It appears then that Murad IV and al-Hajjaj were the two strongmen that emerged on the scene to salvage weakened dynasties that were on the brink of collapse. 

There is an Arab and Muslim governor who will be remembered as one of the most divisive figures in history. He was a dictator. As viceroy, he ruled Iraq and put down rebellions. He killed thousands of dissidents, including prominent lawyers. Surprisingly, there is a figure in Islamic history who had the same legacy but with a narrower focus. Murad IV is the Ottoman Sultan. He was tyrant and ruthless. In a striking parallel to al-Hajjaj, he launched a campaign to retake Iraq from the Persians and slain Amizade Hüseyin Efendi, the Ottoman Empire’s Sheikh al-Islam, the empire’s highest-ranking cleric.

The parallels between the two figures’ stories are astounding. Al-Hajjaj, like Sultan Murad IV, was a ruthless dictator. Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan, the Umayyad caliph, dispatched al-Hajjaj to put down a rebellion in Iraq, and Murad IV marched towards Baghdad to expel the Persians. Al-Hajjaj was well-known for his hostility toward jurists as well as his harsh, even rude, treatment of the Prophet’s companions. Sa’id ibn Jubayr, a prominent Muslim jurist and Tabei (follower of the prophet’s companions), was executed by him. Sultan Murad IV executed Amizade Hüseyin Efendi, the Ottoman Empire’s Sheikh al-Islam. The only distinction between the two is that Murad IV was both a sultan, whereas al-Hajjaj was just a viceroy, albeit powerful. 

Al-Hajjaj, born in 661 AH, began his career as the head of the select troops under Umayyad caliph Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan. Al-Hajjah had shown cunning and quickly rose through the ranks, eventually becoming governor of Hejaz in 692, a position he held for two years. His reign in Hejaz set the tone for the rest of his reign. During his brief reign, he put down the rebellion of Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr, who claimed to be the legitimate caliph of Muslims. Ibn al-Zubayr was killed, beheaded, and crucified, putting an end to unrest in the holiest site of Islam.

On the other side, Sultan Murad IV’s legacy was no less mixed. After his predecessor, Mustafa I, was dethroned, he began his reign at the age of 11. His mother, Kosem Sultan, was the empire’s de facto ruler. He is said to have murdered all but one of his male brothers. And the number of people killed in the process of cementing his rule has surpassed 20,000.

Following his thunderous triumph and resounding success in Hejaz, the Umayyad caliph dispatched al-Hajjaj to quell the commotion in Kufa and Basra. He was appointed viceroy of Iraq and the caliphate’s eastern regions. His tenure as Viceroy of Iraq was notable. He put down rebellions, killed dissidents, and unified the entire territory under the sole authority of the Umayyad rulers—the three achievements that had defined his entire legacy. However, al-Hajjaj was said to have killed tens of thousands of people in the process. Many Muslim chroniclers describe him as ruthless, butcher, and bloodthirsty.

Sultan Murad IV, like al-Hajjaj, took over the empire while it was in disarray. The Janissaries, the Ottoman army’s elite corpses and most powerful wing, had their role expanded, intervening in state matters beyond their primary missions. They used to depose sultans, appoint new ones, and even execute those who did not agree with their demands and ambitions. As a result, the empire was in shambles, disintegrating, and in desperate need of a strong hand to hold it together.

The Ottoman sultan launched a campaign to retake Baghdad from the Safavids in order to solidify his rule and keep the empire together. Ottomans and Persians took turns capturing the city. It was ruled by the Safavids during the reigns of Ismail I and Tahmasp I. Süleyman I, on the other hand, peacefully recaptured the city in 1534. The city was returned to Persian control nine decades later. After losing Baghdad, Sultan Murad decided to retake it, laying siege to the city. In the end, the Ottomans were able to recapture the city and end Safavid control of it. While the Ottomans were laying siege to Baghdad, al-Hajjaj had besieged Makkah as part of his campaign to end the rule of Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr. It appears then that Murad IV and al-Hajjaj were the two strongmen that emerged on the scene to salvage weakened dynasties that were on the brink of collapse. 

