Wahhabi

The founder of the Wahhabi sect was Muhammad-ibn-Abd-ul-Wahháb, who was born at a village in Nejd in the year 1691 A.D. The Wahhabis speak of themselves as Muwahhid—Unitarians; but their opponents have given to them the name of the father of the founder of their sect and call them Wahhabis. Muhammad was a bright intelligent youth, of a strong constitution and generous spirit. After going through a course of Arabic literature he studied jurisprudence under a teacher of the Hanífi school. He then set out in company with his father to perform the Hajj. At Madína he received further instruction in the Law. He spent sometime at Ispahán in the society of learned men. Full of knowledge, he returned to his native village of Ayína where he assumed the position of a religious teacher. He was shocked to see how the Arabs had departed from what seemed to him the strict unchanging precepts of the Prophet.

Luxury in the form of rich dresses and silken garments, superstition in the use of omens, auguries, and the like, in the pilgrimages to shrines and tombs seemed to be altering the character of the religion as given by the Apostle of God. He saw, or thought he saw, that in the veneration paid to saints and holy men, the great doctrine of the "Unity" was being obscured. The reason was very plain. The Qurán and the Traditions of the Companions had been neglected, whilst the sayings of men of lesser note, and the jurisprudence of the four great Imáms had been too readily followed. Here was work to do. He would reform the Church of Islám, and restore men to their allegiance to the Book and the Sunnat, as recorded by the Companions. It is true, that the Sunnís would rise up in opposition, for thus the authority of the four Imáms, the "Canonical Legists" of the orthodox sect, would be set aside; but what of that? Had he not been a follower of Abu Hanífa? Now he was prepared to let Aba Hanífa go, for none but a Companion of the Prophet could give an authoritative statement with regard to the Sunnat—the Prophet's words and acts. He must break a lance with the glorious Imám, and start a school of his own.

He said: "The Muslim pilgrims adore the tomb of the Prophet, and the sepulchre of 'Alí, and of other saints who have died in the odour of sanctity. They run there to pay the tribute of their fervent prayers. By this means they think that they can satisfy their spiritual and temporal needs, From what do they seek this benefit? From walls made of mud and stones, from corpses deposited in tombs. If you speak to them they will reply, 'We do not call these monuments God; we turn to them in prayer, and we pray the saints to intercede for us on high.' Now, the true way of salvation is to prostrate one's self before Him who is ever present, and to venerate Him—the one without associate or equal." Such outspoken language raised up opposition, and he had to seek the protection of Muhammad-Ibn-Saud, a chief of some importance, who now vigorously supported the Wahhabi movement. He was a stern and uncompromising man. "As soon as you seize a place," he said to his soldiers, "put the males to the sword. Plunder and pillage at your pleasure, but spare the women and do not strike a blow at their modesty." On the day of battle he used to give each soldier a paper, a safe conduct to the other world. This letter was addressed to the Treasurer of Paradise. It was enclosed in a bag which the warrior suspended to his neck. The soldiers were persuaded that the souls of those who died in battle would go straight to heaven, without being examined by the angels Munkar and Nakír in the grave. The widows and orphans of all who fell were supported by the survivors. Nothing could resist men who, fired with a burning zeal for what they deemed the truth, received a share of the booty, if conquerors; who went direct to Paradise if they were slain. In course of time, Muhammad-Ibn-Saud married the daughter of Ibn-Abd-ul-Wahháb and founded the Wahhabi dynasty which to this day rules at Ryadh.

Such was the origin of this great movement, which spread, in course of time, over Central and Eastern Arabia, and in the beginning of this century found acceptance in India. In the year 1803 A.D. both Mecca and Madína fell into the hands of the Wahhabis. A clean sweep was made of all things, the use of which was opposed to Wahhabi principles. Not only rosaries and charms, but silk robes and pipes were consigned to the flames, for smoking is a deadly sin. On this point there is a good story told by Palgrave—"'Abd-ul-Karím said: 'The first of the great sins is the giving divine honours to a creature.' Of course I replied, 'The enormity of such a sin is beyond all doubt. But if this be the first, there must be a second; what is it?' 'Drinking the shameful!' (in English idiom, 'smoking tobacco') was the unhesitating answer. 'And murder, and adultery, and false witness?' I suggested. 'God is merciful and forgiving,' rejoined my friend; that is, these are merely little sins."

