Central

Media Office

Issue No : 1434 AH /23 Wednesday, 17 Rabi-ul Thani 1434 AH 27-02-2013 CE

Dear Administration of the site: "Islam Question and Answer"

Assalamu Alaykum wa Rahmat Allahu wa Barakatu,

You published on your site an answer to the question titled, "Did the Sheikh
Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab defect from the Ottoman Caliphate, and was he a
cause of its downfall?" and the answer quoted from the book: How the Khilafah was
Destroyed by the Scholar Sheikh Abdul-Qadeem Zalloum. We found a number of important
points that need to be clarified, and we hope you will kindly publish our comments regarding
the answer on your site…
May Allah award you a great reward on our behalf.

Othman Bakhash
Director of the Central Media Office
of Hizb ut Tahrir

------------------------------------------

Bismillah ar-Rahman ar-Raheem

The Defection of Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab and the Saud Clan from the Ottoman
Caliphate

Alhamdulillah, the Lord of the Worlds, a very good, blessed thanks, that fills the
Heavens and the Earth and beyond, and may Allah's peace and blessings be on the one
who was sent as a Mercy to the Worlds, Muhammad bin Abdullah, and on his family and
companions, and those who supported him and followed him beneficently until the day of
Judgment, having said that…
It is reported on the website Islam Question and Answer, under the supervision of
Sheikh Muhammad Saleh al-Munjid an answer to the question:
Question: Did the Sheikh Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab defect from the Ottoman
Caliphate and was he a cause of its downfall?
Some people slander Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab, may Allah have mercy on his
soul, and accuse him of warring against the Ottoman Islamic Caliphate and against the
Khaleefah of the Muslims; therefore, he is an enemy against Muslims. And controversy
revolves around this issue, so is this true? How can anyone fight the Amir of the Muslims,
even though the Khaleefah prays, implements Zakat and such? They also claim that he
colluded with the British army, and fought with them against the Muslims. Please give me a
detailed answer about this historical issue, and that you clarify the truth for me. Who can we
believe? End of Question.

HT Official Website
Tel\Fax. : 009611307594 Mobile: 0096171724043 www.hizb-ut-tahrir.org
HT Media Website
E-mail: media@hizb-ut-tahrir.info www.hizb-ut-tahrir.info
 We will present the answer paragraph by paragraph, and then examine it and comment
with what Allah commended us, asking that Allah Almighty present the truth by our words
and make us see the truth as truth and false as false and let us steer clear of the false, O
Allah, Ameen.

The first paragraph of the answer:

Sheikh Abdul Aziz al-Abed al-Lateef said, "Some of the opponents of the Salafi claim
Imam Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab had defected the Ottoman Caliphate and in this had
split the Muslims and violated the obligation of obedience." [Claims of the Opponents of the
Call of Sheikh Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab, p. 233]
And he said, Abdul Qadeem Zalloum claims that "the Wahhabis, by the emergence of
their message, was a cause of the downfall of the Caliphate," saying, "the Wahhabis
created an entity in the Islamic State headed by Muhammad bin Saud and then by Abdul
Aziz, thus the British provided them with weapons and funding and they were motivated on
a doctrinal (Math’hab) basis to seize the Islamic lands under the control of the Khilafah; that
is, they took up arms against the Khaleefah and fought the Islamic army; the army of the
Amir of the Muslims, instigated and supported by the British." [How the Caliphate was
Destroyed, p. 10]
Before we deliver the answer about Sheikh Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab's suspected
defection from the Caliphate state, it is appropriate that we remember how the Imam Sheikh
believed in the obligatory nature of hearing and obeying the Muslim's leaders, be they
righteous or immoral, as long as they did not order a sin because obedience is only for what
is good.
The Imam Sheikh said in a letter to the people of al-Qassim: "I see that it is obligatory to
hear and obey the leaders of the Muslims, the righteous and the immoral, as long as they
do not order a sin, and whoever has been designated the Khilafah, after the people agreed
on him and were satisfied with him and were defeated by his sword until he became the
Khaleefah, then it becomes obligatory to obey him and it becomes forbidden to oppose him.
[Compiled Publications of the Sheikh, 5/11]
He also says, "The third origin: It is of good compilation is to hear and obey who rules
us even if he were a black Abyssinian." [The Compiled Publications of the Sheikh (394/1)
via The Opponents' Claims, p. 233-4].
End of the first paragraph

We shall address the following issues of the fatwa analytically, namely:

First: The obligatory nature of hearing and obeying the Khaleefah.
Second: The forbidden nature of opposing the Khaleefah and the examination of the
Sheikh's opinion in the case the Khaleefah commands a sinful act, compared to the text
of the hadith not to oppose the Khaleefah except in the case of blatant disbelief (Kufr).
Third: The failure of the fatwa to address the issue of the unity of the Islamic State and
the forbidden nature of bayah to more than one Khaleefah at the same time.
This paragraph contains an opinion about the obligatory nature of hearing and obeying
the leaders of the Muslims, the righteous and the immoral, as long as they do not order a
sin, and it is without a doubt that this is an argument against Sheikh ibn Abdul Wahhab not
an argument for him; from your own mouth, I condemn you. He had issued a fatwa stating
the forbidden nature of defecting from the Khaleefah, and then he defected against him.
Details will demonstrate that he defected from him until he reached Homs and Aleppo, and

HT Official Website
Tel\Fax. : 009611307594 Mobile: 0096171724043 www.hizb-ut-tahrir.org
HT Media Website
E-mail: media@hizb-ut-tahrir.info www.hizb-ut-tahrir.info
 Central
Media Office

Issue No : 1434 AH /23 Wednesday, 17 Rabi-ul Thani 1434 AH 27-02-2013 CE

he rebelled against him in Iraq, Kuwait and other places that were under direct control of
the Khaleefah via his governors, just as every Amir had entrusted governors.

