Sie sind auf Seite 1von 4



Mohammad son of Abdu-l Wahab the so-called founder of Wahabism was born in Naajd Saudi Arabia in 1115
A.H. Being a clergy’s sonHe also became a clergy. Just from childhood he liked Quranic interpretations,Hadiths
and ideological studies. He studied about Hanafies jurisprudence under the guidance of his father Ever since he
was acquainted with Islam, he did not like some of the religious activities of Najdians as they were in his view
contraryto Islam and the monotheism he had understood from Islam. Wherever and whenever he found an
occasion he used to criticize sharply some of his people’s religious behaviors. Some time he would face hardships
difficulties and problems while expressing his religious points of views, as people usually despised his opinions
and thoughts.It is astonishing that he was not only opposed to his people,but to his father and brother as well. His
brother who was a famous scholar, was at dagger’s draw with him and so was his own father who was a reputed
judge. To take a sigh of relief he left ‘Harimila’ where his father was living for ‘Ainia’ where he by and by got
fame and reputation. This however didn’t last long. Therefor he soon found himself in ‘Daria” thatwas governed
over by Mohammad son of Masud the forefather of the family of Sa’ud. They were able to maintain a close
relation with eachother and
to promise each other a bright and hopeful prospect. Thus a new era of mutual co-operation began between them.
Now they thought they would rule through out history. He used to take his opponents and rivals who did not obey
him for punishment and chastisement. They were on the high-way of success and prosperity as now
religion and power were working joint-handedly; the thing which if happens works miraculously. He was odd.
Hewould easily declare those not believing in his religious formula, as non Muslims. He believed that many
practices such as construction of graveyards paying a visit to graveyards and many besides were wrong and not in
line with monotheism. He urged many a time for destruction and abolishment of graveyards. He didn’t exercise a
single amount of caution in terming his ideologically rival groups as unbelievers and announcing their blood and
property as
unrespectable. That is why when he entered Daria, it was a poor city, but soon after his arrival in the city it was
over night changed into a brilliant and well-off one. The reason for this is clear , becuase he would order his
followers to attack on then on Muslims’ houses [Muslims who did not believe in his religious theory] and
do looting andother mal-practices. He closed his book of life in 1200 A.H. and put an end to his controversial life.
After his death his followers did not give up his line. They minnutely followed his footsteps what so-ever. As he
himself was very carelessabout people and their property so were his imitators and followers . It is worth
mentioning that he was not the real founder of Wahabismas the name Wahabism appearantly indicates; history
traces this religion back to the 8 century. It also shows that in 728 A.H. son of Tamina initiated this religion and
wrote many books and booklets to justify it.
It is very noteworthy to note that ever-since this religion was born, it was deadly oppressed bypeople. The scholars
and specialists defended Islam against this disease in two ways.1- To reject this school of thought logically they
wrote many books such as”Cure of disease by visiting graveyards” “Avoidance of confusion” and many others.
The first book written by Shiite in this regard was “The way to guidance” by Kashif Al-Ghata and the first book
by Sunnis was “The wraths of Allah for avoidance of Wahabism” 11- The respected jurisprudence gave decrees
against Wahabism and proclaimed it as illegal. Although it was disregarded and refuted strongly and vigorously
by many Islamic sects and groups but it unfortunately continued to survive. As the Sa’udi government is directly
or undirectly affiliatedto this baseless and self-contradictory religion, today this religion has found a foothold in a
large portion of Arabian peninsula. Many apeople of that land are now burning with the flames of this fire!It is
even more regrettable and deplorable, that this contagious disease has not been restricted and limited to the
Arabians soils.
It has unfortunately found it’s way to the sub-continental countries as well.The thing, that is a matter of concern to
any sincere, devoted and responsible Muslims. It is surprising that Mohammad son of Abdu-l Wahab is not only
opposed to Shiite but also to Sunnis! Therefore, Muslims at large should try their level best to do away with this
cancereous disease.


Construction of graves, is one of the outstanding issues to which Wahabism attaches a great deal of importance.
