread corruption on earth as long as it associates itself to Islam, without this association being questioned and refuted. Thus, terrorist thought would produce generations of terrorists within the coming decades. We never grow tired of calling for the establishment of an intellectual reformist movement supported with laws and legislations that assert absolute and complete religious and intellectual freedom, freedom of speech, expression, and thought. Such freedoms should include Wahabis themselves. Without such liberties and freedoms, Wahabism would remain fortified against criticism, questioning, and refutation, under the pretext that it represents Islam. Wahabism always needs to link itself to some power/authority to protect itself from being put to question, because it can be easily refuted and debunked, leading to its collapse, when it is disassociated from power and authority. 


3- As long as ISIS and its siblings among terrorist groups are called in the media as ''Islamist'' movements or linked to Islamism (i.e., the falsehood known as political Islam), they would remain associated wrongly with Islam, and this is injustice toward Islam and a violation of it, and thus, more bloodbaths would occur to all secular people, Christians, Shiites, Wahabis, non-Wahabis, and the rest of poor, innocent human beings all over the world.  


4- Hence, we beg all readers to utter and spread this motto: "ISIS Members Are Infidels and Sons of a Bitch!"



Annex III: This article of ours was first published on 25th of June 2014, and it concludes this CHAPTER III of PART I.


Al-Qaradawy Is the Imam of the Terrorist ISIS Group Members


Firstly: the ISIS terrorists:


1- A YouTube video is showing an ISIS terrorist walking in the streets, armed with machine gun, wearing a thick, long beard and a Middle-Ages garb. If it had not for the modern machine gun, one could easily imagine this terrorist as getting out of a Middle-Ages history books; he looks like one of the Qarmatians or Al-Khawarij. This ISIS terrorist, with his attire and appearance, asserts one fact: the power of a dominant earthly, man-made religion to change people and to revive the corrupt past in order to wreak havoc and spread massacres while shouting "Allahu akbar!" (i.e., God is the Greatest!).  


2- This ISIS terrorist is, in his turn, a victim himself; he used to be an innocent child, laughing and crying, attracting the admiration and love of those seeing him in his cradle, just like any child in the world, regardless of color, gender, race, ethnicity, culture, time and place. Differences occur when the children grow up and be exposed to their surrounding environment and culture in the spot in which they are brought up in any continent. By chance, such children might be Arab, within an Arab country where the worst of the earthly, man-made religions dominates: Wahabism. Western youths live the present and the future, whereas the Salafist/Wahabi youths in Arab countries live the ancient past of the Middle-Ages eras, reviving it to re-create and impose it in the present, modern age! Within such Arab societies of such youths, corruption and tyranny dominate everyday life; a few families confiscate absolute power, authority, and wealth, persecuting and enslaving the vast majority. To divert and keep such vast majority of citizens busy, the affluent minority impose the Wahabi creed on them to urge them to use it as an alternative tool to vent, or rather vomit, their frustrations, grudges, and unfulfilled dreams. Many Wahabi youths turn themselves into criminals and killers who massacre innocent people mercilessly, thinking they do the right thing in terms of religious rewards in the Hereafter! They imagine that by virtue of such heinous crimes, especially suicide terrorist operations, they would die to directly enter Paradise and copulate with houris (i.e., heavenly maidens)!              


Secondly: Al-Qaradawy as the imam of ISIS:


1- Islam has but one source, the Quran, which contradicts Wahabism and its terror, as the Quran calls for mercy, charity, justice, freedom of all kinds, tolerance, …etc. the Quranic legislations include engaging in fighting only in cases of self-defense, as well as caring for the rights of captives or POWs. This shows that the Quran cares for the right to live, with severe punishment, in this world and the next, for those who murder peaceful, innocent people.


2- Wahabism distorts Islam and tarnishes its name; such deceit done with brainwashed ISIS members and with youths from other terrorist organizations has been done by the worst type of criminals ever: Wahabi clergymen and sheikhs, including Al-Qaradawy, the biggest imam/leader of ISIS criminals and their likes among Wahabis in general.  