One of the most memorable incidents in al-history Hajjaj’s is his execution of Sa’id ibn Jubayr after he joined forces with Abd al-Rahman ibn al-Ash’ath, an Arab nobleman and military commander, in his revolt against Umayyad rule.

Sa’id ibn Jubayr was a prominent Muslim jurist and exegete. He studied branches of Islamic knowledge at the feet of senior companions of the Prophet. He was a witness to many heart-rending incidents and battles in the Islamic history. He opposed the Umayyad rule, particularly al-Hajjaj’s heavy-handed approach towards dissidents and his disregard for Islam’s holiest places. After losing the Battle of Dayr al-Jamajim to al-Hajjaj, Sa’id ibn Jubayr went into hiding for 12 years. Afterwards, he decided to end his self-imposed hiding, coming forth for a last face-off with al-Hajjaj, in which he was killed. 

Following in al-Hajjaj’s footsteps—though unintentionally—Sultan Murad had executed the empire’s most prestigious and highest-ranking scholar: Amizade Hüseyin Efendi. 

The execution of Sheikh al-Islam, the appellation given to the highest religious authority in the empire, was the first in the empire’s history. Politics and feud were the two chief reasons behind the execution. It was rumored that Hüseyin Efendi abused his power, took bribes and conspired against the sultan. It was also reported that the execution was because the chief Ottoman scholar opposed the sultan’s execution of his brothers—a common tradition in the Ottoman dynasty. The sultan was angered by Sheikh al-Islam’s opposition and counsel, and decided to execute him. Ironically, Sa’id ibn Jubayr was the last one to be executed by al-Hajjaj since he died shortly afterwards while Hüseyin Efendi was the first top Muslim scholar to be executed in the empire’s history. 

Thus, al-Hajjaj and Sultan Murad’s careers shared far more similarities than differences. Both rulers took power amid turmoil in their respective empires. Both had launched military campaigns to subdue and recapture Iraq, and both had dared to spill the blood of prominent scholars and jurists—drawing striking parallels between the two figures and introducing the Hajjaj of the Ottomans to those interested in Islamic history.

Mostapha Hassan Abdelwahab is the former editorial manager of the English edition of the Baghdad Post. He is focusing on Iraq, Iran and political Islam movements, with articles posted on the Herald Report, Vocal Europe, the Greater Middle East and other platforms.

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.

The minister said that, “What we are facing is a challenge of a neo-Ottoman state which tries to impose its will upon its neighbors, with violence if needed”.

“We see Turkey transfer mercenaries to Syria, to Libya, to the Southern Caucasus, terrorist mercenaries, a huge danger for the public order of all countries of the region,” he added.

Dendias believes that Turkey is attempting to overwrite the rules in the overall region of the Mediterranean.

“Turkey is trying to undermine President el-Sisi’s government in Egypt; Turkey is present wherever there is trouble. Turkey has invaded Syria and Iraq”, the Minister said. “Sometimes the EU has allowed Turkey to arrive at the wrong conclusions, and that is not good for Turkey, not good for the union, not good for the Turkish society, and it is not good for the peace and stability in the Mediterranean and generally in the region”.

“For many, a country [Germany] dedicated to peace should not sell weapons to a country [Turkey] threatening peace and stability and threatening EU members”, he added.

In the conclusion he said, “We cannot even perceive that Germany would allow a country to threaten Greece; Germany would not allow a country that threatens EU members with war to possess attack weapons that can change the overall balance in the region”.

Erdogan has bitten off more empire than Turkey can chew…

Since 2003, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has towered over his country like a colossus, dominating its political discourse in every respect. To survive and thrive in this cut-and-thrust political culture takes skill, brains and, above all, cunning ruthlessness. But, along with success, as the ancients tell us, so often comes hubris — excessive self-confidence, potentially leading to ruin. And, in pushing his signature, expansionist neo-Ottoman foreign policy beyond its limit, Erdogan has bitten off more empire than Turkey can chew.

