Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Should Wahhabism be eliminated to stop terrorism?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Should Wahhabism be eliminated to stop terrorism?

    This is written by a Sufi from Zaytuna institute by the name of Abdullah bin Hamid Ali:
    "Eliminate Wabbism/Salafism, you'll... - Abdullah bin Hamid Ali | Facebook

    "Eliminate Wabbism/Salafism, you'll eliminate ISIS."

    Though I strongly disagree with this assertion, it is the sentiment of a many Muslims today. The underlying assumptions of the above statement are the following:

    1) ideology "alone" radicalizes;
    2) any person or group endorsing /justifying violence will "inevitably" act violently;
    3) Wahhabis/Salafis are the "only" Muslims who justify violence against others; and
    4) if we eliminate the ideology, we will eradicate senseless violence from the planet.

    Muslims who promote such ideas overlook/omit the following:

    1) it was Sufis who endorsed suicide bombings against Israelis and others, while Wahhabis were largely against them;

    2) non-Wahhabi Muslims who say Islam means "peace" (even though it really means "submission") were often the first to put their support behind the Arab spring, the "violent" overthrow of their governors, and called for armed Western intervention;

    3) prior to the Arab Spring, Wahhabis were largely apolitical and focused all of their attention on trying to "correct" the understanding of Muslims in general;

    4) it was the Sufis and other Muslims calling for the overthrow of Arab governors with fatwas justifying spilling their blood on the basis of them being "apostates" or "unbelievers" i.e. the same principle (takfir = anathematization) often identified as being the root of the Wahhabi threat;

    5) if the existence of an ideology is what makes it a threat, this would corroborate the claims of Islamophobes that "Islam" is the real threat to world peace, not simply ISIS, Qaeda, or Wahhabis. In other words, Muslims who live in this imaginary world without nuance indirectly endorse an ideology which can potentially undo Islam completely;

    6) Not every Wahhabi/Salafi is the same. While Muslims are constantly asking the non-Muslim public not to overgeneralize about us and Islam, we turn around and do the same thing to Wahhabis/Salafis;

    7) an endorsement of this assertion is to fundamentally paint non-Wahhabis as the "good" Muslims and them as the "evil-doers." So non-Muslims need not worry about us as long as they use all of their military might to rid the world of them; and

    8) to insist that Wahhabi ideology is the root of the emergence of ISIS is to absolve western governments from the major role they played in making it possible for ISIS to rise to power, starting with the dismantling of the Iraqi regime. There are more things I could list. But, this list of contentions should hopefully highlight the contradictions and inconsistencies in this form of reasoning. Some of us are so blinded and obsessed with championing our own ideology, they overlook how they dehumanize their opponents and threaten the lives of so many innocent souls. Think. Reflect. Repent.
    Last edited by Shamlawar Khurasani; 07-05-2016, 03:55 PM.
    Originally posted by Firdousi
    Never talk with Afghans about politics. All their political knowledge is limited to conspiracy theories, political demonization and contradictions. No logic, no reason.

  • #2
    Wahabi/deobandi should be eliminated and replaced with better option.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Golden View Post
      Wahabi/deobandi should be eliminated and replaced with better option.
      Pakistan should be eliminated and replaced with better option.
      "For thirty years, I endured much pain and strife,
      I awaken the Ajam by this Persian [language]. "

      -Ferdowsi.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Shamlawar Khurasani View Post
        This is written by a Sufi from Zaytuna institute by the name of Abdullah bin Hamid Ali:
        "Eliminate Wabbism/Salafism, you'll... - Abdullah bin Hamid Ali | Facebook

        "Eliminate Wabbism/Salafism, you'll eliminate ISIS."

        Though I strongly disagree with this assertion, it is the sentiment of a many Muslims today. The underlying assumptions of the above statement are the following:

        1) ideology "alone" radicalizes;
        2) any person or group endorsing /justifying violence will "inevitably" act violently;
        3) Wahhabis/Salafis are the "only" Muslims who justify violence against others; and
        4) if we eliminate the ideology, we will eradicate senseless violence from the planet.

        Muslims who promote such ideas overlook/omit the following:

        1) it was Sufis who endorsed suicide bombings against Israelis and others, while Wahhabis were largely against them;

        2) non-Wahhabi Muslims who say Islam means "peace" (even though it really means "submission") were often the first to put their support behind the Arab spring, the "violent" overthrow of their governors, and called for armed Western intervention;

        3) prior to the Arab Spring, Wahhabis were largely apolitical and focused all of their attention on trying to "correct" the understanding of Muslims in general;

        4) it was the Sufis and other Muslims calling for the overthrow of Arab governors with fatwas justifying spilling their blood on the basis of them being "apostates" or "unbelievers" i.e. the same principle (takfir = anathematization) often identified as being the root of the Wahhabi threat;