The second issue of that we read in the fatwa is what deals with the lack of obedience
when ordered to carry out a sin, and the absence of explanation about the forbidden nature
of opposing when ordered to carry out a sin, but only if he shows blatant disbelief.
What obligates the opposition of the Khaleefah is not simply him ordering a sin, for if he
orders a sin then there is no obedience to him because of the Prophet's (saw) saying,
“ِ‫حِ اٌخاٌك‬١‫ ِعص‬ٟ‫قٍ ف‬ٍٛ‫" ”ال طاعحَ ٌّخ‬There is no obedience to the created in disobedience to
the Creator.” [al-Albani] However, opposing him is forbidden except if he shows blatant
Kufr, with clear proof from Allah, narrated by Muslim on the authority of 'Auf bin Malik that
the Messenger of Allah (saw) said,
ُٕٙٔٛ‫رٍؼ‬ٚ ،ُ‫ٔى‬ٛ‫يجغض‬ٚ ُٙٔٛ‫ششاس أئّزىُ اٌزيٓ رجغض‬ٚ ،ُٙ‫ْ ػٍي‬ٍّٛ‫رُص‬ٚ ُ‫ْ ػٍيى‬ٍّٛ‫يص‬ٚ ،ُ‫ٔى‬ٛ‫يذج‬ٚ ُٙٔٛ‫«خيبس أئّزىُ اٌزيٓ رذج‬
‫ا‬ٛ٘‫ٔٗ فبوش‬ٛ٘‫الرىُ شيئبً رىش‬ٚ ِٓ ُ‫إرا سأيز‬ٚ ،‫ا فيىُ اٌصالح‬ِٛ‫ ِب ألب‬،‫ ال‬:‫ي اهلل أفال ٕٔبثزُ٘ ثبٌغيف؟ فمبي‬ٛ‫ يب سع‬:ً‫ لي‬،ُ‫ٔى‬ٕٛ‫يٍؼ‬ٚ
.»‫ا يذاً ِٓ عبػخ‬ٛ‫ال رٕـضػ‬ٚ ٍّٗ‫ػ‬
“The best of your rulers are those whom you love and who love you, who invoke
God's blessings upon you and you invoke His blessings upon them. And the worst of
your rulers are those whom you hate and who hate you and whom you curse and
who curse you. It was asked (by those present): Shouldn't we overthrow them with
the help of the sword? He said: No, as long as they establish prayer among you. If
you find anything detestable in them, you should hate their administration, but do
not withdraw ourselves from their obedience.” This is explicit in describing the good
Imams and the evil Imams, and also explicit in forbidding fighting them as long as they
implement the Deen, because implementing Salah is a reference for implementing the
Deen and ruling by it; narrated by Bukhari on the authority of Junada bin Abi Umaiya,
ٍُ‫ع‬ٚ ٗ‫ ِشيض لٍٕب أصٍذه اهلل دذس ثذذيش يٕفؼه اهلل ثٗ عّؼزٗ ِٓ إٌجي صٍى اهلل ػٍي‬ٛ٘ٚ ‫”دخٍٕب ػٍى ػجبدح ثٓ اٌصبِذ‬
‫ػغشٔب‬ٚ ‫ِىشٕ٘ب‬ٚ ‫اٌغبػخ في ِٕشغٕب‬ٚ ‫ فمبي فيّب أخز ػٍيٕب أْ ثبيؼٕب ػٍى اٌغّغ‬.ٖ‫عٍُ فجبيؼٕب‬ٚ ٗ‫ دػبٔب إٌجي صٍى اهلل ػٍي‬:‫لبي‬
“ْ‫ادبً ػٕذوُ ِٓ اهلل فيٗ ثش٘ب‬ٛ‫ا وفشاً ث‬ٚ‫أْ ال ٕٔبصع األِش أٍ٘ٗ لبي إالّ أْ رش‬ٚ ‫َأصَ َشحً ػٍيٕب‬ٚ ‫يغشٔب‬ٚ
“We entered upon 'Ubada bin As-Samit while he was sick. We said, "May Allah make
you healthy. Will you tell us a Hadith you heard from the Prophet by which Allah may
make you benefit?” He said, "The Prophet called us and we gave him the Pledge of
allegiance for Islam, and among the conditions on which we took the Pledge from us,
was that we were to listen and obey (the orders) both at the time when we were
active and at the time when we were tired, and at our difficult time and at our ease
and to be obedient to the ruler and give him his right even if he did not give us our
right, and not to fight against him unless we noticed him having open Kufr (disbelief)
for which we would have a proof with us from Allah."
It is necessary to say that the aforementioned fatwas mention another greatly important
related issue; the obligation for the unification of the Muslims under the entity of an Islamic
State, and the forbiddance that there be two Khaleefahs in the Ummah, and not defect from
it, and every chief of a tribe not separate from the Islamic State and war against it.
There is the opinion of Sheikh bin Abdul Wahhab about hearing and obeying whoever
the people have agreed upon and are satisfied with and have been defeated with the
HT Official Website
Tel\Fax. : 009611307594 Mobile: 0096171724043 www.hizb-ut-tahrir.org
HT Media Website
E-mail: media@hizb-ut-tahrir.info www.hizb-ut-tahrir.info
 sword, and the problem deals with the sentiment of dominated by the sword with the
people's satisfaction of him, as if it was a requirement for the obligation of obedience and
the forbiddance of defection. This issue is not a requirement for the conditions of bayah of
the Khilafah, and it is not mentioned in the Hadeeths of the Mustafa (saw). Therefore, the
relationship between the ruler and the ruled is not a relationship of domination by the sword
or of dominating them until they are subjugated; to the contrary, the allegiance is a contract
of goodwill between the Ummah and the ruler based on consent and choice. It is reported
on Omar bin Khattab (ra) saying, as it is reported in The Book of the Major Classes by ibn
Sa'ad,
‫ٌيظ شذح‬ٚ ،ْ‫ال يضاي اإلعالَ ِٕيؼبً ِب اشزذ اٌغٍغب‬ٚ ،‫ثبثٗ اٌذك‬ٚ ‫صيك فذبئظ اإلعالَ اٌؼذي‬ٚ ‫ثبة‬ٚ ‫”أال إْ اإلعالَ دبئظ ِٕيغ‬
“‫أخزاً ثبٌؼذي‬ٚ ‫ٌىٓ لضبء ثبٌذك‬ٚ ‫ط‬ٛ‫ال ضشثبً ثبٌغ‬ٚ ‫اٌغٍغبْ لزالً ثبٌغيف‬
“Abdullah bin Omar said when they went to discuss the matter: Othman called
me {once may be twice} to make me part of their discussion, and by Allah I wouldn't
like to be part in it as I knew it was going to be what my father told me, and by Allah
he always told the truth, and when Othman insisted, I said: Oh people don't you
realize that you are electing an Amir while Amir al- Mu'mineen is still alive among
you, and after saying that, it felt like I had woken Omar up from the grave, then he
[Omar] said: Be patient ,and if some thing happens to me, let Suhaib lead you in your
salah for three nights, then agree on this matter among you, and whoever puts him
self a leader on you without your consultation then cut off his head.”
'Classes' by bin Sa'ad also reports that Umayr bin Sa'ad (ra) who Omar bin Khattab (ra)
had entrusted Homs to, used to say,
‫ٌيظ شذح‬ٚ ،ْ‫ال يضاي اإلعالَ ِٕيؼبً ِب اشزذ اٌغٍغب‬ٚ ،‫ثبثٗ اٌذك‬ٚ ‫صيك فذبئظ اإلعالَ اٌؼذي‬ٚ ‫ثبة‬ٚ ‫”أال إْ اإلعالَ دبئظ ِٕيغ‬
“‫أخزاً ثبٌؼذي‬ٚ ‫ٌىٓ لضبء ثبٌذك‬ٚ ‫ط‬ٛ‫ال ضشثبً ثبٌغ‬ٚ ‫اٌغٍغبْ لزالً ثبٌغيف‬
“Islam is indeed an impervious wall and a closed door, for the wall of Islam is justice
and its door is truth, and Islam will continue to be an impervious wall as long as
authority is intensified, and the intensification of authority is not in fighting with the
sword or beating with the whip, but in judging by truth and implementing in justice.”
With regards to the unity of the Muslims under one Khaleefah, Muslim reported in The
Book of Principality and the narration is by him, Nisa'ai, Abu Dawood, Ibn Majah, and
Ahmad, on the authority of Abdul Rahman bin Abdul Rab al-Ka'aba,
َُْٛ‫جزَِّؼ‬ْ ُِ ُ‫َإٌَبط‬ٚ ِ‫ظًِ اٌْىَ ْؼجَخ‬
ِ ‫ ْثِٓ اٌْؼَبصِ جَبٌِظٌ فِي‬ِٚ‫ػ ْجذُ اٌٍَِٗ ْثُٓ ػَّْش‬ َ ‫جذَ فَِئرَا‬ِ ْ‫ػ ْجذِ سَةِ اٌْىَ ْؼجَخِ لَبيَ دَخٍَْذُ اٌَّْغ‬ َ ِٓ‫ػ ْجذِ اٌشَدْ َِّٓ ْث‬ َ ْٓ‫ػ‬ َ
ِ‫ػْٓ إٌَبس‬َ َ‫ َِْٓ أَدَتَ َأْْ يُضَدْضَح‬:‫ إٌى أْ لبي‬...ٍ‫َعٍَََُ فِي عَفَش‬ٚ ِْٗ‫يِ اٌٍَِٗ صٍََى اٌٍَُٗ ػٍََي‬ُٛ‫ ُوَٕب َِغَ سَع‬:َ‫ُُْ فَجٍََغْذُ إٌَِيِْٗ فَمَبي‬ٙ‫ػٍََيِْٗ فََؤ َر ْي ُز‬
َ‫َ َِْٓ ثَبيَغَ إَِِبًِب فََؤػْغَبُٖ صَفْمَخ‬ٚ ِْٗ‫َ ٌْيَؤْدِ إٌَِى إٌَبطِ اٌَزِ ي يُذِتُ َأْْ ُي ْؤرَى إٌَِي‬ٚ ِ‫َِْ اٌْآخِش‬ٛ‫َا ٌْ َي‬ٚ ٌٍَِٗ‫َ ُيؤْ ُِِٓ ثِب‬ُٛ٘ َٚ ُُٗ‫جَٕخَ فَ ٍْزَ ْؤرِِٗ َِ ِٕ َيز‬
َ ٌْ‫خًَ ا‬
َ ْ‫ ُيذ‬َٚ
“ِ ‫ػ ُٕكَ اٌْآخَش‬
ُ ‫ا‬ُٛ‫عزَغَبعَ فَِئْْ جَبءَ آخَشُ ُيَٕب ِصػُُٗ فَبضْ ِشث‬ ْ ‫صََّ َشحَ لَ ٍْجِِٗ فَ ٍْيُغِؼُْٗ ِإْْ ا‬َٚ ِٖ‫َي ِذ‬
“I entered the masjid and Abdullah bin Amru bin al-As was sitting in the shade of
the Ka'aba and the people were gathered around him, so I approached and sat with
him and he said: 'We were with the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him,
traveling … and he said: 'Whoever would like to slide past the fire and enter the
Jannah then let him die while he is a believer in Allah and the Last Day, and he
should bring to the people what he would like to be brought to him, and whoever
pledges allegiance to an Imam and obeyed him with the deal of his hand and the fruit
of his heart, then he should obey him if he can and if someone else comes to
challenge him then strike the neck of the latter.'” And Muslim narrated on the authority
of Arfajeh who said,
“ٍٖٛ‫ يفشق جّبػزىُ فبلز‬ٚ‫ أ‬،ُ‫ادذ يشيذ أْ يشك ػصبو‬ٚ ً‫أِشوُ جّيغ ػٍى سج‬ٚ ُ‫”ِٓ أربو‬
“I heard the Prophet (saw) say: “Whoever comes to you and your command is
under one man who wants to split your stick, or separate your group, then kill him.”
And Muslim narrated in The Book of Principality on the authority of Abi Saidin al-Khudriji
HT Official Website
Tel\Fax. : 009611307594 Mobile: 0096171724043 www.hizb-ut-tahrir.org
HT Media Website
E-mail: media@hizb-ut-tahrir.info www.hizb-ut-tahrir.info
 Central
Media Office