On its surface, Erdogan’s neo-Ottomanism perfectly fits the tenor of the times. The desire for the emboldened Turkish Republic to more greatly influence the former regions of its predecessor state — the sultanate centered for centuries in Istanbul — coincides with our new era of loose bipolarity, wherein the two superpowers, the US and China, have far less control over other great powers just beneath them, such as India, Russia, Europe, Japan and the Anglosphere, in terms of power.

Erdogan, viewing a revived Turkey as a prospective great power in its own right alongside these others, sees the chance to set a largely independent Turkish foreign policy for the first time in such a favorable global system.

Reflexively, Erdogan has resolved the age-old question of Turkey’s basic cultural orientation by harkening back to the days of Ottoman power, when the answer was “both” and “neither.” Like the Ottomans, Erdogan sees his country as both Western and Middle Eastern-oriented, and also as entirely distinct from both regions because of its unique dual historical and cultural circumstances.

Given this common view of identity, Erdogan’s Turkey, while still wishing to play a role in European politics, has shifted its emphasis to the Middle East, particularly to the Ottoman Empire’s former possessions in Greece, Syria, Iraq and North Africa, hoping to expand its power and influence in this traditional bastion.

But, as has happened literally dozens of times in history, in practice Erdogan has engaged in imperial overstretch, taking on more commitments than he can sustain. Presently, Turkey is directly involved in the civil war in Libya, supporting the Government of National Accord (GNA) faction in Tripoli against the forces ranged around Field Marshall Khalifa Haftar, who is backed in turn by Russia, France and Egypt.

In June, Turkey at least temporarily bolstered the then-flailing GNA, supplying it with arms, drone technology and mercenaries. However, getting out of failed states is often far harder than getting in. At present, Ankara has no visible strategy to accomplish the tall task of winning the war, helping to establish a stable, pro-Turkish government, and then withdrawing any time in the near future.

At the same time, Ankara has also retained a significant military and geographical foothold in the north of neighboring Syria, occupying swaths of land with the aim of both halting the influx of refugees and stopping Syrian Kurdish forces from effortlessly crossing the border to aid the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), the indigenous Turkish Kurdish grouping that has been the mortal enemy of Ankara for decades.

If this were not enough, Erdogan also continues the traditional Turkish practice of propping up a government in the north of the divided island of Cyprus. In fact, he has also moved to a far more aggressive posture in the eastern Mediterranean, with the Turkish Navy actively challenging ships in waters recognized by the international community as belonging to Greece — a ruling Ankara defiantly refuses to countenance. At stake here are potentially large natural gas deposits, of great value to a perpetually thirsty Turkey.

To facilitate this far more expansionistic regional strategy, Erdogan has also built bases in both Qatar (completed in 2019) and Bashiqa in Iraq. All these moves must be seen as part of a strategic whole, the basis of Erdogan’s neo-Ottoman efforts to decisively expand Turkey’s power in the region.

But you cannot run an empire on the cheap. The fatal flaw in Erdogan’s fevered neo-Ottoman dream is that Turkey is simply not the great power he imagines that it is. In Ankara’s case, the endemic structural problems with its economy make such an expansionistic foreign policy utterly unsustainable in the long run.

The devastating effects of the pandemic on Turkey’s economy are clear. In September, the Turkish lira slid to an all-time low. In a desperate effort to keep the currency from plunging further, the government has blown almost half the foreign reserves of $65 billion it had at the beginning of this year. Inflation remains stubbornly high, reaching nearly 12 percent in August. Finally, Turkey’s gross domestic product was pulverized in the second quarter of 2020, almost entirely due to the coronavirus disease lockdown. It tumbled a hair-raising 9.9 percent year-on-year, the worst such figure in more than a decade. To put it mildly, such devastating statistics do not make running a neo-Ottoman foreign policy easy.

Instead, these numbers amount to facts on the ground that simply cannot be gotten around in the long term. Erdogan’s grandiose neo-Ottoman dream is destined to fail for the most pedestrian, and historically common, of reasons — his expansionistic dreams have far outpaced Turkey’s economic realities.

