Free The Great Theft: Wrestling Islam From the Extremists by Khaled M. Abou el Fadl

set up by groups that butchered hostages in Iraq. It is not all that surprising that these extremists appear to have been directly influenced by the writings of ‘Abd al-Wahhab and by his unabashed efforts to defend the credibility of his- torical reports that justified murder and torture.

    Considering the dismissive attitude of the Wahhabis toward Islamic history and law and the whole classical tradition, it is not surprising that the movement came under severe criticism by a considerable number of contemporaneous scholars— most notably, ‘Abd al-Wahhab’s own brother, Sulayman, and reportedly, ‘Abd al-Wahhab’s father as well. Sulayman, Muhammad bin ‘Abd al-Wahhab’s brother, wrote a full trea- tise dedicated to criticizing the manners, education, and teach- ings of his puritanical brother. The mufti of the Hanbali in Mecca, Ibn Humaydi (d. 1295/1878), a man of considerable note and authority at the time, reported that Muhammad bin ‘Abd al-Wahhab’s father was upset with his son because Muhammad bin ‘Abd al-Wahhab was not a good student of Islamic jurisprudence and was arrogantly defiant toward his teachers. In fact, the younger ‘Abd al-Wahhab did not com- plete his Shari’a studies, and it is not clear whether he dropped out of law school or was expelled. Ibn Humaydi claimed that, fearing the wrath of his father, Muhammad bin ‘Abd al- Wahhab did not dare to start preaching his puritan message until after his father’s death. 24
    On the whole, the criticisms leveled against ‘Abd al-Wahhab and his followers by their contemporaries were not that sur- prising. The Wahhabis were criticized for showing very little regard for Islamic history, historical monuments, shrines and relics, the Islamic intellectual tradition, or the sanctity of Mus- lim life. 25 ‘Abd al-Wahhab’s brother, as well as other critics, claimed that ‘Abd al-Wahhab was an ill-educated, intolerant man who was ignorantly and arrogantly dismissive of any thoughts or individuals that disagreed with him. 26 Sulayman complained that except among the most extreme and fringe fanatical elements, his brother’s views were without precedent in Islamic history. For instance, Sulayman asserted, the major- ity of the scholars of Islam refrained from accusing the ratio-

    nalists and mystics of heresy, and instead debated them peace- fully. 27
    ‘Abd al-Wahhab, according to his brother’s treatise, did not concern himself with reading or understanding the works of the juristic predecessors. And yet, while ‘Abd al-Wahhab was dismissive toward the works of most jurists, he treated the words of some, such as Hanbali jurist Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728/1328), as if they were Divinely revealed, not to be ques- tioned or debated. But even then, ‘Abd al-Wahhab was very selective with the works of Ibn Taymiyya, citing only what he liked and ignoring the rest. Rather tellingly, Ibn Humaydi, a strong admirer of Ibn Taymiyya as well, repeated the same ac- cusation against ‘Abd al-Wahhab. 28
    Sulayman and other scholars noted the irony in the fact that ‘Abd al-Wahhab and his followers, while prohibiting taqlid (imitating or following the precedents of jurists), ended up affirming and even mandating it, but in a different form. They prohibited the practice of taqlid as far as it related to ju- rists whom they did not like, but demanded that Muslims im- itate Wahhabi thinking blindly and unthinkingly, a double standard that Sulayman condemned. Effectively, Sulayman ar- gued, the Wahhabis acted as if the only actual measure of commitment to Islam was to follow and obey them, since if a Muslim disagreed with them, they deemed that Muslim a heretic by definition. 29 Indeed, the Wahhabis used to label themselves al-Muslimun (the Muslims) or al-Muwahidun (the monotheists), intimating that those who did not accept their creed were neither Muslims nor monotheists. 30
    In short, Sulayman insisted that the Wahhabi methodology was based on a profound sense of