Tag Archives: Ottoman Caliphate

The Jordan Royal Family’s Role in the fall of True Caliphate and the Deception of Pseudo-Sufi’s Regarding Them

Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (اَلمَمْلَكَة اَلأُرْدُنِيَّة اَلهَاشِمِيَّة) is in existence since 1921, and in its present form, only since 1948. The first Amir of this Kingdom, Abdullah I,  was a Saudi appointed and British approved Emir of Jordan who declared himself as King of Jordan in 1947.  We have provided a brief history of this dynasty in the following.

Hussein bin Ali (حسین بن علی) (1931 –1854) 

Hussein bin Ali was the Sharif and Emir of Makkah, during 1908 – 17, when he proclaimed himself King of Hejaz. He initiated the Arab Revolt in 1916 against the  Ottoman Empire (who were recognized as the upholders of Shariah throughout the Islamic World), during World War I thus causing the downfall of the Islamic Caliphate. 

The rise of Turkish nationalism under the Ottoman Empire, that culminated in the 1908 Young Turk Revolution, resulted in a rift between Hussein and the Ottoman revolutionaries. On 27 June 1916 Hussein issued a proclamation in which he announced himself the true leader of the Islamic faith and King of Hejaz.  This was a revolt against the Central authority of Ottoman Sultan Mehmed V, whom Hussein accused a puppet of the Young Turk administration (which was headed by a Donmeh Jew named Mustafa Kemal Ataturk). Numerous reasons were cited by Hussein to justify his action; which include alleged mistreatment of Arabs in Syria, and the controversial argument put forward by the Young Turks in 1909 that all religions were to be regarded as equal. 

The irony of the situation is, currently King Abdullah II of Jordan is doing the same thing, what Young Turks did in 1909.  He is also creating an atmosphere in the world where all religions are treated as authentic and equal.  He has issued Amman Messages (declarations) in 2005 in which he calls all Muslim Sects as true Muslims. He also calls Christians, Jews and Buddhists as believers on par with Muslims.  He misinterpreted Qur’anic verses and Ahadith to justify his actions.   

During World War I, Hussein, on the advice of his son Abdullah I,  began secret negotiations with the British Government and demanded that British recognize  and help in the formation of an Arab nation that include Hejaz and other adjacent territories. British agreed in principle, and then commenced the Arab revolt against Ottoman empire in 1916.

At the end of World War I, Arabs found themselves freed from Ottoman Sultanate rule causing division in the Ummah, but were held under the mandate colonial rule of France and the United Kingdom. When these mandates ended, the sons of Hussein; Abdullah I was made Emir of Transjordan (later Jordon),  and Faisal was made Emir of Syria & Iraq (later Iraq) by the British kuffar.

In 1924, when the Ottoman Caliphate was abolished, Hussein was defeated by Abdul aziz al-Saud forces in 1924.    

 Abdullah I bin al-Hussein ( عبد الله الأول بن الحسين ) ( 1951-1882 )

Abdullah I, born in Makkah, was the son of Sherif Hussein bin Ali, Sharif and Emir of Makkah in Ottomon Caliphate.  From 1909 to 1914, Abdullah I sat in the Ottoman legislature, as deputy for Hejaz. 

Around 1915, Abdullah-I hatched a conspiracy against Ottoman empire in collusion with British Government. During World War I,  he led guerrilla raids on Ottoman garrisons, in close cooperation with British Spy T. E. Lawrence and French Captain M.O.A. Raho and played a key role, as the main architect and planner of the end of Khilafah system in the Middle East.  

He attacked Ottoman garrison of Ta’if on 10 June 1916 and captured it on September 22, 1916. He then joined the siege of Madinah commanding a force of 4,000 men based to the East and North-East of the town. In early 1917, Abdullah ambushed an Ottoman convoy in the desert, and captured £ 20,000 worth of gold coins.

In August 1917, Abdullah worked closely with the French Captain Muhammand Ould Ali Raho in sabotaging and destroying Hijaz Railway. 