Issue No : 1434 AH /23 Wednesday, 17 Rabi-ul Thani 1434 AH 27-02-2013 CE

who said, "‫َُّب‬ْٕٙ ِِ َ‫ا اٌْآخَش‬ٍُُٛ‫يِغَ ٌِخٍَِي َفزَ ْيِٓ فَب ْلز‬ُٛ‫ "ِإرَا ث‬The Prophet (saw) said, 'If allegiance is pledged
to two Khaleefahs, then kill the latter.'” and here the statement is directed to all Muslims
there can not be more than one Khaleefah over them, and this is textual evidence for the
forbidden nature of there being more than one Khaleefah, and the obligation for there to be
one Khaleefah.
And the reality of someone who disputes the Khaleefah on an area of land announcing
that he will not subject to the authority of the Khaleefah, and that he will establish rule on
that area; his situation is that he has placed himself an Imam over the Muslims, and is in the
place of the Khaleefah even if he does not name himself a Khaleefah. The appointment of
governors and workers over regions is the work of the Khaleefah, and his responsibility
entrusted upon by the Shara', and the Prophet (saw) used to appoint the workers and
governors, and that continued throughout the years of the rightly guided Khulafah ar-
Rashideen after him. Therefore, it is not acceptable for a tribe to separate from the Islamic
State and appoint itself its guardian, and then this guardian secedes the land from the
Khaleefah, taking land under his authority; tearing it out from the authority of the Khaleefah,
for this is without a doubt the actions of someone who sees himself as the Khaleefah of the
Muslims.

Refer to the confirmation found in Saudi records:

The relationship of the Saudi state with ash-Sham:
The sources of the Najd suggest that the Iman Abdul Aziz bin Muhammad ordered
some of his forces in the year 1208 AH/1793 CE to go to Dumat al- Jandal, at the outskirts
of ash-Sham, and to fight its inhabitants, and that may have been to test the power of
Ottomans in ash-Sham. In the year 1212 AH/1797 CE, Hajilan bin Hamd, the Amir of
Qassim, headed an army from the Qassim family attacking the Valley of Shararat. Several
men were killed and their property and monies were looted.
These campaigns were able to spread the principles of the calls for reform in the area
and collect Zakah from the inhabitants. Six camels loaded with riyals arrived in the year
1218 AH from the people of ash-Sham. It is understood from that that the people of valleys
in ash-Sham were under the political and religious authority of Dari'a (a city near Riyad),
and not to the governors of ash-Sham.
End quote from Desert Warrior Encyclopedia

So as we see, the Zakat that used to be paid to the governors of ash-Sham on behalf of
the Khaleefah, had been given to Dari'a, so is that anything other than the actions of
someone who sees himself as the Khaleefah of the Muslims? And is there any clearer
evidence that he had defied the Khaleefah for his work and responsibility, and defied him
over the lands that were torn from him and subjected to his authority instead of the
Khaleefah’s authority?
On the authority of Arfajah on the Prophet (saw) said,
.ٍُ‫اٖ ِغ‬ٚ‫ٖ ثبٌغيف وبئٕب ِٓ وبْ “ س‬ٛ‫ فبضشث‬،‫٘ي جّيغ‬ٚ ‫ فّٓ أساد أْ يفشق أِش ٘زٖ األِخ‬،‫ٕ٘بد‬ٚ ٌ‫ْ َٕ٘بد‬ٛ‫”إٔٗ عزى‬

