You Can't Understand ISIS If You Don't Know the History of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia

BEIRUT -- The dramatic arrival of Da'ish (ISIS) on the stage of Iraq has shocked many in the West. Many have been perplexed -- and horrified -- by its violence and its evident magnetism for Sunni youth. But more than this, they find Saudi Arabia's ambivalence in the face of this manifestation both troubling and inexplicable, wondering, "Don't the Saudis understand that ISIS threatens them, too?"

It appears -- even now -- that Saudi Arabia's ruling elite is divided. Some applaud that ISIS is fighting Iranian Shiite "fire" with Sunni "fire"; that a new Sunni state is taking shape at the very heart of what they regard as a historical Sunni patrimony; and they are drawn by Da'ish's strict Salafist ideology.

Other Saudis are more fearful, and recall the history of the revolt against Abd-al Aziz by the Wahhabist Ikhwan (Disclaimer: this Ikhwan has nothing to do with the Muslim Brotherhood Ikhwan -- please note, all further references hereafter are to the Wahhabist Ikhwan, and not to the Muslim Brotherhood Ikhwan), but which nearly imploded Wahhabism and the al-Saud in the late 1920s.

Many Saudis are deeply disturbed by the radical doctrines of Da'ish (ISIS) -- and are beginning to question some aspects of Saudi Arabia's direction and discourse.

THE SAUDI DUALITY

Saudi Arabia's internal discord and tensions over ISIS can only be understood by grasping the inherent (and persisting) duality that lies at the core of the Kingdom's doctrinal makeup and its historical origins.

One dominant strand to the Saudi identity pertains directly to Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab (the founder of Wahhabism), and the use to which his radical, exclusionist puritanism was put by Ibn Saud. (The latter was then no more than a minor leader -- amongst many -- of continually sparring and raiding Bedouin tribes in the baking and desperately poor deserts of the Nejd.)

The second strand to this perplexing duality, relates precisely to King Abd-al Aziz's subsequent shift towards statehood in the 1920s: his curbing of Ikhwani violence (in order to have diplomatic standing as a nation-state with Britain and America); his institutionalization of the original Wahhabist impulse -- and the subsequent seizing of the opportunely surging petrodollar spigot in the 1970s, to channel the volatile Ikhwani current away from home towards export -- by diffusing a cultural revolution, rather than violent revolution throughout the Muslim world.

But this "cultural revolution" was no docile reformism. It was a revolution based on Abd al-Wahhab's Jacobin-like hatred for the putrescence and deviationism that he perceived all about him -- hence his call to purge Islam of all its heresies and idolatries.

MUSLIM IMPOSTORS

The American author and journalist, Steven Coll, has written how this austere and censorious disciple of the 14th century scholar Ibn Taymiyyah, Abd al-Wahhab, despised "the decorous, arty, tobacco smoking, hashish imbibing, drum pounding Egyptian and Ottoman nobility who travelled across Arabia to pray at Mecca."

In Abd al-Wahhab's view, these were not Muslims; they were imposters masquerading as Muslims. Nor, indeed, did he find the behavior of local Bedouin Arabs much better. They aggravated Abd al-Wahhab by their honoring of saints, by their erecting of tombstones, and their "superstition" (e.g. revering graves or places that were deemed particularly imbued with the divine).

All this behavior, Abd al-Wahhab denounced as bida -- forbidden by God.

Like Taymiyyah before him, Abd al-Wahhab believed that the period of the Prophet Muhammad's stay in Medina was the ideal of Muslim society (the "best of times", to which all Muslims should aspire to emulate (this, essentially, is Salafism).

Taymiyyah had declared war on Shi'ism, Sufism and Greek philosophy. He spoke out, too against visiting the grave of the prophet and the celebration of his birthday, declaring that all such behavior represented mere imitation of the Christian worship of Jesus as God (i.e. idolatry). Abd al-Wahhab assimilated all this earlier teaching, stating that "any doubt or hesitation" on the part of a believer in respect to his or her acknowledging this particular interpretation of Islam should "deprive a man of immunity of his property and his life."

One of the main tenets of Abd al-Wahhab's doctrine has become the key idea of takfir. Under the takfiri doctrine, Abd al-Wahhab and his followers could deem fellow Muslims infidels should they engage in activities that in any way could be said to encroach on the sovereignty of the absolute Authority (that is, the King). Abd al-Wahhab denounced all Muslims who honored the dead, saints, or angels. He held that such sentiments detracted from the complete subservience one must feel towards God, and only God. Wahhabi Islam thus bans any prayer to saints and dead loved ones, pilgrimages to tombs and special mosques, religious festivals celebrating saints, the honoring of the Muslim Prophet Muhammad's birthday, and even prohibits the use of gravestones when burying the dead.


"Those who would not conform to this view should be killed, their wives and daughters violated, and their possessions confiscated, he wrote. "

Abd al-Wahhab demanded conformity -- a conformity that was to be demonstrated in physical and tangible ways. He argued that all Muslims must individually pledge their allegiance to a single Muslim leader (a Caliph, if there were one). Those who would not conform to this view should be killed, their wives and daughters violated, and their possessions confiscated, he wrote. The list of apostates meriting death included the Shiite, Sufis and other Muslim denominations, whom Abd al-Wahhab did not consider to be Muslim at all.

There is nothing here that separates Wahhabism from ISIS. The rift would emerge only later: from the subsequent institutionalization of Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab's doctrine of "One Ruler, One Authority, One Mosque" -- these three pillars being taken respectively to refer to the Saudi king, the absolute authority of official Wahhabism, and its control of "the word" (i.e. the mosque).