The most agonizing aspect in the History of Middle East is the establishment of the Jewish State Israel in Palestine.  Abdullah I  played a key role along with British and Jews in its formation. He supported the Peel Commission in 1937, which proposed that Palestine be split for a Jewish state Israel. 

In 1946–48, Abdullah-I openly participated in the partition of Palestine. Before Arab Israeli conflict, the British had essentially withdrawn their troops. The situation pushed the leaders of the neighboring Arab states to intervene, but their preparation was not finalized, and they could not assemble sufficient forces to turn the tide of the war. The majority of Palestinian Arab hopes lay with the Arab Legion of Trans-Jordan’s King Abdullah I, but he had no intention of creating a Palestinian Arab-run state, since he wanted to annex as much of the territory of the British Mandate for Palestine as he could. He was playing a double-game, being just as much in contact with the Jewish authorities as with the Arab League. He held secret meetings with the Jewish Agency (future Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir was among the delegates to these meetings) that came to a mutually agreed partition plan independently of the United Nations in November 1947. A part of Palestine was occupied by Israel and the remaining part was occupied by Jordan.  Rest is history.

Abdullah I became the Emir of Jordon during 1921-46.  He then declared himself King of Jordon and remained in power till 1951.  On July 20, 1951, Abdullah I,  while visiting Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, which was under Jordanian rule, was shot dead by “a Palestinian from the Husseini clan”.  

Talal bin Abdullah ( طلال بن عبد الله‎) (1909-1972)

Talal bin Abdullah came to power after the assassination of his Father King Abdullah I,  on July 20, 1951.  However, he was forced to surrender power to his son Hussein bin Talal  on 11 August 1952 on alleged health reasons.

Hussein bin Talal (حسين بن طلال‎) ( 1935 – 1999)

Hussein bin Talal rose to power after the abdication (removal) of his father, King Talal, in 1952.  His rein lasted till his death on February 7, 1999. Readers may be aware that King Hussein was very  infamous in the Arab world for his secret friendship and covert agreements with  Israel.

In the 1980s, King Hussein declared his brother as Crown Prince. Later he nominated his son Prince Ali bin Al Hussein, born to Queen Alia (third wife of King Hussein), but reportedly changed his mind around 1992 and seriously considered appointing one of his nephews as heir.

However, on his death bed, in an Intensive Care Unit, in a US hospital, critically ill from acute cancer, it was reported on January 25, 1999 that he named Abdullah II as his heir.  The King died on February 7, 1999.

Randa Habib, a woman journalist who was very close to King Hussein of Jordan, wrote a book about the inside story of King Hussein.  She disclosed that King Hussein was a womanizer.  He was a secret friend of Israel who used to give information to Israel about its Arab neighbors.  She also disclosed that before the 1973 war, King Hussain secretly informed Israel that Egypt and Syria were planning to attack Israel which help Israel to win that war.  She described the King as a very shrewd politicians

Abdullah II bin Hussein ( عبد الله الثاني بن الحسين‎)

Born on January 30,  1962, Abdullah II ascended the throne on February 7, 1999 upon the death of his father King Hussein.

He attended St Edmund’s School, Hindhead, Surrey, before moving to Deerfield Academy in Deerfield, Massachusetts. He joined the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst in 1980, was commissioned as a Second Lieutenant, and served as a troop commander in the 13th/18th Royal Hussars.  In 1982, King Abdullah II attended Pembroke College at Oxford University where he completed a one-year Special Training course in Middle Eastern Affairs. In 1987, he attended the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C.


It is alleged that King Abdullah II of Jordan is member of the Committee of 300 influential people in the world who govern the world via a three city state empire, in which the cities pay no taxes and obey their own laws.

(1) City of London Corporation – Financial power center, established in 1067

(2) District of Columbia – Military power center, established in 1871

(3) Vatican City – Religious power center, sovereign in 1929

The Committee uses a network of round-table groups, think tanks and secret Zionist societies which control the world’s largest financial institutions and governments. The most prominent of these groups include Chatham House, Bilderburg Group, Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations, Ditchley Foundation, Club of Rome, RAND Corporation, PNAC and  Freemasonry. 

