Visiting the Prophet’s (s) grave In the book, al-Jawhar al-Munddam, Qastalānī[1] and Ibn Hajar state that: “Ibn Taymiyyah forbids visiting the Prophet’s (s) grave, and further declares that whether one is travelling or not, Zīyārah (visiting) of the Messenger’s grave is prohibited.” Thus, if visiting the Prophet’s (s) grave is prohibited, then, a fortiori, so is visiting any other grave. Ibn Taymiyyah assumes that the prohibition of travelling for the sole reason of visiting the Prophet’s (s) grave is unanimously prohibited and prayers are not shortened on such a trip. Rejection of Ibn Taymiyyah’s views Zīyārah is lawful due to four reasons: The Qur’ān: God, glory be to His Greatness, states the following in the holy Qur’ān: “…And if, when they had wronged themselves, they had but come unto thee and asked forgiveness of Allah, and asked forgiveness of the messenger, they would have found Allah Forgiving, Merciful.”[2] Whether one’s aim is to ask for forgiveness or any other reason, Zīyārah is a way of being present beside the deceased. When the excellence of such an act is proven during the life of the Prophet (s) then it is also established after his passing. This is because the holy Messenger (s) lives in barzakh and can hear the Salams of his visitor and is aware of his acts. ...

The Wahhābī view The Wahhabi sect maintains that repairing graves, constructing buildings and domes on them, and plastering them is prohibited. They also label such acts, polytheism and blasphemy. Moreover they hold that, destroying the graves, the domes on top of graves and buildings situated around them, is obligatory. The following are examples of their rulings: 1. San’ānī states: “The hall of audience (haram) is the same as an idol. This is because the quburīyun[1] carry out the same acts that the people during the Age of Ignorance (Jahilliyah period) carried out for their idols. They (quburīyun) carry out these acts for places they have named grave or the mashhad[2] of a walī[3]. In any case they are the same acts that the people of the Age of Ignorance used to carry out but with a different name. However, it does not stop becoming an idol if the term changes!”[4] 2. Ibn Qayyim (Ibn Taymiyyah’s student) asserts: “Buildings on graves are taken to be idols and are worshipped. Destroying them is obligatory. In addition, if one has the power to destroy them, then allowing them to stay in the same form - for even one day - is not permissible. ...

A text that examines fundamental Wahhabi beliefs in comparison to those of the Ahlus Sunnah and the Shi`ah. Topics discussed within include a summarized account of the life of Shaykh Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, one of the prominent figures of this movement, and some of the major ideological issues in which Wahhabis deviate from mainstream Muslims (like Tawassul, Ziyarah, Ta'wil of the Qur'an, etc.).

Anas M. Alahmed argues that the Entertainment Authority of Saudi Arabia created in 2016 was meant to introduce a “new Saudi” to the Western outsider audience and that the “new Saudi” state is on a mission to transform the country from a traditional and conservative kingdom to a new state dedicated to social modernization and openness. Alahmed contends that globalization and the neoliberalism capitalist mode of politics have reinforced the transformation of cultural production into global entertainment production. Therefore, the author shows how the entertainment sector relies heavily on reproducing the Western culture of entertainment production and depends on Western businesses to bring entertainment into the country instead of investing in local entertainment businesses, which forces the state to adopt neoliberal capitalism. The author provides evidence on how the new modernity of Saudi Arabia has become a political tool through which neoliberal capitalists can create positive relationships with Western capitals as part of the postcolonial struggle of neoliberalism in the Global South. Alahmed argues that there is a connection between the role of geopolitical power in globalization and postcolonial studies that explains the struggles of indigenous cultures related to providing their own production to society.

In light of recent concern over Shari’ah, such as proposed laws to prohibit it in the United States and conflict over the role it should play in the new Egyptian constitution, many people are confused about the meaning of Shari‘ah in Islam and its role in the world today. In Reasoning with God, renowned Islamic scholar Khaled Abou El Fadl explains not only what Shari‘ah really means, but also the way it can revitalize and reengage contemporary Islam. After a prologue that provides an essential overview of Shari‘ah, Abou El Fadl explores the moral trajectory of Islam in today’s world. Weaving powerful personal stories with broader global examples, he shows the ways that some interpretations of Islam today have undermined its potential in peace and love. Rather than simply outlining challenges, however, the author provides constructive suggestions about how Muslims can reengage the ethical tradition of their faith through Shari‘ah. As the world’s second largest religion, Islam remains an important force on the global stage. Reasoning with God takes readers—both Muslim and non-Muslim—beyond superficial understandings of Shari‘ah to a deeper understanding of its meaning and potential.

Followers of Muhammad b. ’Abd al-Wahhab, often considered to be Islam’s Martin Luther, shaped the political and religious identity of the Saudi state while also enabling the significant worldwide expansion of Salafist Islam. Studies of the movement he inspired, however, have often been limited by scholars’ insufficient access to key sources within Saudi Arabia. Nabil Mouline was granted rare interviews and admittance to important Saudi archives in preparation for this groundbreaking book, the first in-depth study of the Wahhabi religious movement from its founding to the modern day. Gleaning information from both written and oral sources and employing a multidisciplinary approach that combines history, sociology, and Islamic studies, Mouline presents a new reading of this movement that transcends the usual resort to polemics.