It is this rift -- the ISIS denial of these three pillars on which the whole of Sunni authority presently rests -- makes ISIS, which in all other respects conforms to Wahhabism, a deep threat to Saudi Arabia.

BRIEF HISTORY 1741- 1818

Abd al-Wahhab's advocacy of these ultra radical views inevitably led to his expulsion from his own town -- and in 1741, after some wanderings, he found refuge under the protection of Ibn Saud and his tribe. What Ibn Saud perceived in Abd al-Wahhab's novel teaching was the means to overturn Arab tradition and convention. It was a path to seizing power.


"Their strategy -- like that of ISIS today -- was to bring the peoples whom they conquered into submission. They aimed to instill fear. "


Ibn Saud's clan, seizing on Abd al-Wahhab's doctrine, now could do what they always did, which was raiding neighboring villages and robbing them of their possessions. Only now they were doing it not within the ambit of Arab tradition, but rather under the banner of jihad. Ibn Saud and Abd al-Wahhab also reintroduced the idea of martyrdom in the name of jihad, as it granted those martyred immediate entry into paradise.

In the beginning, they conquered a few local communities and imposed their rule over them. (The conquered inhabitants were given a limited choice: conversion to Wahhabism or death.) By 1790, the Alliance controlled most of the Arabian Peninsula and repeatedly raided Medina, Syria and Iraq.

Their strategy -- like that of ISIS today -- was to bring the peoples whom they conquered into submission. They aimed to instill fear. In 1801, the Allies attacked the Holy City of Karbala in Iraq. They massacred thousands of Shiites, including women and children. Many Shiite shrines were destroyed, including the shrine of Imam Hussein, the murdered grandson of Prophet Muhammad.

A British official, Lieutenant Francis Warden, observing the situation at the time, wrote: "They pillaged the whole of it [Karbala], and plundered the Tomb of Hussein... slaying in the course of the day, with circumstances of peculiar cruelty, above five thousand of the inhabitants ..."

Osman Ibn Bishr Najdi, the historian of the first Saudi state, wrote that Ibn Saud committed a massacre in Karbala in 1801. He proudly documented that massacre saying, "we took Karbala and slaughtered and took its people (as slaves), then praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds, and we do not apologize for that and say: 'And to the unbelievers: the same treatment.'"

In 1803, Abdul Aziz then entered the Holy City of Mecca, which surrendered under the impact of terror and panic (the same fate was to befall Medina, too). Abd al-Wahhab's followers demolished historical monuments and all the tombs and shrines in their midst. By the end, they had destroyed centuries of Islamic architecture near the Grand Mosque.

But in November of 1803, a Shiite assassin killed King Abdul Aziz (taking revenge for the massacre at Karbala). His son, Saud bin Abd al Aziz, succeeded him and continued the conquest of Arabia. Ottoman rulers, however, could no longer just sit back and watch as their empire was devoured piece by piece. In 1812, the Ottoman army, composed of Egyptians, pushed the Alliance out from Medina, Jeddah and Mecca. In 1814, Saud bin Abd al Aziz died of fever. His unfortunate son Abdullah bin Saud, however, was taken by the Ottomans to Istanbul, where he was gruesomely executed (a visitor to Istanbul reported seeing him having been humiliated in the streets of Istanbul for three days, then hanged and beheaded, his severed head fired from a canon, and his heart cut out and impaled on his body).

In 1815, Wahhabi forces were crushed by the Egyptians (acting on the Ottoman's behalf) in a decisive battle. In 1818, the Ottomans captured and destroyed the Wahhabi capital of Dariyah. The first Saudi state was no more. The few remaining Wahhabis withdrew into the desert to regroup, and there they remained, quiescent for most of the 19th century.

HISTORY RETURNS WITH ISIS

It is not hard to understand how the founding of the Islamic State by ISIS in contemporary Iraq might resonate amongst those who recall this history. Indeed, the ethos of 18th century Wahhabism did not just wither in Nejd, but it roared back into life when the Ottoman Empire collapsed amongst the chaos of World War I.

The Al Saud -- in this 20th century renaissance -- were led by the laconic and politically astute Abd-al Aziz, who, on uniting the fractious Bedouin tribes, launched the Saudi "Ikhwan" in the spirit of Abd-al Wahhab's and Ibn Saud's earlier fighting proselytisers.

The Ikhwan was a reincarnation of the early, fierce, semi-independent vanguard movement of committed armed Wahhabist "moralists" who almost had succeeded in seizing Arabia by the early 1800s. In the same manner as earlier, the Ikhwan again succeeded in capturing Mecca, Medina and Jeddah between 1914 and 1926. Abd-al Aziz, however, began to feel his wider interests to be threatened by the revolutionary "Jacobinism" exhibited by the Ikhwan. The Ikhwan revolted -- leading to a civil war that lasted until the 1930s, when the King had them put down: he machine-gunned them.

For this king, (Abd-al Aziz), the simple verities of previous decades were eroding. Oil was being discovered in the peninsular. Britain and America were courting Abd-al Aziz, but still were inclined to support Sharif Husain as the only legitimate ruler of Arabia. The Saudis needed to develop a more sophisticated diplomatic posture.

So Wahhabism was forcefully changed from a movement of revolutionary jihad and theological takfiri purification, to a movement of conservative social, political, theological, and religious da'wa (Islamic call) and to justifying the institution that upholds loyalty to the royal Saudi family and the King's absolute power.

