Reaction of Moroccan Scholars to Wahhabism

Narrated Sidna Ibn ‘Omar (may Allah be pleased with him): The Prophet (peace and blessing be upon him) said, “O Allah! Bestow Your blessings on our Sham! O Allah! Bestow Your blessings on our Yemen.” The People said, “And also on our Najd.” He said, “O Allah! Bestow Your blessings on our Sham! O Allah! Bestow Your blessings on our Yemen.” The people said, “O Allah’s Apostle! And also on our Najd.” I think the third time the Prophet (and blessing be upon him) said, “There (in Najd) is the place of earthquakes and afflictions and from there comes out the side of the head of Satan.” (Sahih Bukhari)  

The founder of Wahhabism was Shaykh Mohammad ibn Abdelwahhab Tamimi (d. 1206/1792) who was born at al-Dar'iyya in Najd in present-day Saudi Arabia. His father was a judge and he instilled a love of Sufi culture in his son. Ibn Abdelwahhab travelled to Medina where he learned the Hanbali Islamic tradition and later moved to Baghdad and Damascus where he learned the Qadiri Sufi path. He became an exponent of mystical Sufism but later abandoned it. On his return to his homeland, he announced that Islam had been corrupted by foreign influences. In his Book of Tawhid, he expounded on his view of Islam which was a rejected of all Gods except Allah. He also denounced the veneration of tombs as a Christian influence. In the name of strict monotheism, he launched a jihad against the mushrikun (polytheists). Ibn Abdelwahhab antagonized the local ‘uluma with his extremist ideology and was expelled from his home town. He sought refuge from the ruler of Riyadh Mohammed ibn Saud (d. 1178/1765). Ibn Abdelwahhab married Saud’s daughter and the two men launched an alliance that survives to this day. Saud would provide military protection for Ibn Abdelwahhab while the latter would legitimize Saudi rule over local Bedouin tribes subjugated by jihad.

The Wahhabis were brutal to their enemies. If captured, they were offered the choice of conversion to Wahhabism or death. Wahhabi writings elevated jihad to the “ultimate manifestation of Islam”. When ibn Saud died in 1178/1765, the cause was taken up with relish by his son Abdellaziz (1218/1803-1229/1814). Ibn Abdelwahhab himself died in 1206/1792 but the Saudi empire expanded in his memory. In 1216/1802 an army of Wahhabis attacked the southern Iraqi city of Karbala. There they massacred 4,000 Muslims and sacked the shrine of the blessed tomb of Sidna al-Hussein (may Allah be pleased with him), the son of the Chieftain of Womankind Sayyida Fatima Zahra (may Allah be pleased with her).

The Saudis stormed Mecca in 1217/1803 where again they attacked shrines including the dome on Hira’ Cave at Jabal Nur mountain where the Holy Prophet (peace and blessing be upon him receive revelation. Controlling the entire Arab peninsula they were now a serious threat to the Ottoman Empire. The empire fought back led by the governor of Cairo Mohammed Ali who launched a series of raids across the Red Sea. Egyptian forces retook the cities of Mecca and Medina and captured King Abdellah in 1233/1818 to end the first Saudi reign. But the Saudi-Wahhabi alliance was to survive this setback. After the Egyptian army was forced to withdraw to bases in the 1255/1840, the Saudis retook Riyadh with Wahhabism firmly seated at the centre of power. This second Saudi state was terminated in the late 1276/1860s by an Ottoman Empire revived by the newly built Suez Canal. But this was a temporary respite for Europe. Britain was starting to assert its influence on the region. They struck an alliance with a new Saudi leader. Abdul ibn Saud returned to power in Riyadh in 1320/1903 with help from Lord Curzon’s naval flotilla in the Persian Gulf.

Abdul ibn Saud co-opted his old family allies, the Wahhabis, and provided them with funds and religious instructors. In World War I, Britain took control of the old Ottoman Arab territories and established a relationship with Sharif Hussein, the Hashemite ruler of Mecca since 1325/1908. The end of the war meant that the map would need to be redrawn to establish the border between Hussein’s and Saud’s kingdoms. Wahhabi armies terrorised its neighbours but were hemmed in by the airpower of the British. When the new Turkish republic abolished the Ottoman caliphate, King Hussein proclaimed himself caliph. An enraged Saud declared a jihad against the Hashemites. The war was enthusiastically pursued by the Wahhabis who wanted to “purify” the holy cities of Mecca and Medina. Hussein abdicated and his son Ali fled to Iraq in 1343/1925. Saud returned in triumph to Mecca.

A. Wahhabism and the Maghribi Intelligentsia  

The tremors of the Wahhabi Da'wa have spared no one and its echoes have reverberated throughout Dar al-Islam in successive waves. The remoteness of the Moroccan Sharifian Empire did not preclude its involvement in the dispute that has pitted its advocates against those who dismissed it as a 'recusant sect. Indeed the Wahhabi revolution generated an intense and bitter polemic among Maghrib "Ulama', creating an unsurpassed acrimonious debate, thereby perturbing the well ensconced religious sentiments that Malikism as a juridico-social system had provided since the abolition of the Tumartiya. The dramatic action and the ensuing fall of the Haramayn to the Wahhabis caused deep anxiety among Maghribis for it was interpreted as a sacrilege unparalleled since the sack of Mecca by the Qarmatians.  

Perhaps the virulence of the controversy stemmed from the fact that Maghribis have always looked to the Hijaz for their religious inspiration. Rigorist by nature, the cradle of the religion they had so undeviatingly adopted and aggressively promoted seemed always to provide the best example of classical symbolism. The ways of Malik were naturally considered the most authentic. Similarly, the simplicity of the people of the Hijaz, their pristine morals, and their rejection of the urban sophistication of the 'Iraqi school of thought was astoundingly analogous to the austere stand exhibited by the Almoravids (Al-Muwahhidun) vis-à-vis Andalusian splendor and laxity.

This time however, the new rulers of the Haramayn besmeared by their nomadic truculence, were challenging the traditional customs and beliefs of all Muslims, including the Maghribis, who perhaps felt that their righ­teous behavior was beyond reproach. It is revelatory that a strong contingent of Maghribis participated in the 1226-27/1811-12’s Egyptian campaign in the Hijaz. Hence the negative Maghribi response to the Wahhabi Da'wa was rooted in a conflict of politico-religious recantation and crystallized in the Maliki mold. The Maghrib 'Ulama along with their cohorts in Egypt settled on an overall strategy of strident escalation of verbal attacks. It was mainly designed to allow time for the rhetorical squeeze to gradually engender a gen­eral societal reaction leading perhaps to an all out Ridda war.

The news of the Wahhabi Da'wa was of course cir­culating in the Maghrib, a decade before official contacts were established between its promoters and the Maghribi intelligentsia through the vehicle of Hajj. The Rahhala Abul Ras al-Mu'askar (d. 1239/18 23) who had twice visited the Haramayn and who had met Shaykh Mohammed al-Amir al-Kabir (d. 1232/1817), the Mufti of the Maliki school at al-Azhar, was granted two audiences by the Great Moroccan Sultan, the Just Ruler, Champion of Orthodoxy, Amir al-Muminin Mawlana Abu-r-Rabi'a Sulayman (1206/1792-1238/1822). Discussions must have centered on the Wahhabi Da'wa since al-Mu’askari had observed the actions of the Wahhabi-Saudis. It is reported however that the first official correspondence occurred during the rule of the third Amir of the first Wahhabi entity, Saud b. Abdellaziz (1218/1803-1229/1814). The Maghribi consensus is that a missive was directed to the 'Ulama' of Tunis in 1227/1811-12, and that the latter sent in turn a copy of the Wahhabi tract to the Moroccan intellectual capital.  

There are basically two flaws in such an assertion. For one thing in view of the importance of the Moroccan delegation to the Haramayn led by Mawlay Ibrahim b. Sulayman in 1227/1811 one is tempted to assume that first an official letter must have reached the Fasis and that it must have been received earlier than origi­nally believed. Ibn Ghannam the Wahhabi historian asserts that letters were already being sent by Shaykh Mohammed Ibn Abdelwahhab, that is before his death in 1207/1792. Under Abdellaziz b. Mohammed Al Saud (1179/1766-1218/1803) summons to Tawhid continued to be distributed through­out the Muslim world most of which were copied under the directives of Shaykh Abdellah b. Mohammed b. Abdelwahhab in the name of the founder.

According to al-Jabarti, the Wahhabi epistle reached the Maghrib through the Shaykh al-Rukb al-Maghribi. If this is indeed the case than the missive arrived in Tunis before the interruption of the Hajj which followed the fall of Mecca in 1221/1806, although the Wahhabi propaganda did intensify then. Moreover, the Tunisian reply to the Wahhabi tract was undoubtedly written before the death of its author Qadi al-Jama'a Abu Hafs Omar b. Qasim al-Mahjub which occurred on Muh. 1222/April 1807. Al-Nasiri however had hinted at the possibility of two original letters, one addressed to Tunis and the other to Fez.

Mohammed al-Mannuni on the other hand quoting Shaykh al-Tayyib b. Kiran, mentions two sermons received by the Fasi 'Ulama. Indeed, recently a handwritten summon in the name of Shaykh Mohammed b. Abdelwahhab was discovered in the royal archives. Although the Fasis version of the summon bears little difference with the Tunisian, it is interesting to note that most Moroccan chroniclers have concentrated on the latter. In view of the favorable official Makhzan reply, the Court historians found it more prudent to ignore the existence of the original(s) by referring only to a Tunisian copy. It might have otherwise revealed secret dealings with the 'sectarians'. Both letters were addressed to all the people of the Maghrib, particularly to their 'Ulama.  

"In the name of God the merciful, we ask for his support and forgiveness and call on him to protect us from our bad deeds. He who calls for God's help is in no perdition but he who shuns God and his Prophet shall know no felicity... there is no God but Allah... He who obeys the sovereign Lord and his Prophet shall be saved but he who ignores him and his Prophet shall perish for he will only wrong himself not the Lord ... God said: "If you love Allah follow me I shall protect you and forgive your sins"(Quran 3:31). God also said: "Take what the Prophet has brought you and avoid what he for­bad you" (Quran 59:7). God said: "Today I have perfected my religion for you and have bestowed my grace upon you" (Quran 5:3). Thus spoke the almighty." The Sovereign God has enjoined us to follow his injunctions, to abandon the Bid'a and sectarianism (Wa tark al-bida' wa al-tafarruq wa al-ikhtilaf...). God said: "Follow what has been bequeathed on you but do not abandon the Lord for the Awliya'..." (Quran 7:3).

The Prophet... has warned his community that it would disintegrate into seventy-three sects all doomed to hell with the exception of one which would follow the Sunna ...  If you are aware of that, than you must surely be aware of the problem of associationism (al-Ishrak bi Allah) that is rampant among us, that of asking the dead for victory and favors (al-Tawajjuh ila al-mawta...) and other prayers that cannot be answered by anyone but God... The problem of premonitory animal im­molation and other offertory dedicated to the dead with the purpose of divination and fortune telling (Wa al-isti'ana bihim fl kashf al-shada'id wa jalb al-fawa'id ...). To allow some of our prayers to be diverted to anyone else but Allah is pure idolatrousness, for God expects our total devotion... those hypocrites who call on the angels and the prophets to intercede in their favor will not obtain the divine absolution for they are liars and apostates... God said: "He who invoques inter­mediaries (Wasa'it) for the purpose of interces­sion is only deifying them ... Only God is the dispensator of grace on whomever he chooses" (Quran 39:44, 2:255: 20:109; 21:28; 72:18). "If Prophet Mohammed the perfect intercessor cannot intercede without Allan's permission how then could other prophets succeed?" 

Hence, what we have just enunciated is in no way contradicting what the 'Ulama' are saying. It has been in fact unanimously agreed upon by the Salaf... including the four Imams... What we are witnessing today in terms of the cult of inter­cession, the glorification of mausoleums (Ta'zim al-qubur) and the erection of cupolas (Bina^’ al-qibab), their embellishment and illumination, the performance of devotional duties near them ... are all innovations which the Prophet had predicted and explicitly warned his community against..." The Prophet did his utmost to protect the unitarian doctrine (Hama janib al-tawhid a'zam himaya...). He has proscribed the construction of any monument on tombs as it is stated in Muslim's Sahih... and most 'Ulama' agree that to contravene the Prophet's prescriptions is to err...