After holding possession of the holy cities for nine years they were driven out by the Turkish forces. 'Abdullah, the fourth Wahhabi ruler, was captured by Ibrahím Pasha, and afterwards executed in the square of St. Sophia (1818 A.D.) The political power of the Wahhabis has since been confined to parts of Arabia; but their religious opinions have widely spread.

The leader of the Wahhabi movement in India was Sayyid Ahmad, a reformed freebooter. He was now born at Ráí Bareili, in Oudh, 1786 A.D. When about thirty years of age he gave up his wild way of living and settled down in Delhi as a student of the Law of Islám. After a while, he went on pilgrimage to Mecca, but his opinions, so similar to those of the noted Wahhabi, attracted the attention of the orthodox theologians, through whose influence he was expelled from the sacred city. Persecution deepened his religious convictions, and he returned to India a pronounced Wahhabi. He soon gained a large number of disciples, and in 1826 A.D. he preached a Jihád against the Sikhs. This war was not a success. In the year 1831 the Wahhabis were suddenly attacked by the Sikhs, under Sher Singh, and Sayyid Ahmad was slain.

This did not, however, prevent the spread of Wahhabi principles, for he had the good fortune to leave behind him an enthusiastic disciple. This man, Muhammad Ismá'íl, was born near Delhi in the year 1781 A.D. He was a youth of good abilities and soon mastered the subjects which form the curriculum of a liberal education amongst Musalmáns. His first preaching was in a Mosque at Delhi on Tauhíd (Unity), and against Shirk (Polytheism). He now met with Sayyid Ahmad who soon acquired great influence over his new disciple. Ismá'íl told him one evening that he could not offer up his prayers with Huzúr-i-Kalb, presence of heart. The Sayyid took him to his room where he instructed him to repeat the first of the prayers after him, and then to conclude them alone. He did so, and was able to so abstract himself in the contemplation of God that he remained engaged in prayer till the morning. Henceforward he was a devoted adherent of his spiritual teacher. In the public discussions, which now often took place, none were a match for Ismá'íl. This fervent preacher of Wahhabiism is now chiefly remembered by his great work, the Takwiat-ul-Imán, the book from which the account of Wahhabi doctrine given in this chapter is taken.
If I make no special reference to the quotations given, it will be known that my authority for the statements thus made is Muhammad Ismá'íl, the most famous of all Sayyid Ahmad's disciples. This book was followed by the Sirát-ul-Mustaqím, said to have been written by one of Ismá'íl's followers. Wahhabi doctrines are now spread throughout India. In the South there is not much religious excitement or inquiry, yet Wahhabis are to be found there.It was and is a remarkable movement. In one sense it is a struggle against the traditionalism of later ages, but in no sense can it be said that the Wahhabis reject Tradition. They acknowledge as the foundation of the faith—first, the Qurán; secondly, the Traditions which are recorded on the authority of the Companions, and also the Ijmá' of the Companions, that is, all things on which they were unanimous in opinion or in practice. Thus to the Wahhabi as to the Sunní, Muhammad is in all his acts and words a perfect guide.

So far from Wahhabiism being a move onward because it is a return to first principles, it rather binds the fetters of Islám more tightly. It does not originate anything new, it offers no relaxation from a system which looks upon the Qurán and the Traditions as a perfect and complete law, social and political, moral and religious.

