Saddam Hussein

[Alamgir]

There is no harm with fighting with the armed rebelions but he targted also unarmed people, children with chemical weapons. That gas bruttaly killed those Kurdish children in Halabja.

Asalamu Alaikum

Collateral damage.

Also, those Kurdish seperatist movements also target civilians.

- - - Updated - - -

Wa alaykum salam wa rahmatullah.

Of course I reject him too Otherwise I would not compare him to the other tyrants...

I had lately read his constitution, called "Yasak", which included many good aspects like tolerance, preserving the nasl (prohibition of fornication) etc. so I found it to be reminiscent of other tyrants who along their whole oppression and transgression against Islam had some praiseworthy stances, which but nonetheless do not suffice to repair their overall image and our judgement of him. And that had been my final conclusion. And I mentioned this because many people take the good aspects of a tyrant, like Saddam Hussein, and completely ignore his great atrocities.
Further discussions on him in this thread would be superfluous, as this thread is about contemporary tyrants.

- - - Updated - - -



Please stop twisting the words of others and using a black-white logic or interpreting every verse and hadith according to your own view.

The hadith you quoted certainly does not apply to Saddam Hussein who live in our century, but rather to the companions and salaf.

It is known what contemporary scholars have said about him... Most people supporting him are just Arab nationalist, IS sympathizers - as most ex-Saddam officers joined IS, or ordinary Iraqis/Arabs who are emotionally overwhelmed by the lack of leadership in the Islamic world and thus seek to find makeshift leaders.

You say he was not a Baathist? Are you serious with this claim? The Iraqi Baathists are those who helped Hafiz al Assad to obtain power! Abdullah Azzam had stated in his lectures that Saddam Hussein is a disbeliever, and that his view on this is certain. Saddam Hussein and all these Baathist value Michael Aflaq as their leader, who is a Christian.

Brother @Ibn Shahid you are probably mixing the basic love for one's own race and the desire for unity with Arab nationalism. For the latter one has been started and deeply influenced by Arab Christians from Lebanon. If somebody doubts this he may have a look on the first literature promoting Arab nationalism. There is only place for one nation, which is Islam, so we may only have Islamic nationalism, nothing else. And this does not exclude the ordinary feelings of greater closeness and geniality towards one's own cultural (consequentially ethnic) environment.

Asalamu Alaikum

All I want is a more unified Ummah. Arab nationalism helps achieve this goal, therefore, I do not dislike it as strongly as I do Turkish or Iranian nationalism.

- - - Updated - - -

You are right, Akhi, this person is very ignorant about Hikmah of some rulers in the past, when we lost Saddam we lost one of the few great rulers of this modern time. Had Saddam lived in the 1200s Wallah there would be Khutbas about him in the Masjid he would be given the Salah ad Din treatment, he would be praised like the Ottomans.

It's obvious the individual prefers the Safawi regime that rapes, steals, and murders and slanders the first of this Ummah, and Rasoolillah (SAAWS) said "The sign of the hour will not occur until the last of this Ummah curse the first."

Asalamu Alaikum

Okay calm down, Saddam was not Saladin. For most of his life he was not very religious, it was only near the end he became pious Muslim.

He was, however, a good leader.

 

[azc]

[MENTION=38691]Yahya.[/MENTION]

Mongolian leader was one of the most cruel king of the world, Saddam Husain's nowhere stands before his cruelty.

It's true that he wasn't kind for his opponents as normally kings or rulers deal with their opponents or insurgents or traitors ruthlessly.

But After his arrest he repented for his sins and repentance is always praiseworthy.

 

[anatolian]

Asalamu Alaikum

Collateral damage.

Also, those Kurdish seperatist movements also target civilians.