Piece first published on Arab News.

Dr. John C. Hulsman is the president and managing partner of John C. Hulsman Enterprises, a prominent global political risk consulting firm. He is also senior columnist for City AM, the newspaper of the City of London. He can be contacted via chartwellspeakers.com.

If Europe is to effectively push back against the problems Erdogan is sowing, then they need to start listening to those concerns.

Turkey’s strongman president is bent on creating a warped, 21st century version of the Ottoman empire. As former French President, Francois Hollande, has said Recep Tayyip Erdogan is ”seeking to militarise the eastern Mediterranean; he has breached Nato obligations by buying Russian missiles; he has imprisoned hundreds of journalists and political opponents; he is obsessed with Islamism”. But Europe has yet to wake up to the militarised, Islamist threat on it’s doorstep.

Having initially rebranded his AKP party as pro-market and pro-Western, it didn’t take long for Erdogan’s deep-seated Islamist ideology to emerge. Now he combines the Kemalist foregin policy of former President Özal with a more Islamist worldview. Europe is bearing witness to the fruits of that approach, with Ankara exporting jihadist fighters to Libya, potentially triggering another migrant crisis, and ratcheting up tensions in the Eastern Mediterranean.

Whilst it may alarm, it should not surprise observers. President Erdogan’s neo-Ottomanism is all about projecting Turkey’s power beyond it’s borders by disseminating a Muslim Brotherhood-inspired agenda in hotspots like Syria, Libya and Greek waters. Turkey has adopted Iran’s strategy of using deniable proxy activities to obscure the exact nature of its plans.

Western ignorance of this new hard-line Islamist ambition is nothing new. During the Arab Spring in the early 2010s Obama tacitly embraced the Muslim Brotherhood, fundamentally failing to understand their destabilising and undemocractic ethos. Likewise, European powers are not only failing to act upon Turkey’s expansionism, but appear not to have properly understood the ideology that motivates it.

Erdogan’s ties to the Brotherhood go back to the 1970s, when he was a pupil of Necmettin Erbakan, the father of Turkish Islamism. Muslim Brotherhood branches in the Gulf helped support Erbakan and Turkey’s Islamists during an era of secular dominance. When the AKP and Erdogan came to power, they were ready to repay the favour. This was further helped by the Obama administration giving Turkey a free hand, seemingly out of support for the democratic ideals they mistakenly thought the Brotherhood embodied.

As a result, we are seeing Turkey, in close partnership with Qatar and Iran, majorly expand its destabilising influence throughout the region. They have been instrumental in developing Muslim Brotherhood affiliates, all preaching a hard-line doctrine which aims to undermine the moderate and open approach taken by many Middle Eastern states. Examples include Islamic Action Front in Jordan, the Iraqi Islamic Party, Islamic Action Front in Lebanon, and Libya’s Justice and Construction Party.

Furthermore, Turkey and Qatar have funnelled money and resources into mosques across Europe which parrot Islamist messages, seeking to separate congregants from the fabric of the largely secular societies in which they live.

Turkey is running loose, with an effective free hand thanks to Europe’s failure to coordinate a response.

The lack of any concerted reaction to Erdogan’s reckless sabre-rattling against Greece is a case in point. If the European Union is meant to be an organisation of common interests that protects it’s member states, then it’s failing Greece. A recent European Council summit was stretched out as Greece and Cyprus rejected statements on the basis that there were no prospects of sanctions against Turkey. As the countries directly experiencing Turkish menace, their concerns have been largely ignored.

If Europe is to effectively push back against the problems Erdogan is sowing, then they need to start listening to those concerns. However, to truly understand how to push back against Turkish aggression, Western leaders must first get their head around its Islamist roots. Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem likely any time soon.

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.

Why the Ottoman-family built such a great lodge and what’s their connection with Freemasons…

I wasn’t surprised when I heard that “Turkey’s Erdogan is a Freemason belonging to Dömneh secret society”, claimed by Serbian-Yugoslavian Researcher Dejan Lučić.