The Wahhabi places the doctrine of the "Tauhíd," or Unity, in a very prominent position. It is true that all Musalmán sects put this dogma in the first rank, but Wahhabis set their faces against practices common to the other sects, because they consider that they obscure this fundamental doctrine. It is this which brings them into collision with other Musalmáns. The greatest of all sins is Shirk (i.e. the ascribing of plurality to the Deity). A Mushrik (Polytheist) is one who so offends. All Musalmáns consider Christians to be Polytheists, and all Wahhabis consider all other Musalmáns also to be Polytheists, because they look to the Prophet for intercession, pray to saints, visit shrines, and do other unlawful acts.

The Takwiat-ul-Imán says that "two things are necessary in religion—to know God as God, and the Prophet as the Prophet." The two fundamental bases of the faith are the "Doctrine of the Tauhíd (Unity) and obedience to the Sunnat." The two great errors to be avoided are Shirk (Polytheism) and Bida't (Innovation). As Bida't is looked upon as evil, it is somewhat difficult to see what hope of progress can be placed upon this latest phase of Muhammadan revival.

Shirk is defined to be of four kinds: Shirk-ul-'Ilm, ascribing knowledge to others than God; Shirk-ut-tasarruf, ascribing power to others than God; Shirk-ul-'Ibádat, offering worship to created things; Shirk-ul-'ádat, the performance of ceremonies which imply reliance on others than God.

The first, Shirk-ul-'Ilm, is illustrated by the statement that prophets and holy men have no knowledge of secret things unless as revealed to them by God. Thus some wicked persons made a charge against 'Áyesha. The Prophet was troubled in mind, but knew not the truth of the matter till God made it known to him. To ascribe, then, power to soothsayers, astrologers, and saints is Polytheism. "All who pretend to have a knowledge of hidden things, such as fortune-tellers, soothsayers and interpreters of dreams, as well as those who profess to be inspired are all liars." Again, "should any one take the name of any saint, or invoke his aid in the time of need, instead of calling on God, or use his name in attacking an enemy, or read passages to propitiate him, or make him the object of contemplation—it is Shirk-ul-'Ilm."

The second kind, Shirk-ut-tasarruf, is to suppose that any one has power with God. He who looks up to any one as an intercessor with God commits Shirk. Thus: "But they who take others beside Him as lords, saying, 'We only serve them that they may bring us near God,'—God will judge between them (and the Faithful) concerning that wherein they are at variance." (Súra xxxix. 4.) Intercession may be of three kinds. For example, a criminal is placed before the King. The Vizier intercedes. The King, having regard to the rank of the Vizier, pardons the offender. This is called Shafá'at-i-Wajahat, or 'intercession from regard.' But to suppose that God so esteems the rank of any one as to pardon a sinner merely on account of it is Shirk. Again, the Queen or the Princes intercede for the criminal. The King, from love to them, pardons him. This is called Shafá'at-i-muhabbat, or 'intercession from affection.'

But to consider that God so loves any one as to pardon a criminal on his account is to give that loved one power, and this is Shirk, for such power is not possible in the Court of God. "God may out of His bounty confer on His favourite servants the epithets of Habíb—favourite, or Khalíl—friend, &c.; but a servant is but a servant, no one can put his foot outside the limits of servitude, or rise beyond the rank of a servant." Again, the King may himself wish to pardon the offender, but he fears lest the majesty of the law should be lowered. The Vizier perceives the King's wish, and intercedes. This intercession is lawful. It is called Shafá'at-i-ba-izn—intercession by permission, and such power Muhammad will have at the day of Judgment. Wahhabis hold that he has not that power now, though all other Musalmáns consider that he has, and in consequence (in Wahhabi opinion) commit the sin of Shirk-ut-tasarruf. The Wahhabis quote the following passages in support of their view. "Who is he that can intercede with Him but by His own permission." (Súra ii. 256) "Say: Intercession is wholly with God! His the kingdoms of the heavens and of the earth." (Súra xxxix. 46). They also say: "whenever an allusion is made in the Qurán, or the Traditions to the intercession of certain prophets or apostles, it is this kind of intercession and no other that is meant."