This is then what has pitted us against the people, thus incurring their malediction and their wrath ... but God has given us victory... this is why we have organized our armed resistance after using every possible mean to convert people using the book of God as our proof (Hujja) as well as the Prophet's Sunna and that of the glorious Salaf... God said: "You shall wage war on them, so that the Fitna can be extirpated and the religion be said in the name of the Almighty (Quran 8:30)... Thus he who does not answer our call peacefully shall be enjoined forcefully... we command virtue and forbid vices..."

This is our belief... He who follows our doc­trine shall be considered our Muslim brother... we also believe that the community of Prophet Mohammed... cannot agree on error ... and that there still is a faction of his community that is in the truth... Salutation."

The Maghribi 'Ulama' particularly those of Tunis were understandably offended. Indeed the Tunisian 'Ulama were the most virulently opposed to the Wahhabi Da'wa. It was perhaps due to the cosmopolitan charac­ter of Tunis as well as to the traditional attachment of its 'Ulama to the Malikism of the school of Qayrawan coupled with the resurgence of orthodox Sufism, in this case the Ahmediya Mohammediya Tijaniya, introduced by Shaykh Abu Ishaq Sidi Ibrahim al-Riyyahi – direct student of the Concealed Pole, the Known Mohammedian Seal, Mawlana Shaykh Abil Abbas Tijani (may Allah be pleased with him).

Bey Abu Mohammed Hammuda Pasha b. 'Ali (1197/1782-1230/1814) issued an official condemnation of the Wahhabi doctrine and commissioned his 'Ulama to draft a Fatwa refuting it. Two Tunisian 'Ulama undertook the task of disproving the summon. The first one is Qadi Abu Hafs 'Umar, Mufti and secretary of the Bey, and the other is Qadi and Mufti Abu al-Fida Isma'il al-Tamimi al-Tunusi (d. 1248/1832) who went even further in his confutation by calling- on the Wahhabis to abandon their heresy and join the Ahl al-Sunna. His book which he called al-Minah al-llahiyya fi Tarns al-Dalaia al-Wahhabiyya is in the nature of its author, a wrathful rejection of Wahhabi pretensions. Abu" Hafs' anti-Wahhabi pamphlet is however the most revealing. Despite the Qadi's recurrent refer­ences to the Quran and Hadith which tends to make the refutation a long rambling sermon, it is mostly an en­comium to the virtues of Malikism.  Ibn Abdelwahhab is accused of having polluted the truth in the Quran. The Wahhabi assumption that truth must be enforced by the sword is in Abu Hafs' view, the source of all evil.

In his rebuttal Abu Hafs adopts a disparaging and sarcastic tone, castigating the Wahhabis for their ig­norance of the laws and for their extremism:

You have conveyed us a letter in which you claim to be the defender of the faith (Taz'am annak al­qaim bi nusrat al-din)... and pretend to be a Muqallid and a Muttabi'... you also imply that you have been appalled at the way the believers were conducting themselves... However we believe that you are what God has described as a deceiver who uses Allah's name to further his worldly ambitions... Allah hates the initiators of evil... (Quran 2:204, 205). 

You also claim that Muslims have introduced numer­ous innovations in their cult and pretend that many have taken dead Awliya' (Wa ashraku bi Allah min al-amwat...) and have called for their inter­cession,... that they have frequented the tombs of saints to whom they have asked God pleasing gifts and by doing so have been guilty of polythe­ism, thus justifying your wrath, to kill and plun­der what the words of God call sacred and untouch­able... we shall refer you to the book of God... 

By Allah you have deviated from the words of God by spreading lies and fear and by casting a libel on the believers (Laqad shanna'ta ... wa ramayta al-mu'minin bi al-fasad fi al-ard) we are thus forced to call to your attention the words of God and that of the exemplary Salaf... 

As for the crimes you have already committed in attacking the believers, and terrorizing the inhabitants of the Haramayn, and murdering those who were closely following the injunction in the Shahada, by constantly initiating conflicts against the believers (Wa adamtum idrab al-harb bayn al-muslimin)... we declare that you have committed a mortal sin (Waqa'tum bidhalik fi al-kaba'ir al-mutakathira)... for you have divided the Muslim community and have done away with obedience and religion... God said: "Those who believe in God must greet those who speak in his name and must not anathemize those who utter the Shahada... their blood and earthly belonging cannot be touched... only God can judge their actions (Quran 4:94). 

If you are actually basing your judgment on the Book of Allah and on the pillars of the Sunna how could you then declare licit (Tastahill) the blood of those who also base their belief on the Quran and the Sunna?... How did you propel yourself to the path of disbelief (Wa kayf qadhaftum anfusakum fi mahwat al-ilhad)? 

As for what you have qualified as being polytheism, that is those who perform the pilgrimage to the dead ... and those who ask God's friends to inter­cede in their favor ... and if you claim further that their actions are pre-Islamic ... we are tell­ing you that if indeed ... they were worshipping the dead as pagans do with their idols ... then surely the 'Ulama' would have reacted vehemently (La tanhad ilayhi wilat ai-amr) and brought the culprit to the right path... 

If however they are being anathemized as unbe­lievers on the fact that they ask God for favors through a prophet then you have gravely erred (Akhta'ta kha a'an mublnan), for intercession is neither forbidden nor disapproved... the Holy Scripture is filled with examples that makes it permissible... Please answer me bedouin brother (ya akha al-'arab), would you denounce the greatest among the believers, Omar b. al-Khattab as a heretic (for having performed the prayer of Istisqa’?... I ask you and may God be my witness, would you consider Omar’s action an act of unbelief?... Whoever believes it is himself a schismatic... and a sinful hypocrite... From where have you drawn your religion?  

Thus if a pilgrim asks for the mediation of the virtuous one... since the Awliya and the 'Ulama are like martyrs, alive in their graves but have moved from the abode of nothingness to the abode of eternity (Intaqalû min dâr al-fana' ill dâr al-baqâ')... what objection would you have to such visit?... What kind of dissension are you trying to foment?... Perhaps you are one of those inno­vators (Wa la'allaka min al-mubtadi'a) who denies the power of intercession... If you recant the miracle that God has attributed to the chosen ones... you are straying from the Sunna. When you say that no believer is in contradic­tion with your tenet you are committing a heathenish act... for every believer must acknowledge the mediation of prophets... Even the Mu'tazila in their restrictive interpretation of intercession recognize the Prophet's propitiatory power... 

In regard to your destruction of cupolas built over the graves of the Awliya'... there is no bigger sin than to forbid God's name from being engraved Had you consulted the Imams... their answer would have been against the destruction of any property belonging to a believer... that such edifice invites the believer to religious fervor (Wa fi dhâlik al-binâ' manfa'a li al-zâ'ir taqiyya)... so how could you be so bold as to enter this slippery path and take the liberty of destroying every gravestone in sight... At any rate the decision belongs to the 'Ulama' through the process of Ijtihad... 

With respect to tomb visitation (ijâz ziylrat al-qubûr) what accusation of blameworthy innovation could be brought against it if the Prophet Mohammed (peace and blessing be upon him) himself introduced it... He visited the Baqi' al-Gharqad... and the grave of his mother Amina b Wahb (at Mulla, Mecca)... his example was followed by the Sahaba... and later by the 'Ulama... Moreover Fatima did visit the gravesite of her uncle and has gone from Madina to Uhud without incurring the wrath of the Sahaba... Are you going to claim that they were innovators? (Afataj'al ha'awla' aydan mubtadi'in?)... By God certainly not... We must follow the consensus of the community. As for animal sacrifices... they would be wrong if not addressed to God... but we have observed no one contravening the law... 

If you observe an irregularity in the accomplish­ment of the faith then ask the knowledgeable... why kill and wage war? (Fa ay da'iya li al-harb wa al-qital?)... What is in the heart of people is for God to determine... you have to assume that the believers are performing their devotional duties in good faith... The destruction of emblazoned tombstones which the Prophet had ordered Ali b. Abi Talib to carry out and which you cite, was only intended against catacombs that existed in the Jahiliyya...There is a clear difference between the two... You cannot claim to have found the truth... Relinquish what is not yours to claim for you cannot inherit that right by force... you are as far removed from the truth as east is from west... 

People of these areas who have the good fortune of living on these lands are worthier to the title of brothers for they have adhered to the teachings of the Sunna... you have perturbed and dismayed the unity of the community... and I urge you to repent... If you do, we shall admit you once again in our midst as a believer... but if you persist in your error… and stab those who come before you, then your cousins who also possess lances... shall extinguish the fire of the offenders until they return to Allah's command. Salutation.

The Tunisian court historian Ibn Abi Diyaf also incriminates the Wahhabis for having distorted the words of God. Similarly Shaykh Sidi Ibrahim al-Riyyahi Tijani rejects the Wahhabi pretensions. Only the Hanafi Mufti of Bardo, Faqih Ahmed al-Barudi (d. 1230/1814) looked with some favor to the Wahhabi Da'wa. Following a brief statement announcing the "deliverance" of the holy cities from the 'hands of the Wahhabi', Ibn Abi al-Diyaf explains that "the so-called Wahhabi is in fact a student of Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya the Hanbali, who proscribed tomb visitation including the prophets, as well as the solicitation of their power of interces­sion... He also denounced the erection of elaborate mausoleums... and has cursed those who did not conform to his call, by scolding them as heretics (wa sarraha bi kufr man yaf'al dhalik wa sammahu mushrikan").

Recounts Ibn Abi al-Diyaf:

“The man travelled widely until his settling at al-Dar'iyya in Najd... where he was met with attentive ears along with ignorant hearts... He then successfully converted their elder, Sa'ud, by mystifying him with some Quranic verses and a few Hadith, which resulted in the legalization of murder against Muslims. The sect continued to expand until the arrival of Saud b. Abdellaziz b. Saud who has declared war on all Muslims in general and against the people of the Hijaz in particular... After his eviction of the latter from the Haram, he proscribed the visit of the Prophet's burial ground, persecuted the Hijazis by slaughtering and plundering them... He [Saud] then enforced his Madhhab on his followers who in turn adhered to it with fanaticism. Their 'Asabiyya intensified to the point where they sought the Sultanate... They began then preaching their doctrine by sending missives to all horizons. It is evident [remarks Ibn Abi al-Diyaf] that this man has built his case on the issue of intercession by disregarding the fact that it has always been part of our devotional duties, and by indiscrimi­nately castigating everyone in the process. But in effect [Sa'ud] was seeking power through religious zealotry.”

Ibn Abi al-Diyaf's interpretation is nonetheless less fanciful or phantasmal than that of his coreligionists in Fez, for he gives it a more secular motive. The Moroccan intelligentsia on the other hand is somewhat more adamant in its condemnatory attitude due perhaps to the Makhzan-Salafi tête-à-tête that took place in 1226/1811. Mawlana Sulayman's delegation to the Haramayn has certainly left the elite with a mitigated if not embarrassed feeling, particularly vis-à-vis their cohorts in Tunis. Of course no mention is made of a Wahhabi tract being received at the court. The Moroccan historian, Al-Zayyani (1147/1734-1249-1833), for example, describes the Wahhabis as Mu'tazila (firqa min ahl al-i'tizal) who have a strong propensity for wars (lahum mayl qawi li al-hurub).