They very frankly point out that building of any thing as a shrine, tomb or mosque on or beside graves, is strictly
forbidden from the view point of Islam. He who does not obey Islam in this regard is termed by them as
polytheist. They say
grave’s construction does not comply with the Islamic teachings and is an innovation that diverts attentions of
Muslims from God and places them on dead bodies possessing no power at all. They have not suficed to only
issuing decrees and propagating against those involved in such practices, but have also put their views into
practice no matter whatever the cost has been. As a result, they have spared no effort to ruin the
beautifully constructed graves which were under their control. In 1344 A.H. when the family of Saud came to
power they immediately practised-what Wahabism issued as religious decrees concerning the plunderation
of graves and religious sights. To justify their harsh and barbaric moveand give it an Islamic color, they created an
atmosphere of fear and horror and by doing so they paved the way for the exploitation of scholars.
Wahabists in order to logically justify their unaccepted stand against the Islamice sghts
cooked certain excuses and presented them as “ arguments”.We will precisely relate their pretexts which they call
as “
reasons” and then answer them.They have in their view, two very strong reasons on the prohibit grave
construction which are as follows:- The consensus of Muslim Ummah. 11-A few Hadiths.As far as the consensus
of Ummah is concerned , we would like to say that it [consensus of Ummah] itself is a good and acceptable proof
provided that it’smulti-conditions are fulfilled. One of the most significant conditions on which thecorrectness and
reasonability of the consensus of Ummah depends, is that, it ought to be comprehensive and inclusive. In other
words no qualified body should be excluded from it. Besides, it should not run counter to Islamic and Quranic
commandments. Otherwise it carriesno values. Taking only these two onditions into account we must say the said
consensus unfortunately does not enjoy having any of the pre-mentioned conditions as there are hundreds of
thousands of religion scholars and erudites who deadly oppose the destruction and abolishment of graves
belonging to Muslims not to speak of Prophets and Immaculate Imams who sacrificed their precious lives for the
promotion of devine values. Leave the Shiite scholars aside, even the Sunni clergies belonging to the four famous
Sunni religions are opposed to this inhumane stance adopted by the Wahabists. They have not so far issued any
order that grave,tombs, shrines and mosques build on or beside graves have to be destroyed . How? While there is
no Islamic city all over the world to be devoid of religious sights with thousands of Muslims praying in them.
Secondly, this consensus is not in line with the Quranic guidance (as we will show it later on). So after all these
criticism we can confidently announce it as null and void. As far the Hadiths they have held fast to, they are along
with the objections they encounter as under:
Muslims in his famous book “Sahih” quotes son of Abilhaige as saying: Hazrat Ali (AS) told me that he would not
send me but for what the HolyProphet was sending him for; that was I should not have gone back unless I had
abolished statues and leveled the highly constructed graves”. In response we should say:- First of all the reporters
are nottrustworthy as in the series of reporters(that we have not mentioned)there are people like Vaki, Habib
son of Abisobit and their likes who are rejected by relavant especialists as liars.Ahmad Hanabal says that Vaki has
mistaken in a hundred Hadiths. Another highly ranking scholar, Mohammad son of Nasr-i- Maruzy says he [Vaki]
was not at home in language. As for Sufiann Sawry he was also not any better than his comrade.
Commenting on him, son of Mubarak says that one day he suddenly got him while he was forging false Hadiths.
When the latter saw him, he felt ashamed of himself. He who wants the details of such stories , should
directly go toTahzib-Altahazib a reputed book. Now with such unworthy reporters can any body with any share of
wisdom and intelligence take any measure on any important problem? Especially, when the report contradicts
Islam in many areas? If prejudice and fanaticism is removed or replaced by open mindedness then the response
will be undoubtedly in negative .
Secondly the meaning this Hadith conveys, is not clear and obvious.
There are three possibilities in the meaning and sense it gives.
1- Abolishment of graves.
11- Leveling the cylindrically-shaped graves to the surface of earth.
111-The graves should not be round in shape but leveled whether or not
uplifted from ground.
Wahabism is holding fast to the first possibility without producing sufficient documents. Given that this
possibility is not in compliance with Islamic orders on the one hand and with the phrase “level” used in the
Hadith on the other, it is totally rejected as self- fabricated deduction. If “leveling” meant destruction, it should
not have been used alone. Preferably it must have been used with the words “to the ground”.Since it has been used
alone , therefore from a
languistic- point of view we can not infer abolishment from it.