The Committee of 300 controls the world economy via the City of London Corporation. The City of London Corporation is made up of 108 Livery Companies, the Worshipful Company of Fuellers and the Worshipful Company of Mercers are two of the most prominent.

 The Bank of International Settlements controls the worldwide banking system including the Federal Reserve System and the European Central Bank. The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank work to in-debt developing nations making them subservient to the developed nations of the world.

The Groups of 7, 20 and 30 act as financial regulators and middlemen serving Central Banks and Investment Banks. These regulators are unelected and empower the Financial Terrorists at the expense of the masses. The Investment Banks and financial services corporations gamble with their clients money with the reassurance that any losses will be paid by taxpayers.

The power behind the Committee of 300 is the Anglo-Jewish cousin-hood that dominate the financial and political systems of the world.

This cousin-hood includes the RothschildRockefeller, OppenheimerGoldsmidMocatta,MontefioreSassoonWarburg, Samuel, KadoorieFranklinWorms, Stern and Cohen families.

These families hold monopolies over the worldwide banking system, the oil and gas industry and the metals and mining industry. Through this domination of the financial markets they pull the strings of every government in the world. They also control the illegal drugs trade, human trafficking and illegal arms trafficking causing continuous pain and suffering worldwide.

The cousin-hood believes in a form of Babylonian Talmudic Judaism. The Babylonian Talmud and Shulchan Aruch contain the legal code which is the basis of today’s Judaism and Jewish law. In fact, Talmudic Judaism is primarily a legal system in a literal sense. It has little to do with religion and is more of an ancient political cult group with many followers who are not openly Jewish. This is why so many Jews openly claim to be Jewish and atheist at the same time.

The esoteric teachings for the higher Luciferian initiates are to be found in the Kabbalah. Inside the Kabbalah is contained the mysterious rites for evocations, the indications and keys to practices for conjuration of supernatural forces, the science of numbers and of astrology. The practical application of Kabbalist knowledge has been used through the ages by Talmudic Jews to gain influence both in the higher spheres of Gentile life and over the masses. 

King Abdullah II married to Queen Rania of Jordan.

Rania Al-Yassin was born in Kuwait to Palestinian parents from Tulkarm. She attended the New English School in Jabriya, Kuwait, then received a degree in Business Administration from the American University in Cairo. Upon her graduation from American University, she worked briefly in marketing for Citibank, followed by a job with Apple Inc. in Amman.  Known as a sharp dresser with expensive tastes for designer goods, she is a fixture in London society pages. She was ranked as the third most beautiful woman in the world by Harpers and Queen magazine in 2005.  

King Abdullah II net worth (personal wealth) is not disclosed in public domain, as is generally done in the cases of other rich monarchs around the Globe. (Like King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz of Saudi Arabia’s  net worth is estimated to be over 18 billion Dollars.

However, judging from his recent projects, and his lavish life style, King Abdullah II of Jordan’s  net worth could be among one of  the highest in the world. 

King Abdullah II is a big fan of Cinema.  In 2006, he partnered with the University of Southern California’s School of Cinematic Arts to create the Red Sea Institute of Cinematic Arts, in the coastal City of Aqaba.

King Abdullah’s mother,  Antoinette Avril Gardiner (Toni Gardiner), (born 1941), is the daughter of British Army Officer, Lieutenant-Colonel Walter Percy Gardner.

Toni Gardiner met King Hussein when she was working as Secretarial Assistant on the sets of the famous film  “Lawrence of Arabia” during its shooting in Jordon. Hussein took personal interest in the shooting and provided Jordanian Army personnel to work in the film because he had high regard for British Agent T.E. Lawrence, who helped his grandfather King Abdullah I to grab power.   