I have been quite fascinated by these topics for the past 20 years, and in fact I visited the grand Masonic lodge in Hyderabad in 2003, built by the Nizam, father of son-in-law of last Ottoman Sultan Abdulmejid II.

Inside the lodge, I saw David-Stars all over the walls, and various writings in Hebrew, Urdu and Persian languages.

After witnessing the lodge, I was quite inquisitive why the Ottoman-family built such a great lodge and what’s their connection with Freemasons.

After few days, I visited Salarjung Museum of Hyderabad to find some content for the research, and the “Founder’s Gallery” is as clear as the sky that—Nizam was 33rd Degree Freemason. All his attires, special ritualistic swords, and pictures are on public display.

Coincidentally, Adnan Oktar aka Harun Yahya was quite famous those days, and I got my new multimedia computer the same year. So to enjoy the new machine, I used to watch his documentaries and read his books.

There were two books on this subject—”Global Freemasonry” and “The Knight Templars”.

Oktar, who is now a top freemason, dedicated third chapter of the book Global Freemasonry about the rampant masonic presence in Turkey in every system of the society.

In 2015, a video clip of Dr. Raslan of Egypt was viral, where he read official documents in public to expose the connections between Freemasons and Muslim Brotherhood or Ikhwanul-Muslimeen.

He quoted Tharwat Kharbawi, former freemason and brotherhood member—who wrote about how the formation and working pattern of MB was laid by Freemasons.

The famous Rabia hand-symbol glorified by Erdogan during 2013 Egypt protests, flashed my mind. Interestingly, the hand symbol was claimed by Masonic groups.

Further, the deception and fraud by MB and Erdogan is quite known to the Muslim world, how MB collaborated with the Obama regime to engineer the so-called “Arab Spring” in Egypt, Syria, Tunisia, Bahrain, and Yemen, and tried their hands to mess-up with Saudi Arabia as well, however they lost to the Saudi Security forces and its backing in Bahrain and Egypt.

Erdogan’s deception is evident. On one hand he criticizes Israel, but on the other hand he venerates the grave of Theodore Herzel, founder of modern Zionism.

He calls for Israel’s destruction, and keeps Israeli embassy open in Istanbul.

He calls for the rights of Palestinians, but allows Israelis to get a “free” on-arrival visa, and stay in Turkey for 90-days, while Palestinians have to pay.

He calls for Israel’s destruction, but sends them medical aid and permits their cargo planes.

The list of Erdogan’s deceptions can continue.

The major sign of “Dajjal” is deception, since his name is derived from Dajal which means to fake-up and hide the reality, and this is one of the signs of Dajjalian forces—they work under the facáde. They keep the people busy with their outward claims and work keenly on their sinister agendas.

It seriously upsets me, when I see  people getting easily swayed away by Erdogan and his deceptive agenda, and the kids getting overtly excited by the “return of Ottoman Caliphate in 2023”.

Wake-up from the slumber and see yourself, the real enemy is presented to you as Messiah, and the real friends are character-assasinated day-in and day-out, and don’t fall for the ulterior motives of deceptive forces. Wake up!

PA and Hamas as pit in the faces of the ones who gave their lives…

Before World War I, the Middle East region, including the Ottoman Syria, was under the control of the Ottoman Empire for nearly 400 years.

Towards the end of the 19th century, Palestine, which was divided between the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem, Syria Vilayet and Beirut Vilayet, was inhabited predominantly by Arab Muslims, Christians, Jews (predominantly Sephardic) and Druze, Circassians, both farmers and Bedouin.

The Ottoman Empire imposed a law called the “Ottoman Lands Law” in 1858, based on the collection of agricultural crop taxes, the law mandate if peasants were not able to pay the tax, the state will cease the lands if the owner didn’t cultivate it for three consecutive years.

A Lebanese family from Beirut called “Sursock” saw the opportunity in the Ottoman mandate and bought seventy-seven Palestinian villages from Palestinian farmers, which make up three percent of the land of Palestine.

Sursock is one of Beirut’s aristocratic families belonging to the Greek Orthodox community, and its name has been associated with the most prominent Lebanese events since the Nineteenth century.

