Featured, Khilafah, The Khilafah

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

Dear Administration of the site: Islamqa.info
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.
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 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 ﷺ saying,

“لا طاعةَ لمخلوقٍ في معصيةِ الخالقِ” 

“There 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 ﷺ said,

«خيار أئمتكم الذين تحبونهم ويحبونكم، ويصلّون عليكم وتُصلّون عليهم، وشرار أئمتكم الذين تبغضونهم ويبغضونكم، وتلعنونهم ويلعنونكم، قيل: يا رسول الله أفلا ننابذهم بالسيف؟ فقال: لا، ما أقاموا فيكم الصلاة، وإذا رأيتم من ولاتكم شيئاً تكرهونه فاكرهوا عمله ولا تنـزعوا يداً من طاعة».

“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,

دخلنا على عبادة بن الصامت وهو مريض قلنا أصلحك الله حدث بحديث ينفعك الله به سمعته من النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال: دعانا النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فبايعناه. فقال فيما أخذ علينا أن بايعنا على السمع والطاعة في منشطنا ومكرهنا وعسرنا ويسرنا وأَثَرَةً علينا وأن لا ننازع الأمر أهله قال إلاّ أن تروا كفراً بواحاً عندكم من الله فيه برهان

“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 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 ﷺ. 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,

ألا إن الإسلام حائط منيع وباب وثيق فحائط الإسلام العدل وبابه الحق، ولا يزال الإسلام منيعاً ما اشتد السلطان، وليس شدة السلطان قتلاً بالسيف ولا ضرباً بالسوط ولكن قضاء بالحق وأخذاً بالعدل

“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,

“ألا إن الإسلام حائط منيع وباب وثيق فحائط الإسلام العدل وبابه الحق، ولا يزال الإسلام منيعاً ما اشتد السلطان، وليس شدة السلطان قتلاً بالسيف ولا ضرباً بالسوط ولكن قضاء بالحق وأخذاً بالعدل”

“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,

عَنْ ‏عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ عَبْدِ رَبِّ الْكَعْبَةِ ‏‏قَالَ ‏دَخَلْتُ الْمَسْجِدَ فَإِذَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ عَمْرِو بْنِ الْعَاصِ ‏جَالِسٌ فِي ظِلِّ الْكَعْبَةِ ‏وَالنَّاسُ مُجْتَمِعُونَ عَلَيْهِ فَأَتَيْتُهُمْ فَجَلَسْتُ إِلَيْهِ ‏فَقَالَ: ‏كُنَّا مَعَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ ‏ ‏صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ‏فِي سَفَرٍ… إلى أن قال: مَنْ أَحَبَّ أَنْ يُزَحْزَحَ عَنْ النَّارِ وَيُدْخَلَ الْجَنَّةَ فَلْتَأْتِهِ مَنِيَّتُهُ وَهُوَ يُؤْمِنُ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ وَلْيَأْتِ إِلَى النَّاسِ الَّذِي يُحِبُّ أَنْ يُؤْتَى إِلَيْهِ وَمَنْ بَايَعَ إِمَامًا فَأَعْطَاهُ صَفْقَةَ يَدِهِ وَثَمَرَةَ قَلْبِهِ فَلْيُطِعْهُ إِنْ اسْتَطَاعَ فَإِنْ جَاءَ آخَرُ يُنَازِعُهُ فَاضْرِبُوا عُنُقَ الْآخَر”ِ

“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,

“من أتاكم وأمركم جميع على رجل واحد يريد أن يشق عصاكم، أو يفرق جماعتكم فاقتلوه “

“I heard the Prophet ﷺ 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 who said,

إِذَا بُويِعَ لِخَلِيفَتَيْنِ فَاقْتُلُوا الْآخَرَ مِنْهُمَا 

The Prophet ﷺ 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 ﷺ 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 ﷺ said,

“إنه ستكون هَناتٌ وهنات، فمن أراد أن يفرق أمر هذه الأمة وهي جميع، فاضربوه بالسيف كائنا من كان ” رواه مسلم