        5) if the existence of an ideology is what makes it a threat, this would corroborate the claims of Islamophobes that "Islam" is the real threat to world peace, not simply ISIS, Qaeda, or Wahhabis. In other words, Muslims who live in this imaginary world without nuance indirectly endorse an ideology which can potentially undo Islam completely;

        6) Not every Wahhabi/Salafi is the same. While Muslims are constantly asking the non-Muslim public not to overgeneralize about us and Islam, we turn around and do the same thing to Wahhabis/Salafis;

        7) an endorsement of this assertion is to fundamentally paint non-Wahhabis as the "good" Muslims and them as the "evil-doers." So non-Muslims need not worry about us as long as they use all of their military might to rid the world of them; and

        8) to insist that Wahhabi ideology is the root of the emergence of ISIS is to absolve western governments from the major role they played in making it possible for ISIS to rise to power, starting with the dismantling of the Iraqi regime. There are more things I could list. But, this list of contentions should hopefully highlight the contradictions and inconsistencies in this form of reasoning. Some of us are so blinded and obsessed with championing our own ideology, they overlook how they dehumanize their opponents and threaten the lives of so many innocent souls. Think. Reflect. Repent.
        I just wonder, how are going people to "eliminate" an ideology? Its just impossible. Ideas only can be defeated by other ideas.

        Wahabism is not the only the reason behind the current crisis in the Islamic world. There are many other issues: regional rivalries, geopolitical games, political failure by regional regimes in order to bring progress, stability and development to their own people, Western interventionism, and so on.

        Clueless people just want to make things simple.
        "For thirty years, I endured much pain and strife,
        I awaken the Ajam by this Persian [language]. "

        -Ferdowsi.

        Comment


        • #5
          Wahabhis play the biggest role in modern extremism, no one can deny all these terrorists are hardcore Salafis/Wahahbis

          however obviously Sufis, Shias and everyone else is also violent

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Karachi View Post
            Wahabhis play the biggest role in modern extremism, no one can deny all these terrorists are hardcore Salafis/Wahahbis

            however obviously Sufis, Shias and everyone else is also violent
            So.. whats your point? Its pretty obvious that "everyone" is violent. Its a war. People killed each other in wars. How can we stop this madness and bring peace to our region?

            Hope you are not one of those Western wannabes wanting to impose Western liberalism on us.
            "For thirty years, I endured much pain and strife,
            I awaken the Ajam by this Persian [language]. "

            -Ferdowsi.

            Comment


            • #7
              Its hilarious how everyone wants to blame KSA of all this mess. Well guys, keep in mind that it was Iran who started this mess after the Islamic revolution. The ultimate aim of the Iranian regime is to "export" its revolution to other Islamic countries. This is 0obviously a threat for countries like KSA.

              KSA is just supporting some proxy forces around Iran just in order to keep that country at bay. You see in Egypt and Palestine KSA sided with he secular parties against the islamist movements such as Hamas and Ilkhwan al Muslimeen. How do you explain this, losers?

              Stop blaming KSA for everything. They might be guilty to some extend but West and Iran are not innocent either.
              "For thirty years, I endured much pain and strife,
              I awaken the Ajam by this Persian [language]. "

              -Ferdowsi.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Firdousi View Post
                Its hilarious how everyone wants to blame KSA of all this mess. Well guys, keep in mind that it was Iran who started this mess after the Islamic revolution. The ultimate aim of the Iranian regime is to "export" its revolution to other Islamic countries. This is 0obviously a threat for countries like KSA.

                KSA is just supporting some proxy forces around Iran just in order to keep that country at bay. You see in Egypt and Palestine KSA sided with he secular parties against the islamist movements such as Hamas and Ilkhwan al Muslimeen. How do you explain this, losers?

                Stop blaming KSA for everything. They might be guilty to some extend but West and Iran are not innocent either.
                You are right, KSA isnt responsible for everything. Butt bare in mind, KSA gave Muslim Brotherhood money and resources to spread jihadism. So they are to be blamed for spread of violent jihadist ideology.
                Originally posted by Firdousi
                Never talk with Afghans about politics. All their political knowledge is limited to conspiracy theories, political demonization and contradictions. No logic, no reason.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by firdousi View Post
                  so.. Whats your point? Its pretty obvious that "everyone" is violent. Its a war. People killed each other in wars. How can we stop this madness and bring peace to our region?

                  Hope you are not one of those western wannabes wanting to impose western liberalism on us.


                  this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                  Also, as economist Kaushik Basu says: "For a nation to progress it is important for people to spend time on science, mathematics and literature instead of spending time showing that 5,000 years ago their ancestors did science, mathematics and literature."


                  Originally posted by ذو الفقار
                  don’t try to be smart.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Shamlawar Khurasani View Post
                    You are right, KSA isnt responsible for everything. Butt bare in mind, KSA gave Muslim Brotherhood money and resources to spread jihadism. So they are to be blamed for spread of violent jihadist ideology.
                    You sure about that, brother? KSA and MB are bitter enemies. Even there was a huge rift among GCC countries because Qatar supported Morsi while KSA opposed him. Even for a while relationship between Turkey and KSA was at its lowest.