“When the heretic revolted in the Arabian Peninsula [reports the author] he began preaching his doctrine to Ahl al-Sunna... He later reached the gates of the Haramayn [presumably Amir Sa’ud] without encoun­tering the slightest reaction from the rulers of Islam (Wa lam yajid man yarudduhu min muluk al-islam)... He proscribed to the inhabitants of the Hijaz the pilgrimage and the visit of the sacred tomb... He then addressed several summons adorned with Quranic verses to the people of Iraq, Egypt, Syria, and Ifriqya enjoining them to adopt his despicable doctrine (yad'uhum ila itba' madhhabihi al-flsid wa al-khissis)... When in 1227/1811-12 the missive was received in Tunis, its 'Ulama forwarded a copy to the clerics of Fez, seeking their opinion on the subject. It was the Faqih Sidi Hamdun b. al-Hajj who secretly wrote the reply to the Wahhabi copy... And so [remarks al-Zayyani] Ibn al-Hajj, may God forgive him, continued his letter with a similar complimentary style... Indeed how could he sing the praises of this heretic in perdition who has abandoned his Madhhab, has terrorized the people of the Haramayn and disallowed the Hajj to the people of the East and the West... has proscribed tomb visitations..., the reading of the Dala'il al-Khayrat, and the prayer at the site of Awliya known for their propitiatory gift (Wa yamna' al-du'a' 'inda maqamat al-awliya ahl al-karamat)... He has also reproved the doctrine of the Salaf... It is unorthodox to praise such a man... who instead should be ignored and ostracized... the Wahhabis, may God scold them, have spread their pernicious doctrine (Madhhabihim al-fasid) and their dreadful innovation... tales of their abominable misconduct have not even spared the Prophet's house... They have anathemized anyone visiting the Prophet's sanc­tuary... and have imprecated the pilgrims for circling the Prophet’s sepulcher... Whatever this evil heretic Sa’ud (Hadha al-la'in al-mubtadi' Saud) has preached is a sure path to heathenism... for it is purged of any value and guidance (wa la yanfa' fihi wa'z wa la irshad).”

Al-Zayyani, however, in an apparent exculpatory gesture, contends that Ibn Saud was praised in the hope that he would not interrupt the pilgrimage thus compelling the great Scholar, Faqih Sidi Hamdun b. al-Hajj al-Fasi (d. 1232/1817) – another great Companion of the Concealed Pole, the Known Mohammedian Seal, Mawlana Shaykh Abil Abbas Tijani (may Allah be pleased with him), to compromise. Interestingly enough, al-Zayyani alludes to the fact that the sultan Mawlana Sulayman, who according to the author was unaware of Ibn al-Hajj's poem, had reportedly admitted to his son on his death bed that it was he who had commissioned the Faqih to compose the laudatory poem. But, concludes al-Zayyani, "People have spread the rumor that the Sultan was a Wahhabi and have affixed that appella­tion on him, while, in fact, he had only followed the doctrine of Ahmed b. Hanbal... for he was a great 'Alim and a strict adherent to the Sunna..."

Al-Du'ayyif (1165/1752-1236/1820) for his part does not adopt an overly hostile attitude toward the Wahhabi Da'wa. The author refers to the Wahhabi leader as Abdellwahhab the Kharijite" (presumably Imam Sa’ud b. Abdellaziz), who in 1217/1802 conquered Mecca, forcing its Sultan (Sharif Ghalib b. Musa'id) to flee, after which he eliminated the three orthodox schools while consolidating the fourth, that of Ibn Hanbal. A recurring mention is the Wahhabis' proscription of the much celebrated Dala'il al-Khayrat and their 'hideous' behavior at the Haramayn. The irreverent treatment of the Shurafa' must have astounded and horrified most Moroccans. The author describes the battle between the two protagonists as having been "virulent," but with "incon­clusive" results due in part to the Bey's son's (U Ali) inability to stop the secessions in his ranks. According to al-Du'ayyif, "the 8,000 Maghribis who had joined the Turco-Egyptian expedition reluctantly began deserting to the opposite side (Sarat al-maghariba tahrub ‘ala walad Mohammed U Ali wayadhhabun li al-Wahhabi)... The Wahhabi would welcome them and would furnish them with clothing and weapons..." "In the end," comments al-Du'ayyif, "the son of Mohammed u 'Ali was able to capture the Hijaz, Mecca and Madina, thus destroying the Wahhabis' hope to reach the gates of Egypt."

The author concludes by stating that the "Wahhabi had claimed to be a prophet." "People's opinions differed on that Wahhabi, some have claimed that he is doomed to perdition (Dal 'ala ghayr huda) and have thus anathemized him... and some have contended that he is legitimate and on the right path... only God knows." The stand on Wahhabism by Mawlana sultan Sulayman’s poet, Sulayman al-‘Hawwat, is in a sense more parochial and consequently ill-disposed to the excesses by the Wahhabis. In his Diwan, al-Hawwat makes it a point to insist on the importance of the visit to the Prophet’s burial ground (wa ziyirat al-qabr al-Sharif kafila bi al-Khayr li al-zuwwar...).

However [pursues al-Hawwat] Sa’ud forbids his land by force of arms to all those who do not concur with his ideology. He is the prince who rules over the Hijaz... the seditious rebel who however made an exception in the case of the son of our Lord [Mawlay Ibrahim] and welcomed him and even allowed his illustrious guest to enter the sanc­tuary without bigotry in deference to his rank.

The court poet al-Hawwat, being a worldly man, perceives the Wahhabis as "ignorant apostate."

The Shari'a [points al-Hawwat] must be applied through knowledge ('Ilm) and not with the sword (La bi al-sayf)... the use of the sword without cognisance is perilous (Wa al-sayf min dun 'ilm khatar) and the best source of enlightment is found in the Hadith (Wa ashraf al-'ilm rutbatan wa anfa'uhu 'ilm al-hadith).

The author extols the merits of Mawlay Sulayman's erudition and suavity, an obvious attempt to dissoci­ate the Sultan from Wahhabism (A’hya ma'alim bayt al-'ilm... amma al-hadith fa innahu ahata bihi 'ilman... mutamassikan bi al-sunna, etc.). Moreover, Sulayman's affability and conciliatory posture according to al-Hawwat, "enabled Mawlay Ibrahim and his entourage to perform the pilgrimage in the land of Sulayman (Hajju fi maqam samiyyihi) where they arrived in safety protected by the glory of religion. His host (Ibn Saud) presumably hastened to welcome his eminent visitor (Fa tara lahu al-dayf al-'azlm wa habahu hunalik sultan al-Hijaz ... wa akrama mithwahu Saud...).

It is little wonder (Wa ll'ajab) that the East scintillated in bedazzlement of Mawlay Sulayman's glory, the inheritor of the land of the West (Tamallaka arda al-gharb 'an salafin). Sa’ud [comments al-Hawwat] is that Sultan of al-Yamama, a sectarian who has repudiated the edicts of Malik... Malik whose doctrine is faultless... Praise the Lord we have an Imam (Sulayman) whose rule was based on cognition and who gave the califate to the more meritorious..

The poet al-Hawwat dwells then on the greatness and superiority of the Maghrib.

“The East [proclaims al-Hawwat] wishes to be the West... Muslims, praise Sulayman for his impeccable rule ... the Maghrib prides itself over the East for its religiosity... for the absence of Maks and other accretions... this has encouraged Easterners to travel to the West... wishing to be ruled by our praiseworthy Sultan whose radi­ance has glimmered in the Hijaz... and Saud could only bow to the lion's cub [Mawlay Ibrahim].”

The rest of Sulayman al-Hawwat's panegyric deals with Mawlay Sulayman's exceptional religious prestige. As for the noted Tijani Khalifa, the Grand Allama, Sharif Sidi Ahmed b. Mohammed Akansus al-Qurashi (1211/1796-97-1294/1877; “Student of Sharif Sidi Mohammed al-Ghali Boutaleb al-Idrissi al-Hassani), who mostly quotes al-Zayyani, he adopts a more neutral posture and simply relates the facts. "In 1227/1811," writes al-Allama Akansus, "a letter arrived from Tunis which was sent originally by the 'heretic Wahhabi,' the possessor of the Hijaz and the Haramayn... Faqih Hamdun b. al-Hajj composed on that occasion a laudatory poem. At first, Allama Akansus is critical of Ibn al-Hajj for having disobeyed the Sultan's orders; he then re­lates al-Zayyani’s impressions on Ibn al-Hajj’s motives, thus giving the latter the benefit of the doubt because of his erudition.

Allama Akansus in fact contends that it was Ibn al-Hajj's panegyrical poem that protected the Moroccan pilgrims from the wrath of the Wahhabis. Following his description of the Moroccan-Wahhabi encounter, Allama Akansus explains that the Moroccan delegation saw nothing in the Wahhabi behavior that ran contrary to the Shari'a. "Ibn Abdelwahhab," remarks Allama Akansus, "is nothing more than a follower of Ibn Hanbal like Ibn Taymiyya before him or Ibn Hazm..." "However the Hanbalis," narrates Allama Akansus, 'have certain restrictions in their doctrine which are indeed acceptable by the other three schools.

“Our great master Mawlana Abdelqadir al-Jilani, himself a great follower of Imam Ahmed, had some reservations in regard to the Ash'arites and has thus included them among the Schismatics (Wa dhakar al-Ash'ariyya min jumlat ... al-firaq al-dalla)... Could one then be blamed for eulogizing al-Jilani? Similarly, no one can blame Abi al-Fayd Sidi Hamdun for having glorified Sa’ud under orders from the Commander of the faithful (Fa idhan la malama 'ala shaykh al ‘hujja Abi al-Fayd Sidi Hamdun fi madhihi li Saud bi amr amir al-mu'minin). Furthermore [concludes Allama Akansus] he did not commend him out of conviction (Ma madahahu 'ala i'tiqad) but rather for his good deeds which include the purification and the guardianship of the Haramayn.”

Shaykh Ahmed b. Khalid al-Nasiri who reports basically in his Istiqsa what al-Zayyani and Allama Shaykh Akansus have described, contends that a missive sent by Amir Abdellah b. Sa’ud, the conqueror of the Haramayn reached Fez. The chronicler then recounts the origins of the Wahhabi movement adding to his description a purely Moroccan color. He for example calls Shaykh Sulayman, Ibn Abdellwahhab's grandfather, a "Faqir" who had a premonitory dream regarding the rise of the Wahhabi Sa’ud dynasty.  

“Shaykh Ibn Abdelwahhab [relates al-Nasiri] claimed to be a Sharif... He called for Tawhid... for the unswerving adherence to the Quran and for the rejection of Furu'... the Prophet, says Ibn Abdelwahhab, cannot be described with polytheistic epithets, those who follow these injunctions shall prosper, but those who contra­vene shall be put to the sword. These are the elements of his doctrine. Upon his return from an unsuccessful sojourn to Syria, Ibn Abdelwahhab allied himself with a powerful bedouin, a Shaykh called Abdellah b. Sa’ud [sic]. They both shared power, the pen and the sword and consequently were able to conquer the Haramayn... The Wahhabi mosques have neither minarets nor cupolas... they do not honor (La yu'azzimu) their Imams nor do they revere saints. They bury their dead without pomp or cere­mony... they eat barley bread, dates, grass­hoppers and fish, rarely meat and rice... they do not drink coffee... and their houses and clothes are of extreme simplicity.”  

"When Ibn Sa’ud captured the Haramayn, recounts al-Nasiri, "he summoned the people to join his Da'wa ... when his tract arrived in Tunis, the Mufti of that city sent a copy of it to Fez and Shaykh Hamdun b. al-Hajj took on the task of composing a response. The author however remarks that if Mawlay Sulayman sent a missive to Ibn Saud through his son, he must have received an original letter and not just a copy... "But God only knows". Al-Nasiri discusses also the question of the licitness of tomb visitation, by agreeing with the restrictive statement issued by Sidna Shaykh, the Grand Pole, Abul Abbas Sidi Ahmed Tijani (may Allah be pleased with him) as reported by Faqih Allama Akansus, particularly in regard to visits to the burial sites of saints, which according to al-Nasiri should be sought but within the confines of the law. "This," adds al-Nasiri, "was also Mawlay Sulayman's opinion who in his remarkable oration (khutba), had warned the people against the overglorification of saints."

Perhaps the most inquisitive study on Wahhabism by a Moroccan is found in the al-Ibtisam, whose anony­mous author reflects the saliency of the Maghribi's attitude towards religious extremism. In an unusually graphic as well as anecdotic style the chronicler ex­hibits a first hand knowledge about Wahhabi actions which have generated so much rancor and vituperation in Dar al-Islam. Perhaps the author's brazen descriptions stem from the fact that the account was written at the turn of the nineteenth century. Moreover, the author cites some of the incidents which his father had witnessed at the Haramayn as proof of Wahhabi obduracy. "The Wahhabis," according to the anonymous chronicler, "are a handful of misguided nomads with a rabid religious predilection. The Wahhabi would flagellate those who would perform the Tawaf and pray. He would beat those who would stand facing the holy stone. He also forbad the people from seeking the intercession of saints... When he entered the sacred Ka'aba, he plun­dered its worthy sanctum from all its contents, eliminated all golden lanterns, the carpeting that adorned the sanctuary, destroyed all the cupolas of the Baqi'a and proscribed tobacco, drugs and liquor..."