The third Shirk is prostration before any created beings with the idea of worshipping it. It also includes perambulating the shrines of departed saints. Thus: "Prostration, bowing down, standing with folded arms, spending money in the name of an individual, fasting out of respect to his memory, proceeding to a distant shrine in a pilgrim's garb and calling out the name of the saint whilst so going is Shirk-ul-'Ibádat." It is wrong "to cover the grave with a sheet (ghiláf), to say prayers at the shrine, to kiss any particular stone, to rub the mouth and breast against the walls of the shrine, &c." This is a stern condemnation of the very common practice of visiting the tombs of saints and of some of the special practices of the pilgrimage to Mecca. All such practices as are here condemned are called Ishrák fi'l 'Ibádat—'association in worship.'

The fourth Shirk is the keeping up of superstitious customs, such as the Istikhára—seeking guidance from beads &c., trusting to omens, good or bad, believing in lucky and unlucky days, adopting such names as 'Abd-un-Nabi (slave of the Prophet), and so on. In fact, the denouncing of such practices and calling them Shirk brings Wahhabiism into daily contact with the other sects, for scarcely any people in the world are such profound believers in the virtue of charms and the power of astrologers as Musalmáns. The difference between the first and fourth Shirk, the Shirk-ul-'Ilm and the Shirk-ul-'ádat, seems to be that the first is the belief, say in the knowledge of a soothsayer, and the second the habit of consulting him.

To swear by the name of the Prophet, of 'Alí, of the Imáms, or of Pírs (Leaders) is to give them the honour due to God alone. It is Ishrák fi'l adab—'Shirk in association.'

Another common belief which Wahhabis oppose is that Musalmáns can perform the Hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca), say prayers, read the Qurán, abide in meditation, give alms, and do other good works, the reward of which shall be credited to a person already dead. Amongst other Musalmáns it is a common practice to read the Qurán in the belief that, if done with such an intention, the reward will pass to the deceased object of the desire. Wahábís entirely object to this.

The above technical exposition of Wahhabi tenets shows how much stress they lay on a rigid adherence to the doctrine of the "Unity." "Lá-il-láha, Il-lal-lá-hu" (there is no God but God) is an eternal truth. Yet to the Musalmán God is a Being afar off. In rejecting the Fatherhood of God he has accepted as the object of his worship, hardly of his affections, a Being despotic in all He does, arbitrary in all His ways. He has accepted the position of a slave instead of that of a son. Wahhabiism emphasizes the ideas which flow from the first article of the Muslim creed. But on this subject we prefer to let Palgrave speak. He of all men knew the Wahhabi best, and he, at least, can be accused of no sectarian bias. The extract is rather long, but will repay perusal; indeed, the whole passage from which this extract is taken should be read.

"'There is no God but God,' are words simply tantamount in English to the negation of any deity save one alone; and thus much they certainly mean in Arabic, but they imply much more also. Their full sense is, not only to deny absolutely and unreservedly all plurality whether of nature or of person in the Supreme Being, not only to establish the unity of the Unbegetting and the Unbegot, in all its simple and incommunicable oneness, but besides this, the words, in Arabic and among Arabs, imply that this one Supreme Being is the only Agent, the only Force, the only Act existing throughout the universe, and leave to all beings else, matter or spirit, instinct or intelligence, physical or moral, nothing but pure unconditional passiveness, alike in movement or in quiescence, in action or in capacity.

Hence in this one sentence is summed up a system which, for want of a better name, I may be permitted to call the 'Pantheism of Force.' 'God is One in the totality of omnipotent and omnipresent action, which acknowledges no rule, standard, or limit, save one sole and absolute will. He communicates nothing to His creatures, for their seeming power and act ever remain His alone, and in return He receives nothing from them.' 'It is His singular satisfaction to let created beings continually feel that they are nothing else than His slaves, that they may the better acknowledge His superiority.' 'He Himself, sterile in His inaccessible height, neither loving nor enjoying aught save His own and self-measured decree, without son, companion, or councillor, is no less barren for Himself than for His creatures, and His own barrenness and lone egoism in Himself is the cause and rule of His indifferent and unregarding despotism around.'