                    MB would represent a serious rivalry for the Saudi government for the leadership of the Sunni world. KSA wants to remain as the sole and unique leader of the Sunni Ummah. So its not that simple.
                    "For thirty years, I endured much pain and strife,
                    I awaken the Ajam by this Persian [language]. "

                    -Ferdowsi.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Firdousi View Post
                      You sure about that, brother? KSA and MB are bitter enemies. Even there was a huge rift among GCC countries because Qatar supported Morsi while KSA opposed him. Even for a while relationship between Turkey and KSA was at its lowest.

                      MB would represent a serious rivalry for the Saudi government for the leadership of the Sunni world. KSA wants to remain as the sole and unique leader of the Sunni Ummah. So its not that simple.
                      When Egypt and other secular nationalist regimes imprisoned Muslim Brotherhood, many of their members were forced into exile in Gulf states. Saudi King Faisal Bin Abdul Aziz received them with open arms, appointed them as professors in Saudi universities, established the Muslim World League and gave Ikhwanis lucrative jobs around the world. In return, Ikhwanis converted to Salafism overnight and facilitated the spread of Salafi Dawah.

                      Saudis needed the Ikhwanis in order to stop Soviet Union and secular nationalist movements. Ikhwanis were better educated than Saudis and knew how to run a global organization.

                      After the fall of Soviet Union Saudis no longer needed the service of Ikhwanis. But by then a whole new problem emerged. The Saudi proselytizing effort to spread Salafism and the Muslim brotherhood's Islamism were mixed into a new doctrine: Salafi Jihadism. The ideologues of Salafi Jihadis and mainstream Muslim Brotherhood relied on Sayed Qurbs teachings.

                      Both Salafi Jihadis and Muslim Brotherhood believed in overthrowing the monarchies and secular dictators in the Muslim world.

                      The Saudis weren't pleased with the outcome of their sponsorship of MB. From that moment on, Saudis and MB Became bitter enemies.

                      So today, when you see Saudis siding with Egypts military dictatorship, it is due to their common interest. Both fear MB and Salafi Jihadis.
                      Last edited by Shamlawar Khurasani; 07-05-2016, 05:58 PM.
                      Originally posted by Firdousi
                      Never talk with Afghans about politics. All their political knowledge is limited to conspiracy theories, political demonization and contradictions. No logic, no reason.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Didn't MB and Saudis hate each other? I mean after MB was removed Saudi has given billions of dollars in aid to Egypt to get back on feet.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Firdousi View Post
                          Pakistan should be eliminated and replaced with better option.
                          It's already better option then Afghanistan....

                          wait which isn't saying much tbh lol

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Shamlawar Khurasani View Post
                            When Egypt and other secular nationalist regimes imprisoned Muslim Brotherhood, many of their members were forced into exile in Gulf states. Saudi King Faisal Bin Abdul Aziz received them with open arms, appointed them as professors in Saudi universities, established the Muslim World League and gave Ikhwanis lucrative jobs around the world. In return, Ikhwanis converted to Salafism overnight and facilitated the spread of Salafi Dawah.

                            Saudis needed the Ikhwanis in order to stop Soviet Union and secular nationalist movements. Ikhwanis were better educated than Saudis and knew how to run a global organization.

                            After the fall of Soviet Union Saudis no longer needed the service of Ikhwanis. But by then a whole new problem emerged. The Saudi proselytizing effort to spread Salafism and the Muslim brotherhood's Islamism were mixed into a new doctrine: Salafi Jihadism. The ideologues of Salafi Jihadis and mainstream Muslim Brotherhood relied on Sayed Qurbs teachings.

                            Both Salafi Jihadis and Muslim Brotherhood believed in overthrowing the monarchies and secular dictators in the Muslim world.

                            The Saudis weren't pleased with the outcome of their sponsorship of MB. From that moment on, Saudis and MB Became bitter enemies.

                            So today, when you see Saudis siding with Egypts military dictatorship, it is due to their common interest. Both fear MB and Salafi Jihadis.
                            Thanks for the info, man. But politics works like this and what is done is done. Now the game and context have changed. USA also took advantage of Islamism in order to fight against Russian influence in the Islamic World (actually they still doing so in Syria and Libya).

                            In any case I don't think MB is a "Jihadi" movement. Actually they look more like "Christian Democracy" a la Islamic.
                            "For thirty years, I endured much pain and strife,
                            I awaken the Ajam by this Persian [language]. "

                            -Ferdowsi.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Golden View Post
                              It's already better option then Afghanistan....

                              wait which isn't saying much tbh lol
                              Still does not change the fact that Pakistan is a cancer for the whole region and we all would be better off without Pakistan.
                              "For thirty years, I endured much pain and strife,
                              I awaken the Ajam by this Persian [language]. "

                              -Ferdowsi.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X