“The 'Wahhabi' [relates the author] has also prohibited the ornamentation of mosques... His fol­lowers are extremely austere in their diet, and their attire is typically nomadic... they have not deviated from their origin... They have also avoided contact with the people of the Hijaz. They would only call each other 'Fulan', even their prince. The latter would not behave any differently as it is customary with kings. If one were to see him, one would be unable to dif­ferentiate him from his people.”

"The Wahhabis," remarks the author of al-Ibtisam, "are all followers of Ibn Hanbal. Their hatred for the Turks is unmatched (Wa kanu ashadd bughdan li al-Atrak), and whenever they would capture one, they would torture him to death (Badaru bi ihlak wa al-ta'dhlb). Their leader Saud is a self-righteous man who would send his spies to check on those who would not attend the public prayer.The culprit would be flogged publicly." "The Wahhabis," details the chronicler, "forbid the visit to the Prophet's tomb and anyone caught near it would be severely whipped and then expelled from the mosque.”

The author then recounts an incident that his father encountered on his pilgrimage.

The Prophet's sanctuary was entirely sealed by Wahhabi guards and forbidden to visitors, particularly to those pilgrims from faraway lands (al-hujjaj al-afaqiyya) who would traditionally visit al-Madina for the sole purpose of seeking the Prophet's intercession (La ya'tun al-Madina ila li ajal ziyirat qabrihi al-sharif li al-tawassul)... My father once decided to purchase some perfume. When he could not agree on the price he begged the shopkeeper to come to his senses and enjoined him to pray for the soul of Prophet Sidna Mohammed (peace and blessing be upon him). Unfor­tunately for him, a Wahhabi guard standing nearby intervened. No sooner had he heard the word (Salli 'ala al-nabi) that he began slapping my father's face, calling him a polytheist. No one dared to remain in the city for fear of Wahhabi excesses...

"The armies of Mohammed 'Ali Pasha," adds the author, "did make an attempt to conquer the fierce Wahhabis but to no avail. The nomads encircled them and annihi­lated them. The survivors ran away in terror "without even looking over their shoulders (Wa kanu la yaltafitun wara'ahum min shiddat al-khawf)."

The Pasha sent then another expedition under the command of his son Ibrahim. This time they were able to enter al-Madina and Mecca massacring in the process every Wahhabi in sight. They then followed the retreating nomads like a bushfire (ka shihab al-muhriqa) to their stronghold at al-Dar'iyya, which they besieged for three years. While the Turks were regularly receiving fresh supplies from Egypt, the Wahhabis were slowly dying of starvation and even resorting to canni­balism (Wa akalu al-mawta min shiddat al-ju').

They finally surrendered and their chief Abdellah who had succeeded Saud was dispatched to Egypt to be beheaded. The people rejoiced and praised the Lord for having purged the Haramayn from Wahhabi dereliction. The Wahhabis had ruled over the Haramayn since their arrival in the Hijaz around 1222/1807... The pilgrimage was then interrupted and those who dared to venture around the Ka'aba would per­form their pilgrimage in fear ('yuhijjun 'ala khawf)... the Mahmal is once again allowed to penetrate the Haram...

It has been reported that our Shaykh the Alim Sidi Hamdun b. al-Hajj and Shaykh al-Mili had argued vociferously over Wahhabism, the reason being that the former had composed a laudatory poem in praise of prince Sa’ud al-Wahhabi... When Aba Ishaq Mawlay Ibrahim b. Mawlana Sulayman decided to perform the Hajj, he requested from his father a letter of introduction (safe-conduct)... Mawlay Sulayman, who feared that the usurper of Mecca would disallow his son from standing at Arafat... Wa khafa an yamna' waladahu min al-wuquf bi 'Arafat kama mana'a Kathiran min al-nas qablahu), ordered the poem... God knows if the poem is indeed from Sulayman or whether it was known only to Ibn al-Hajj.

Therefore when Shaykh al-Mili became aware of what Ibn al-Hajj had done, he reprimanded him severely, for he was among those who anathemized the Wahhabi (Wa kana min man yaqul bi kufr al-wahhabi)... He said to him: "What has come over you to praise an unbeliever? (Ma balak tamdah rajulan klfiran?) Ibn al-Hajj [concludes the author] should not have praised a man who has been universally condemned as a heretic by the 'Ulama' (Wa ma kana yanbaghl li Ibn al-Hajj an yamdah rajulan afta al-'Ulama' bi kufrihi).

Based on our exposition of the protagonists' atti­tude towards the Wahhabiya, it is clear most Maghribi 'Ulama were overwhelmingly against the Da'wa. Malikism in the Maghrib has functioned in the context of a widely agreed upon moral order, with stable institutional structures. This tradition however was brought into question by a "handful of wild nomads." Ghuluw (extremism) has always been singled out as perhaps the greatest sin after apostasy; and the Takfir (malediction) issued by the Wahhabis was undoubtedly the biggest shock to the Maghribi psyche, who responded in turn with traditionally unshakable arguments. The Maghribi 'Ulama held that the murder of Muslims could in no way be justified. They thus chal­lenged the redefining of Islam by the proponents of the Wahhabi Da'wa, as well as their values, moral vision, and perspective. Furthermore, they stressed knowledge ('Ilm) over irrational and violent behavior.

In essence, Maghribi 'Ulama perceived the Wahhabi's "new moral order" as basically anti-intellec­tual. Moreover, they rejected what they perceived as egocentricity on the part of the Najdis, which led to subversion, destruction, and chaos. The Wahhabis had abused the laws of God and had twisted them into con­demning anyone who did not espouse their ideology. Their action was seen then as having been detrimental to the maintenance of the much sought after harmony in the Muslim community. Whether the Wahhabis viewed the state of Islam as a blessing or a curse was indeed irrelevant. For the Maghribis they had no right to promote contumacy against the well-established devotional duties of Muslims. By doing so they have not only incurred the wrath of God but their incendiarism has also engendered a disruption in the world of Islam of cataclysmic proportion.

B. Sultan Mawlay Sulayman’s Reaction to Wahhabism

"Sultan Sulayman Mawlana Abu-r-Rabi'a Sulayman was a just man and active erudite. He took Sidna Shaykh Tijani’s order following the authorization of the Prophet (peace and blessing be upon him) who testified to him that he was of his lineage. He witnessed prodigies from Sidna Shaykh, which strengthened his belief in him. Sultan Sulayman also refused to believe the words of Sidna Shaykh’s detractors – and indeed those were numerous. It has been reported he often asked Sidna Shaykh to allow him to see the Prophet (peace and blessing be upon him) while being awake. Sidna Shaykh answered: ”I am afraid you might no be able to withstand it.” He persisted in his request until Sidna Ahmed Tijani, unable to convince him to give up the idea, finally accepted his wish. First of all, he advised him to keep it secret and specially reserve a pure and empty place for this encounter, and to be alone. When, after he prepared everything in accordance with the recommendations of the Shaykh he decided to enter the place, an intense fear mixed with respect seized him. He therefore was unable to stay inside alone to do the particular dhikr he received from Sidna Shaykh. Under the effect of his emotions, he asked Sidna Ahmed Tijani to personally assist him. Shaykh agreed to go with him inside that place devoted to welcoming the Prophet (peace and blessing be upon him). It was while he was reciting the dhikr that an intense light, springing from Mohammedian lights, filled up the place. Being unable to withstand the intensity of that light, Sultan Sulayman fainted. When he awoke, he found Sidna Shaykh Tijani’s palm rest on his chest. Shaykh told him: “You are well, and the Prophet (peace and blessing be upon him) guarantees you this and that.” Sultan Sulayman replied: “May Allah reward you in blessings. Indeed you warned me that I would not withstand the encounter, which I personally experienced.” (Al-Qadi Sidi Ahmed Skirej in Kashf al-Hijab 'amman talaaqa bi-Shaykh Tijani mina-l As'hab)    

The Wahhabi summons to unitarianism which reached Fez between 1218/1803 and 1222/1807, had despite the cynicism and anger it engendered among the 'Ulama, undeniably touched the Champion of Orthodoxy, Sultan Mawlana Abu-r-Rabi'a Sulayman (1206/1792-1238/1822). The Wahhabi calls for moral regeneration, its virulent opposition to any pre-Islamic rituals and beliefs and above all its absolute monotheism coincided with Mawlay Sulayman’s own search for religious purity. Hence Mawlay Sulayman initiated in a sense a process of undermining the faltering forces of traditionalism, themselves prisoner of a formalistic mentality. He undoubtedly reacted to what he per­ceived to be un-Islamic practices which people thought were valid, but which in his view "dislocated classical symbols. Despite the acerbic reaction of the Tunisian 'Ulama' and their adamant re­jection of the Wahhabi call for religious purity, Mawlay Sulayman did not accept the latter's denunciation of Wahhabism at face value. He thus did not exhibit the same parochialism and Maghrib reticence vis-à-vis the Da'wa as the majority of the 'Ulama' did, due to his bright vision and sympathy with the Hanbali doctrine.

Politically, Wahhabism must have appeared to the Sultan as a potent force which had already proven itself in the Arabian Peninsula, cleansing the Haramayn of all blameworthy innovations that had been allowed to filter. The ardor of the Wahhabi-Saudi fighters had something of the unadulterated faith of the early Sanhaja or even the Masmuda tribesmen. For the Moroccan accustomed to lead their cavalrymen to battle in the true spirit of Jihad, the tales of Wahhabi victories against the effeminate people of the Hjaz and their un­worthy supporters, the Ottomans, unquestionably excited the imagination of the puritan monarch. As Sulayman saw it, the Wahhabis were embarked on a Ridda war against the unscripturalists insidious forces. His aims were astoundingly similar to theirs in that he too was determined to purge his realm from the remnants of recusancy, animism, and superstition. More­over, in using the convulsive ideology of Wahhabism, Sulayman’s intentions were also to utilize his unflagging search for the exemplary community as a counterweight to his failure to promote active Jihad against the infidels.

It is interesting to note that some Salafi inspired measures taken by Mawlay Sulayman were put into effect prior to the arrival of the so-called Tunisian copy of Ibn Abdelwahhab's summon. In 1220/1805 reports al-Du'ayyif, Sulayman, in accordance with Hanbali-Wahhabi injunctions, ordered his vizir Pasha Sidi Mohammed b. al-Hajj Abdessalam al-Salawi (Governor of Rabat and Salé since 1218/1803) to dismantle the sculptured cupola adorning of his father Sultan Sidi Mohammed b. Abdellah's (d. 1204/1790) tomb at Agdal, Rabat, referring to it as a "Bid’a". A year later other parts of the Sultan's mausoleum were pulled down and moved to Marrakech to decorate instead the mosque of Ali b. Yusuf, which crumbled however before it was completed. In 1224/1809 Mawlay Sulayman reiterated his viru­lent condemnation of the use of elaborate sepulchers. In a judgmental move he demanded the removal of the last vestiges of his father's gravestone.  

Mawlay Sulayman issued also a very severe ordi­nance prohibiting the growth and sale of tobacco as well as its use. Some farmers had apparently been cultivating the plant, generating a considerable revenue. The Makhzan unleashed its officers against the tobacco growers. The culprits were executed on the spot and their culture burned. The ban, however, failed to keep the weed out of the realm. Tobacco bootlegging continued and Makhzan officials who had declared it a Bid'a were kept busy tracking down the smugglers. Although the consumption of tobacco is a Bid'a, its sale according to Abu 'Isa al-Wazzani should be tolerated.