“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,

إذا بويع لخليفة بعد خليفة، فبيعة الأول صحيحة ويجب الوفاء بها، وبيعة الثاني باطلة، ويحرم الوفاء بها، ويحرم عليه طلبها وسواء عقدوا للثاني عالمين بعقد الأول، أم جاهلين، وسواء كانا في بلدين أو بلد، أو أحدهما في بلد الإمام المنفصل والآخر في غيره…. واتفق العلماء على أنه لا يجوز أن يعقد لخليفتين في عصر واحد سواء اتسعت دار الإسلام أم لا

“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,

فقد روى الإمام مسلم في كتاب الجهاد والسير واللفظ له والترمذي وأبو داود وابن ماجه وأحمد والدارمي: «‏عَنْ سُلَيْمَانَ بْنِ بُرَيْدَةَ‏ ‏عَنْ ‏‏أَبِيهِ ‏قَالَ: ‏كَانَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ‏ ‏صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ‏إِذَا أَمَّرَ أَمِيرًا عَلَى جَيْشٍ أَوْ ‏سَرِيَّةٍ ‏ ‏أَوْصَاهُ فِي خَاصَّتِهِ بِتَقْوَى اللَّهِ وَمَنْ مَعَهُ مِنْ الْمُسْلِمِينَ خَيْرًا ثُمَّ قَالَ ‏ ‏اغْزُوا بِاسْمِ اللَّهِ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ قَاتِلُوا مَنْ كَفَرَ بِاللَّهِ اغْزُوا وَلَا ‏تَغُلُّوا ‏‏وَلَا ‏تَغْدِرُوا ‏وَلَا تَمْثُلُوا ‏وَلَا تَقْتُلُوا وَلِيدًا وَإِذَا لَقِيتَ عَدُوَّكَ مِنْ الْمُشْرِكِينَ فَادْعُهُمْ إِلَى ثَلَاثِ خِصَالٍ أَوْ خِلَالٍ فَأَيَّتُهُنَّ مَا أَجَابُوكَ فَاقْبَلْ مِنْهُمْ وَكُفَّ عَنْهُمْ ثُمَّ ادْعُهُمْ إِلَى الْإِسْلَامِ فَإِنْ أَجَابُوكَ فَاقْبَلْ مِنْهُمْ وَكُفَّ عَنْهُمْ ثُمَّ ادْعُهُمْ إِلَى التَّحَوُّلِ مِنْ دَارِهِمْ إِلَى ‏‏دَارِ ‏الْمُهَاجِرِينَ وَأَخْبِرْهُمْ أَنَّهُمْ إِنْ فَعَلُوا ذَلِكَ فَلَهُمْ مَا لِلْمُهَاجِرِينَ ‏‏وَعَلَيْهِمْ مَا عَلَى الْمُهَاجِرِينَ فَإِنْ أَبَوْا أَنْ يَتَحَوَّلُوا مِنْهَا فَأَخْبِرْهُمْ أَنَّهُمْ يَكُونُونَ كَأَعْرَابِ الْمُسْلِمِينَ يَجْرِي عَلَيْهِمْ حُكْمُ اللَّهِ الَّذِي يَجْرِي عَلَى الْمُؤْمِنِينَ وَلَا يَكُونُ لَهُمْ فِي الْغَنِيمَةِ ‏ ‏وَالْفَيْءِ ‏ ‏شَيْءٌ إِلَّا أَنْ يُجَاهِدُوا مَعَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ فَإِنْ هُمْ أَبَوْا فَسَلْهُمْ ‏ ‏الْجِزْيَةَ ‏ ‏فَإِنْ هُمْ أَجَابُوكَ فَاقْبَلْ مِنْهُمْ وَكُفَّ عَنْهُمْ فَإِنْ هُمْ أَبَوْا فَاسْتَعِنْ بِاللَّهِ وَقَاتِلْهُمْ وَإِذَا حَاصَرْتَ أَهْلَ حِصْنٍ فَأَرَادُوكَ أَنْ تَجْعَلَ لَهُمْ ‏‏ذِمَّةَ ‏اللَّهِ ‏وَذِمَّةَ ‏‏نَبِيِّهِ فَلَا تَجْعَلْ لَهُمْ‏ ‏ذِمَّةَ‏ ‏اللَّهِ‏ ‏وَلَا ذِمَّةَ‏ ‏نَبِيِّهِ وَلَكِنْ اجْعَلْ لَهُمْ ‏ذِمَّتَكَ‏ ‏وَذِمَّةَ‏ ‏أَصْحَابِكَ فَإِنَّكُمْ‏ ‏أَنْ تُخْفِرُوا ‏ذِمَمَكُمْ ‏وَذِمَمَ ‏أَصْحَابِكُمْ أَهْوَنُ مِنْ ‏أَنْ تُخْفِرُوا ذِمَّةَ ‏اللَّهِ‏ ‏وَذِمَّةَ‏ ‏رَسُولِهِ وَإِذَا حَاصَرْتَ أَهْلَ حِصْنٍ فَأَرَادُوكَ أَنْ تُنْزِلَهُمْ عَلَى حُكْمِ اللَّهِ فَلَا تُنْزِلْهُمْ عَلَى حُكْمِ اللَّهِ وَلَكِنْ أَنْزِلْهُمْ عَلَى حُكْمِكَ فَإِنَّكَ لَا تَدْرِي أَتُصِيبُ حُكْمَ اللَّهِ فِيهِمْ أَمْ لَا”