OIL WEALTH SPREAD WAHHABISM

With the advent of the oil bonanza -- as the French scholar, Giles Kepel writes, Saudi goals were to "reach out and spread Wahhabism across the Muslim world ... to "Wahhabise" Islam, thereby reducing the "multitude of voices within the religion" to a "single creed" -- a movement which would transcend national divisions. Billions of dollars were -- and continue to be -- invested in this manifestation of soft power.

It was this heady mix of billion dollar soft power projection -- and the Saudi willingness to manage Sunni Islam both to further America's interests, as it concomitantly embedded Wahhabism educationally, socially and culturally throughout the lands of Islam -- that brought into being a western policy dependency on Saudi Arabia, a dependency that has endured since Abd-al Aziz's meeting with Roosevelt on a U.S. warship (returning the president from the Yalta Conference) until today.

Westerners looked at the Kingdom and their gaze was taken by the wealth; by the apparent modernization; by the professed leadership of the Islamic world. They chose to presume that the Kingdom was bending to the imperatives of modern life -- and that the management of Sunni Islam would bend the Kingdom, too, to modern life.


"On the one hand, ISIS is deeply Wahhabist. On the other hand, it is ultra radical in a different way. It could be seen essentially as a corrective movement to contemporary Wahhabism."



But the Saudi Ikhwan approach to Islam did not die in the 1930s. It retreated, but it maintained its hold over parts of the system -- hence the duality that we observe today in the Saudi attitude towards ISIS.

On the one hand, ISIS is deeply Wahhabist. On the other hand, it is ultra radical in a different way. It could be seen essentially as a corrective movement to contemporary Wahhabism.

ISIS is a "post-Medina" movement: it looks to the actions of the first two Caliphs, rather than the Prophet Muhammad himself, as a source of emulation, and it forcefully denies the Saudis' claim of authority to rule.

As the Saudi monarchy blossomed in the oil age into an ever more inflated institution, the appeal of the Ikhwan message gained ground (despite King Faisal's modernization campaign). The "Ikhwan approach" enjoyed -- and still enjoys -- the support of many prominent men and women and sheikhs. In a sense, Osama bin Laden was precisely the representative of a late flowering of this Ikhwani approach.

Today, ISIS' undermining of the legitimacy of the King's legitimacy is not seen to be problematic, but rather a return to the true origins of the Saudi-Wahhab project.

In the collaborative management of the region by the Saudis and the West in pursuit of the many western projects (countering socialism, Ba'athism, Nasserism, Soviet and Iranian influence), western politicians have highlighted their chosen reading of Saudi Arabia (wealth, modernization and influence), but they chose to ignore the Wahhabist impulse.

After all, the more radical Islamist movements were perceived by Western intelligence services as being more effective in toppling the USSR in Afghanistan -- and in combatting out-of-favor Middle Eastern leaders and states.

Why should we be surprised then, that from Prince Bandar's Saudi-Western mandate to manage the insurgency in Syria against President Assad should have emerged a neo-Ikhwan type of violent, fear-inducing vanguard movement: ISIS? And why should we be surprised -- knowing a little about Wahhabism -- that "moderate" insurgents in Syria would become rarer than a mythical unicorn? Why should we have imagined that radical Wahhabism would create moderates? Or why could we imagine that a doctrine of "One leader, One authority, One mosque: submit to it, or be killed" could ever ultimately lead to moderation or tolerance?

Or, perhaps, we never imagined.

Source: http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5717157

Like Taymiyyah before him, Abd al-Wahhab believed that the period of the Prophet Muhammad's stay in Medina was the ideal of Muslim society (the "best of times", to which all Muslims should aspire to emulate (this, essentially, is Salafism).

You can call this any name you like, but it is the truth.

maclatunji: Like Taymiyyah before him, Abd al-Wahhab believed that the period of the Prophet Muhammad's stay in Medina was the ideal of Muslim society (the "best of times", to which all Muslims should aspire to emulate (this, essentially, is Salafism).

You can call this any name you like, but it is the truth.

excellent post

maclatunji: Like Taymiyyah before him, Abd al-Wahhab believed that the period of the Prophet Muhammad's stay in Medina was the ideal of Muslim society (the "best of times", to which all Muslims should aspire to emulate (this, essentially, is Salafism).
You can call this any name you like, but it is the truth.

may Allah guide us!

it is one thing to believe that the time the Prophet (sa) spent in Medina is the ideal for Muslims to emulate, and it is another thing entirely on re-enacting the days of the Prophet (sa) and applying those lofty prophetic standards.

the problem with Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Abdul-Wahab, and their Wahhabism/Salafism, is not their claim to be "puritanical" or "salafist" in principle. the problem with them is that they have practiced and propagated everything that was not part of that "ideal period" the Prophet (sa) spent in Medina.

read about the history of Ibn Taymiyyah and his war crimes committed against other religious communities in Syria and Lebanon, in particular Shia Muslims, Christians and Alawites. read about Ibn Abdul-Wahab and Ibn Saud and their ransacking of Karbala and Najaf, and the crimes against humanity committed on the inhabitants of the holy cities of Karbala and Najaf. you cannot claim that your belief is fighting anyone who isn't your own version of "Muslim" and in fact going on killing sprees, and then think others can't inflict the same on you if not for their higher Islamic standards. what merit then is the Muslim cries for the people of Palestine who regularly come under the Zionist Israeli monster? what sort of world would you claim Islam came to establish, if your doctrine is based on killing and destruction?

