Just as Hitler’s Mein Kampf is never published without critical notes, so too must Kitab al-Tawhid be re-examined in light of its violent legacy.

When Mein Kampf is published today in Germany or elsewhere, it is never printed as a plain text. It comes with extensive critical commentary — footnotes, introductions, and appendices — that explain how Hitler’s words laid the groundwork for genocide, racial violence, and world war. The aim is not to erase history, but to prevent ideology from masquerading as eternal truth.

This is not censorship. It is responsible scholarship. A recognition that texts have consequences — especially when they are read in isolation, without context, by those hungry for power, purity, or revenge.

And if there is one text in the Islamic world that demands the same treatment, it is Kitab al-Tawhid by Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab.

A Doctrine Without Mercy

Often presented as a basic book on Islamic monotheism, Kitab al-Tawhid goes far beyond affirming the oneness of God. It outlines a worldview in which any form of reverence for saints, tombs, intercession, or spiritual hierarchy is branded as shirk — polytheism. The consequences, historically and ideologically, have been severe.

In the 18th century, the book was not just a theological treatise. It was a political tool. Ibn Abd al-Wahhab’s alliance with Muhammad ibn Saud formed a militant movement that conquered cities, destroyed shrines, and massacred entire communities of Muslims — all justified by the claim that these Muslims were idolaters.

This doctrine of “purifying Islam” led to the 1802 massacre of Karbala, where thousands of Shia Muslims were killed and the shrine of Imam Hussain desecrated. Classical Sunni scholars of the time denounced the Wahhabi movement as a revival of the Khawarij, an early extremist sect known for declaring fellow Muslims as disbelievers.

The Modern Echo: ISIS and Beyond

In the 21st century, Kitab al-Tawhid has not faded into academic obscurity. On the contrary, it has become foundational literature for violent extremist groups. ISIS, al-Qaeda, and Boko Haram have all cited the book verbatim to justify:

  • Declaring mainstream Muslims as apostates,
  • Destroying Sufi shrines and Shia mosques,
  • Justifying suicide bombings and executions.

What makes the book so prone to radical misuse is not just its content — but its lack of commentary. Unlike the complex works of traditional scholars, Kitab al-Tawhid offers a black-and-white worldview, where mercy, nuance, and disagreement are erased.

Why Commentary Is a Strategic Necessity

In light of this history, it is no longer acceptable to print, teach, or circulate Kitab al-Tawhid without rigorous, critical annotation. The book must be re-contextualized, not erased. Muslims must understand not only what it says, but how it has been used, and how it diverges from the broader tradition of Islamic scholarship.

Such commentary must include:

  • Historical background on 18th-century Najd and the local customs Ibn Abd al-Wahhab was reacting to.
  • Clarifications from classical Sunni scholars on legitimate differences in worship.
  • Ethical critiques rooted in the Qur’an and Prophetic mercy.
  • Explanations of how tawhid was understood across the centuries — not as a tool for takfir, but as a path to unity and sincerity.

This is a strategic necessity. The same way post-war Germany chose to never again let a book like Mein Kampf spread unchallenged, the Muslim world must take ownership of its own history — including the parts that were weaponized.

Ideas Have Consequences

Kitab al Tawhid must be  held accountable because of its potential to lead to bloodshed, division, and extremism. It has been used to justify the killing of thousands — in the past and the present. It is time we asked: how much longer will we let a book speak without being answered?

Context is not optional. Commentary is not censorship. It is how we reclaim our tradition from the hands of those who created a perpetual fitna in the modern age — and remind the world that Islam was never to divide humanity but to unite them.