 On 25 May 1961, King Hussein married Toni Gardiner as his second wife and gave her the title of HRH Princess Muna al-Hussein. However, after 10 years of marriage, she divorced King Hussein on December 21, 1971.

After  divorce, she kept the title of ‘Princess of Jordan’ and remained in Jordan and continues to work till today. She works for whom and what is the nature of her work is not known to people and is not available in public domain.

Queen Noor, step-mother of King Abdullah II of Jordan;  the mother of Prince Hamza bin Hussain, the crown prince of Jordan between 1999-2004, is dating Carlos Slim Helu, a Maxican, the richest man in the world, worth US $ 69 billion.  

Some people people say that Jordanian rulers belong to Hashemite ( هاشمي ) or Banu Hashim clan of Quraish and direct descendants of Prophet Mohammad (صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم) therefore deserve respect.  We do respect all who are Ahle Bait and consider it mandatory on all Muslims of the world. 

But the history is witness that, till the early reign of Hussein bin Ali, who was Sharif and Emir of Makka, this family remained stead fast in Islam.  But, beginning the reign of Abdullah I, they deviated and started supporting the interests of British and Israel in the Arab World to an extent that Abdullah I helped in the formation of Israel by partitioning Palestine. Abdullah I also helped British and Wahhabi rise to power in Arabian Peninsula.  Jordanian Royal are also infamous in the Arab world for their secret friendship and covert agreements with Israel. 

The King has 4 children, the other two are Princess Salma (b 26 Sept 2000) and Prince Hashem (b 30 Jan, 2005).

Currently King Abdullah II is working for a Grand Zionist plan, against the commandments of Allah and His Prophet Mohammad (صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم) by his Amman Declarations; in which he considers Jews, Christians, Budhhists as Equal in religion with Islam. 

If a very popular Shaikh is doing something against the Sharia openly, then it is our duty to tell him (with due respect) and his followers about it and help him correct it.  If we keep quite, thinking that he is a big Shaikh, or a big King, then we will not be doing justice to him or his followers.


There is a well orchestrated conspiracy to declare King Abdullah II as Khalifa-e-Islam.  Nazim al-Haqqani has  already declared him the Khalifa-e-Islam. Some stories are being concocted to prove the legitimacy of this fake Khilafat (Caliphate) among Muslims. 

Click this link to read what Nazim Haqqani says about Abdullah II: saltanat-transcriptions.s3.amazonaws.com/english/2012-04-08_en_ArshuSham.pdf

Also read the statements provided in the below link in which Nazim al-Haqqani declares that he has already given allegiance to King Abdullah II of Jordon. Nazim al-Haqqani also said that he has kissed the feet and hands of King Abdullah II.  (Astaghfirullah).  Nazim Al-Haqqani says that immediately 10 countries have been given to the King, that include where recent Zionist conspired revolutions have taken place.  He is encouraging the King to enter Syria and capture it immediately. Click here: saltanat-transcriptions.s3.amazonaws.com/english/2012-04-27_en_ToKingAbdullah.pdf

Its interesting to see such pseudo-Sufis like Nazim Haqqani who used to rant day and night on how Wahhabis and Al Saud destroyed the True Ottoman Caliphate but turn a blind eye to Jordanian authority who are equally responsible as Saud themselves, instead they make such corrupted leaders their “Khalifa al-Islam”!! such are their double-games, Indeed, Jordan Dinars seems to work better for these Pseudo-sufis!. May Allah give them Hidayah, Aameen

Islam needs a Restoration, not a Reformation

[Abdullah al-Andalusi]

The desire for the reformation of Islam tends to typically come as a demand made upon the Muslim world by external factors or influences

Having been invited to speak in many debates and lectures about the question of whether there should be a reformation of Islam, I’ve observed that it is not a question that I or most Muslims raise, but one that is thrust upon us by others.

Generally, Muslims are well aware that there is no problem with Islam. Muslims understand that Islam defines human purpose in the cosmos, and offers a complete and consistent way of life that is designed to lead to human happiness and justice in this life and the hereafter. For Muslims, the author of the Qur’an, being also the author of mankind, knows humans better than anyone, and understands how humans should be organised and guided – therefore Islamic laws and solutions are perfectly balanced for implementation by mankind.