HT Official Website
Tel\Fax. : 009611307594 Mobile: 0096171724043 www.hizb-ut-tahrir.org
HT Media Website
E-mail: media@hizb-ut-tahrir.info www.hizb-ut-tahrir.info
 “I have heard the Messenger of Allah say: 'Different evils will make their appearance
in the near future. Anyone who tries to disrupt the affairs of this Ummah while they
are united you should strike him with the sword whoever he be,'” [narrated by Muslim]
Imam Nawawi in the Sahih Muslim commentary said,
‫ب‬ٙ‫يذشَ ػٍيٗ عٍج‬ٚ ،‫ب‬ٙ‫فبء ث‬ٌٛ‫يذشَ ا‬ٚ ،‫ثيؼخ اٌضبٔي ثبعٍخ‬ٚ ،‫ب‬ٙ‫فبء ث‬ٌٛ‫يجت ا‬ٚ ‫ي صذيذخ‬ٚ‫ فجيؼخ األ‬،‫يغ ٌخٍيفخ ثؼذ خٍيفخ‬ٛ‫” إرا ث‬
‫اآلخش في‬ٚ ً‫ أدذّ٘ب في ثٍذ اإلِبَ إٌّفص‬ٚ‫ أ‬،‫ ثٍذ‬ٚ‫اء وبٔب في ثٍذيٓ أ‬ٛ‫ع‬ٚ ،ٓ‫ أَ جبٍ٘ي‬،‫ي‬ٚ‫ا ٌٍضبٔي ػبٌّيٓ ثؼمذ األ‬ٚ‫اء ػمذ‬ٛ‫ع‬ٚ
“.‫اء ارغؼذ داس اإلعالَ أَ ال‬ٛ‫ادذ ع‬ٚ ‫ص أْ يؼمذ ٌخٍيفزيٓ في ػصش‬ٛ‫ارفك اٌؼٍّبء ػٍى أٔٗ ال يج‬ٚ ....ٖ‫غيش‬
“If allegiance has been pledged to two Khaleefahs, then the allegiance to the first
is correct and has to be kept, and the allegiance to second is null and it is forbidden
to keep it, and it is forbidden to request it even if the persons who made the contract
with the first were two scholars or two ignorant people, or in one land or the same
land, or if the first was in the land of the separated Imam and the second was in a
different land… and the scholars have agreed that it is not permissible to make a
pact for two Khaleefahs at the same time whether the Dar al-Islam was expanded or
not.”
Contemplate his statement: "If they were in two lands or one land," meaning that even if
we accept for the sake of debate that those lands were not under the direct control of the
Caliphate state, then it is still forbidden to pledge allegiance to a Khaleefah in that land.
Also contemplate the consensus of the scholars about this, but despite that we still find
those who try to justify the Wahhabi's defection from the Khilafah.
With regard to the obligation that the Muslims gather under the authority of one Amir al
Mu'mineen,
َ‫ْ َذج‬٠َ‫َّْاَْ تِْٓ تُش‬١ٍَُ‫عْٓ س‬
َ « :ِٟ‫اٌذاس‬ٚ ‫أحّذ‬ٚ ٗ‫اتٓ ِاج‬ٚ ‫د‬ٚ‫ دا‬ٛ‫أت‬ٚ ٞ‫اٌرشِز‬ٚ ٌٗ ‫اٌٍفظ‬ٚ ‫ش‬١‫اٌس‬ٚ ‫اد‬ٙ‫ وراب اٌج‬ٟ‫ اإلِاَ ِسٍُ ف‬ٜٚ‫فمذ س‬
ِِْٓ َُٗ‫ََِْٓ َِع‬ٚ ٌٍَِٗ‫ ا‬َٜٛ‫ خَاصَرِِٗ تِرَ ْم‬ِٟ‫ْصَاُٖ ف‬ٚ‫َحٍ َأ‬٠ِ‫ْ سَش‬َٚ‫شٍ أ‬١ْ َ‫ ج‬ٍََٝ‫شًا ع‬١َِِ‫سٍَََُ إِرَا أََِشَ أ‬َٚ ِْٗ١ٍََ‫ اٌٍَُٗ ع‬ٍََٝ‫يُ اٌٍَِٗ ص‬ُٛ‫ وَاَْ َسس‬:َ‫ِٗ لَاي‬١ِ‫عَْٓ أَت‬
‫َإِرَا‬ٚ ‫ذًا‬١ٌَِٚ ‫ا‬ٍُُٛ‫ٌََا ذَمْر‬ٚ ‫ا‬ٍُُٛ‫ٌََا ذَّْث‬ٚ ‫ا‬ُٚ‫ٌََا ذَغْذِس‬ٚ ‫ا‬ٍُُٛ‫ٌََا ذَغ‬ٚ ‫ا‬ُٚ‫ا َِْٓ وَفَشَ تِاٌٍَِٗ اغْز‬ٍُِٛ‫ًِ اٌٍَِٗ لَاذ‬١ِ‫ سَث‬ِٟ‫ا تِاسُِْ اٌٍَِٗ ف‬ُٚ‫ْشًا ثَُُ لَايَ اغْز‬١َ‫َٓ خ‬١ٍِِّْ‫اٌْ ُّس‬
ِْْ‫ اٌِْئسٍَْاَِ فَئ‬ٌَِٝ‫ُُْ إ‬ُٙ‫ُُْ ثَُُ ادْع‬َْٕٙ‫َوُّفَ ع‬ٚ ُُِِْْٕٙ ًَْ‫نَ فَالْث‬ُٛ‫َُٓ َِا أَجَات‬ُٙ‫َر‬٠َ‫ْ خٍَِايٍ فَأ‬ٚ‫ ثٍََازِ خِصَايٍ َأ‬ٌَِٝ‫ُُْ إ‬ُٙ‫َٓ فَادْع‬١ِ‫نَ ِِْٓ اٌْ ُّشْشِو‬َٚ ‫دَ عَ ُذ‬١ِ‫ٌَم‬
َٓ٠ِ‫َاجِش‬ٌٍُِّْٙ ‫ُُْ َِا‬ٍََٙ‫ه ف‬ َ ٌَِ‫ا ر‬ٍَُٛ‫ُُْ إِْْ فَع‬ََٙٔ‫َأَخْثِشُُْْ٘ أ‬ٚ َٓ٠ِ‫َاجِش‬ٌُّْٙ‫ دَاسِ ا‬ٌَِٝ‫ُيِ ِِْٓ دَاسُِِْ٘ إ‬ٛ‫ح‬ َ َ‫ اٌر‬ٌَِٝ‫ُُْ إ‬ُٙ‫ُُْ ثَُُ ادْع‬َْٕٙ‫َوُّفَ ع‬ٚ ُُِِْْٕٙ ًَْ‫نَ فَالْث‬ُٛ‫أَجَات‬
ِٞ‫َجْش‬٠ ِٞ‫ُِْ حُىُُْ اٌٍَِٗ اٌَز‬ْٙ١ٍََ‫ ع‬ِٞ‫َجْش‬٠ َٓ١ٍِِّْ‫َْ وَأَعْشَابِ اٌْ ُّس‬ُُٛٔٛ‫َى‬٠ ََُُْٙٔ‫َ ا فَأَخْثِشُُْْ٘ أ‬ِِْٕٙ ‫ا‬ٌَُٛٛ‫ح‬ َ َ‫َر‬٠ َْْ‫ْا أ‬ٛ‫َٓ فَئِْْ أَ َت‬٠ِ‫َاجِش‬ٌُّْٙ‫ ا‬ٍََٝ‫ُِْ َِا ع‬ْٙ١ٍََ‫َع‬ٚ
َ‫ن‬ُٛ‫َحَ فَئِْْ ُُْ٘ أَجَات‬٠ْ‫ُُْ اٌْجِز‬ٍَْٙ‫ْا َفس‬ٛ‫َٓ فَئِْْ ُُْ٘ أَ َت‬١ٍِِّْ‫ا َِعَ اٌْ ُّس‬ُٚ‫ُجَاِ٘ذ‬٠ َْْ‫ءٌ إٌَِا أ‬ٟ ْ َ‫ءِ ش‬ٟ ْ َ‫َاٌْف‬ٚ ِ‫َّح‬١َِٕ‫ اٌْغ‬ِٟ‫ُُْ ف‬ٌَٙ ُُْٛ‫َى‬٠ ‫ٌََا‬ٚ َٓ١ِِِْٕ‫ اٌْ ُّؤ‬ٍََٝ‫ع‬
‫ِِٗ فٍََا‬١ِ‫َرَِِحَ َٔث‬ٚ ٌٍَِٗ‫ُُْ رَِِحَ ا‬ٌَٙ ًََ‫نَ أَْْ ذَجْع‬ُٚ‫َإِرَا حَاصَ ْشخَ أًََْ٘ حِصٍْٓ فَأَسَاد‬ٚ ٍُُِْْٙ‫َلَاذ‬ٚ ٌٍَِٗ‫ْا فَاسْرَعِْٓ تِا‬ٛ‫ُُْ فَئِْْ ُُْ٘ أَ َت‬َْٕٙ‫َوُّفَ ع‬ٚ ُُْْٕٙ ِِ ًَْ‫فَالْث‬
‫ا‬ُٚ‫َُْ ِِْٓ أَْْ ذُخْفِش‬ْٛ٘ َ‫َرََُِِ أَصْحَاتِىُُْ أ‬ٚ ُُْ‫ا رََِِّى‬ُٚ‫َرَِِحَ أَصْحَا ِتهَ فَئَِٔىُُْ َأْْ ذُخْفِش‬ٚ َ‫ُُْ رَِِ َره‬ٌَٙ ًَْ‫ٌََىِْٓ اجْع‬ٚ ِِٗ١ِ‫ٌََا رَِِحَ َٔث‬ٚ ٌٍَِٗ‫ُُْ رَِِحَ ا‬ٌَٙ ًَْ‫ذَجْع‬
َ‫ حُىْ ِّه‬ٍََٝ‫ُُْ ع‬ٌِْٙ‫ٌََىِْٓ أَْٔز‬ٚ ٌٍَِٗ‫ حُىُِْ ا‬ٍََٝ‫ُُْ ع‬ٌِْٙ‫ حُىْ ُِ اٌٍَِٗ فٍََا ذُْٕز‬ٍََٝ‫ُُْ ع‬ٌَِٙ‫نَ أَْْ ذُْٕز‬ُٚ‫َإِرَا حَاصَ ْشخَ أًََْ٘ حِصٍْٓ فَأَسَاد‬ٚ ٌُِِٗٛ‫َرَِِحَ َسس‬ٚ ٌٍَِٗ‫رَِِحَ ا‬
"‫ُِْ أََْ ٌَا‬ٙ١ِ‫ةُ حُىَُْ اٌٍَِٗ ف‬١ِ‫ أَذُص‬ِٞ‫فَئَِٔهَ ٌَا ذَذْس‬
Muslim has narrated in the book Jihad was-Sayr and the narration is his and for
Turmidhi, Abu Dawud, Ibn Sajah, Ahmad and al-Darmi, “It has been reported from
Sulaiman b. Buraid through his father that when the Messenger of Allah appointed
anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him to fear
Allah and to be good to the Muslims who were with him. He would say: Fight in the
name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah.
Make a holy war, do not embezzle the spoils; do not break your pledge; and do not
mutilate (the dead) bodies; do not kill the children. When you meet your enemies who
are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of
these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite
them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from
fighting against them. Then invite them to migrate from their lands to the land of
Muhairs and tell them that, if they do so, they shall have all the privileges and
obligations of the Muhajirs. If they refuse to migrate, tell them that they will have the
status of Bedouin Muslims and will be subjected to the Commands of Allah like other
Muslims, but they will not get any share from the spoils of war or Fai' except when