it is a shame for anyone to try, out of ignorance of course, to vindicate the crimes Wahhabis/Salafists have committed by saying they are trying to live like the Prophet (sa) lived in Medina. how many Christians, Jews, or even pagans (idol worshipers) did the Prophet (sa) BEHEAD in Medina? does the Prophet (sa) used to train children on beheading adults, as have seen on videos children in syria are trained to do by ISIL? all the battles the Prophet (sa) fought were initiated by the opposing camp. it is never part of Islam to kill the "unbelievers". whatever "unbelievers" are narrated on in the Holy Quran and how the Prophet (sa) fought them, those unbelievers were the aggressors and the initiators of aggression. the Prophet (sa) never fought that he may eliminate opposing religious views or forcefully convert others. it was not a drive for dominance or oppression by the Prophet (sa).

those heads that ISIL, Boko Haram and other Wahhabi/Salafist groups have beheaded will remind every sane,true and sincere Muslim of the heads of the Prophet's family, and in particular the Prophet's beloved grandson-Imam Hussain (as)-, that were chopped off in Karbala by the Ummayyads- the predecessors of the Wahhabis/Salafists, and the successors of the idolaters of Quraysh in the days of the Arabian Jahiliyyah.

so please, wishing to live like in the days of the Prophet (sa) and claiming that is one thing. and applying those prophetic standards is another thing. the Prophet Muhammad (sa) was not an ISIL, Boko Haram or any Wahhabi/Salafist terrorist. he was the messenger of Allah, who was sent as MERCY unto to humanity. that is what we are informed of him in the Holy Quran. it is a disservice to Islam to take charlatans serious and try to justify their atrocities by linking them to the days of the Prophet (sa).

There is really no group of muslims who refer to themselves as wahabis, it clearly seems a term borne out of frustration:

Naming controversy: Wahhabis, Muwahhidun, and Salafis
According to Robert Lacey "the Wahhabis have
always disliked the name customarily given to them"
and preferred to be called Muwahhidun
(Unitarians). Another preferred term was simply
"Muslims" since their creed is "pure Islam".[50]
However critics complain these terms imply non-
Wahhabis are not monotheists or Muslims,[50][51]
and the English translation of that term causes
confusion with the Christian denomination
( Unitarian Universalism).
Other terms Wahhabis have been said to use and/or
prefer include ahl al-hadith ("people of hadith",
Salafi Da'wa or al-da'wa ila al-tawhid[52] ("Salafi
preaching" or "preaching of monotheism", for the
school rather than the adherents) or Ahl ul-Sunna
wal Jama'a ("people of the tradition of Muhammad
and the consensus of the Ummah",[4] Ahl al-
Sunnah ("People of the Sunna",[53] or "the reform
or Salafi movement of the Sheikh" (the sheikh being
ibn Abdul-Wahhab).[54] Early Salafis referred to
themselves simply as "Muslims", believing the
neighboring Ottoman Caliphate was al-dawlah al-
kufriyya (a heretical nation) and its self-professed
Muslim inhabitants actually non-Muslim.[28][55][56]
[57]
Many, such as writer Quinton Wiktorowicz, urge use
of the term Salafi, maintaining
A New York Times journalist writes that Saudis
"abhor" the term Wahhabism, "feeling it sets them
apart and contradicts the notion that Islam is a
monolithic faith."[58] Crown Prince Salman bin
Abdulaziz Al Saud for example has attacked the term
as 'a doctrine that doesn't exist here (Saudi Arabia)'
and dared users of the term to locate any "deviance
of the form of Islam practiced in Saudi Arabia from
the teachings of the Quran and Prophetic Hadiths".
[59][60]

But authors at Global Security and Library of
Congress state the term is now commonplace and
used even by Wahhabi scholars in the Najd,[4][61] a
region often called the "heartland" of Wahhabism.
[62] Journalist Karen House calls Salafi, "a more
politically correct term" for Wahhabi.[63]
In any case, according to Lacey, none of the other
terms have caught on, and so like the Christian
Quakers, Wahhabis have "remained known by the
name first assigned to them by their detractors."

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beliefs_and_ideology_of_Osama_bin_Laden

vedaxcool: There is really no group of muslims who refer to themselves as wahabis, it clearly seems a term borne out of frustration:

Naming controversy: Wahhabis, Muwahhidun, and Salafis
According to Robert Lacey "the Wahhabis have
always disliked the name customarily given to them"
and preferred to be called Muwahhidun
(Unitarians). Another preferred term was simply
"Muslims" since their creed is "pure Islam".[50]

However critics complain these terms imply non-
Wahhabis are not monotheists or Muslims,[50][51]
and the English translation of that term causes
confusion with the Christian denomination
( Unitarian Universalism).
Other terms Wahhabis have been said to use and/or
prefer include ahl al-hadith ("people of hadith",
Salafi Da'wa or al-da'wa ila al-tawhid[52] ("Salafi
preaching" or "preaching of monotheism", for the
school rather than the adherents) or Ahl ul-Sunna
wal Jama'a ("people of the tradition of Muhammad
and the consensus of the Ummah",[4] Ahl al-
Sunnah ("People of the Sunna",[53] or "the reform
or Salafi movement of the Sheikh" (the sheikh being
ibn Abdul-Wahhab).[54] Early Salafis referred to
themselves simply as "Muslims", believing the
neighboring Ottoman Caliphate was al-dawlah al-
kufriyya (a heretical nation) and its self-professed
Muslim inhabitants actually non-Muslim.[28][55][56]
[57]
Many, such as writer Quinton Wiktorowicz, urge use
of the term Salafi, maintaining
A New York Times journalist writes that Saudis
"abhor" the term Wahhabism, "feeling it sets them
apart and contradicts the notion that Islam is a
monolithic faith."[58] Crown Prince Salman bin
Abdulaziz Al Saud for example has attacked the term
as 'a doctrine that doesn't exist here (Saudi Arabia)'
and dared users of the term to locate any "deviance
of the form of Islam practiced in Saudi Arabia from
the teachings of the Quran and Prophetic Hadiths".
[59][60]

End of Discussion.