3- ISIS terrorists massacre innocent people enthusiastically, and their victims increase with the passage of time; yet, the terrorist ISIS youths are victims, themselves, and they are made so by the likes of sheikh Al-Qaradawy: all imams, clergymen, theologians, and sheikhs of the Wahabi religion. Such Wahabi sheikhs are the most blood-thirsty, savage, and brutal human beings that ever existed; they are the real archenemies of Almighty God, of Islam, of all humanity, and all moralistic and ethical values. No one among the Wahabi sheikhs would imagine that his son(s) would join ISIS or would turn into Wahabi jihadist(s) or suicide bomber(s). Wahabi sheikhs and clergymen just fill their coffers and ban accounts with money by misguiding innocent youths who would willingly turn into suicide bombers and murderers who kill innocent persons. Such sheikhs are being sanctified, worshipped, and made holy, as adorers kneel to kiss their hands and donate large sums of money to them. Such type of clergymen intentionally hides and distorts the Quranic facts in order to gain money; God tells us the following verses about them: "Those who conceal what God revealed in the Book, and exchange it for a small price-those swallow nothing but fire into their bellies. And God will not speak to them on the Day of Resurrection, nor will He purify them, and they will have a painful punishment. It is they who exchange guidance for error, and forgiveness for punishment. But why do they insist on entering the Eternal Fire?" (2:174-175). Such corrupt clergymen intentionally overlook the Quran, the only source of guidance in Islam, to spread falsehoods instead of guidance, and if they will not repent, they will suffer eternally in Hell in the Hereafter.   


4- Because of the heinous, barbaric crimes and the corruption of the leaders/clergymen of the earthly, man-made religions in Europe, Europeans revolted against the Church. Karl Marx spread the famous quotation that religion is the opium of the masses. We tend to believe that this quotation is referring to the earthly, man-made religions; as the heavenly, real religion has no influence at all at the time in Europe and elsewhere. Some extremists wished to strangle the last tyrant with the entrails of the last priest. Europeans never forgot the atrocities committed by catholic clergymen in the Middle-Ages, and they revolted against mixing religion with political life. Eventually, after long struggle, Catholicism is confined to church walls, with its clergymen specializing in charity and social events. Europe achieved its renaissance with secularism/laïcité, and its modernization and scientific advancements spread all over the world. Egypt was about to catch up with the European train of progress in the 19th century, but all endeavors were foiled because of the emergence of Wahabism and its spread in Egypt to dominate the aspects of life in it. Egypt's gradual conversion to Wahabism in the 20th century was done through the terrorist MB group members as well as all Salafist/Wahabi societies that spread Wahabism among most of the Muhammadans in Egypt and in all Arab countries. The Wahabi Egyptian preachers have turned into 'holy' imams adored by millions of Muhammadans. Such imams include Al-Sharaawy, Al-Ghazaly, and Al-Qaradawy.                 


Thirdly: two types of preachers:


1- As far as religious calls are concerned, people are divided into two categories: preachers and their audience. Preachers in their turn are divided into two types; the very first one is those preachers who peacefully preach the Quranic message, which contains the true traditions of Prophet Muhammad. God has said this verse to Muhammad about the Quran and preaching it as a form of intellectual jihad against aggressive disbelievers: "So do not obey the disbelievers, but strive against them with it, a mighty struggle." (25:52). Thus, Muhammad preached, warned and brought glad tidings using the Quran alone: "And warn with it those who fear to be gathered before their Lord-they have no protector or intercessor apart from Him-perhaps they will grow in piety." (6:51). "…So remind by the Quran whoever fears My warning" (50:45). "A Scripture was revealed to you, so let there be no anxiety in your heart because of it. You are to warn with it-and a reminder for the believers. Follow what is revealed to you from your Lord, and do not follow other masters beside Him. Little you recollect." (7:2-3). Thus, such preachers of the Truth never ask money/fees from people; rather, they dedicate their souls and their lives to Almighty God.   