HT Official Website
Tel\Fax. : 009611307594 Mobile: 0096171724043 www.hizb-ut-tahrir.org
HT Media Website
E-mail: media@hizb-ut-tahrir.info www.hizb-ut-tahrir.info
 Central
Media Office

Issue No : 1434 AH /23 Wednesday, 17 Rabi-ul Thani 1434 AH 27-02-2013 CE

they actually fight with the Muslims (against the disbelievers). If they refuse to accept
Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold
off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them. When
you lay siege to a fort and the besieged appeal to you for protection in the name of
Allah and His Prophet, do not accord to them the guarantee of Allah and His Prophet,
but accord to them your own guarantee and the guarantee of your companions for it
is a lesser sin that the security given by you or your companions be disregarded
than that the security granted in the name of Allah and His Prophet be violated When
you besiege a fort and the besieged want you to let them out in accordance with
Allah's Command, do not let them come out in accordance with His Command, but
do so at your (own) command, for you do not know whether or not you will be able to
carry out Allah's behest with regard to them.”
And in the narration Abu Dawud and Ahmad, “Then invite them to migrate from their
lands to the land of the Muhajireen and inform them that, if they do so, they shall
have all the privileges and obligations of the Muhajireen. If they refuse to migrate, tell
them that they will have the status of Bedouin Muslims."
Because the Prophet (saw) ordered the attack of every land that refused to submit to
authority of the Muslims, and he warred them, whether the inhabitants were Muslims or
non- Muslims, with the evidence that he prohibited the killing of the inhabitants if they were
Muslims,
ٌَُْ ‫ًِْب‬ٛ‫َعٍَََُ وَبَْ ِإرَا غَضَا ثَِٕب َل‬ٚ ِْٗ‫ػْٓ َأَٔظِ ْثِٓ َِبٌِهٍ َأَْ اٌ َٕجِيَ صٍََى اٌٍَُٗ ػٍََي‬ َ ٍ‫ػْٓ دُ َّ ْيذ‬ َ « :ْ‫ وراب األرا‬ٟ‫ ف‬ٞ‫ اإلِاَ اٌثخاس‬ٜٚ‫س‬
‫ ِسٕذ‬ٟ‫ اإلِاَ أحّذ ف‬ٜٚ‫س‬ٚ ...»ُِْٙ‫َِإْْ ٌَُْ يَغَّْغْ َأرَأًب َأغَبسَ ػٍََ ْي‬ٚ ُُْْٕٙ ‫ػ‬ َ َ‫َ َيْٕظُشَ فَِئْْ عَِّغَ َأرَأًب وَف‬ٚ َ‫صجِخ‬ ْ ‫ ِثَٕب دَزَى ُي‬ُٚ‫يَ ُىْٓ يَغْض‬
‫ وَبَْ اٌ َٕجِيُ صٍََى‬:َ‫َعٍَََُ لَبي‬ٚ ِْٗ‫َوَبَْ ِِْٓ َأصْذَبةِ اٌ َٕجِيِ صٍََى اٌٍَُٗ ػٍََي‬ٚ ِٗ‫ػْٓ َأثِي‬ َ ٍَ‫ػصَب‬ ِ ُٓ‫جًٍ ِِْٓ ُِ َض ْيَٕخَ يُمَبيُ ٌَُٗ ا ْث‬
ُ َ‫ػْٓ س‬ َ « :ٓ١١‫اٌّى‬
»‫دذًا‬
َ َ‫ا أ‬ٍُُٛ‫ْ عَِّ ْؼزُُْ َُِٕب ِديًب فٍََب رَمْز‬ٚ‫جذًا َأ‬
ِ ْ‫يُ ِإرَا سََأ ْيزُُْ َِغ‬ُٛ‫َعٍَََُ ِإرَا ثَؼَشَ اٌغَ ِشيَخَ يَم‬ٚ ِْٗ‫اٌٍَُٗ ػٍََي‬
Narrated by Imam Bukhari in his book The Adhan, narrated Humaid, Anas bin Malik said,
"Whenever the Prophet went out with us to fight (in Allah's cause) against any nation, he
never allowed us to attack till morning and he would wait and see: if he heard Adhan he
would postpone the attack and if he did not hear Adhan he would attack them”…and Imam
Ahmad narrated in his Musnad al Makkiyeen, “On the authority of a man from Muzayna that
is called Ibn Esam on the authority of his father, and he was a companion of the Prophet,
peace be upon him, said: The Prophet (saw) if he sent a detachment would say, „if you see
a Masjid or hear the Adhan calling then do not kill anyone.‟”
The Adhan and Masjid are signs of Islam, and indicate that the land being inhabited by
Muslims does not prohibit the land being attacked and warred. This means that the lands
were considered Dar al-Harb, or Dar al-Kufr, because even if it showed some Islamic
rituals, it was still not under the control of the Prophet; in other words not under the authority
and security of Islam, so it was considered Dar al-Harb, and was attacked like any other
Dar Harb, until it was under the control of Islam and secured by the security of Islam, and
was incorporated to the body of the Islamic State.
In conclusion: Therefore, the issue is deeper than the defecting of Muhammad bin
Abdul Wahhab from the State, because he was not eager to be a part of the body of the
Islamic State, and disputed the Khaleefah for his authority on Allah's earth that obligates the
submission under the authority of one Khaleefah, and he was determined to fragment the

HT Official Website
Tel\Fax. : 009611307594 Mobile: 0096171724043 www.hizb-ut-tahrir.org
HT Media Website
E-mail: media@hizb-ut-tahrir.info www.hizb-ut-tahrir.info
 word of the Muslims and their lands, and to install another president who was Abdul Aziz
bin Muhammad bin Saud and then his son Saud, who did not submit to the authority of the
Khaleefah, and instead disputed his ruling on a section from the Islamic lands, and revolted
against him to the point that his revolt reached Homs and Aleppo. They were not content
with giving bayah to another Khaleefah that ruled over an area of the Islamic lands, but they
also dejected from the Khaleefah in the midst of his land! We will come to the details
shortly, Allah Almighty willing.
According to the Shariah, Abdul Aziz’s position before the Ottoman Khilafah that he
placed a Wilayah (province) that did not submit to the authority of the Khilafah; it was the
Ottoman Khilafah’s right, based on the Shariah, to oppose him and seize authority over him.
In accordance with what Suleiman bin Bareedah (ra) said above, if Abdul Aziz and his son,
Saud, do not abide by the Khilafah, and instead institute a new regime in the Muslim lands,
then they apply to Rasulallah’s (saw) Hadith narrated by Muslim in the Imarah book:
َْٚ‫ػصَبوُُْ أ‬
َ َ‫شك‬
ُ َ‫دذٍ يُشِيذُ َأْْ ي‬
ِ ‫َا‬ٚ ًٍ‫ج‬
ُ َ‫َأَِْشُوُُْ جَِّيغٌ ػٍََى س‬ٚ ُُْ‫يُ َِْٓ َأرَبو‬ُٛ‫َعٍَََُ يَم‬ٚ ِْٗ‫يَ اٌٍَِٗ صٍََى اٌٍَُٗ ػٍََي‬ُٛ‫ػْٓ ػَشْفَجَخَ لَبيَ عَِّؼْذُ سَع‬
َ"
"ٍُُُٖٛ‫ػزَىُُْ فَب ْلز‬
َ ‫يُفَ ِشقَ جََّب‬
It has also been narrated by Muslim that Arfajah said: “I heard the Messenger of
Allah (saw) say: „Whoever comes to you while your affair has been united over one
man, intending to divide your power or dissolve your unity, kill him.‟”