Good job, tit. There is no difference between the establishment of the saudi state and ISIS. The founders of the Saudi states who are revered as noble scholars and pious muslims today are as guilty as the scholars and militants of ISIS.

Salafism or Wahabism is an off shoot of sunni sect. The ideology of this group has to be defeated from within Islam. But that is not given concern. Military action which has often been sought against ideology is often counterproductive.

When Muhammad Ibn Abdulwahhab began his call, he won the heart of many muslims. Many of them were convinced that he was preaching the true but forgotten Islam and thus they joined his cause. Unfortunately, the opposers couldn't find any response to his theological challenges and thus proving themselves weak. So even after the Salafis were militarily defeated and the first saudi state was crushed by the Ottomans, the Salafis will return larger and stronger to establish the second and later on the third/current Saudi state because their ideology was never intellectually confronted, refuted or debunked.

I

^I might not be so nice as to edit the offensive parts out of your posts next time.

Mixing lies and half truth together, makes a great lie.

People speak of wahabi ideology and doctrine yet they are yet to outline what this ideology is all about!

maclatunji: ^I might not be so nice as to edit the offensive parts out of your posts next time.

Pls highlight that offensive path of my post and let us find the truth. If you have no tenable response to a claim, it is better you step aside. Every information i posted can be backed with a proof.

For God sake, when will muslim stop killing and fighting for alllah? It is quite shocking to read that the prophet beheaded Christians and Jews who opposed him that even young muslims never see anything wrong.

Where is the conscience in the heart of muslims? Does the sunnah of the prophet sealed all conscience who seem to follow it?

arsenalwenger: For God sake, when will muslim stop killing and fighting for alllah? It is quite shocking to read that the prophet beheaded Christians and Jews who opposed him that even young muslims never see anything wrong.

Where is the conscience in the heart of muslims? Does the sunnah of the prophet sealed all conscience who seem to follow it?

where did you read that the Prophet (sa) beheaded anyone? please get your facts straight.

usermane: Good job, tit. There is no difference between the establishment of the saudi state and ISIS. The founders of the Saudi states who are revered as noble scholars and pious muslims today are as guilty as the scholars and militants of ISIS.
Salafism or Wahabism is an off shoot of sunni sect. The ideology of this group has to be defeated from within Islam. But that is not given concern. Military action which has often been sought against ideology is often counterproductive.

When Muhammad Ibn Abdulwahhab began his call, he won the heart of many muslims. Many of them were convinced that he was preaching the true but forgotten Islam and thus they joined his cause. Unfortunately, the opposers couldn't find any response to his theological challenges and thus proving themselves weak. So even after the Salafis were militarily defeated and the first saudi state was crushed by the Ottomans, the Salafis will return larger and stronger to establish the second and later on the third/current Saudi state because their ideology was never intellectually confronted, refuted or debunked.
I

brother, i think you are assuming things here.

Ibn Abdul Wahab did not appeal to any heart and minds of the Muslims at large. his own father and brother disowned him. his brother even authored a book to counter his ideas which were seen as innovations and extreme. Ibn Abdul-Wahab was the "scholar of the monarch". Al-Saud found in him a willing hand to issue fatwas to legitimize their rule.it was brute force through the sword that al-saud established their rule in the arabian peninsula. ever since then, the descendants of al-saud held political power, and the descendants of Ibn Abdul-Wahab held religious authority. how many people know that mufti of saudi arabia is a descendant of ibn abdul wahab?

secondly, it was the wahhabis allied with the british that brought an end to the ottoman empire and the sunni caliphate. read about Lawrence of Arabia!

.

usermane: Good job, tit. There is no difference between the establishment of the saudi state and ISIS and Israel.

The same forces created them. Fact
@arsenalwenger, you need to zip it. Butt out of this thread pls. None of your business.

Internet is very funny, muslims are very funny as well. I have been noticing our attitudes (individual ideology) on NL. We muslims sometimes gang up on Christians because of our common creed. We sometimes gang up on atheists because of our common creed. And then ([size=5pt]a sectarian thread is posted[/size]) and Sunnis gang up against Shias. Then again, in the case of isis and the likes, Sunnis, Shias gang up on Sunnis(Saudi-wahabi-salafi nation state and their allies). Thereafter, everything calm down and all NL muslims come together and gang up against non-believers. That's some funny scenario

LagosShia:

brother, i think you are assuming things here.

Ibn Abdul Wahab did not appeal to any heart and minds of the Muslims at large. his own father and brother disowned him. his brother even authored a book to counter his ideas which were seen as innovations and extreme. Ibn Abdul-Wahab was the "scholar of the monarch". Al-Saud found in him a willing hand to issue fatwas to legitimize their rule.it was brute force through the sword that al-saud established their rule in the arabian peninsula. ever since then, the descendants of al-saud held political power, and the descendants of Ibn Abdul-Wahab held religious authority. how many people know that mufti of saudi arabia is a descendant of ibn abdul wahab?