The settlements were divided into four regions Haifa, Jaffa, Tiberias, and Lower Galilee Safed. The Jewish settlers came from Europe and Russia and built four colonies.

The first of the Bata Tikva is called Jewish Hope in 1879 CE. The second is the Rishon Luzion colony. The third colony is Zmarin and the fourth colony of Metulla in 1886 CE.

The Jewish colonies rolled under the eyes of the Ottoman Empire at that time until they reached Jerusalem.

During the reign of the King of Hijaz at the time, Sharif Hussein bin Ali, who had authority over Palestine founded by the Hashemites and lasted only nine years from 1916-1925. An agreement was agreed to allow the establishment of a homeland for the Jews. It was called the “Faisal-Weizmann” agreement, in exchange for allowing the Jews to establish a national homeland for them in Palestine.

The Arab-Israeli War of 1948

The Arab-Israeli War of 1948 broke out when five Arab nations invaded territory in the former Palestinian mandate immediately following the announcement of the independence of the state of Israel on May 14, 1948.

On November 29, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly approved the decision to divide Palestine into two Jewish and Arab (Palestinian) states and internationalize the Jerusalem region (under international rule).

The partition resolution was as follows: 56% for Jews. 43% for the Arabs. 1% for the Jerusalem area (which is an international region and placed under the mandate of the United Nations), and the decision included the borders between the two promised countries and identified stages in its implementation and recommendations for economic settlements between the two countries, basically putting an end to the conflict with consideration to the complex situation.

Israelis welcomed the partition project, while the Palestinian factions felt it was an unfair compromise. The National Liberation League, a communist group found by Emile Habibi, Emile Toma called for the acceptance of the partition plan.

The intensity of the fighting escalated after the partition decision in the beginning of 1948, and the Salvation Army was formed under the leadership of Fawzi Al-Qawuqji and influenced by Amin al-Husseini involving of Egypt and the seven members of the Arab League.

The fighting ended on January 7, 1949, after the Israeli army seized most of the Negev region and encircled Egyptian forces stationed around Fallujah in the northern Negev. After the end of the fighting, negotiations began on the Greek island of Rhodes.

The green line drew on the ground a division of Palestine into three parts, namely: “Israel, which represented the largest part with 78% of the area of historic Palestine, the West Bank and Gaza Strip by 22%.”

The tripartite aggression against Egypt (October 1956) launched by Israel, England and France because of the decision taken by President Gamal Abdel Nasser to nationalize the Suez Canal.

The aggression was stopped due the Soviet threat to interfere in the war, and then the American mediation to put an end to the military campaign. International emergency forces were placed on the common border between Egypt and Israel and the PA was founded.

The PA kept involving Arab countries in the conflict thanks to the surging popularity of the Arab Nationalist movements and the Islamist ideology through the region and the unchecked practices of the Israeli government at the time that made the situation a very explosive one.

The Samu incident or Battle of Samu was a large cross-border assault on 13 November 1966 by Israeli military on the Jordanian-controlled West Bank village of Samu in response to an al-Fatah land mine attack two days earlier near the West Bank border, which killed three soldiers.

Tensions reached a boiling point when a misleading intelligence report provided by the Soviet intelligence to Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser, with the aim of pressuring Egypt to buy more Russian weapons, under the claim that Israel intends to attack Syria.

As a result, Gamal Abdel Nasser declared a state of emergency. In return, Israel declared a state of emergency in anticipation of a possible Egyptian attack. The battles began on June 5, 1967 with a sudden attack by the Israeli Air Force on Egyptian military airports where Israeli fighters flew at a low level to avoid capture by Egyptian radars.

The attack achieved its goals, and the Egyptian Air Force was neutralized, which allowed the Israeli ground forces to invade the Sinai Peninsula, backed by air cover.

The Egyptian army withdrew after incurring losses. Israel occupied the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights in Syria, within six days.

Israel controlled four times the land mass. The UN Security Council issued Resolution 242 calling on Israel to withdraw its forces from the territories occupied in 1967.