And Rasulallah’s (saw) Hadith, as previously mentioned:

“‫ّب‬ِٕٙ ‫ا اآلخش‬ٍٛ‫يغ ٌخٍيفزيٓ فبلز‬ٛ‫”إرا ث‬
“If the bayah is given to two Khaleefahs, then kill the latter.”
Based on what has been told by Sunan Bayhaqi, Abu-Baker al-Sideeq (ra) said,
‫ُ ٕ٘بٌه‬ٕٙ‫ا فيّب ثي‬ٛ‫يزٕبصػ‬ٚ ُٙ‫رزفشق جّبػز‬ٚ ُِٙ‫أدىب‬ٚ ُ٘‫ يخزٍف أِش‬،‫ّب يىٓ رٌه‬ِٙ ٗٔ‫ فئ‬،ْ‫ْ ٌٍّغٍّيٓ أِيشا‬ٛ‫” ال يذً أْ يى‬
“‫ٌيظ ألدذ ػٍى رٌه صالح‬ٚ ،‫رؼظُ اٌفزٕخ‬ٚ ‫ش اٌجذػخ‬ٙ‫رظ‬ٚ ‫رزشن اٌغٕخ‬
“There can never be two governors over the Muslims; for however they may be, they will
always have differences in their rule and insights, leading to separations and disputes
between their parties, and ending with leaving the ways of the Sunnah and allowing Bida’ah
and Fitnah to appear.”
This brings attention to the texts prohibiting the presence of two rulers is absolute,
including all situations, including representing distant lands in the Islamic world that are
hard for the authority to reach and others. The texts are complete in containing the
prohibition and the prevention of accepting any second baya’ah in Islam, and demands the
perpetrator be killed wherever he may be!

Section 2 of the answer from the website: Islam Question and Answer
Sheikh Abdel Aziz Alabd Al-Latif says, After this short review that revealed the truth
about the Sheikh about the duty of obedience to the Muslim leaders, the gracious ones, as
well as the ungracious ones as long as they don’t rule in sin: for we point to an important
question here in response to that claim: Was Najd not the original land of this call and the
place of its foundation under the control of the Ottoman Khilafah State?
Dr. Saleh Al-Abood responds, overall Najd did not experience any type of authority
under the Ottoman Khilafah, nor did it have any Ottoman laws applied on it, nor have the
presence of an Ottoman governor (wali). It also did have the protection of the Ottoman
Khilafah preceding the call of Sheikh Mohammad bin Abed Al-Wahaab, may Allah rest his
soul, which shows the historical fact of the administrative divisions of the Ottoman Khilafah
which includes a Turkish letter titled, “Laws of the Ottomans in the content of the Dewan

HT Official Website
Tel\Fax. : 009611307594 Mobile: 0096171724043 www.hizb-ut-tahrir.org
HT Media Website
E-mail: media@hizb-ut-tahrir.info www.hizb-ut-tahrir.info
 Central
Media Office

Issue No : 1434 AH /23 Wednesday, 17 Rabi-ul Thani 1434 AH 27-02-2013 CE

Journal,” meaning: “The laws of the Ottomans which is included in the Dewan Journal,”
written by Yameen Ali Afandi, Secretary of the Khaqani counsel in 1018 Hijri [1609 CE], it
was revealed that the State of the Ottomans was divided into thirty-two wilayahs since the
beginning of the eleventh century, including fourteen Arab wilayahs in which Najd was not
included except for census if we considered it from Najd.” [Ideology of Sheikh Mohammad
Bin Abdel Wahaab and Its Effects in the Islamic World, unpublished, (27/1)]
Dr. Abdullah Al-A’thmeen says, “Whatever the case Najd was never regarded as being
under the direct influence of the Ottomans prior to the call of Sheikh Mohammad bin Abdel
Wahaab. It also has never experienced any strong influence on its internal affairs from the
Ottomans, not even under control of Bani Jabr or Bani Khaled either, nor control from any
other superior tribe trying to make some kind of political stability. For wars between Najd
lands have remained constant and ongoing between its different tribes in a brutal manner.”
[Mohammad Bin Abed Al-Wahaab His Life and Philosophy p. 11 via “Protestor Claims” (pg.
234-5)]
In continuation of this subject, we mention the response of the honorable Sheikh Abed
Al-Aziz bin Abdullah bin Baz where he rejects this matter, “The Sheikh Mohammad bin
Abed Al-Wahaab did not defect against the Khilafah State as many thought and believed.
There was no presidency or Imarah (authority) for the Turks in Najd but had miniature
Imarahs and scattered villages with an autonomous Amir (ruler) for each village or city,
however small it was…And these were small Imarat with battles and wars among them.
Sheikh Mohammad Bin Abed Al-Wahaab did not defect against the Khilafah state, but
defected against the corrupt conditions in his land; and striving in the name of Allah with
patience and goodness will until he finally reached prosperity in his calling to the other
lands.” [from a recorded assembly via Opponent Claims p. 237]
Also, Dr. Ajeel Al-Nashmy said: “…… The Khilafah State did not move silently, nor did it
put forth any initiative or supposed rejections, even with its four consecutive Ottoman
sultans during the lifetime of the Sheikh.” [Periodical No. 510]
The second section from the Islam website Answers in Question and Answer is
complete, and we respond to it as follows:

Once again, we find the answer ignoring the Shariah evidence that any Islamic scholar
or Mujtahid must understand in regards to the conduct before the Islamic Khilafah State.
We also notice complete ignorance of the Wahhabis and the Sauds’ dissension against the
Khilafah state in its center, and even their campaigns reached Homs, as will be discussed
shortly, Inshallah.
When the Arab tribes defected against the Khilafah State in the time of the first Khalifah
Rashidah, Abu Bakr Al-Siddeq (radiya Allahu anhu) where they refused to submit to his
authority and refused to pay Zakat in his position as the Khaleefah of Rasulallah, Abu-Bakr
battled them and sent out an army to them until they surrendered to his rule, it was not
recognized that they defected against the authority of the Islamic State, and forming a state
with the State.
Should we say then the respondents are above this issue, represented by Saleh Al-
Abood, Sheikh Al-A’themeen, and others, believe that the Shariah law if it is far from the