In an unprecedented move destined to secure the pilgrimage for his subjects, Mawlay Sulayman resolved to send a delegation to the Haramayn. The Sultan's decision must have been inspired by several motives: a desire to increase his prestige at home by avoiding any forced curtailment of the traditional Maghribi caravan to the holy cities; a hope to temper the Wahhabis' excessive religious zeal by a congenial gesture; an intent to have his 'Ulama confront those of the Wahhabis, in the hope that they may come to a better understanding of Wahhabi articles, which would mollify their initial acrimony. Consequently, Sulayman entrusted his Faqih, Shaykh al-Tayyib b. Kiran (d. 1229/1813) with the task of scribing a commendatory letter addressed to Saud b. Abdellaziz.

In the introduction to Ibn Kiran's letter, it is stated that the Sultan Amir al-Muminin Mawlana Sulayman had ordered the missive to be given to his son Ibrahim on his way to the Hijaz. The letter begins with an ingratiating greeting to "the one who has protected the pilgrimage circuit from thievery," (Ila man aman al-sabila min al-qita' wa al-nihab) and has thus earned lavish praise"(wa qad ahraz bi dhalik al-thana' wa al-thawab).”

“We have been pleased by what has been reported to us of your deep religiosity and your efforts at reviving the tenets of our religion in ac­cordance with the Salaf... as well as by your determination to purge the unitarian doctrine by doing away with blameworthy innovations and perditions that have been allowed to filter in because of unsound understanding and ignorance. We were also gratified to learn that you have followed the directives of the 'Ulama of all schools that you have studied the Muwatta' of Malik as well as the two Sahihs ... the Musnad of the great Imam Ahmed, Commander of the Faithful in the field of Hadith... Our Maliki Madhhab is also construed on inclemency in regard to Bid'a. So declared the great Imam of Ahl al-Sunna Abi al-Hassan al-Ash’ari. We do agree with you that tombs should not be embellished (La yajuz naqsh 'ala al-tabut)... circling around the Prophet's burial site should also be proscribed (Wa la yumkin al-tawaf ala al-qabr al-sharif)... In our Madhhab, we also reject anything that is not explicitly defined in the Shari'a such as kissing the Black Stone. Malik has warned against wiping one's brow on the Stone."

Ibn Kiran concludes the letter with another com­pliment.

“You have preserved the values of the Arabs as well as the pristine purity of the tenets of Islam...We are overflown with gratitude for not having interposed the Maghribi pilgrims (Wa minkum mubtahijin... wa innakum la tata'arradun li al-Maghariba al-hujujj...). We have thus allowed our son to join the pilgrims... for we are counting on your magnanimity (Wa ahlalna waladna wasatuhum... wa antakuna 'alayhim min al-mushfiqin...) written on behalf of Sultan Sulayman. 1225/1811.”

Ibn Kiran's missive is non-committal, and it ap­pears that Sulayman's greatest concern was the safety of the Maghrib caravan. Nonetheless, the presence of Mawlay Ibrahim was certainly aimed at reassuring the rest of the Maghrib that the Commander of the Faithful, thanks to his prestige, was able to secure the safe passage of the Maghribi contingent to the holy places, something that no other Muslim ruler had attempted to do. Moreover, the various references to Malik in the missive is indi­cative of the Sultan's keen appreciation that any endorsement of Wahhabism had to be issued within the Maliki mold. The other message which Mawlay Ibrahim took along on his pilgrimage was Faqih Abil Fayd Hamdun b. al-Hajj's controversial poem honoring Saud b. Abdellaziz, and which engendered as we have seen a rather caustic debate among Moroccan intellectuals.

For some, Ibn al-Hajj had only acted under strict orders from Sulayman. For others he had erred and had composed his poem without the Sultan's knowledge. For yet another group, Ibn al-Hajj was only praising the ideals of Salafism, and appealing to Saud's chivalry to stop the senseless massacre of Muslims and to return to the true spirit of Tawhid. Ibn al-Hajj's poem is more than a panegyric ac­claiming, the conqueror of the Haramayn. It is also a rather poignant elegy filled with lyricism and nostalgia for the birthplace of the Prophet.

Glory to the neighbor [Saud] of Wadi Silami.... glory to the souls of the people of Kazima, Munhana and Wadi al-Idam... Is there, anything, more sacrosanct (Muqaddas) than Wadi Fatima? or holier than Wadi Tawl?... I see you 0 Wadi al-Arak in gardens of luster and munificence... How could it not be? Since the Prophet's sepulcher is covered with this odoriferous soil (Turbatihi hunak thariya bi al-misk wa al-zuhami)... There is no soil more heavenly than thee... Our compliments to the one who can breathe its nectar (Tuba li al-mustanshiq...). Our most glorious encomium to the soul of the Prophet and to its sacred effluvium. Glory to that celestial light that enables the pilgrims to flock to the sanctuary like doves  (Wafadat hujjaj baytin lahu ja'uh ka al-hamami) from which they returned with purified faces... (Wa'anhu 'adû bi awjuhin mubayyada...).

The author is clearly demonstrating to Saud the sacredness of his duty which is in fact to allow pil­grims to perform their ritual unmolested:

You have accomplished an act that no one else cared to... [in qumta fina bi amrin lam yaqum ahad bihi fa jawzayta ma yajzahu dhu nu'amin...], by disallowing senseless killing and plundering [Bi qat' ahl al-hirab bi al-Hijaz bi ann yaqtil u aw yaslibu bila rihami].

Ibn al-Hajj continues his praise by complimenting the Wahhabis for their efforts at erasing all accretions (Qad laha fihi Saud mahiyan bida'an) but adds that now pilgrims should feel safer than the doves at the Prophet's mosque (Anna wa a'man min hamamat al-Harami). The author then hails Saud personally.

Greetings 0 Saud from the Maghrib to the Mashriq... this is a message addressed to you by an admirer [Sulayman] (Hadha kitabun min muhibbin) who could not convey his regards verbally but who is transmitting it through the pen... It is from Sulayman and it begins with the Bismallah... wishing you long life and pros­perity... you have with your rising star brought auspicious times to the Hijaz... you have revived the unadulterated Sunna overshadowed by accre­tions that seemed untouched by Islam (Wa kanat al-sunna al-bayda' muzlimatan biha wa ka'anna biha al-Islam lam yaqum)... and secured the pil­grimage and the 'Umra.

The 'Ulama [relates Ibn al-Hajj] have argued over your new doctrine, your proscription of tomb visitation, the decoration of sepulchers... But the darkness of ignorance (Layl al-jahl) which has blinded the luminary truth (Shams al-haqq) has brought some people to anathemize you... Nonetheless, no one is allowed to use the sword against a Muslim except in the case of apostasy (Illa al-ladhi kana kharijan bi bid'atihi min al-daruri 'ilman)... We therefore advise you not to erase one Bid'a with another (Fala tazil bid'a bi bid'atin)... the persecution and defamation of Muslims during the period of the Sahaba was unknown, and the Quran as well as the Hadith are very explicit about it... Anyone guilty of commination and malison against a fellow Muslim shall die as a miscreant... so said al-Bukhari, Muslim and al-Tirmidhi. Even your Imam Ahmed justified regicide only if a Muslim abandons prayer.

0 Saud I wish you felicity in your new doctrine for you are living in the land of bliss... But then your duty is also to show mansuetude towards the believers (An takuna bi al-mu'minin ra'ufan)... 0 Saud I am offering you my advice as a coreligionist... (Nahnu ikhwa fi al-dhin wa kalimatuna fi al-dhin wahida)... We follow as you do the doctrine of ibn Hanbal which we have inherited from our father... [Sidi Mohammad ibn Abdellah] (Wa kana waliduna min qabl mu'taqidan fih i'tiqadan jamilan, al-hanbali i'tiqadan...)

God however forbad us from any wrangling in our faith... you have left Najd it is said, and are creeping all over the Peninsula and threaten­ing it...Your father was a praiseworthy Sultan who denounced excesses... This is what we have heard from the people of the Haram... If these rumors are lies, I then beg for your forgiveness... In any event you are a meritorious man of estimable deeds whose qualities have generated enviousness (Wa innaka al-rajul al-mahmud siratuhu fi al-qawl wa al-fi'l wa al-mahsud fi al-shaymi...) I do still enquire about you with the in­coming pilgrims (Lam azal sa'ilan bi al-waridin ‘ala maghnak...)... Those pilgrims returning to the abode of God are led by their uncontrollable infatuation (Hujjaj Bayt Allah qa'iduha shawq yaqud bila shawq...).

Although commendatory, Ibn al-Hajj's poem is not altogether uncritical. After extolling the virtues and deeds of Saud, the poet changes his tone to an expostulatory one. However a conciliatory mood permeates the whole poem. And so the Moroccan answer was carried by Mawlay Sulayman's most trusted son, Abu Ishaq Mawlay Ibrahim who on the 27th of Jamada II 1226/1811 headed a delegation bound for the Hijaz. The deputation included many 'Ulama' such as Faqih Mohammed b. Ibrahim al-Zadaghi, Qadi Sidi al-'Abbas b. Kiran al-Fasi, Faqih al-Amin b. Jaafar al-Hassani al-Rutbi, Faqih Abdellkhaliq al-Wuddi, Faqih Mohammed al-'Arabi al-Sahili, and al-Talib al-Ghaylani.

Despite the heinous rumors that spread regarding Wahhabi massacre of pilgrims, their destruction of the various Mahmals, their mistreatment of the Shurafa and their prohibition to visit the Prophet's grave parti­cularly to the Maghribis, the Moroccan caravan left Fez in a festive mood. The arrival of the Moroccan Rakb in Cairo is reported by al-Jabarti. The Maghribi com­munity in Egypt is said to have forced all Egyptian onlookers to bow in front of the Moroccan procession.  From Egypt the caravan reached the Haramayn unmolested followed by a "restricted" number of Hajjis. The pilgrims were able to perform their devotional duties including a visit to the Prophet's burial place all under the watchful eyes of the fierce Wahhabis. Imam Saud, according to most chroniclers, showed his deepest respect to the son of Mawlay Sulayman presumably because of his Sharifian descent (“Adhhara lahu al-ta'zim al-wajib li ahl al-bayt al-kiram.")

Following the usual exchange of presents and cor­diality, the Moroccan 'Ulama headed by Qadi Abu Ishaq Ibrahim al-Zadaghi began their Munadhara or colloquy with their Wahhabi-Saudi counterpart. Discussions centered mainly on the eternal question of God's attributes and whether they should be interpreted literally. The staunchly Dhahiri stand exhibited by the Wahhabis "satisfied" the Moroccans. It is reported that Imam Saud b. Abdellaziz asked the Moroccan Qadi Abu Ishaq whether he saw any­thing in the behavior of the Wahhabis that would con­tradict their claim to strict monotheism. The Qadi's reply was negative but he questioned Saud on anthropomorphism (Balaghana annakum taquluna bi al-istiwa' al-dhati al-mustalzam al-tajsim...). Saud's answer was adamant:

God forbid. We only claim what Malik has already described, mainly that to question the Quran's ascriptions is a sin...

That is what we believe too [retorted the Qadi] but it has also been rumored that you do not believe in the eternal life of Holy Prophet Sidna Mohammed (peace and blessing be upon him)... and that of other messengers.

God forbid [replied Saud] quite the contrary, we say that he is alive and his standing before God is better than that of any martyr.

How is it then that you have proscribed the visit to the Prophet's sepulcher which is allowed by the Shari'a? [asked the Qadi].

God forbid [answered Saud] that we shall ever contravene what has been prescribed in the Shari’a... Have we stopped you from visiting the Mosque? No, for we knew that you were familiar with the religious propriety of tomb visitation. We forbad it however to the popu­lace guilty of polytheism... who ask the dead rather than God for favors. This is in accordance with the teachings of our Imam Ibn Hanbal.

Upon its return, the deputation reported that Wahhabism was in fact based on the thoughts and beliefs of the Salaf. They thus issued a statement declaring that Wahhabism was not a Madhhab and that the Wahhabis had purified the faith by adhering to their devotional duties in conformity with the Shari'a and by extirpating what did not belong in the faith. The delegation insisted also on the egalitarian aspect of the Saudis (Wa dhakaru anna ‘hal Saud ka’hal a’had an-nas...) and their surprising simplicity which has always been a trademark of the 'Alawites themselves. The latter gave their audiences dressed in white (color of the Shurafa').