Wars kept happening on smaller level until the 1973 war and the oil embargo that forced a political solution when the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel was signed 16 months after the visit of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat to Israel in 1977 after intense negotiations.

The main premise of the treaty were mutual recognition, the cessation of the state of war that had existed since the Arab-Israeli war of 1948, the normalization of relations and the complete withdrawal of Israel of its armed forces and civilians, from the Sinai Peninsula.

The Palestinian Authority rejected or danced around any peace offer, tens of thousands of Arabs died in the name of the Palestinian cause, yet the PA and Hamas as pit in the faces of the ones who gave their lives because they were deceived into partaking in the wars of others.

Khaled Homoud Alshareef holds PhD in Business and he earned Masters in Philosophy. He often writes about Islamism, Islamist factions and modern Terrorism. He tweets under @0khalodi0.

Following are the excerpts of famous Scholars who debunked the myth, and clarified the matter from verified historical perspective.

When Shaykh Abdulaziz bin Abdullah bin Baz was asked about the matter, he replied.

Shaykh Muhammad bin Abdulwahab did not rebel against the Ottoman Caliphate state – as far as I know and believe. There was no governmental control or authority for the Turks over Najd.

Najd was made up of small emirates and scattered villages and upon every town or village – no matter how small they were – was an independent leader…there were emirates which had battles, wars and disputes.

Shaykh Muhammad bin AbdulWahab did not rebel against the Ottoman state, but he rebelled against the evil situation in his area, so he strove truly for the sake of Allaah and was patient and persevered until the light of the Dawah spread to other towns. — Nadwa Jadeed al-Fikr al-Islaami in the University of King Saud 1402 A.H.

When Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan was asked that, some of the people, those enemies to the Dawah of Shaykh ul Islaam Muhammad bin AbdulWahab say that Shaykh ul Islaam and the Imam Muhammad bin Saud rebelled against the rule of the leader of the Ottoman state and that they split away from Najd is the central area of mid Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Riyadh etc. obedience and this is against the creed of the Ahl ul Sunnah wal Jammah what is your opinion about this statement?

He replied.

Does this person who says this statement adhere to hearing and obeying the leader?! Most of those who say this statement hold the opinion of rebelling against leaders nowadays, and they do not adhere or acknowledge the authority of the leaders, this is one aspect.

The second aspect is that Shaykh Muhammad bin AbdulWahab and Imam Muhammad bin Saud did not rebel against the leader at their time because the Ottoman state did not have authority over the area of Najd but the area of Najd was in the hands of their leaders.

Every area from the lands of Najd had an independent leader which it would rule over. When one of them would pass away then one of his sons or relatives would take over after him, therefore, the Ottomans did not have authority over the area of Najd.

The Ottoman state did not give importance to the Najd area because there was no produce there at that time and there was no importance paid to it. The Ottomans fought against the Saudi state, however, they did not fight them because they rebelled, but rather they fought against the Saudi state out of fear of them.

Therefore, they fought against the Saudi state fearful of them, when their ability and matter had become great and their command became apparent, the Ottoman state feared them and fought against them. They feared them, and that is why they fought them, that the Saudi state may war against them in their own land, this is the purpose, otherwise they had no authority over the land of Najd.

The land of Najd was in the hands of its leaders and rulers, generation after generation until Shaykh Muhammad bin AbdulWahab came with the Dawah and Muhammad bin Saud aided him and extended out their authority over all of the Najd area and other areas of the Arabian peninsula and Allaah established them firmly because they undertook the Dawah of Muhammad peace be upon him and spread Islaam and all the emirates of Najd which were previously spread out over Najd entered under one authority, then at that time the Ottoman state feared that they would reach their land and the land of Iraq and the land of Shaam so they feared for themselves.

They also had major deviancies and they had tombs and shrines, so they feared for what they were upon. They were upon Soofeeyah and Bida’ so they feared the Dawah of the Shaykh will change them, that is why they fought against the Saudi state.