The desire for the reformation of Islam then, tends to typically come as a demand made upon the Muslim world by external actors or influences – typically by Westerners and those influenced by Western civilisation, i.e. “secular reformists”. Their demand for reform is based upon the false assumption that religion must be separate from state, and that Islam is comparable to Christianity’s problems with politics. However, there are a number of other fallacies and assumptions they make that quickly come undone under simple scrutiny.

Non-liberal government does not cause technological backwardness

Christianity never caused the Dark Ages, nor did it bring about backwardness. This may come as a surprise to anyone unfamiliar with the relevant history, but the Dark Ages occurred because of the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476AD and being overrun by Germanic barbarian migrations entering the empire. Meanwhile, the devoutly Christian Eastern Roman Empire (the Byzantines), experienced no fall, and no Dark Ages, and ancient Greek Philosophy and Roman technological know-how continued to be taught in numerous academies and schools throughout the Eastern Roman Empire.

In fact, if anything, the Catholic Church created the modern West, since after encountering the Islamic civilisation through either trade or war, they began translating Arabic and Greek intellectual works and setting up universities, triggering the European renaissance in the 1100s. The Roman Catholic Church was a patron of science and education, causing European science and technology to progress for 600 years under non-secular Christian governments. Modern secular liberal governments did not arise until around the 1780s.

Europe’s famous “Scientific revolution” started around the 1500s and is said to have reached its completion by the 1700s all under non-secular Christian governments. By the time secular liberalism first arose in state systems, Europe had already invented the steam engine 80 years before.

The industrial revolution in 1760-1840 began while most of Europe still was not secular liberal. Even the few Liberal regimes existing at the time had not yet adopted most of the laws we associate today with Liberal government.

Europe never progressed technologically or economically due to Secularism, but rather due to the beginning of curiosity, thought and inquiry that was kick-started by encounters with the Islamic civilisation’s level of advancement. The creation of secular liberalism (called “The Enlightenment”) was actually an unintended by-product of the Renaissance, and not the cause of it.

Modern Chinese political philosophers have already remarked that secular liberal democracy is not a prerequisite for technological, economic and scientific development, nor good government, and the meteoric rise of China demonstrates that there are other ways to progress and to achieve prosperity. Indeed, democracy is an older system than Islam, yet is considered “modern”. Islamic laws therefore are not obsolete, but rather they only require re-implementation, with the wisdom and mercy that the Prophet Muhammed (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) demonstrated should accompany them.

The Muslim world is already the product of previous colonial reform attempts

It is argued that the Muslim world is in its current predicament because Islam has not been reformed, but this is ignorant of the fact that the Muslim world has already been “reformed”. Through colonialism, the European powers aimed to reform Islam, and removed Islam from political life in Muslim lands and altered or abolished the teaching of classical Islamic education in law and government, replacing it with a secular and pragmatic understanding for the people, leaving Muslims today illiterate in Islamic political laws. However, the process of changing the masses would take a long time so, in the meanwhile, the colonial occupiers selected and educated a new secular elite from the indigenous peoples to take power after “independence” – and guard the new status quo.

The public activities of Islamic scholarship and its institutions in almost every Muslim country are tightly controlled by their governments. The reality today is that secular elites hold Islam hostage, censoring Islamic education to apolitical aspects of Islam and commissioning bogus legal rulings from client scholars to exhort people to be politically passive, while simultaneously using these same scholars to give Islamic rulings ‘justifying’ allowing the government to perpetrate suppression, torture and arbitrary killing of their enemies (especially against peaceful political Islamic groups – which the West quietly condones).

Militant violence is not caused by Islam

Secular reformists like to claim that terrorist violence is caused by Islam, or an interpretation of it (e.g. Salafism), and not political factors. However, their claims have been disproven by numerous Western academic studies, and even classical secular philosophers, like John Locke, refuted the connection between religion and anti-state violence.

