/islam/ - 8kun Masjid

>>44127

Google.

Those that hate him are pretty much grave worshippers.

Since at the time it was widespread in the arabian peninsula. Now not so much, alhamdullilah.

https://www.kalamullah.com/abdul-wahhab.html

You can also find anything on https://archive.org/

Just search the book title

Most popular works :

>Kitab at-Tawhid (The Book of the Oneness of God)

>Kashf ush-Shubuhaat (Clarification of the Doubts)

>Al-Usool-uth-Thalaatha (The Three Fundamental Principles)

>Nawaaqid al Islaam (Nullifiers of Islam)

>Al Qawaaid Al 'Arbaa (The Four Foundations)

Others :

Risālah Aslu Dīn Al-Islām wa Qā'idatuhu

Kitab al-Quran (The book of Allah)

Al-Usool us Sittah (The Six Fundamental Principles)

Adab al-Mashy Ila as-Salaa (Manners of Walking to the Prayer)

Usul al-Iman (Foundations of Faith)

Fada'il al-Islam (Excellent Virtues of Islam)

Fada'il al-Qur'an (Excellent Virtues of the Qur'an)

Majmu'a al-Hadith 'Ala Abwab al-Fiqh (Compendium of the Hadith on the Main Topics of the Fiqh)

Mukhtasar al-Iman (Abridgement of the Faith; i.e. the summarised version of a work on Faith)

Mukhtasar al-Insaf wa'l-Sharh al-Kabir (Abridgement of the Equity and the Great Explanation)

Mukhtasar Seerat ar-Rasul (Summarised Biography of the Prophet)

Kitaabu l-Kabaair (The Book of Great Sins)

Kitabu l-Imaan (The Book of Trust)

Al-Radd 'ala al-Rafida (The Refutation of the Rejectionists)

>>44132

Like I said, I'm not interested in his teachings and theology, from what I understand it was just a call to pure tawheed.

What I want to understand was his political involvement in history, because they claim that he teamed up with Al Saud, and convinced them to rebel against the Ottomans, and spread violence with the sword in Arabia, until they were crushed, and that this movement had a few more revivals in history until the Arab states were established after WW1.

It seems like opponents always point to the history to say that his movement was harmful but ignore his works, but Salafis point to his works to say that there was nothing of deviance yet don't talk about the history. Thats why I'm just so confused and want to get the Salafi or proponent perspective on the history.

>>44139

>What I want to understand was his political involvement in history,

At least you do you research instead of believing the common brainlet tropes

>because they claim that he teamed up with Al Saud,

Yup he did, and there's nothing wrong with that, in that time it was a common practice for an alliance between houses and the religious establishment. The ottomans had a monarchy too, but there the religion obeyed the king, but in the al saud pact, the power was split 50/50.

Al saud are not something odd in history, if the europeans didn't get involved, they would have simply been the next sultanate after the ottomans.

>and convinced them to rebel against the Ottomans,

It was not khuruj, or rebellion, since the ottomans didn't control the najd, and they neglected the regions they controlled of the hejaz, so much that the hajj was an unsafe journey full of road robbers. Also none of the sultans ever did hajj.

>and spread violence with the sword in Arabia,

Ottomans were way more violent, raped and beheaded muslims, blew them up with cannons, it was extreme racism against arabs. Even innocent ones.

>until they were crushed, and that this movement had a few more revivals in history until the Arab states were established after WW1.

Basically the 1st saud state was the purest in terms of theology, then the 2nd, but the 3rd (modern saudi) was established by ibn saud, who is a murtad actually, since he allied with britain against his own army called the ikhwan, which wanted a pan islamic state, not only bound to arabia.

Those ikhwan were the inheritors of abdul wahab, they were the theological group, ibn saud was the political leader, but he sided with britain, instead of trying to make a new caliphate.

>It seems like opponents always point to the history to say that his movement was harmful but ignore his works,

yup those are mostly rafidha and qoboori sufis who are trying to tarnish his personality with red herrings

>but Salafis point to his works to say that there was nothing of deviance yet don't talk about the history.

Yeah those are madkhali, sugar coating salafis so they hide the violent past. Since if abdul wahab was alive today, he would fight the al saud.