HT Official Website
Tel\Fax. : 009611307594 Mobile: 0096171724043 www.hizb-ut-tahrir.org
HT Media Website
E-mail: media@hizb-ut-tahrir.info www.hizb-ut-tahrir.info
 administrative divisions of the Khilafah State that this justifies them to secede themselves
and establish another authority that this is self-justified as the expansion of authority
spreads to subjected wilayahs like Ash-Sham, Iraq, Makkah, and Madinah to establish a
state within a State? Or do we not call this clash an exchange to attain the power?
Then let us presume the controversy arose that the people of Najd did not receive the
protection of the Khilafah State, does this indicate that the submission to authority is defined
by State protection and the receiving of welfare allowances, in the major or minor incidents,
even though the Islamic state was suffering from weakness, yet this is not a Sharii’
justification to defect. Rather the correct duty is to strengthen its pillars, and educating
people in the outskirts and small villages of their submission to the existing State, or do we
justify the dissidents null, like their defection from the Umayyad State in Morocco due to
poor communication with tribes near Ash-Sham, and justify the defection of each statelet
secession from their ruler thereby dissolving the Ummah’s unity and weakening its power?
It is not necessarily relevant to encompass the Khaleefah’s authority and his Ummah in
remote areas in a direct manner for it to be considered under his authority. Rather it is
considered under its rule even if it simply communicates with it indirectly, that is through its
Walis and mayors whom were appointed by the Khaleefah and sent by him to the
designated areas by the Khalifah himself, where the governors are given the authority to
rule their provinces in looking after the people’s affairs in accordance with the State’s
system. Omar bin al-Khattab (ra) even refused the idea that his governors and mayors
come to review every major and minor issue with him; he mentioned to them that the All-
Seeing witnesses what the absent one may not see.
Actually, the authority of the State prevailed throughout all regions surrounding Najd,
even though it may have not directly reached all of the tribes in its remote provinces, the
State reached their surrounding villages. Even though it is supposed be that the scattered
tribes refer to the nearest province with a governor or prince that has been instated by the
Khalifah to care for their well-being. It is incumbent upon them to join the Dar Al-Muhajireen
as Rasulallah (saw) said in the Hadith mentioned above.
The matter is fixed that the Saud clan and the people behind the Wahhabis have
defected despite being the nearest to those who submitted to authority of the Islamic State.
It is mentioned in the book, How the Khilafah was Destroyed, by the honorable Sheikh
Abdul Qadeem Zallum (May Allah Shower him with Mercy), “The Wahhabis by then had
managed to establish an entity within the Islamic State, led by Muhammad ibn Saud and
later by his son Abdul-Aziz. Britain supplied them with weapons and money and they moved
on a sectarian basis to seize the Islamic lands which were under the authority of the
Khilafah. They took up arms against the Khaleefah and fought the Islamic armed forces (the
army of the Amir ul-Mumineen), all the time goaded and supplied by the British. The
Wahhabis wanted to seize the lands ruled by the Khaleefah in order to rule these lands
according to their Mathhab (school of thought), and suppress all the other Islamic Mathahib
that differed from theirs by force. Hence, they raided Kuwait and occupied it in 1788, then
marched northwards until they besieged Baghdad. They wanted to seize Karbalaa and the
tomb of Al-Hussein (may Allah be pleased with him) to destroy it and ban the visiting of it.
Then in 1803, they launched an attack on Makkah and occupied it. In the spring of 1804,
Madinah fell under their control. They destroyed the huge domes which used to shade the
grave of the Messenger of Allah (saw) and stripped them of all the gems and precious
ornaments. Having completed their seizure of the whole of Al-Hijaz, they marched on
towards Al-Sham. Nearing Hims in 1810, they attacked Damascus for a second time and
they also attacked Al-Najaf. Damascus defended itself bravely and gloriously. However
while besieging Damascus, the Wahhabis moved at the same time to the north and spread
their authority over most of the Syrian lands as far as Aleppo.” [End]
HT Official Website
Tel\Fax. : 009611307594 Mobile: 0096171724043 www.hizb-ut-tahrir.org
HT Media Website
E-mail: media@hizb-ut-tahrir.info www.hizb-ut-tahrir.info
 Central
Media Office

Issue No : 1434 AH /23 Wednesday, 17 Rabi-ul Thani 1434 AH 27-02-2013 CE

Can it be said that Damascus, Baghdad, Aleppo, and other territories were not
submissive to the Islamic State, and this is not dissidence from the Khilafah State and
destruction, undermining its basis and fragmentation of its structure?
The main question here is what is the Shariah ruling for those who commit actions of
this sort?
Rasulallah (saw) says, narrated by Muslim in the Ruling book:
ُُْ‫ػصَبو‬
َ َ‫شك‬
ُ َ‫دذٍ يُشِيذُ َأْْ ي‬
ِ ‫َا‬ٚ ًٍ‫ج‬
ُ َ‫َأَِْشُوُُْ جَِّيغٌ ػٍََى س‬ٚ ُُْ‫يُ َِْٓ َأرَبو‬ُٛ‫َعٍَََُ يَم‬ٚ ِْٗ‫يَ اٌٍَِٗ صٍََى اٌٍَُٗ ػٍََي‬ُٛ‫ عَِّؼْذُ سَع‬:َ‫ػْٓ ػَشْفَجَخَ لَبي‬
َ"
"ٍُُُٖٛ‫ػزَىُُْ فَبلْز‬
َ ‫ْ يُفَ ِشقَ جََّب‬ٚ‫َأ‬
It has also been narrated by Muslim that Arfajah said: “I heard the Messenger of
Allah (saw) say: „Whoever comes to you while your affair has been united over one
man, intending to divide your power or dissolve your unity, kill him.‟”
Allah does not have mercy on campaigns that have defected from the Sultan,
fragmented the groups, those who removed their hand from obedience.
Therefore, the portrayal that the Wahhabis and Saudis established a State that did not
defect from the Khilafah, and established a state in a territory not subject to the Khilafah’s
authority, this depiction distorts the reality and reverses the truth. This idea has sabotaged
the truth, turning it into hostility. They have covered their real truth about their military
actions that have torn the State into pieces, dismembering it, and separating groups of
Muslims.

Section three on the Islam website answers in Question and Answer:

If what was previously mentioned reflects the Sheikh’s description on the Khilafah
State, how was the description of the Sheikh Mohammad bin Abed Al-Wahaab regarding
the Khilafah State?
Dr. Al-Nashmi said in response to this question, The image of Sheikh Mohammad bin
Abdel Wahaab’s movement for the Khilafah State has had much confusion and
misperception to the extent that the Khilafah cannot be clearly seen unless seen as an
opposing side of Sheikh Mohammad bin Abdel Wahaab’s movement, by either through
reports sent by the governors in the Hijaz, Baghdad, or from other areas… or by
messengers who carry news across the provinces.
[The Society, Periodical No. 504 via Protest Claims p. 238-9]
End of Section Three.

This also is a sabotage of the truth. Was the Khilafah State unaware of the campaigns
happening in Baghdad, Damascus, and Aleppo, and was anticipating for the messengers to
deliver faulty news?

The fourth and final section from the Islam website answers in Question and
Answer:
As for Zallum’s claim that the Sheikh’s call is one of the reasons that lead to the fall of
the Khilafah State, and England aided the Wahhabis in its collapse: Mahmoud Mahdi Al-

HT Official Website
Tel\Fax. : 009611307594 Mobile: 0096171724043 www.hizb-ut-tahrir.org
HT Media Website
E-mail: media@hizb-ut-tahrir.info www.hizb-ut-tahrir.info
 Istanbuli says in response to this general claim: It was the book’s purpose to support its
opinions with evidence and proof. An ancient poet said,
And if claims are not based evidence from [Quran and Sunnah], then it is foolish
evidence.
It is worth mentioning that history mentions that the English stood against this for fear of
an Islamic World revival. [Sheikh Mohammad Abdel Wahab’s The Mirror of the East and the
West p. 240]
He stated, how strange and ironical they accuse Sheikh Muhammad bin Abdel Wahab
of being a factor in destroying the Ottoman Caliphate with the knowledge that this
movement started in 1811 CE, but in reality the Khilafah was destroyed around 1922 CE;
[see previous reference, p.64]
It proves the British were against the Wahhabi movement in which they sent Captain
Forester Sadler to praise Ibrahim on the triumph attained against the Wahhabis during the
War of Ibrahim of Diraah. He also assured that he would cooperate with the British
movement to reduce what they called piracy of Wahhabi in the Arabian Gulf.
This letter declared its desire to establish an agreement with the British government and
Ibrahim in order to terminate the influence of the Wahhabis.
Sheikh Muhammad bin Munthur al-Nameh stated, the British have benefitted from the
opposite situation in India for Sheikh Muhammad bin Abdel Wahhab and they tossed all
those who opposed or stood in their way; who was perceived as a threat in which they
allege he is a Wahhabi. The British also claimed Deoband scholars in India as Wahhabis
because they openly opposed the British and restrained them. [Intensive Claims against
Sheikh Muhammad Abdel Wahhab p. 105-6]
These various reports have exposed the falsehood of this doubt before the clear
scholarly evidence, which was clear from the Sheikh’s message and writings showing the
falsehood before the historical facts written by the just people. [Protest Claims p. 239-240]
Finally we recommend for each individual who used his tongue against the Sheikh to
regret and to fear Allah (swt) in all matters that angers Allah (swt) and to repent to Him to be
guided upon the right path.
End of paragraph and end of answer on the site.