The reality reformists attempt to obscure is that terrorism doesn’t emerge from traditional education of Islam. Most political Islamic education is censored in secular Muslim countries, and a tightly controlled “spiritual-only” education is allowed. Each state teaches its own controlled version, from state-controlled Sufism in Uzbekistan, to Saudi-controlled “Salafism”. Each version is designed to keep the people passive and focusing only on theological disputes or spiritual self-development.

However, the control by secular elites over Islamic education does not always keep the people politically or militarily passive.

The continual extreme oppression and subjugation of peaceful political dissent by these secular elites eventually led to armed revolutionary movements, and in response, a brutal suppression by the elites. This caused some to unfortunately react to the extremism of the secular elites in a reciprocal manner, copying the horrific tactics of the elites they were fighting and, in some cases, attacking other groups suspected of also being used by the West against the Muslim world – tragically including non-Muslim minorities.

The Islamic belief of universal Muslim solidarity and sympathy to the plight of the global Muslim community led to further groups arising from around the Muslim world in response to constant military invasions or occupations of Muslim countries by the West.

Unfortunately, this again saw some using strategies that copy the horrific historical tactics of Western armies used against enemy populations, like “strategic bombing,” where in WWII civilians were first targeted by US/UK as part of a “defensive strategy” to demoralise an aggressive enemy and get them to stop their warring. It then becomes curious how Islam being “reformed” to secular liberalism would stop this, when mainstream Secular Liberal philosophers justify these tactics for the defence of liberalism, and many groups used terrorism in their fight for the liberal ruling system of secular democracy.

In fact, the main argument of terror groups for their tactics is not an interpretation or Islamic text, nor the denial of the Islamic prohibition against targeting civilians. These groups argue that the prohibition is “not set in stone” and that “in today’s world” they can copy modern Western tactics to fight the West.

The problem here is not a classical understanding of Islam (which would prohibit these actions), but that these groups arose from post-colonial Muslim populations who were deeply affected by Western thinking, clearly causing militant groups to arise afflicted with the same Western-imitating logic as the populations they arose from.

Although secular Muslim rulers have been known to use Islam to bolster their support when they feel threatened, this tactic caused strange things to start to happen. Secular elites that were deposed by the West, due to being no longer useful to the West, began cynically transforming themselves into the very Islamic groups they used to violently suppress, but keeping the same tactics they once used against their populations – one such example is the so-called Islamic State (IS).

In modern times, the 20th Century was dominated by terror attacks by secular groups. In Lebanon, during the 1970s, the Christian militia known as “The Phalange” (Phalanx) – in alliance with Israel – massacred thousands of civilians in Palestinian refugee camps and committed numerous war crimes against Muslim populations in Lebanon. Communist Kurdish groups have waged a decades-long terror and insurgency campaign against Turkey, killing thousands. Recently, Communist Kurdish groups detonated deadly car bombs and suicide bombs in crowded civilians areas in Turkey (which noticeably did not receive as much attention in Western media as “Islamist” terror attacks).

Therefore, it is not ideology that causes terror violence, but rather political and social circumstances connected to oppression and invasion which historically have arisen under the same conditions, whether in South America, Africa or Europe itself.

However, secular reformists like to cynically take advantage of IS’s propaganda and public facade of “Islam” to strengthen their case for “Islamic reform,” leading to a shockingly strange and unholy agreement between reformists, Islamophobes and IS for its (bogus) claim to be Islamic. Such reformists have even been known to describe IS as a “blessing in disguise,” with others making similar comments, ironically making reformists some of the biggest apologists for IS.

As demonstrated above, Islamic law does not sanction the actions of extreme groups, despite the invocation of Islamic history and warfare by these groups. These groups use Islamic text merely to seek support for themselves in a region where religion carries weight. These groups arose from a region where everyone does the same, even secular dictators like (Shaitan Jew) President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi of Egypt, who uses religion to justify his authority and commission “religious” justifications to perpetrate the killing of dissidents, despite the fact that all these actions actually contradict the details and conditions contained in those texts.