Palgrave allows that such a notion of the Deity is monstrous, but maintains that it is the "truest mirror of the mind and scope of the writer of the Book" (Qurán), and that, as such, it is confirmed by authentic Tradition and learned commentaries. At all events, Palgrave possessed the two essential qualifications for a critic of Islam—a knowledge of the literature, and intercourse with the people. So far as my experience goes I have never seen any reason to differ from Palgrave's statement. Men are often better than their creeds. Even the Prophet was not always consistent. There are some redeeming points in Islám. But the root idea of the whole is as described above, and from it no system can be deduced which will grow in grace and beauty as age after age rolls by.

The Arab proverb states that "The worshipper models himself on what he worships."Thus a return to "first principles," sometimes proclaimed as the hope of Turkey, is but the "putting back the hour-hand of Islám" to the place where indeed Muhammad always meant it to stay, for

"Islám is in its essence stationary, and was framed thus to remain. Sterile, like its God, lifeless like its first Principle and supreme Original in all that constitutes true life—for life is love, participation, and progress, and of these the Quránic Deity has none—it justly repudiates all change, all advance, all development."

Muhammad Ibn 'Abd-ul Wahháb was a man of great intellectual power and vigour. He could pierce through the mists of a thousand years, and see with an eagle eye how one sect and another had laid accretions on the Faith. He had the rare gift of intuition, and could see that change (Bida't) and progress were alien to the truth. This recognition of his ability is due to him; but what a sad prostration of great gifts it was to seek to arrest, by the worship of the letter, all hope of progress, and to make "the starting-point of Islám its goal." That he was a good Musalmán in so doing no one can doubt, but that his work gives any hope of the rise of an enlightened form of Islám no one who really has studied Islám can believe.

Wahhabiism simply amounts to this, that while it denounces all other Musalmáns as polytheists, it enforces the Sunnat of the Prophet with all its energy. It breaks down shrines, but insists on the necessity of a pilgrimage to a black stone at Mecca. It forbids the use of a rosary, but attaches great merit to counting the ninety-nine names of God on the fingers. It would make life unsocial. The study of the Fine Arts with the exception of Architecture can find no place in it. Ismá'íl quotes with approval the following Tradition. "'Áyesha said: 'I purchased a carpet on which were some figures.

The Prophet stood in the doorway and looked displeased.' I said: 'O messenger of God, I repent to God and His Messenger; what fault have I committed that you do not enter?' His Highness then said: 'What is this carpet?' I replied; 'I have bought it for you to sit and rest upon.' Then the messenger of God replied: 'Verily, the maker of pictures will be punished on the day of resurrection, when God will desire them to bring them to life. A house which contains pictures is not visited by the angels.'" In a Tradition quoted by Ibn 'Abbás, the Prophet classes artists with murderers and parricides. Wahhabiism approves of all this, and thus by forbidding harmless enjoyments it would make society "an organised hypocrisy." It would spread abroad a spirit of contempt for all mankind except its own followers, and, where it had the power, it would force its convictions on others at the point of the sword.

Wahhabiism was reform after a fashion, in one direction; in the history of Islám there have been attempts at reform in other directions; there will yet be such attempts, but so long as the Qurán and the Sunnat (or, in the case of the Shía'h, its equivalent) are to form, as they have hitherto done for every sect, the sole law to regulate all conditions and states of life, enlightened and continued progress is impossible. The deadening influence of Islám is the greatest obstacle the Church of God has to overcome in her onward march; its immobility is the bane of many lands; connection with it is the association of the living with the dead; to speak of it, as some do, as if it were a sort of sister religion to Christianity, is but to show deplorable ignorance where ignorance is inexcusable. Thus it is plain that Musalmáns are not all of one heart and soul.In the next chapter I hope to show that Islám is a very dogmatic and complex system in spite of the simple form of its creed.