I know he was exiled and condemned by sufis and shiites. But he appealed to some and brainwashed many especially from among Sunnis. Even today i 've met muslims who support all his teachings including the takfir ideology and killing of those venerating tombs etc.

secondly, it was the wahhabis allied with the british that brought an end to the ottoman empire and the sunni caliphate. read about Lawrence of Arabia!

I didn't say contrary.

Usermane:

secondly, it was the wahhabis allied with the british that brought an end to the ottoman empire and the sunni caliphate. read about Lawrence of Arabia!

This alone should wake Muslims up, that house of Saud, whether they are called Wahabi-Salafi, are bogus. King Abdul Aziz collected 5000 British pound monthly to betray specific order of Allah in the Quran. When his people asked him why he did that and criticized him, Abdul Aziz said...>>
>>it's jizya ,
>>that he controls the British.
>>that 5000 pound sterling is meant to subdue them.

Alas! Mr. Abdul Aziz lied about this. Rather he formed alliance with the British which is forbidden in Surah Maida aya 51. That alliance is still there today. Westward alliance.

Saudi-Wahabi nation state will never create authentic caliphate. And believe it or not guys, house of Saud or Saudi-wahabi nation's state in coalition with judeo-christian terrorists alliance created isis for a purpose. All their campaign against the group is just a dust in our eyes. I do not neccessarily believe it poses a threat to the west or saudi. Thats propaganda as far as am i concern. What they want is what they getting now. Attention, to constantly portray islam as nemesis to the world. Make people turn away from the religion of truth. In that case, we have to look into hadith of Najd. There is a reason for these prophecies. Najd, the prophet said is "horn of shaitan". Saudi elites which rest her monopoly over hijaz and Haramain, all are from Najd. I dont know why some brothers here still support this evil kingdom. I can understand respecting them and carefully say things about them but in a situation like this, I think we should speak out.

On the other hand, the reason i cant publicly acknowledge Mr. Usermane on this is because he's completely out side the fold of mainstream Islam NOT mainstream orthodox as he likes to proclaim.

And when authentic kilafah arrives, house of Saud will be swept away. I thought Salafi brothers know this. Another thing to pay attention to is any time Israel attacks defenseless Palestine, Saudi is unmoved. They could only bickering. You think that's happening by accident?. Ever wonder why isis didnt attack Israel if they are truly authentic?. Guys, the same forces that created Saudi and guarantee her security is the same forces that created Israel and guarantee her security. So isis could only bluff but will never ever do anything that's is not on the script. So what we seeing on our tv screen daily about them is "hollysaudiwood". So usermane, remember i was talking about eschatology, isnt playing out right now?

Lastly, no matter criticism of them, we still gotta respect them one way or the other because they did some good stuff as well for the ummah at some point.

^^^
I haven't mention British empire in this thread. Why are you misquoting me? Can't you differentiate my post from LagosShia? You are reading with a kaleidoscope.

If you were critical you would also start considering why the Wahabbists sided with the British Empire.

Also you talk as if the current Saudi wahabbists are the only guilty.

The Ottomans you are sympathising with shed blood, forcefully tore down the Abbasid caliphate to establish their empire. Are they guilty or not?

The Abbasids shed blood, forcefully tore down the Ummayad caliphate to establish their own. Are they guilty or not?

The Ummayads aggressed against the family of the Prophet, shedding blood to usurp the caliphate. Are they guilty or not?

Please contribute your quotas amicably and stop getting worked up. NL is a past time for you, remember that.

^^^
Yep, it's past time for me. Doesnt mean im not talking sense. I deal with issues as we progress. I may choose to ignore certain topics if i want. Dont teach me anything about Ottoman. I know they have kro kro in their cupboard as well. The fact remains that these stages of caliphate is part and parcel of prophecy. There is hadith that talks about these stages up until establishement of true Caliphate upon prophetic guidance. In another word, it means something significant was wrong with previous caliphates. But that doesnt mean they are 100% bad.

I know what you meant by are they right or worng?. I know where you going with that. Ottoman itself collabo with British at some point. No question asked. This brings up subject of ilm akhir az-zaman. Yes, i read with lens and saw clearly the earlier quote was LagosShia's. But I chose to quote you instead bcus you are my buddy

vedaxcool: But authors at Global Security and Library of
Congress state the term is now commonplace and
used even by Wahhabi scholars in the Najd,[4][61] a
region often called the "heartland" of Wahhabism.
[62] Journalist Karen House calls Salafi, "a more
politically correct term" for Wahhabi.[63]
In any case, according to Lacey, none of the other
terms have caught on, and so like the Christian
Quakers, Wahhabis have "remained known by the
name first assigned to them by their detractors."