From all accounts, the return of Mawlay Ibrahim on the 10th of Ramadan 1227/1812 was triumphal. The British had gracefully provided the prince with a frigate, the “Druid” which awaited Ibrahim at Malta. Congratula­tory messages are said to have reached the Sultan in great number, including a laudatory poem composed on the occasion by the famous Tunisian Tijani Faqih Shaykh Sidi Ibrahim al-Riyyahi.  

The results of the Moroccan deputation's visit to the Haramayn and its subsequent conference with the much vilified Wahhabis had long-term results. For one thing, it assured the Maghribi Hajjis, particularly the Moroccans, an unhindered passage to the Haramayn while other Muslims were barred from it until the collapse of the first Wahhabi-Saudi state. Indeed in 1232/1816 Mawlay Sulayman sent two of his sons, Mawlay Ali and Mawlay Omar to the pilgrimage. Abderrahman al-Jabarti is also very explicit about the continuous presence of the Maghribis at the Haramayn, even during the last year of Abdellah b. Saud's rule. In 1233/1817, reports the Egyptian chronicler, Maghribis flocked to the holy cities in "large numbers... buying and immolating scores of sheep."

However because of the 1233-34/1818 plague which appeared in Tangier carried by pilgrims, followed by the 1236-37/1821 plague that ravaged Alexandria and Algiers, Mawlay Sulayman was compelled to halt the Moroccan caravan and issued on the occasion an imperial decree dated 9 Shawwal 1236/9 July 1821. The ban was to last until 1243/1827. The results of the deputation's synod with the Wahhabis had also immediate results in the Empire. The Salafi influence, particularly in regards to its anti-Maraboutic stand, made itself felt rather extemporane­ously.

Despite his aversion for unorthodox brotherhoods (ex. the 'Aisawa, Jiala), the Sultan Mawlana Sulayman had until then tolerated the whole concept while at the same time sustaining his campaign for the triumph of scripturalist Islam. But the stimulus has unquestionably impelled him to openly challenge the brotherhoods' moral authority. To be sure, Sulayman had on more than one occasion demonstrated his irrita­bility with some of the heads of the Zawiyas, particularly when suspected of harboring anti-Makhzan elements seeking immunity from arraignment. In 1210/1795, recounts al-Du'ayyif, a fugitive Sharif Mawlay al-Hussein b. Mohammed al-Fadil was forced out of a sanctuary (Hurm), and publicly flagellated. A similar incident took place we are told in 1217/1802 with Sharif Mawlay 'Ali. Moreover "supervisors" were periodically encroaching on the Zawiyas' right of asylum.

But Sulayman was now determined to collide with some of the brotherhoods with tenacity. In an unprecedented move, the Sultan issued an edict to be disseminated throughout the realm, and read in every mosque at the Friday sermon. Sulayman's famous khutba was a minatory denunciation of the brotherhoods and their charlatans and impostors (Tawa'if al-sufiyya wa ashab al-zawaya wa jama'at al-mutmashyikhin... wa mutafaqqirat al-waqt). Sulayman's oration was meant as a warning to all those who "have chosen the obnoxious ways of the recu­sants." It condemned with unusual vigor seasonal unorthodox gatherings (mawasim) and their intemperate celebrations. The 'Ulama were entrusted with the task of propagating the Sultan's prescript so that the populace "would grow to appreciate the real meaning of Islam" (Muqaddirin fadl Islamihim).

The Sultan's discourse prompted a panegyrical poem by Shaykh al-Habib al-Rashidi:

What a praiseworthy oration which has revived what had died of the great ancestor's Sunna... (Ya husnaha min Khutbatin ahya biha ma mata min sunan shuyukh al-majd...). They [the Marabouts] have created Mawasim which had no foundation in the Sunna (Ja'alu mawasim ma laha fi al-sunna).

According to al-Zayyani, Sulayman's harangue is the sixth oratorical wonder in Islam (that of the four orthodox caliphs and Omar b. Abdellaziz's being the other five). The sermon is indeed a good example of grandiloquence, but it is mainly a vibrant instance of the Sultan's deep concern with the continuance and sur­vival of polytheism and other uncanonical practices. The Sultan Mawlana Sulayman, as a Sharif and Commander of the Faithful had the moral obli­gation to impose on the believers the peremptory obser­vance of the Law,  

In the name of Allah the Merciful..., who has in his infinite grace ordered us to preserve the Sunna and protect the Community of his Prophet... people, God has enjoined us to follow his edicts and ... for us (as a Caliph) to see to it that you do not fall into perdition (Wa hadhdharna ida 'atikum)...believers obey God and his Prophet... Follow what Allah and his Prophet have dictated... that is to avoid what has been proscribed by the Book, the Prophetic Sunna and the consensus of the Mohammediya Community... [therefore] perform your prayers, alms, order the good and forbid the bad...We fear your lack of judgment and the devil's control over your spirit... Refer to God and awaken from your torpor (Ayqidhu min nawm al-ghafla)... purge your belief from all innovations and open yourselves to God... Beware that God in his glory, clarified for you the road of the Sunna... Apprehend his cognizance.

... Repudiate all seasonal folklores that have absorbed you, and the ornate innovations of those whose buried passion have dissipated and who have insulted the Faith... and practiced what has been prohibited by the Book, the Sunna, and the Community. They have called themselves "Fuqara" and have perpetrated pandemonious actions... they have been guilty of heresy, thinking that they were in accordance with their Faith ... [what they have done] are atrocious innovations (Bida' shani'a)... ignoble customs (Radha'il)...

Mephistophelian imposture and vices that they have devilishly made palatable to their followers.Mawasim have been selected for these practices and considerable sums have been wasted in the name of Satan. The followers of these innovations, the 'Aisawa, the Jiala and other partisans of perdition, stupidity and ignorance, congregate there... they wait in anticipation for these events and together per­form their demoniacal acts ... All this is contrary to the Faith and any money spent on these occasions is illicit.

0 Believers,... has the Prophet organized a Mawsim for his uncle, the first martyr? Has the first ruler of the community Abu Bakr consecrated a Mawsim to the Prophet? Has anyone of those who followed done such things?... Were Mosques decorated during the Prophet's time? Or were the graves of the Sahaba and the Tabi'in decorated?... [Thus] your argument that you are following the steps of your forefathers is that of the idolatrous... the wise is he who follows the example of his enlightened father and the people of good and religion... there is nothing in the Faith that calls for singing... vociferation... you must ask God for forgiveness... and change your dereliction... How could you be blinded (by the devil) while the Prophetic tradition is calling you? (Am kayf yadullukum, wa sunnat nabiy-yukum tunadikum...).

If you wish to give alms... give it to those mentioned in the Book of God...  such as the poor, the needy, and the sick... the right path is to perform the pilgrimage to the Haramayn, the Jihad, the defense of the Sunna during festivities and celebrations... it is also the accomplishment of the required prayers and the fast at Ramadan... as well as the avoidance of squalor and slovenliness... the straight path does not include the multitudinousness of banners [Wa laysa al-sirat al-mustaqim kathrat al-rayat...], nocturnal mixed-gatherings,... convulsive dances, hand clapping, and other similar evil doing.

Those whom God has given [them] some authority (the 'Ulama)... must interdict the congrega­tion of brotherhoods in Mosques... There are three rules of continence to follow anticipation for these events and together per­form their demoniacal acts... All this is contrary to the Faith and any money spent on these occasions is illicit with the Almighty: to adhere to the Sunna relent­lessly:, to preserve it without flinching and to consolidate it in felicity or in misfortune ...

We have, 0 Believers, counselled you (Arshadnakum), exhorted you and warned you. Henceforth, anyone frequenting the Mawasim or introducing blame­worthy innovations in the Prophet's Shari'a will bring upon himself damnation and will incur the wrath of God on him and on his peers. He will be immolated by Lucifer and will lose the benefits of this life and the other: this would be the worse downfall. Those who will contravene our edict must take warning of the dissension and discordance they might fall into, and of the ghastly punishment that shall strike them.

Mawlay Sulayman's Khutba was tantamount to a declaration of war on unorthodox brotherhoods. The trenchant tone of the oration drew an immediate rebuttal. The Marabouts decided to mount a counterstrike by berating the Makhzan (i.e. the Sultan) for a host of ill-fated actions, including his professed Salafism. They also defended their devotion, and sanctity, and insisted on their character of mysticism. In addition, the Sultan Sulayman was soon faced with a Maraboutic insur­gency which convulsed the Dynasty. Even the tradi­tionally docile Wazzaniya decided to join the opposition against Sulayman. Only the Tijaniya remained loyal to the Sultan.

Sensing that he had perhaps underestimated the aggressiveness and hostility of the brotherhoods, Mawlana Sulay­man issued a letter which he addressed to Shaykh Ahmed b. al-Tawdi al-Hamduni al-'Alami. In it the Sultan denied categorically being anti-Sufi and in­sisted that he was only opposed to the ecstatic orders: "Inni unkir 'ala al-bida' al-haditha fi ba'ad al-turuq, la al-turuq al-Sufiyya..." But the Dynasty had now given the opposition the Hujja it needed to openly denounce the Sultan for his adoption of an 'external heresy', which they had unknowingly helped conceive thorough their own deport­ment. Ridda war was now inevitability; but ultimately it degenerated into an acute clash of Baraka between the Marabouts and the Sultan. The rapid decline in the Makhzan's power of persuasion, due in large part to the latter's attempt at depreciating the importance of Sharifian Maraboutism, helped devitalize the Sultan Mawlana Sulayman's lofty objectives.

C. The Revolt of "Evil Forces"

Moroccan chroniclers everywhere portray rebellions and revolutions in dark terms, but rarely in terms as venomous as those ushering in this period of ferment and unrest. The short period of relative peace which followed the seven year Siba (1205/1790-1212/1797), was soon broken by repeated insurrections leading in­exorably to the infamous Nakba. The Sultan was forced in turn to launch numerous counterattacks in order to thwart the sedition.  

Mawlay Sulayman launched an expedition against Meknes in 1212/1797; in 1214/1799 he fought the recal­citrant Ait Yammurj in 1215/1800 he undertook the Campaign of Sus. A year later, he faced the Tadla in­surrection, because of the scarcity of grain. In 1216/ 1801 he also battled the Ait Umalu, Ban Muiayr, Zammur Ait Idrisen and the Gerwan in the Dukkala and the Haouz. He headed in 1217/1802 a Mahalla in the Rif as well as around Fez against the Hayyana. A year later he led one against the Ait Idrisen. Most of these revolts were induced by inter-tribal rivalries, sedentaries vs. nomads. In 1222/1807 Sulayman launched another Mahalla on the coastal areas and unleashed the Ait Idrisen" against the Gerwan. Two years later, it was the turn of the Ait Umalu, Ibn Khayran, Sama'alla and Wardigha.

There is little doubt that the plague of 1213/ 1798-99 played a determining factor in the social and political dissolution of the realm. Subsequently it created a shift in traditional alliances bringing sometimes the decimated elite closer to seditious groups. Insecurity throughout the Empire became again the norm. Mawlay Sulayman's health proved to be detrimental to his prestige, for every time the news of his illness would propagate, rumors of his death would invariably follow, thus leading to more anarchy. In 1218/1803, believing that the Sultan had died at the hands of a Jewish doctor, the population began plundering the Mallah of Rabat. The doctor sought refuge at the Zawiya of Mawlay al-Tuhami al-Wazzani further exacerbating the angry mob incited by a certain 'Ali Qaddur. The Sultan was compelled to appear in public to dispel the rumor.

Mawlay Sulayman faced his first defeat at Azru in 1226/1811 at the hand of a strong confederation of Middle-Atlas Berbers (Ait Umalu, Gerwan, Zammur, and Ait Yusi). A year later he was again defeated in the Shawiya after his attempt to mediate between the Awlad Hariz and Awlad Ali. In 1228/1813, after learning that the people of the Rif, notably the Galiyya, were trading with the Christians despite Makhzan orders, and that their governor Sidi Mohammed al-Salawi al-Bukhari (Sulayman's minister) also participated in contraband activities, Sulayman dispatched a punitive expedition to discourage any trafficking. The Arab contingents of Sulayman, the Banu Malika and the Banu Sufyan are said to have left a "trail of carnage and plunder," but with no lasting result except perhaps for a desire to rebel.