The scholar, Imam Sheikh Abdul Qadeem Zalum, rahamahu Allah with his
sophisticated book, How the Khilafah was Destroyed, it was known the Wahhabi campaign
was the work of the British because the Saud clan are British agents who took advantage
of the Wahhabi Math’hab which is an Islamic Math’hab (school of thought) whose founder is
Sheikh Muhammad bin Abdel Wahhab, a Mujtahid amongst Mujtahideen. They took
advantage of this doctrine in political actions to strike the Islamic State and to clash with
other Math’habs to incite Mathahib wars within the Ottoman State without the followers of
these doctrines realizing this, whereas the Saudi Prince and other Saudis were well aware
of this. Because the relationship was not between the British and the founder of the
Math’hab Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab, rather between the British and Abdel Aziz bin
Muhammad bin Saud, and afterwards between them and his son Saud.
He says, in the year of 1788, Abdel Aziz was preparing a large military to invade,
conquer and seize Kuwait. The British were trying to seize control over Kuwait from the
Ottoman State, but were unable. Other countries such as Germany, Russia, and France
stood in their way; which the Khilafah State would fight them. Since the separation of
Kuwait from the Ottoman State and the procession to the north for protection which would

HT Official Website
Tel\Fax. : 009611307594 Mobile: 0096171724043 www.hizb-ut-tahrir.org
HT Media Website
E-mail: media@hizb-ut-tahrir.info www.hizb-ut-tahrir.info
 Central
Media Office

Issue No : 1434 AH /23 Wednesday, 17 Rabi-ul Thani 1434 AH 27-02-2013 CE

have been obvious to the major countries like Russia, Germany, and France, and to the
Ottoman State.
The Saudi clan’s agency and loyalty to the British was known to the Khilafah State and
to other countries like Germany, France, and Russia. It was known that they were in
agreement with the British. The British did not conceal their siding with the Saudi State
including supplying them with many weapons and large equipment that arrived through
India. And also money that was needed for war and preparation of an army was solely with
British weapons and funding. For this reason, European countries especially France
opposed the Wahhabi campaign, as it was considered a British campaign. The Khilafah
State attempted to strike the Wahhabis but was unable to repel them. The Walis struggled
in Medina, Baghdad, and Damascus to oppose them. They requested the Wali of Egypt
Muhammad Ali to mobilize the army against them but was initially delayed. However he
was an agent for France because it was the one who aided him in his coup and seizing
power in Egypt; then coerced the Khilafah in officially recognizing him. Based on France’s
approval and its incitement, the Sultan accepted the command in the year 1811. He sent
his son, Tusun to fight them where many battles took place between them and the army of
Egypt. Egypt’s army was established in 1812 when it conquered the city. In August 1816,
his son Ibrahim was sent from Cairo to destroy the Wahhabis who were completely stunned
eventually retreating back to the capital Diriyah where they were protected. Ibrahim
surrounded them April 1818 throughout the entire summer. September 9, 1818 the
Wahhabis surrendered in which Ibrahim’s armies annihilated them. It was said that it was
destroyed beyond recognition, and with this ended Britain’s efforts.
It was cited in the Encyclopedia of Desert Warrior, “Saudi State Relations with ash-
Sham.”
Najdi sources indicated that Imam Abdul Aziz bin Muhammad ordered some of his
forces in 1793 CE/1208 AH towards Jandal in the outskirts of Damascus where they fought
its people. It might have been a type of surveillance of the Ottoman State’s forces in Syria.
The year of 1797 CE/1212 AH, the Prince of Qassim, Hajilan bin Hamad, led an army from
the people of Qassim, and attacked the Valley of Al-Shararat where many of their men were
killed and many were robbed of their money and belongings.
These operations managed to increase the call for reforms in the region, and to collect
Zakat from its people. People arrived from Syria through the valleys in the year 1218 AH
with six caravans carrying Riyals. It can be understood that the Bedouins of Syria political
and religious allegiance was to Dirayah, not to the Wilayah Sham.
When the Saudi influence enveloped Hijaz, became in a position to instigate direct
friction with the Ottoman State. It was when they prevented the Imam Saud bin Abdel Aziz,
beginning the Saudi State challenge to the Wali in Sham in the year 1806 CE/ 1221 AH.
Prince Alhajj Al-Shami, Abduallah Basha Alathm, upon arrival to the Holy Pilgrimage for
Hajj with his load, drums and pipes were sounded. The battle encountered between the
Saudi army and Abdallah’s army. Clashes almost broke out between the Saudi army and
Abduallah Basha Athim army, who was not in a military position, but allowed him to meet
with the Saudis. As a result, Sultan Saleem III removed Abdallah Basha Alathm from his
post due to his negligent confrontation of the Saudi force and his return of the Hajj pilgrims
based on the commands of Imam Saud. Yousef Basha Keng was appointed as his
HT Official Website
Tel\Fax. : 009611307594 Mobile: 0096171724043 www.hizb-ut-tahrir.org
HT Media Website
E-mail: media@hizb-ut-tahrir.info www.hizb-ut-tahrir.info
 replacement and the Sultan gave strict orders to Yousef Basha Keng of the necessity to
fight the Saudis since they do not do any positive actions. He left to raise funds for himself
and to stall the State. He settled for replying to the Sultan sending him war plans, which
were seen as capable of achieving the Sultan’s wishes. It was proposed to Yousef Keng
that he join the states of Egypt and Baghdad to collaborate in the number of campaigns that
was entrusted to him.
Meanwhile, Imam Saud conducted a military operation against Ash-Sham. They were
able to reach them from behind Mount Hermon (Jabal ash-Sheikh). The Saudi forces
moved to the Hauran Plains and attacked Fort Al-Mazirab and Bosra.
Imam Saud wrote to Wali Sham calling the people to submit to his obedience and adopt
the principles of the Salafi. [Refer to appendix from Letters from Imam Saud bin Abdul Aziz
bin Mohammad bin Saud and his reply]. He withdrew his forces from Sham loaded with
booty (Ghanaim). Sultan Mahmoud II issued orders to terminate Yousef Keng due to
incompetence. Suleiman Basha was appointed to be Wali of Syria. He was asked to
contact the Wali of Egypt, Mohammad Ali Basha, to coordinate their efforts against Diriya.
However, Suleiman Basha and Mohammad Ali Basha were not on good terms; the
State turned to the Wali of Egypt to achieve its goal. [End]

The question we want to direct to the viewers of the site: where did these desert tribes
receive their money and equipment whose campaigns are able to reach remote parts of
their location in Najd where the Bedouins occupy Najd where powerful countries fought
over; in which it was difficult for the Walis of the Ottoman State where it was forced to seek
the help of the Wali of Egypt for its forces to attack and destroy its front, which they violated
the allegiance of the Sultan, divided the Muslims and their message. Oil not discovered yet
to fund their campaigns and factories did not exist to create swords and shields in Najd to
supply their armies, so how were they able to wage strong campaigns in the east, west,
north, and south? No doubt the British had hand in this!
Ameen Alrihani wrote in his book, Muluk Al Arab on page 56, about Abdul Aziz Al Saud,
“People think we took large sums of money from the British, but truth is the British only paid
us minimally for our deserving work done during and after the war. We have an agreement
that must be abided even though it may bring harm upon ourselves and our interests. The
British are in debt to us and we do not ask but what was for our grandfathers and fathers
before us. So our British friends are aware of this.” Ameer Talal bin Abdel Aziz
acknowledged the assistances in an AlJazeera interview in a program called “Shahid ala
alAsr.” (Witness of the Century).

Our last duaa is Hamduallah Rab Alalameen.

Othman Bakhash
Director of the Central Media Office of Hizb ut Tahrir

HT Official Website
Tel\Fax. : 009611307594 Mobile: 0096171724043 www.hizb-ut-tahrir.org
HT Media Website
E-mail: media@hizb-ut-tahrir.info www.hizb-ut-tahrir.info