The logic of terror groups and secular dictators in the Muslim world are no different to far-right American terror groups who misquote the passages of the American constitution and declaration of independence discussing use of force to justify violent revolution against the current American government (which they believe has overstepped its limits) and violence against immigrants and minorities (including Muslims).

Of course, American law courts (like most American laypeople) reject these spurious citations as false and ignorant “legal” arguments. However, in the Muslim world, in the absence of the once widely established Islamic court systems under a Caliphate, post-colonial Muslim populations have a difficult time debunking bogus Islamic legal arguments in the political aspects of a law they simply have not been educated in.

What is the solution to this – less Islamic education on a holistic Islam, or more of it?

“Wahhabism” is not the ‘root of all evil’

Some Western secular reformists claim that the main root of most of the problems in the Muslim world is “Wahhabism” or “puritanical Islam”. They then point to the 1744-1818 Wahhabi-Saudi uprising against the Ottoman Caliphate and the sectarian violence that ensued.

However, what they forget to mention, is that like the decline of the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Caliphate’s military and intellectual decline in the 18th-19th centuries saw the rise of armed insurrections and civil unrest throughout its lands. Some were led by religious reformist movements who saw the Ottoman state as corrupt due to what must be spiritual defects, others fought for the new ideology of nationalism, and others for power. Sectarian violence affected all citizens, not just “Wahhabis”.

The Ottoman Caliphate saw a religious uprising from a Sufi movement that was far more sectarian and more deadly than the “Wahhabis” – the Mahdist movement of the Sufi Samaniyya order in Sudan, led by Mohammed Ahmad. Ahmad claimed he was the awaited “Mahdi” and believed the Ottoman Caliphate to be corrupt collaborators with “infidels”. Ahmad declared all Turks to be disbelievers, and ordered that they should be killed. His movement was also noted for attacking the followers and shrines of rival Sufi groups who rejected him, like the Khatmiyyah, forcing many to flee for their life. Like the Wahhabis, the Mahdists were condemned by the Islamic scholars of their region, and found support mainly from tribal fighters living in the outer frontier areas of the Muslim world. Unlike the Sufi Mahdists, the Wahhabis never declared Ottoman Turks to be disbelievers.

However, most armed uprisings that arose afterward continued to be mostly from Sufi-led insurgencies responding to colonial occupation of Muslim lands in the 19th to early 20th century.

Even non-Muslim communities in the Middle East fell into sectarianism amongst themselves. For example, the Christian and Druze communities of the Levant fell into fighting each other in 1860 leading to the deaths of over 60,000 people (many of them civilians).

Some Western secularists point to sectarian intolerance and violence as evidence of the effect of fundamentalist religion. However, the problems that effect different parts of the Muslim world are not due to Islam or an interpretation of Islam – but rather the declined thinking of the people and un-Islamic cultural practices that arose either after the intellectual decline of Islamic civilisation and/or after colonialism. Consequently, we see the same deteriorating social and intellectual phenomena amongst not just Muslims, but secularists and non-Muslims in the Muslim world, and many other countries outside.

In Jordan, it was reported that a Christian father killed his daughter because she had allegedly converted to Islam. In 2007, a Yazidi father gathered members of the local Yazidi community to stone to death his daughter for wanting to marry a Muslim man. Outside the Muslim world, Indian Sikh father in the UK was alleged to have killed his daughter for being “Westernised” and for not following “Sikhism or Indian traditions”.

In the Secular majority non-Muslim India, there is an acknowledged, out of control rape crisis brought about by the clash of Secular and traditional values. This is mirrored in Egypt by reports of sexual harassment and rape reported in the 2013 pro-secular protests in Tahrir square (notably, none were reported in the “Islamist” counter-protests in Rabia al Adhwiyyah square). Furthermore, the secular Egyptian regime under  (Zionist Butcher) Sisi has been documented to use rape as a weapon against female protestors.