In 1230/1814, the Sultan headed an expedition against the Mazamiza and the Awlad Bu Rizq. He then battled the turbulent tribes of the triangle of unrest, that is the Haouz of Marrakech, Dukkala-Shayazma, where they had revolted against the governor, Wali Mohammed b. Abdessadiq. The tribes were in fact attempting to rid themselves of Makhzan control over Mazagan, Safi and Mogador. The following year, Sulayman entrusted his son Mawlay Ibrahim with the task of subduing southern tribes of the Sahara (Ait 'Ata and Banu Sabah) who had the haughtiness to seize Makhzan property. The punitive expedition however proved disastrous, and the Sultan had to send his Sahib al-Tabi' (seal caretaker) Shaykh Ahmed b. Mubarak al-Wasif (d. 1235/1819), at the head of a contingent of 'Abids along with some artillery pieces in order to disperse the nomads.

The successive uprisings were unquestionably engen­dered by two main factors. First, the Makhzan inability to reconstitute its plague-crippled army, thus enabling the Siba to revivify. This in turn brought the Sultan to rely increasingly on his artillery. Secondly, the Makhzan's desperate attempts at controlling the south­western trading outlets through military means along with seemingly contradictory religious edicts. But there is perhaps a third reason, no less crucial if one is to explain the abrupt outburst of frantic rebel­lions. It is the sudden Maraboutic strain, seething and lashing into fury over Sulayman's antagonism and implacability. The Makhzan was now faced with a: predicament. The Sultan's Khutba and epistle scolding the pseudo-ascetics and Faqirs (Mutafaqqirat al-waqt) had goaded the brotherhoods into a truculent refluence. Despite his acknowledged canonical strictness and cog­nizance, Mawlay Sulayman was declared unfit and superannuated.

In an effort to attenuate the restive mood of the Siba, the Sultan issued a decree in which he appealed to the populace to obey their Imam, i.e., Mawlay Sulayman, as part of their obligatory duties (Yajib al-sabr alayhi wa al-sam' wa al-ta’a). "The state being ordained by God, man must be patient under tribu­lation, for sedition and lese majesty are more iniqui­tous than any other besetting sin (Fasad al-qiyam 'ala al-Sultan ashadd wa a'zam min irtikabahum al-ma'asi)."  Nonetheless, insurrections continued with accrued virulence, particularly by the Berbers of the Middle Atlas, and at their head the mighty Ait Umalu led by al-Hajj Mohammed b. al-Ghazi al-Zammuri (Wa kana idh dhak a'zam al-barbar kalima wa ri'asa). The Ait Umalu terrorized the outskirts of Meknes plundering its countryside. In 1234/1818 Mawlay Sulayman unleashed rival Berber groups (Zammur, Ait Idrisen, Ait Yusi, Ait Yanmiur, Gerwan, and Banu Mutayr) against the Ait Umalu, and led together with his son Mawlay Ibrahim, a Mahalla composed of Udayas and 'Ablds. But a defection in his ranks led to the Sultan's humiliating capture and to the tragic death of his son.

Although unharmed, the Sultan was nonetheless dis­armed and kept for four days by the mutinous Ibn al-Ghazi. The news of Mawlay Sulayman's capture (he was found in his tent reading the Dala'il al-Khayrat) had an inauspicious effect on the remaining years of his reign. The Sultan seemed to have run into a slough of despondency interpreted by his subjects as a calami­tous event and an absence of Baraka (Fa kanat tilka al-hazima wasila li al-fitna wa sababan li kuli al-balawi wa al-mihan qama fiha khawarij al-barbar).

Faqih Sidi Mohammed ibn Ahmed Akansus blames the Sultan Mawlay Sulayman for not having negoti­ated with the rebels and exonerated their offenses ('Adam qubul al-sulh wa radd al-shafa'a hin talaba dhalik al-'aduww fi awwal al-amr). Indeed Sulayman's unyielding attitude seemed to have incensed many of his foes. However, he found himself in an inextricable position. For one thing, the second plague of 1234/1818 was once more decimating his army, thus emboldening the Siba. Furthermore, his desperate appeals to the British for the quick delivery of field guns went unheeded because of a delay in payments.

Profoundly humiliated, the Sultan went on a puni­tive rampage against some of the Berber tribes that had deserted him. The Berbers apparently saw in the Sultan's fury a racially motivated outburst, and in 1235/1819 rose again under the leadership of a covetous Fattan, Mohammed Abu Bakr Amhawish of the Ait Sidi Ali. We are told that they unleashed their acerbity on "anyone who spoke Arabic." In the interim, the people of Fez (al-Hadra al-Idrisiyya), wielders of economic clout but embittered by the Sultan's economic monopoly, rose against their governor, Wali al-Hajj Mohammed al-Saffar. The insurrection of the Fasis was no doubt related to the new outbreak of plague and the subsequent shortages. The plague had prevented all commercial intercourse with the outside, and the money invested and handled by Jewish speculators was lost (Li anna daa'at lahum amwal 'azima inda ahl al-dhimma li ajal tijaratuhum). The economic strangulation of the Fasis, induced by the Makhzan as well as by natural cataclysm, were to propel them into political opposition.

Despite Mawlay Sulayman's personal appeals to the Fasis, the latter, in collusion with dissatisfied elements in the Sultan's army, assassinated the ex-vizir Mawlay Ahmed al-Fishtali as a warning. The event again was interpreted as an ill-omened juncture threatening the Sultan if not the Dynasty (Wa bi qatlihi tahaddama janiban 'al min mulk al-Sultan). Before heading for Fez, Mawlay Sulayman attempted to loosen the Berber harassment and virtual siege of Meknes. Hence, the Sultan was forced to use the good offices of the Sufi Shaykh Sidi Abdellah b. Hamza al-'Ayyashi. The mediation of the Marabout succeeded in lessening the tension. The Fasi rebellion prompted the Sultan to renew his plea for more fire, arms (2,000 muskets). The Sultan promised the British that he would pay them with the duties on cattle, but the latter refused to proceed with any shipment before being reimbursed on outstanding accounts. Mawlay Sulayman also called upon the British merchants residing in Mogador to contribute towards freighting their vessels to the service of the Makhzan, his own navy being "in a bad state of disrepair."

After leaving his son Mawlay al-Hassan as Khalifa in Meknes, the Sultan advanced toward Fez where he encountered stiff resistance. But his Arab Udaya cavalrymen served him well, and together they were able to storm the city. Mawlay al-Hassan b. Sulayman was left at the head of a detachment of Udaya, in charge of the treasury which is reported to have contained twelve million "hard dollars." Infuriated by the action of the Fasis, but blaming particularly the Berbers, Sulayman ordered the looting of every house and property belonging to Berbers (Wa amara bi nahb jami'a diyar al-barbar allati bi Fas).

Mawlay Sulayman had however attempted to negotiate with the insurgents, despite the fact that the Fasis had invited the rebel Amhawish along with two powerful Marabouts, Mawlay al-Arabi al-Darqawi and Sidi al-Hajj al-Arabi al-Wazzani. In a letter addressed to the Fasi nobility which was read publicly by his son Mawlay 'Ali b. Sulayman, the Sultan pleaded once again with them to respect his authority. Following the plunder of the city by the Udayas, Mawlana Sulayman pursued his way to Marrakech leaving behind a contingent of his loyal cavalrymen in charge of the Idrissid capital. No sooner had the Sultan departed than the Udayas began harassing the population and looting the Jewish quarter (Wa dakhalu mallah ahl al-dhimma fa nahabuh fi ramadan naharan wa zanu wa sharibu al-khamr). The Fasis, suspecting that the Udayas were acting under Makhzan orders, decided to plot a coup.

The Makhzan's seasonal army had always disrupted the economic tranquility of the bourgeoisie, thereby reducing their clout which often ran contrary to the Sultan's interest. Indeed the army would regularly prey on shop-keepers. The notables of Fez, including Ahmed al-Harithi, and Qaddur al-Maghribi along with representa­tives of the Andalusian community led by Shaykh Abderrahman b. Faris, voiced their complaints to the Qadi of the city, Shaykh al-'Abbas b. Ahmed b. al-Tawdi b. Suda.   A disagreement ensued between the Qadi, the Fasis and the Mufti of Fez, Mohammed b. Ibrahim al-Dukkali. The argumentation centered around the legality of a mutiny against the Sultan, and Shaykh al-'Abbas b. Suda refused to support the disgruntled Fasis. He was subsequently replaced with Qadi Mohammed b. Abderrahman al-Dila'i.

Sulayman sent another missive to the Fasis in which he expressed his dismay and disillusionment. The letter, which was again read by Mawlay Ali, was mis­interpreted as a decision on the part of the Sultan to abdicate (Fa qal al-Nas al-sultan khala'a nasfsahu 'ani al-mulk)... Pressed by an angry mob demanding the abdication of the Sultan because of his heresy in condemning Maraboutism. Mawlay Ali was com­pelled to burn his father's letter.

In the absence of the sultan Faqih Ibrahim al-Dukkali, and al-Talib b. Jallun along with the chief architect of the Berber uprising 'al-Dajjal' Abu Bakr Amhawish pressed for the election (Bay’a) of Mawlay Sulayman’s nephew Mawlay Ibrahim b. al-Yazid who in 1236/1820 was proclaimed Sultan of Fez. Mawlay Ibrahim b. al-Yazid had governed Tetuan for a while and then in 1206/1791 his father Mawlay al-Yazid b. Mohammed (picture) named him Khalifa at Marrakech. Mawlay Sulayman had attempted to exile him but with the help of the Fasis 'Ulama he was allowed to remain in Fez. In 1217/1802 he was im­plicated in the Rif rebellion and had since declared his opposition to Sulayman. The Fasis were hoping that Mawlay Ibrahim b. al-Yazid would either rally the Udayas and the 'Abids to their side or would perhaps convince them to abandon the Sultan's cause and leave the city. They consequently sent a deputation to the Udayas headed by the Darqawa Marabout Mawlay al-Arabi al-Darqawi, a firm supporter of the putsch, along with a Berber chieftain, Ibn al-Ghazi al-Zammuri to try to convince the Udayas to join the revolt. The pro-Ibrahimic circles sent al-Darqawi to Fez al-Jadid to ask them to join their side. Instead, they put him in prison where he was to stay for two years, being only released after Sidna Shaykh Abil Abbas Tijani's direct intervention.

Not all the scholars or other people accepted this interpretation, but among the people who pledged allegiance to the new ruler were al-Arabi al-Wazzani and al-Arabi al-Darqawi who was to avenge himself by joining the Fez rebellion which almost en­gulfed the Dynasty. The Sultan was taken aback; if it had ever been his intention to abdicate, this was no longer the case, so he laid siege to Fez to reassert his authority. He has the support of some circles in Fez including Mawlana Shaykh Abil Abbas Tijani (may Allah be pleased with him). The siege of Fez lasted for more than ten months, maintaining an effective blockade and in the end bringing the rebels to defeat.  

In one of his last attempts to restrain Fez, Amhawish fall into the curse of the Concealed Pole, Mawlana Shaykh Abil Abbas Tijani (may Allah be pleased with him). The narrative is accounted by Sidi Bouazza al-Barbari al-Sharif who marched with the expedition of Amhawish from the Atlas Mountains to Fez in the sake of initiation into a Sufi order. The bastion of Sufism in the city was of course the Tijaniya order. So he seemed to find his way quickly to the door of Sidna Shaykh Tijani. Said he, as quoted in the Bughya and Kashf al-Hijab, 

“I went to the doorstep of his house and asked permission to enter, which they gave me. When I entered into the courtyard, I found the Shaykh busy with dhikr as he walked back and forth…When he finished I stood up to greet him and paid all the due respect due to him… Then I asked his wird and he gave it to me… Before leaving, the Shaykh asked me on the condition and ambition of the Amhawish militia. When I informed him, he turned to their site and stretched out his hand and then blew (saying uff)… On the next morning  I went to the place I left the forces of Amhawish. I was told that they lost the battle as they stood aghast strangely and nobody knew the cause of that. I felt certain that they faced defeat the time Sidna Shaykh (may Allah be pleased with him) blew at them, and that Allah Almighty cast terror into their hearts by the determination (himma) of our Master (may Allah be pleased with him).”