When the similar question was asked to Shaykh Saleh Alaa Shaykh that, what is your opinion about the one who says that Shaykh Muhammad bin AbdulWahab rebelled against the Ottomans, how do we refute them?

He replied.

The answer is from two angles: The first angle: It is as I mentioned to you, Najd at the time of the Shaykh was not under the authority of the Ottomans, but rather, Najd from the year 260 A.H. was not subject to their authority, not to the authority of the Abbasids or to any other authority, Najd was independent.

Some of the Khawarij tried to overcome the people of Najd from that early time and likewise a group from the people of Yemen etc. This means the people of Najd were independent and did not enter under obedience at that time.

The people of Najd were divided and did not force their people and did not surrender to giving Baya [oath of allegiance] but they were independent.

When the Ottoman state appeared every area of Najd had its own leader, so it was not subjugated under the Ottoman state because when this state first established itself, it was upon correct Islaam then after that it became deviated.

When the Shaykh [Muhammad bin AbdulWahhab] came the people were upon this condition that every area had a leader, they did not acknowledge the authority of Bani Uthmaan in contrast to al-Ahsa and the eastern provinces since these people acknowledged the authority of the Ottomans.

The leader of al-Ahsa and places like that were under the leadership of the Ottomans. Likewise, the Ashraaf [the rulers of Makkah] and those similar to them had a type of independency, but they were under the general authority of the Ottomans, as for Najd it was independent, and that is one angle.

The second aspect is that in the time of the Shaykh the Ottomans were calling to Shirk al-Akbar (major Shirk), Soofi paths and they would get the 8 people to love that. They would spend wealth upon the graves and the worship of them and spend lots of money upon that. Therefore, from this aspect if Najd was under their authority they still would not be under their obedience because they called to Shirk and they consolidated this in their last treaties.

As for the first two hundred years the Ottomans were upon the correct methodology and generally, they were good, but when it came to approximately the year 1100 A.H. and after that, when there occurred a lot of Shirk among the Muslims, the Ottomans were from those who completely aided this Shirk and spent wealth upon it.

There are statements of the Ottoman Caliphs – as was the title widely given to them – statements from the leaders of the Bani Uthmaan who wrote supplications about seeking deliverance and rescue with the Messenger peace be upon him and seeking deliverance and rescue with the Awaaliyaa etc.

The first aspect is that which is dependable as I mentioned, the second aspect is a derivation of the first.” —
Sharh Kitab Thalaat al-Asool, by Shaykh ul Islaam al-Imam the reviver Muhammad bin AbdulWahab atTameemi p.36-37

He further said.

The answer is, that this is not correct, because Najd from the year 256 A.H. was outside the rule of the Abbasid Zaydeeyah. It was out of their jurisdiction and the Abbasid state from the outset did not have any desire for it.

The Abbasids did not send anyone to the people of Najd due to what occurred in the Najd, from disunion and separation, and differences and weakness, because there was no need of Najd at that time. Then the Emirates and states came in to power but they did not request the people of Najd to enter under their authority.

The Najd had emirates and states independent from the year 256 A.H. and then around the year 500 A.H. came the end of the ‘Akhdareeyah’ state, then after that states came in to power or very small states. Every time a person established a garden or farm and people gathered around it, there occurred a leader of the state and village etc.

Then came the Imam of Dawa, Shaykh Muhammad bin AbdulWahab during these circumstances, which is that the states in Najd did not have a connection with the Ottoman state, but the Ottoman state did not give them wealth to spend upon them.

Also, the Ottoman state did not request taxes from the leaders of Najd, nor did they request them to give Baya etc. but rather Najd was abandoned due to them not having a desire for it, there was no wealth there and there was no desire for its people, but Najd was small separated areas. Shaykh Muhammad bin AbdulWahab came during this circumstances, where there was a leader of Uyainah, a leader over Huraymalah, a leader over alJubaylah, a leader over Dareeyah, a leader over Riyadh, a leader over Kharj etc. 10 each area had an independent emirate and independent authority, so he gave Dawa at this time.” —
Asilah Kashf ash-Shubahaat (1/4)

Article first appeared on MiraathPublications