Should Wahhabism be eliminated to stop terrorism?

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

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.

MB isn't a Jihadi movement. But they have adopted Jihadism in the 60's and 70's and they have adopted Democracy now as a means to reach their objectives.


They have changed their tactics every decade. They adapt to to their environment and the times they live in.

[Golden]

Still does not change the fact that Pakistan is a cancer for the whole region and we all would be better off without Pakistan.

Still better then Afghanistan lol

[Firdousi]

MB isn't a Jihadi movement. But they have adopted Jihadism in the 60's and 70's and they have adopted Democracy now as a means to reach their objectives.


They have changed their tactics every decade. They adapt to to their environment and the times they live in.

But.. thats "good". I mean they are not unreasonable crazy fanatics in that case. They are ready to adapt to new scenarios in order to achieve their political goals. Even in the west most of lefties and right wing people are heirs of historical "authoritarian" ideologies such as communism, socialism and fascism.. and yet they have managed to change.

[Firdousi]

Still better then Afghanistan lol

Seems you are taking me for some sort of Afghan patriot or something. Well, you are wrong. Afghanistan is a third world and least developed country. Just like Pakistan. Both countries have almost the same HDI (Afghanistan have been at war for the last four decades). Neither of these countries have nothing to be proud of right now. We need to work hard in order to bring development, stability and progress to your people. But at least we are not a terrorist country, with links with every single terrorist attack that takes place around the world.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

But.. thats "good". I mean they are not unreasonable crazy fanatics in that case. They are ready to adapt to new scenarios in order to achieve their political goals. Even in the west most of lefties and right wing people are heirs of historical "authoritarian" ideologies such as communism, socialism and fascism.. and yet they have managed to change.

Goals do not justify the means. Some people kill others some become democrats and liberals. They are all the same.

They are willing to compromise anything to achieve power. For them being in charge is their ultimate goal. Look at Jamiat and Hizbe Islami and Sayyaf. They won't stop at anything. They are just using Islam as a way to fool the masses. They have no principles.

It is better to have no power and live by your principles than to become a chameleon.

[Firdousi]

Goals do not justify the means. Some people kill others some become democrats and liberals. They are all the same.

They are willing to compromise anything to achieve power. For them being in charge is their ultimate goal. Look at Jamiat and Hizbe Islami and Sayyaf. They won't stop at anything. They are just using Islam as a way to fool the masses. They have no principles.

It is better to have no power and live by your principles than to become a chameleon.

Well, you are right. But politics has always been like this, brother. You have an idealist and romantic view when to comes to the way the world works. I believe its a respectable stance but the world does not work like this.

Just one question, brother: who/what do you support?Whats your political ideology? I really find it quite confusing. Its pretty obvious you have strong religious tendencies. But yet you don't seem to be happy with any political movement. So.. how should this world be according to you, buddy?

[Golden]

Seems you are taking me for some sort of Afghan patriot or something. Well, you are wrong. Afghanistan is a third world and least developed country. Just like Pakistan. Both countries have almost the same HDI (Afghanistan have been at war for the last four decades). Neither of these countries have nothing to be proud of right now. We need to work hard in order to bring development, stability and progress to your people. But at least we are not a terrorist country, with links with every single terrorist attack that takes place around the world.

You are giving ****hole like Afghanistan to much credit yet you claim to not be patriot lol Pakistan is better by any standard compared to Afghanistan, accept it brother and move on. Don't whine, be better.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

Well, you are right. But politics has always been like this, brother. You have an idealist and romantic view when to comes to the way the world works. I believe its a respectable stance but the world does not work like this.

Just one question, brother: who/what do you support?Whats your political ideology? I really find it quite confusing. Its pretty obvious you have strong religious tendencies. But yet you don't seem to be happy with any political movement. So.. how should this world be according to you, buddy?

On the contrary. I am not naive nor do I have a romantic world view. I am a realist. I just don't believe one can claim to be a Muslim and have no morals and principles at the same time. If politics can not be fair then I don't feel obliged to join a party or a movement.

The thing is, I don't have a better solution. That doesn't mean I should settle for something that goes against my beliefs. There is much we can do without politics.

[Firdousi]

On the contrary. I am not naive nor do I have a romantic world view. I am a realist. I just don't believe one can claim to be a Muslim and have no morals and principles at the same time. If politics can be fair then I don't feel obliged to join a party or a movement.

The thing is, I don't have a better solution. That doesn't mean I should settle for something that goes against my beliefs. There is much we can do without politics.

Really Shamlawar, I respect you, buddy. I use to disagree with most of your views but I believe you are a honest guy.

[Firdousi]

You are giving ****hole like Afghanistan to much credit yet you claim to not be patriot lol Pakistan is better by any standard compared to Afghanistan, accept it brother and move on. Don't whine, be better.