Were these problems caused by Wahhabist interpretations of Islam?? Will reforming Islam affect the secular Kurds, secular Egyptians, secular Indians and Yazidis in those examples? The answer is no. It is therefore clear that the problem that afflicts the Muslim world does not only afflict the Muslim world, and is related to sociological factors that affect both Muslims, secular Muslims and non-Muslims in the region – not an interpretation of Islam. Even the British colonialists noticed that Egyptian Christians were no different to Egyptian Muslims, and were just as sectarian, maybe more so.

Secular reformists exploit sectarian divides in the Muslim world and use the label “Wahhabism” to divide and conquer Muslim resistance to reformation. Wahhabism was a movement, not a school of thought. If you examine the aspects of Islam that the reformists call “Wahhabism” – e.g. hudud (penal) laws in the Qur’an and traditions of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), the prohibition of interest etc – you will find that they are generally shared by all the classical scholars of Islam, and not just of the four Sunni schools of thought, but also the three Shia schools, the Dhahiri (apparentist) school of Ibn Hazm, and the Mutazilite school. The differences between the schools are only in the details of these Islamic laws, not the fundamental concepts themselves.

The use of the word “Wahhabi” (a word taken from European history) therefore, is merely a cover by reformists to attack all of classical Islamic thought – Sunni, Sufi and Shia alike.

The way forward is a restoration of Islam

As demonstrated above, the arguments of secular reformists lack accuracy on the reality of the Muslim world, and its solutions. Their demand for reformation, therefore, is not to initiate something original, but merely to call to complete the re-indoctrination process of the Muslim world that was begun 150 years ago by the predecessors of the secular reformists – the European colonialists.

Muslims that lived after the Prophet Muhammed (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), from their birth to their death, attempted to continuously change themselves toward the state of perfect obedience of their creator described in the Qur’an – both in their hearts, minds and actions. This is called “islah,” and means to reform the individual to be better than they were before, or in an improved position.

But if the Muslim world is not living up to the values and objectives that Islam prescribes, Muslims generally understand that this is the result of the failure of the Muslim community itself, not of Islam. When such cases occur, Islam calls for “tajdeed,” which means revival in the sense of the restoration of something. In this case, it is the restoration of Islam in the community, bringing it back to the mental and behavioural state it was in, before it declined.

Ironically, the claim that countries whose policies are influenced by Islam become backward is refuted by examples in the Muslim world today. Amazingly, the so-called “Islamic Republic” of Iran – although only a hybrid regime with some Islamic policies – is just one of only nine countries in the world that has a fully independent space programme which independently builds and launches its own satellites into orbit. Likewise, the late leader of the “Islamic Republic” of Pakistan, General Zia ul Haq, initiated work on Pakistan’s first independently built space satellite, Badr 1, as well as developing nuclear power reactors and weapons to match India’s developments.

Arguably, the more Islam influences a government’s policies, the more likely it is to invest in an independent capacity for science and technology, even though those governments currently implement only a few Islamic policies. These examples raise an interesting question: if Muslims established a fully Islamic political system, how much more progress could be possible?

The above examples clearly show the Islamic world has great potential, but to fully achieve this it must strive to return to a full intellectual awakening, re-opening of inquiry, creative thought and ingenuity – like it had achieved in its past. This cannot be achieved by an Islamic Reformation, which simply continues to ape the West and continues to turn Muslims into blind imitators, with no original thought or authenticity based upon the Islamic worldview.

What the Muslim world needs is an Islamic restoration (tajdeed), re-establishing the enlightened, plural and just Caliphate that Islam prescribes. That would be a patron of industry, research and defend the citizens of the Muslim world, both Muslim and non-Muslim, from oppression and incursions. It is only then that the Muslim world can progress beyond militancy, secular dictators, invasions and oppression, and become an example of justice and Islam for all mankind – for Islam came to try to change the wrongs of the world, not be changed by them.