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beliefs_and_ideology_of_Osama_bin_Laden

Spot on! Wahhabis never called themselves by that name. So many contradictions, lies, & exaggerations in the essay just to try and establish a connection between Ibn Taymiyya/ Ibn Abdulwahab's ideology & that of 21st century blood sucking mongers. For example the vain attempt to make the reader believe that teaching children how to behead enemies has its root in Ibn Taymiyya/ Ibn Abdulwahab ideology. Ibn Taymiyya only led the resistance of the Mongol invasion of Damascus. On his part, Ibn Abdulwahab fought the same kind of war that Ibn Fodiyo fought here in West Africa i.e to purge Islam of idolaters & Innovators, but detractors of Islam - and the ignorant ones - always say he fought to bring Islam to Nigeria. Anyone who cares to know abt Ibn Taymiyya or Ibn Abdulwahab should go read their books; they never left anyone in doubt as to where they stood- and still stand even after death. The days of narrating that Ibn Abdulwahab is a direct student of Ibn Taymiyya are over since sunni & secular historians exposed the fallacy in the assertion.

ibnjarir93: Spot on! Wahhabis never called themselves by that name. So many contradictions, lies, & exaggerations in the essay just to try and establish a connection between Ibn Taymiyya/ Ibn Abdulwahab's ideology & that of 21st century blood sucking mongers. For example the vain attempt to make the reader believe that teaching children how to behead enemies has its root in Ibn Taymiyya/ Ibn Abdulwahab ideology. Ibn Taymiyya only led the resistance of the Mongol invasion of Damascus. On his part, Ibn Abdulwahab fought the same kind of war that Ibn Fodiyo fought here in West Africa i.e to purge Islam of idolaters & Innovators, but detractors of Islam - and the ignorant ones - always say he fought to bring Islam to Nigeria. Anyone who cares to know abt Ibn Taymiyya or Ibn Abdulwahab should go read their books; they never left anyone in doubt as to where they stood- and still stand even after death. The days of narrating that Ibn Abdulwahab is a direct student of Ibn Taymiyya are over since sunni & secular historians exposed the fallacy in the assertion.

All allegations they have raised are also applicable to them as well as other muslims. Every muslim group does takfir.

^^^
Ibn Tamiyya and Ibn Abdulwahhab calls to monotheism were justified and credible. But they went too extreme and out of Islam by permitting fighting these muslims who according to them were indulging in idolatry practices. This is compulsion in religious matter, sinful and anti Islamic.

Here are some of these sheikhs' radical and violent teachings.

1. It is permissible to fight people for not observing general obligations like Salat, Pilgrimage, Zakat or Fasting.

Of course, these are obligatory rites. But only God wield the authority to penalise defaulters, not man.

2. It is permissible to fight people for not observing general prohibition such as eating unclean meat.

Again, this is baseless from Islamic perspective. The only occasion man is permitted to punish another man is if it involves crimes that hurt or harm others such as theft, adultery, murder etc.

3. It is compulsory to fight against muslim rulers who do not follow sharia law.

Isn't this what Boko haram and Isis militants are complying with?

Ibn Abdulwahhab and Ibn Tamiyya ideology weren't foreign to orthodox Islam at all. These two scholars were ardent followers of Ibn Hanbal, a revered sunni Hadith scholar. Ibn Hanbal 's madhab were compiled by his students. They rejected dialogue, rejected the authority of any other madhab, insisting interpretation of Islam is exclusively theirs and they were intolerant of critics and opposite views. These radical traits have been wrongly related to the Prophet and his companions, and can be observed in the followers of these Sheikhs till date.

usermane: ^^^
Ibn Tamiyya and Ibn Abdulwahhab calls to monotheism were justified and credible. But they went too extreme and[b] out of Islam[/b] by permitting fighting these muslims who according to them were indulging in idolatry practices

1 takfiri wahabist spotted

Having failed to quote the opinion of who made what statement it becomes clear that you are only interested in propaganda.
1. Don't pay your tax in the US and see whether the govt would pat you on the back.
2. When you talk of Islamic perspective are you talking about yourself right?
3. Another big lie, in Saudi Arabia you are not allowed to wage Jihad without your leader, king, president declaring it, in fact that is one contention that makes all your fantasies implausible, Saudi regime expressly state that only they, the govt have the right to declare Jihad.

Another massive lie, Abdulwahab was even opposed to blind following of any scholar. I am not particularly fond of Abdulwahab, but I don't think lies and propaganda should serve as a basis for Judging what is wrong from right.

Ibn Taymiyyah's Fatwas:

First Ibn Taimiyah’s Fatwa - Those that reject Allah (swt)’s sitting on a throne should be executed

Ibn Taimiyah cascades the following teachings in his esteemed book Majmo’a al-Fatawa, Volume 5, page 391:
"Imam Aba Bakr Muhammad bin Ishaq bin Khuzaima said: ‘Whoever does not admit that Allah is sitting on a throne above the seventh sky, is a Kafir and his blood must be shed. He must be made to repent. Otherwise his neck must be struck and thrown into the garbage.’'


Second Ibn Taimiyah Fatwa - Those that reject that Allah (swt) will be seen in the next world should be executed

We read in Majmo’a al-Fatawa, Volume 6 page 500:
"Aba Abdillah said: ‘Whoever claims that Allah cannot be seen (by eye sight) in the hereafter, is a Kafir and has rejected Quran and replied Allah (sw). He must be made to repent. Otherwise he should be killed".

Third Ibn Taimiyah Fatwa - Those that recite Niya loudly during Salat should be executed

Majmo’a al-Fatawa, Volume 22 page 236:
"To recite the intention (niya) loudly is not permissible according to the Muslim scholars, nor did the Prophet (s), Caliphs or Sahaba, Salaf or Imams perform it. Whoever claims it is Wajib, he must be taught the law and then to repent from that opinion. If he insists on it then he must be killed".