Great. Congratulations. Now go eat your dal and leave us alone. We are trying to have a civil talk here, my Indian friend.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

Really Shamlawar, I respect you, buddy. I use to disagree with most of your views but I believe you are a honest guy.

We can disagree with one another and still be honest and respect one another.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

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:

I realize you didn't write this but I am going to respond to every point that I can.

1) ideology "alone" radicalizes;

No, but ideology, agenda driven ideologues and ample backdoor funding by parties that seek to subjugate others does .....look at what The British did with the Saudis and other Arabs to undo the Khilafah, Wahhabiyah played a role in validating and normalizing that among the Khaliji Arabs.

2) any person or group endorsing /justifying violence will "inevitably" act violently;

No, there are Armchair Extremists, but they only embolden those engage in oppression. Making them believe they have a fanbase and validation.

We're not simply talking violence, but indiscriminate, often self destructive and counter productive tactics. If ISIS went through all the processes incumbent in Jihad, and showed restraint with dealing with Non-combatants, and Muslims who do not have a rigid interpretation of social and cultural interactions. They'd probably be deemed heroic ...Yet they target the vulnerable and disempowered.

Most ISIS targets are non-combative. They lack HIKMAH.

3) Wahhabis/Salafis are the "only" Muslims who justify violence against others; and

It's not simply violence, but indiscirminate violence and their relishing and celebration of it. EVEN AT His most AGGRESSIVE and MILITANT periods , Prophet Muhammad(saw) demonstrated and taught not to CHEER and CELEBRATE killing, even if you have to do it. You have to show judgement and restraint always and not be driven by rage. This is the islamic way of fighting Jihad. Target ONLY the guilty NOT "guilty" by association". And even when you target the guilty, when you capture them, you must give them the chance to vindicate themselves before penalizing them.

4) if we eliminate the ideology, we will eradicate senseless violence from the planet.

You obviously can't kill an ideology, you can however counter its credibility. We're not promoting pacificism here, we're trying to return to the MIDDLE PATH.

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

Which Sufis? where was the consensus on this?

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;

If he means Syria, Assad fired on protesters first, rest is history. People have the right to resist oppression, even according to Mainstream Sunni Islam.

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;

Um, if he means Apoiltical as in, not wanting to move through the proper channels of consent and negotiation. Ok maybe ...but no way Wahhabis were apolitical, they had campiagned to usurp the Khilafah.

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;

Like who? was there a consensus?

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;

It's not simply the existence of the ideology, however the ideologues themselves who have applied this doctrine. We have a wide historical narrative of Wahhabiyyah as a doctrine having been applied at the expense of Muslims in general.

I don't think Wahhabiyah needs to be elminated but marginalized for sure.

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;

Of course not, while we use the term "Wahhab" as a term of convenience, clearly Wahhabis have their own nuances. I've seen Wahhabis takfir other Wahhabis for not being Wahhabi enough or for differing SLIGHTLY on an issue.

But there is a current however is that the readiness to Takfir without restraint and willing to act out hostility when differences cannot be resolved.

There are Wahhabiyyah like Sheikh Abdul Rahim Green or Sheikh Yusuf Estes who are sensible.

Sheikh Salman Al Oadah seems sensible, but I am not sure if he's Wahhabi in truth.

Take an example from Feminism; from it's self proclaimed the overarching ideas, then feminism sound fine, Letting women have a fair level of rights and opportunities with men ....Bt when you deal with their ideologues and what that argument entails you find it poisonous and socially destructive.

You have feminists who are tempered, they just want their interests and welfare secured ...then you have FEMEN; who are simply erratic idiots who want a license for their inadequacies.

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

Not necessarily, acknowledging there has been a consistent pattern of problems erupting through Wahhabi ideologues does not presume other ideologues don't convey problematic issues.

Since this author mentions Sufis as a counterpoint; The Sufi Sheikhs among themselves have admonished Those who called themselves Sufis but used this as a pretext to validate gross and obvious deviation

Shaikh Ibn Taymiyyah; a classical scholar that Wahhabists like to cherry pick, was actually an advocate of Sufism but he admonished Pseudo-Sufis who fallacious claimed the term to say things like prayer is not required.

The admonition of Wahhabiyyah is to highlight where the disproportionately largest proportion of unrest is given validation and sanction by.

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.

Not many have claimed Wahhabiyyah is the "root" of ISIS< but Wahhabiyah thinking does nurture and enable ISIS. There are many complex factors that went into ISIS.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

Salman al Awdah is an Ikhwani who is now a full blown modernist. He is right up your alley.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Cool, no wonder he sounds kind of sensible


does he still Takfir Shi'a?

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

Cool, no wonder he sounds kind of sensible


does he still Takfir Shi'a?

I don't know. I never pay attention to what he says. He is like George Micheal of Dawah. He was hot in the 80's. Then he came out of the closet. Now he is just an old guy with funny sunglasses.