2- In contrast, the other type of preachers is the corrupt ones preaching falsehoods, who talk with sweet words to appeal for the emotional response from hearts of the audience. Such devilish preachers are found everywhere and in all eras, and God says the following verses about 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.And when he is told, "Beware of God," his pride leads him to more sin. Hell is enough for him-a dreadful abode." (2:204-206). In our opinion, these verses apply to Wahabi preachers in particular; if one tries to warn Al-Qaradawy by saying to him: ''Beware of God'', Al-Qaradawy will get mad and furious because of his hurt pride; as his job/mission is to spread corruption on earth and justify injustice using the Wahabi creed tenets in his sermons that turn innocent youths into ISIS terrorists.  


3- In contrast to Al-Qaradawy and his likes among preachers of falsehoods, there are preachers of the Quranic Truth, who dedicate their souls and selves to God, seeking to please him: "And among the people is he who sells himself seeking God's approval. God is kind towards the servants." (2:207).


4- The criterion to differentiate between the two types of preachers is the call for peace. God says in the following verse, addressing believers: "O you who believe! Enter into peace wholeheartedly, and do not follow the footsteps of Satan; he is to you an outright enemy." (2:208). Hence, it is an Islamic duty to live in peace with people; it is absolutely forbidden to commit aggression against others, but only self-defense is permitted when one is being attacked, as God does not like aggressors: "…but do not commit aggression; God does not love the aggressors." (2:190). This is real Islam found exclusively in the Quran: a religion of peace, preachers of peace, justice, charity, and rights. Preachers of the Truth call for peace, whereas preachers of misguidance and falsehoods call for bloodbaths and massacres. To the latter type belongs Al-Qaradawy, the real imam/preacher of ISIS and its bloody days!   


Fourthly: there are no medial in-between stances in the field of preaching; those who never utter the truth are cursed:


1- Within the field of religious preaching, there is no room for medial in-between positions or stances: a preacher is either an extremist one spreading falsehoods, disbelief, and polytheism specializing in misguiding audience with false hadiths and theology, thus denying the Quran and driving youthful listeners to engage into 'holy' massacres. In contrast, there are preachers of the Quranic Truth, i.e., the Quranists, spreading it outspokenly and vociferously, refuting views of the preachers of falsehoods, proving that their views are evidence that they are enemies of Islam and disbelievers in the Quran. Thus, the in-between preachers are those who remain silent as far as the Truth is concerned; they do not talk about the Truth and they never incite 'holy' violence and aggression and never spread falsehoods. Such 'silent' preachers are cursed in the Quran; as they never preach the Quranic truth to people, never reciting verses showing the true nature of Islam to refute Wahabi falsehoods leading to terrorism. The mere recitation is enough for those who believe that the Quran is truly he Word of God, touching their hearts and minds. Their mere silence to hide the Quranic facts incurs God's wrath and curses on them, as per the following verse: "Those who suppress the proofs and the guidance We have revealed, after We have clarified them to humanity in the Scripture-those-God curses them, and the cursers curse them." (2:159). Of course, such 'silent' preachers have the chance to repent during their lifetimes, and for sure, part of such repentance is to speak publicly to people about such grave error, declaring their repentance, and to preach the Quranic Truth clearly and outspokenly for the rest of their lives, without fearing anyone, seeking only to gratify God. This way, they will correct their grave error of silence before and correct their preaching path, and God will certainly accept their repentance: "Except those who repent, and reform, and proclaim. Those-I will accept their repentance. I am the Acceptor of Repentance, the Merciful." (2:160).    


2- As for those who remain among the 'silent' frightened preachers who never declare the divine Truth of the Quranic facts and die without repentance, they deserve the curses of God, angels, and all humankind: "But as for those who reject faith, and die rejecting-those-upon them is the curse of God, and of the angels, and of all humanity. They will remain under it forever, and the torment will not be lightened for them, and they will not be reprieved." (2:161-162).