Moreover, we see that hundreds of clergies and men of letter have readthis Hadith but have not ordered that
graves should be ruined. Only Wahabists with their highly developed sixth sense have reached to this
extraordinary comprehension!The second inference has barely any advocator . So we are not going
to talk about it in detail. It is enough to say that no jurisprudent has ever decreed according to it. Rather the four
official religions are of the view that graves should be preferably hoisted from ground as much as
one span. Now that there two possibilities are refuted as unacceptable, we are going to precisely illustrate the third
and last one which is comparatively acceptable and free of defects.This is not only in line with the four official
religions but is also in agreement with Shiite order. According to this one, graves and tombs
ought not to be raised to ground and put into non-existence, but only reshaped.
If it is round in shape it has to become leveled and flattened.A glance at the decrees put forth by jurisprudents in
this regard,show that they have also taken and chosen this very possibility exclusively.Muslim in his book ‘Sahih’
talks of some other Hadiths which just confirm our point of view. According to Muslim the reporter says that
he was in Roman land when one of his companions died. Fazal another companion of his ordered a grave to be
dug and then leveled and flattened, as it was the order of the holy Prophet.The commentator of Sahib says that it
is preferable that grave should not be hoisted very much and also it should not be round in shape.
Rather it should be raised as much as a span and then it should be in a leveled and flattened shape.
This statement by such a famous clergy is a nice witness to the correctnessof our view point. There are some other
opinions by famous Sunni scholars,which are -also absolutely corresponding with our choice, but for the sake of
beingprecisewe avoid relating them.Above all, if the afore-mentioned Hadith means as such as Wahabism
thinks, then the question arises as to why Hazrat Ali (AS) himself didnot implement his formula during his life
time and why the Muslim scholars did not carry out his order and lastly why graves were not abolished for
many centuries. As a drowning man catches at any straw so are the Wahabists . They do not feel shy to resort to
any weak Hadith as solid proofs. To pretend they are logical and obeying Islam, they have shamelessly used
Jabir’s report as a proof.The writer of Sahih and Sunan have a mention about Jabir’s Hadith.According to his
reports any sort of building is not allowed to be built on graves. As for the text, it is okay. But unluckily the
whom we have omitted just to be short, are worse than the worst.They have been accused of telling a lie by many
a report specialists.Son of Juraih who has presence in the series of reporters (that we have purposely omitted) is
sharply criticized by relevant erudite just for his fabricating false and untrue news items.
Ahmad son of Hanabal does not accept his reports, on the ground that
he doesnot speak the truth.Malik another prominent scholar says that he in collecting Hadiths,
is just like a wood-cutter who collects wood at night . “As the latter is not immune to perils of snakes and
scorpions neither is the former”Father of Zubair another reporter involved in the series of the reporters
of the said Hadith is also not a trusthworthy man. Many report specialists have turned down his reported stories
just because of not having faith and confidence in him. So, this is not a reliable Hadith. In addition, to this, the
holy prophet(peace be upon him) was infallible.So he must have said the Hadith in one way exclusively where-as
we visualize that the fore-mentioned Hadith has been reported in a multitude of ways which are totally different
from each other. This also be counted as a defect that weakens this Hadith. This differentiation exhibits this very
fact, that the reporters have not kept the Hadith intact . They must have interfered with it in one form or the other.
Keeping all these defects and flaws in mind, how can one rely upon such reports assuming that they are told by
the holy Prophet?! Wahabism does not stop here.In order to further prove that they are really right in destroying
graves and tombs belonging to Imams (AS) they some time say that the land where the cemetery of Baqie is
located is endowment. They unfortunately, do not produce any kind of document in order to clarify their
ambiguous point of view. They emphatically say that the land of Baqie is endowment and therefore it should not
be left without utilization and use.To respond them in a short manner, we would like to say that such views are
totally repugnant to reality and to what is being practiced currently.As a custom and tradition, that has been
prevailing throughout many centuries, some of the Muslims, by chance or by decision, select some suitable piece
of soil as graveyard and the rest follows them not contemplating as to how it was achieved.Moreover, we have a
written history that stands witness that the abovementioned land is not and can not be endowment! Sambadi, a
well-known clergy jots down in his book that the first man buried at Baque was Oman son of Maroon.
Subsequently, Abraham son of the holy prophet passed away. People at the behest of their dear prophet’s order
buried the corpse beside Osman. This very author also gives an additional- piece of information. He says that
desert of Baqie had a few trees called Ghaqath. With the burial of Osman, one of those trees as cut down.
(Ghaqath is a kind of tree that exclusively grows at deserts).Later on other tribes followed the suit. They also
brought some pieces of that very land under their monopoly and paved them for a regulated cemetery.