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 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 ﷺ 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,

روى الإمام البخاري في كتاب الأذان: «‏عَنْ ‏حُمَيْدٍ ‏ ‏عَنْ ‏ ‏أَنَسِ بْنِ مَالِكٍ ‏أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ‏ ‏صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ كَانَ إِذَا ‏‏ غَزَا ‏ بِنَا ‏‏ قَوْمًا لَمْ يَكُنْ ‏‏ يَغْزُو بِنَا حَتَّى ‏‏ يُصْبِحَ ‏ وَيَنْظُرَ فَإِنْ سَمِعَ أَذَانًا كَفَّ عَنْهُمْ وَإِنْ لَمْ يَسْمَعْ أَذَانًا أَغَارَ عَلَيْهِمْ»… وروى الإمام أحمد في مسند المكيين: «عَنْ ‏ ‏رَجُلٍ مِنْ ‏مُزَيْنَةَ‏ ‏يُقَالُ لَهُ‏ ‏ابْنُ عِصَامٍ ‏عَنْ‏ ‏أَبِيهِ‏ ‏وَكَانَ مِنْ‏ ‏أَصْحَابِ النَّبِيِّ ‏‏صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ‏ ‏قَالَ: ‏كَانَ النَّبِيُّ ‏صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ‏إِذَا بَعَثَ السَّرِيَّةَ يَقُولُ‏ ‏إِذَا‏‏ رَأَيْتُمْ مَسْجِدًا ‏أَوْ سَمِعْتُمْ مُنَادِيًا فَلَا تَقْتُلُوا أَحَدًا»‏

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 ﷺ 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 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 ﷺ Hadith narrated by Muslim in the Imarah book:

عَنْ عَرْفَجَةَ قَالَ سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يَقُولُ مَنْ أَتَاكُمْ وَأَمْرُكُمْ جَمِيعٌ عَلَى رَجُلٍ وَاحِدٍ يُرِيدُ أَنْ يَشُقَّ عَصَاكُمْ أَوْ يُفَرِّقَ جَمَاعَتَكُمْ فَاقْتُلُوهُ

It has also been narrated by Muslim that Arfajah said: “I heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ 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 ﷺ Hadith, as previously mentioned:

“إذا بويع لخليفتين فاقتلوا الآخر منهما”

“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,

لا يحل أن يكون للمسلمين أميران، فإنه مهما يكن ذلك، يختلف أمرهم وأحكامهم وتتفرق جماعتهم ويتنازعوا فيما بينهم هنالك تترك السنة وتظهر البدعة وتعظم الفتنة، وليس لأحد على ذلك صلاح

“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 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 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 ﷺ 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 ﷺ 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]

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 ﷺ says, narrated by Muslim in the Ruling book:

“عَنْ عَرْفَجَةَ قَالَ: سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يَقُولُ مَنْ أَتَاكُمْ وَأَمْرُكُمْ جَمِيعٌ عَلَى رَجُلٍ وَاحِدٍ يُرِيدُ أَنْ يَشُقَّ عَصَاكُمْ أَوْ يُفَرِّقَ جَمَاعَتَكُمْ فَاقْتُلُوهُ”

It has also been narrated by Muslim that Arfajah said: “I heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ 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-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 سبحانه وتعالى in all matters that angers Allah سبحانه وتعالى 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 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 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

17 Rabi’ II 1434


No:1434 AH /23