Fourth Ibn Taimiyah Fatwa – You can kill or enslave your opponents

We read in Al-Seyasa al-Shari'a by ibn Taimiyah, page 159:
"Therefore the "Shari'a" ("divine law" ) made the killing of the disbelievers obligatory, but didn’t make obligatory the killing of those who are captured during fights or other than fights such as falling from a ship or getting lost or kidnapped. Thus, the imam decided that the best option is to be killed or enslaved".

Fifth Ibn Taimiyah Fatwa – Those that don’t believe that Allah (swt) physically spoke to Musa (as) and Jibril (as) should be executed

Majmo’a al-Fatawa, Volume 12 page 502:
Sheikh al-Islam, may Allah's mercy be upon him was asked:
"A man says that Allah didn’t talk to Musa by Himself but He created a voice from the tree’s side and Musa (as) heard from the tree not from Allah and also Allah didn’t talk to Gabriel by the Quran, but he (Gabriel) took it from the Guarded Tablet. Is he right or not?

He answered:
Praise to Allah, he is not right, nay, he is misguided and a liar according to the agreement of Salaf and the Imams. Nay he is a Kafir and must repent or otherwise be killed".

Sixth Ibn Taimiyah Fatwa – Those that believe that a traveler can perform the complete Salat should be executed

Majmo’a al-Fatawa, Volume 22 page 31:
"Who ever said that the traveler has to pray four raka, hence he is as the one who say that the traveler has to fast in Ramadhan, both of these (opinions) are misguidance, and contrary to the ijma of Muslims, the one who say it must to repent, if he doesn’t he must be killed".

Seventh Ibn Taimiyah Fatwa – Those that believe that Qur’an is created should be executed

"Nay it is known from the Salaf Imams that Takfir be issued against anyone that says that Quran is created he must repent or otherwise be killed".

Eighth Ibn Taimiyah Fatwa – Those that believe in adherence to a particular Imam should be executed

“Anyone who believes that the people have to follow one particular Imam amongst those Imams not the others, must made to repent otherwise be killed”

Nineth Ibn Taimiyah actually killed those who disagreed with him

"We read in Al-Uqood al-Duria by Ibn Abdulhadi al-Maqdisi, Volume 1 page 197:
Sheikh Taqi al-Deen may Allah be pleased with him marched to Kerwanin in the beginning of Dulhujja in year 704 H and in his company was the prince Qaraqush.

Prince Jamal al-Deen al-Afram the deputy of the kingdom marched with the rest of soldiers of Damascus in the month of Muharam, in the year 705 H to invade them and exterminate them, and before he marched, there were some troops which had marched before him.

Thursday in 17th of Dulhujja, the deputy and soldiers arrived at Damascus after Allah granted them victory over the error party of Rafidah, Nusairia and those who held false beliefs. And Allah exterminated them from that lands, praise to Allah the Lord of worlds".


And say: The truth is from your Lord, so let him who please believe, and let him who please disbelieve (Holy Quran 18:29)

There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error; (Holy Quran 2:256)

Contrary to this, ibn Taimiyah authored a single volume book "al-Sarem al-Maslool" comprising of 438 pages wherein he used:

-The word (kill) 978 times

-The word 'kafir' 56 times

-The word 'tourture' 48 times

-The word 'murtad' (apostate) 34 times

-The words 'his blood must be shed' 14 times

-The word 'behead' 8 times

-The word 'war' 7 times

vedaxcool:

All allegations they have raised are also applicable to them as well as other muslims. Every muslim group does takfir.

yes, every Muslim group/sect and also non-Muslim ones do TAKFIR. that is every group believes the other is disbelieving or is a kafir and are not guaranteed salvation. in other words every group says its own teachings are what leads to salvation when/if followed. however, when Wahhabis/Salafists are tagged "takfiris" or accused of takfir, it is because their own takfir is a bloody takfir!

other than the Wahhabis/Salafists i have not heard of any Muslim group that goes into mosques/churches and randomly shoot or blow up people because they are not Wahhabis/Salafists, or the victims do not believe as them. it is not part of Islam that we Muslims should kill unbelievers, simply for the fact that they do not believe. we are only to fight/kill people who have transgressed against us and in fact declared war on us. if there is no factor of aggression involved, it is only wahhabis/salafists who kill randomly others for holding opposing views. this intolerance isn't part of Islam, or the religion with the holy book in which it is stated: "there is no compulsion in religion".

There is no Shia, Sufi, or a mainstream Sunni Muslim believer who have gone into mosques or churches to kill worshipers. all the church and mosque bombings are committed by the group that holds doctrines to support bloody takfir. otherwise, PLEASE PROVIDE ONE INSTANCE A SHIA, FULLY BACKED WITH FATWAS FROM ANY AYATOLLAH OR NOT, OR A MAINSTREAM NON-WAHHABI SUNNI, WHO HAVE GONE TO BLOW MOSQUES AND CHURCHES IN THE NAME OF GOD/ISLAM. I CHALLENGE ANYONE, YOU WILL NOT FIND ONE INSTANCE!!!

the verse that gave us right to fight (in self-defense) mentions the circumstances in which we are allowed to fight:

"Permission [to fight] has been given to those who are being fought, because they were wronged. And indeed, Allah is competent to give them victory.[They are] those who have been evicted from their homes without right - only because they say, "Our Lord is Allah ." And were it not that Allah checks the people, some by means of others, there would have been demolished monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques in which the name of Allah is much mentioned. And Allah will surely support those who support Him. Indeed, Allah is Powerful and Exalted in Might." (22:39-40)