This statement well crystallizes that Baqie is not endowment. Had it been endowment it should not have been
exploited that way.Now that we have , though shortly, related Wahabism’s points of views plus with their answers
on whether or not graves should be destroyed, we must get involved in relating reasons and arguments that graves,
especially those of Imams and prophets, should be preserved and kept intact and untouched. As it is a religious
matter therefore we should go to Quran that is the real source of any Islamic issue.
Although Quran does not have any specific mention on the matter, yet still we can deduce some thing from the
general commandments present it.
1- Quran says: That [shall be so]; and whoever respects the signs of Allah, this surely is [the outcome] of the piety
of hearts. [ Hajj 32]
According to this verse, whatever is a sign of God the Almighty,must be duly respected and paid attention to.
Since every thing in this world from the biggest planet to
the smallest atomic particles are the signs and symbols of God, therefore no body is of the view that every thing
has to be honored and esteeme As a result whatever is specifically called a sign and symbol of religion of Allah,
has to be preserved from wear and tear of nature. Undoubtedly,Prophets, Imams and saints whether alive or not,
arethe actual symbols of God’s religion. No body on earth can dispute onit, as it is very clear and vivid.Now that
every thing that is a sign of Allah’s religion, should be respected- and prophets and Imams are the best of all the
signs God has to his religion, question arises as to how respect takes place in regard
with them. Which one is respect, destruction or preservation of their graves?Even a foolish man does not doubt
that actions such asabolishment of their graves is a disrespecting, blasphamic, and insulting action that
should not be done by a Muslim not to speak of a Moamin!During Hajj ceremonies when a camel is nominated to
sacrificed for the sake of Allah, then it does find a particular respect in view of Islam.That is why according to
Islamic traditions, it’s owner should not ride on it’s back and it’s fodder should be given timely. Are the Prophets
and Imams who have dedicated their precious lives for the progression and expansion of Allah’s religion, not
deserving any value We ask the wisdom and conscience of Wahabists to come forth and present a judgment!
2- Quran points out : That is of which Allah gives the good news to His servants, [to] those who believe and do
good deeds. Say: I do not ask of you any reward for it but love for my near relatives; and whoever earns good, We
give him more of good therin; surely Allah isForgiving. [Shura ,23]According to this verse, the nears and dears of
the holy Prophet deserve a special amount of respect, honour and love.Now again the same question poses itself as
to how theyought to be paid homage. If their graves are put to destruction and non-existence and their remainings
abolished, would they be loved and respected?! May bein the eye of Wahabism!
3- Quran says: In houses which Allah has permitted to be exalted and that his name may be remembered in them;
glorify Him therein in the mornings and the evenings.[Noor, 36] According to this verse every house wherein the
name of Allahis remembered has to be kept under tight security so that it should not bedamaged by any
We should keep in mind that only mosque is not meant by therelated verse. Rather every sort of four-walled house
wherein prayers are said, must be kept fresh and intact. The reason why only mosque is not
meant is that mosque is not used in the verse. Rather the word”house’ has been sed.Given that ‘house’ is a general
word, we also deduce a general meaning from the verse.
Houses built beside the grave, are the places where Allah is often
remembered. Now how can we dear say that such houses should be leveled
to the ground? While the holy _Quran_ very openly says the opposite?!
3 - Moreover Islamic sights are a strong and vigorous support to the re-
reality of Islam. Many a specialist doubt about the figures as Jesus saying that nothing is left bedind him so that
we should have a reliance upon.If Muslims did not try their level best in preserving the Islamic
sights, Islam would have also exercised this very destiny and we would have had a legendary Islam. So this is
also a concrete proof, thatIslamic symbols and signs should be protected against any potential danger.
Last but not least, we would like to say, that from time to time, and from generation to generation, Muslims at
have been giving full support and protection to the shrines,tombs and graves of their great spiritual leaders. The
problem is so obvious that even Wahabists confess to it. In his book “Tathir - - Litiqat”
a Wahabist writer says that this building of shrine has become a common practice all over the world. There is no
Islamic city free from religious sights. He adds if such practices were contrary to Islamic
teachings,it would be impossible for scholars to keep silent and not prevent people from doing it.In spite of such
confession we see that they are again grudgingly and dogmatically stressing on their own point of view that
construction of graves is an anti- Islamic practice. This is of course meaning nothing but putting an end to Islam
itself. They leave no stone unturned to introduce others as polytheists, not knowing that they themselves have