Fifthly: the position of Al-Qaradawy:


1- Al-Qaradawy is still alive as we write this article, and he was born in Sept. 1926. Al-Qaradawy has spent about 60 years of preaching falsehoods, corruption, and terrorism. As long as he remains alive, he still has the chance to repent if he wants to. Al-Qaradawy has recently declared his intention to return to delivering sermons after Ramadan. Let us imagine that someone is bold enough to stand up to him, saying: (Beware of God, O sheikh! You are an octogenarian and you still preaching lies and falsehoods to hide the Quranic Truth, fear God, O sheikh, before you die, which is most likely very soon to happen! Repent, O sheikh, and remember that your victims who have fallen prey to your sermons are millions and your victims who have become terrorists are hundreds of thousands. O sheikh, stop spreading lies and falsities, stop gaining ill-gotten money, stop supporting massacres, corruption, and tyranny. Beware of God, O sheikh! Take heed of Christian clergymen who devote their lives to charity acts, and their goodness spread to hungry poor Muslims. O sheikh! Do not you feel guilty about massacred women and children among innocent Muslims? Have not you got enough from bloodbaths occurred because of you preaching? Until when, O sheikh, would you remain an imam of ISIS and other terrorists?!). What would happen if any person would say so to Al-Qaradawy in public? Will Al-Qaradawy repent and weep for mercy and ask God's forgiveness? Or will he take pride in his sins? Why do not people preach Al-Qaradawy to discern his stance/position among preachers?!    


2- Let us contemplate and reflect on the verses: "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.And when he is told, "Beware of God," his pride leads him to more sin. Hell is enough for him-a dreadful abode. And among the people is he who sells himself seeking God's approval. God is kind towards the servants." (2:204-207). It is one of the miraculous predictions of the Quran to use the phrase ''among the people…"; this means that whenever there is a human society anywhere on the globe, there will be always preachers of lies and falsehoods who spread corruption, bloodshed, and massacres. Similarly, as long as there are human beings, there will be preachers of peace who strive and struggle for the sake of God. Hence, every human society has its likes of Al-Qaradawy!   


3- The Last Day, the Day of Resurrection and the Judgment Day, will come and preachers of the Truth ill bear witness against preachers of lies and falsehoods. God says the following verses about the latter type of preachers: "Who does greater wrong than he who fabricates lies about God? These will be presented before their Lord, and the witnesses will say, "These are they who lied about their Lord." Indeed, the curse of God is upon the wrongdoers. Those who hinder others from the path of God, and seek to make it crooked; and regarding the Hereafter, they are in denial. These will not escape on earth, and they have no protectors besides God. The punishment will be doubled for them. They have failed to hear, and they have failed to see. Those are the ones who lost their souls, and what they had invented has strayed away from them. Without a doubt, in the Hereafter, they will be the biggest losers." (11:18-22).




1- Most of the lifetime of Al-Qaradawy has gone; few years are left to him, and as an old man, he is drawing nearer to his death. God says in the Quran: "Have they not observed the government of the heavens and the earth, and all the things that God created, and that their time may have drawn near? Which discourse, besides this, will they believe in?" (7:185).


2- As always, God says nothing but the Truth. 

The Wahabi Opposition Movements in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in the Twentieth Century
The Wahabi Opposition Movements in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in the Twentieth Century

Authored by: Dr. Ahmed Subhy Mansour
26th of June, 2001
Cairo, Egypt
Translated by: Ahmed Fathy


We publish here the complete book titled "The Wahabi Opposition Movements in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in the Twentieth Century", after writing it previously in a series of successive articles before on our website. We authored this book in 2001, and it is published here online after omitting an introductory chapter about Wahabism and its origins and roots; we have omitted this chapter because it repeats what we have written in hundreds of articles about Wahabism, Salafism, and the Sunnite Ibn Hanbal doctrine. We have decided to confine this book to the rest of this research, whose details are summarized in the new introduction, and we consider this research or book as adopting a neutral historical viewpoint of events. Parts of this book have been published before separate