Perhaps the most surprising aspect of the Fasi rebellion was their unholy alliance with the Marabouts against the Makhzan. It was this cabala of puissant merchants allied to the Siba and supported by powerful and recusant brotherhoods, particularly the contumacious Darqawa, that ostracized Sulayman's rule to the point of collapse. Unlike the 'Abids, the Udayas however remained loyal to Sulayman and even sent several decapitated insurgents to Marrakech. The 'Abids on the other hand handed over the keys to the treasury of Meknes "containing nine to ten million Spanish dollars."

Having secured the support of the 'Abids of Fez and Meknes, the unholy alliance turned then to Larashe for assistance but was rebuffed. Similarly Tangier re­fused to join the coalition although one of its influential Qadis, Ahmed al-Fallus showed some eagerness in uniting with the insurgents but was quickly ousted by the governor of the city, al-Arabi al-Said. Only Tetuan did agree to side with the new contender to the throne.    However when the city opened its gates in 1236/1820 to Ibrahim b. al-Yazid and his supporters, the latter went on "an orgy of drinking and fornication (Wa akafu hunak 'ala al-khumur wa al-fasad...).

Understandably, the Fasi uprising had disastrous effect on Sulayman's will to resist. In a moving gesture of support al-Zayyani addressed a poem to the Sultan urging him not to despair and to persevere in his thankless task of upholding the Shari'a. In his desperate search for obliging support, the Sultan and his son al-Tayyib headed for Tangier and Tetuan with a contingent of Udayas and a small detachment of Abids. Mawlay al-Tayyib was able to capture 300 rebels which he executed, hanging their heads around the ram­parts of the city. In the interim the pretender Ibrahim had died and was hastily replaced by his brother Mawlay al-Said b. al-Yazid." Sulayman decided instead to head precipitously for Fez, leaving behind his eldest son Mawlay Ali as governor of "all the northern district."

The Sultan requested also the help of his Khalifa at Mogador, the future Sultan Mawlay Abderrahman b. Hicham (1276/1859). After a difficult siege in which the city of Fez was bombarded, Sulayman was compelled to pursue the Fasis to surrender. The Sultan obviously overburdened and enfeebled began contemplating abdication in favor of his nephew, Mawlay Abderrahman because of the latter’s impeccable credentials. He consequently wrote his much praised testament (Wasiyya) which he addressed to the "pillars" of the Dynasty, the Udayas and to the 'Ulama and notables of Fez.  

In his testament Sulayman grievously describes his recurring illnesses, disillusionment with the en­demic instability of his Empire and the irksome opposi­tions he had encountered, all of which had contributed to his decision to remove himself from kingship.

I do not have an iota of resentment against any of God's creatures [explains the Sultan] whatever occurred was predetermined by God and known only to him... what happened to me was by no mean unusual but has befallen on others before me in a more stultifying and per­verse way... I urge all of you... to fear God and to follow the Prophet's Sunna... and that of the Rashidun califs... I commit you to the care of our nephew Mawlay Abderrahman b. Hicham and I pray to God that my decision will be similar to that of Sulayman b. Abdelmalik when he selected Omar b. Abdellaziz... I conjure you to obey him...

In one of his last attempts to subdue recalci­trant tribes (Hayayna around Taza), the Sultan fell into an ambush and news of his death spread. However, when the rumor, propagated mainly by the defiant Fasis, failed to generate a total revolt, the latter deemed it more prudent to dissolve the siege and ask both Sulayman and Mawlay Abderrahman for forgiveness. According to the anonymous author of al-Ibtisam, most Fasis were still supporting Mawlay Sulayman, but it was the Andalusians who had sided with the pretender (A number of Andalusian families being progeny of Mu’awiya ibn Abu Sufyan!). In 1237/1822 the insurgents, having been granted the Aman, opened the gates of the city holding copies of the Quran and conferred with the Sultan at the mausoleum of Mawlay Idriss along with Sidi al-Hajj al-'Arabi al-Wazzani.

Despite Qadi Abi al-Fadl Abbas b. Ahmed b. Suda's cautionary advice to the Sultan, Mawlay al-Said b. al-Yazid was granted immunity. Before his demise which occurred on the 13th of Rabi'I 1238/Nov. 29, 1822, Sulayman raided the Zawiya al-Sharardiyya headed by Shaykh al-Mahdi b. Mohammed al-'Abbas al-Sharardi, for gross violations of the Shari'a and impropriety in the conduct of devo­tional duties. But the Sultan's Mahalla was surrounded and Mawlay Sulayman was once again captured and detained for three days.

Soon after, he witnessed the last uprising of his reign: that of the Dhawi Bilal in complicity with the Shayazma of Mogador and at their head 'Allal b. Mohammed al-Shayazmi. Concludes Faqih Sidi Mohammed ibn Ahmed Akansus:

"It was this last uprising that destroyed the Sultan's illusion, thus worsening his illness which was responsible for his death."

Sulayman's misfortunate Mahallas have become proverbial. The Sultan is often criticized for having been too compassionate on his adversaries and for failing to act in more fiendish and ruthless way. There was perhaps a disinclination or even an inability on his part to project a fierce image. He certainly had no appetite for and no joy in that combination of manipulation, deceit, and arm-wrestling at which Sidi Mohammed was so adept at using; much less the implaca­bility and truculence of a Mawlay Isma'il. Perhaps British Consul James S. Douglas best described Sulayman's forbearing character:

Muley Soliman is a mild humane character about sixty years of age with much of the gentleman in his address. They say that he is fitter for heaven than to govern their nation, which can only be done well with severity. He does not appear to me to profess sufficient energy to reestablish such an empire in peace and good government..." Remarked earlier James Matra, "It is by the passion of fear only that the [Moors] can be restrained..."

Indeed, at his death, Mawlana Sultan Sulayman was hailed as a saint whose demise would be greatly mourned.

Mawlay Sulayman’s record of accomplishments in the sphere of religious puritanism had been strong if not remarkable and he has left an imprint on the country's elite that witnessed its full manifestation at the turn of the century with the resurgence of Salafism. However, like many preacher-activists, Sulay­man fell victim to what could be described as an inveterate obsession with regeneration and a blind passion for religious punctiliousness that obviously aggrieved those around him. Although this is by no means a criticism it became a basic flaw in his laborious and often unwieldy efforts at indoctrinating the represen­tatives of religious populism.

Indeed toward the end it became somewhat difficult for the Sultan's subjects to grasp some of his notions, basic intent, and the spirit of what he proposed to do. Perhaps it would have helped had he been a shrewder moral tactician. But part of the problem stemmed ironically from his impeccable moral credentials which he thought were sufficient to rally his people to his views or at least inspire them to adopt some of his proscriptive exhortations. Moreover his inability to impose his will solely by force debilitated the effec­tiveness of his rule.

The crippling failure of Sulayman's wars against religious infringements and sedition were partially in­duced then by his cherished and self-proclaimed status as the all-cognizant Imam. His repeated appeals for deference and obeisance to his rule can attest to it. His abdication in the end was the mark of a disconsolate and downtrodden man. Mawlay Sulayman has often failed to recognize the procedural impediments to his relations with the regional powers as well as the sophistry inherent in the Mushawara conventionality. Sulayman made also the mistake of not involving other peripheral figures with strong followings of their own in the common task of subduing the confine of his Empire or to give them a substantial stake in the success of his own policies.

Rather, Mawlay Sulayman relied on his own for­midable intelligence, religious prestige and quasi saintly behavior—and on a set of Fuqaha' who, despite their commitment to the defense of the Sunna did not always measure up to his integrity and who made little effort to actively support his mettlesome but mordant program. After all the 'Ulama had since the XVII century undertaken the task of traditionalizing the countryside in a "vertical solidarity" push in order to bridge the gap between official and popular Islam.

Too often Sulayman has been captured perhaps by his conceit that his mystique and communion with God could compensate for the daily drudgery of internal crisis, economic problems, foreign pressure, and natural disasters. When challenged by the Berbers, the Brother­hoods and the Fasis, he became lost in stupefaction and disgruntlement and stood aghast at their challenge. And therein lies the paradox, the Ghuluww or extremism his detractors have accused him of preaching was in fact initiated in a pacifistic and intellectualistic manner. Had Mawlay Sulayman launched an intemperate Jihad on the Almoravide scale and had he committed some of the excesses attributed to the Almohads he might have succeeded, although militarily only the Udayas proved to be reliable.

It is clear that Mawlay Sulayman's Hanbali/ Salafi ideas could not always be put into practice at the grass roots level. Even the cultural elite was disinclined to approve a program dreadfully violent and regarded by many as sectarian. Moreover, the Fuqaha' and other clerics simply rejected the notion that their religiosity and methods of teaching lacked scripturalist fervor, and preferred the traditional continuity of Maliki conservatism. The Sultan Sidi Mohammed ibn Abdellah's efforts at reducing the chasm between the four schools could not erase several cen­turies of unswerving fidelity to the spirit of Imam Malik.

So politically, the introduction of certain as­pects of Salafism was unquestionably a tactical error insofar as it did not attempt to cover the move with the cloack of Maghribi formalism. If Almohadism irked the masses with its metaphysical abstractions and intellectualism, Salafism, although as dry in its strictness and austerity as Malikism, frightened everyone; it con­tradicted directly their deep-seated belief in the pre­eminence of the House of the Prophet (peace and blessing be upon him), the canonization of the ways of Malik, the importance of sainthood and other reverent aspects of the faith they had come to view as having been perfected since the advent of the Marinids.

Moroccans were perhaps more than any other Muslims acutely aware of the dangers of heresies; their politico-religious history until the consolidation of the Marinid Dynasty is a pertinacious battle against sectarianism. Only Malikism enabled the realm to gain its equilibrium. Therefore because of the country's pres­sure toward religious conformity, harsh Salafism was miscon­strued as a brutal and a seditious ideology with a "bla­tant disregard" for the institution of Sharifism, disre­spectful of that of the Califate, and with a Kharijite-like stance on devotional duties which ostensibly ran contrary to the incessant search for the medial solution (al-‘Hall al-Wasat).  

Over the past two decades, according to the Gulf Institute, 95% of the ancient buildings of Mecca have been demolished. In the 1950s, the Saudi establishment decided to build a library over the Reason of Existence and Chieftain of the Universe’s (peace and blessing be upon him) grave site. The architect gained a compromise, by allowing the tomb to remain beneath the library. The authorities intend the blessed tomb to be concreted over and made into a car park. In 1998, the tomb of the Holy Prophet’s mother, Sayyida Amina bint Wahb (may Allah be pleased with her), was bulldozed and razed to the ground. The house of Sayyida Khadija (may Allah be pleased with her), the Holy Prophet’s wife, is no longer standing. It has been replaced with public toilets. The house of Sidna Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him), the first Caliph and father of the Holy Prophet’s last wife Sayyida Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her), has vanished under the foundations of a Hilton hotel. Even the cave where the Holy Prophet (peace and blessing be upon him) has received his first revelations, at the Al-Nour Mountain, is being considered for demolition. Wahhabis want it destroyed to stop pilgrims visiting.  At the foot of the hill there is a Wahhabi fatwa: "The Prophet Mohammed (peace and blessing be upon him) did not permit us to climb on to this hill, not to pray here, not to touch stones, and tie knots on trees..." The 1,200-year-old mosque, site of the grave of the Prophet's grandson Sidna Ali al-Uraid (may Allah be pleased with him), is seen here being dynamited. Gathered around the site are Saudi religious police with their distinctive red scarves, who appear to be celebrating. A pamphlet published in 2007 by the Saudi Ministry of Islamic Affairs, endorsed by Abdellaziz Al Sheikh, the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, stated that “the green dome shall be demolished and the three graves flattened in the Prophet’s Mosque.” This sentiment was echoed in a speech by the late Mohammed ibn al Uthaymeen, one of Saudi Arabia’s most prominent Wahhabi clerics: “We hope one day we’ll be able to destroy the green dome of the Prophet Mohammed”.