- - - Updated - - -



Asalamu Alaikum

All I want is a more unified Ummah. Arab nationalism helps achieve this goal, therefore, I do not dislike it as strongly as I do Turkish or Iranian

You seem to have no idea about what a colleteral damage is. It is when you attack a military target you find out that there were civilians and died there. Delibaretly attacking civilians is not colleteral damage. It is cruelty. They knew that that gas was going to kill everybody in halabja that day.

There are different sorts of nationalisms. Racist, civic, secular , religious.. There are both secular and Islamist nationalists within Arabs just as there are in Turks. Turko-Islamic nationalism that was started with “İttihat ve Terakki” Union and Progress party in the early 20th century Ottoman empire was even the first religious nationalist movement within entire Muslim world. My avatar is their flag. I am myself a Turko-Islamic nationalist too and it definately serves the same purpose, union of Muslim Turks first and all Muslims eventually. The problem behind every nationalism is showenism and separatism. Your nationalism must serve the union not separation

 

[Alamgir]

You seem to have no idea about what a colleteral damage is. It is when you attack a military target you find out that there were civilians and died there. Delibaretly attacking civilians is not colleteral damage. It is cruelty. They knew that that gas was going to kill everybody in halabja that day.

There are different sorts of nationalisms. Racist, civic, secular , religious.. There are both secular and Islamist nationalists within Arabs just as there are in Turks. Turko-Islamic nationalism that was started with “İttihat ve Terakki” Union and Progress party in the early 20th century Ottoman empire was even the first religious nationalist movement within entire Muslim world. My avatar is their flag. I am myself a Turko-Islamic nationalist too and it definately serves the same purpose, union of Muslim Turks first and all Muslims eventually. The problem behind every nationalism is showenism and separatism. Your nationalism must serve the union not separation

No, collateral damage is when you have to take out a military target but end up killing civilians in the process. Whether or not you are aware that you will end up killing civilians is irrelevant.

During the siege of taif, the place was hit by catapults even though it was well known that civilians would be exterminated in the process. It was still done anyway. The action is perfectly halal, you just need to decide when it is appropriate.

 

[anatolian]

“during a war, the unintentional deaths and injuries of people who are not soldiers, and damage that is caused to their homes, hospitals, schools, etc”

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/collateral-damage

[TABLE="class: grid, width: 100%, align: center"]
[TR][TD]collateral damage Meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary
collateral damage meaning, definition, what is collateral damage: during a war, the unintentional deaths and injuries of people who are not soldiers, and…. Learn more....[/TD][/TR][/TABLE]

 

[Yahya.]

I think your definitions are reaching the same end. What we should concentrate on should be whether Saddam Hussein's aim and the means he used to achieve it are proportional? Is a government in need of bombing an area with chemical weapons in order to suppress a revolt? But we are already disregarding international conventions on weapons when asking this question.

 

[JustTime]

Wa alaykum salam wa rahmatullah.

Of course I reject him too Otherwise I would not compare him to the other tyrants...

I had lately read his constitution, called "Yasak", which included many good aspects like tolerance, preserving the nasl (prohibition of fornication) etc. so I found it to be reminiscent of other tyrants who along their whole oppression and transgression against Islam had some praiseworthy stances, which but nonetheless do not suffice to repair their overall image and our judgement of him. And that had been my final conclusion. And I mentioned this because many people take the good aspects of a tyrant, like Saddam Hussein, and completely ignore his great atrocities.
Further discussions on him in this thread would be superfluous, as this thread is about contemporary tyrants.

- - - Updated - - -



Please stop twisting the words of others and using a black-white logic or interpreting every verse and hadith according to your own view.

The hadith you quoted certainly does not apply to Saddam Hussein who live in our century, but rather to the companions and salaf.

It is known what contemporary scholars have said about him... Most people supporting him are just Arab nationalist, IS sympathizers - as most ex-Saddam officers joined IS, or ordinary Iraqis/Arabs who are emotionally overwhelmed by the lack of leadership in the Islamic world and thus seek to find makeshift leaders.

You say he was not a Baathist? Are you serious with this claim? The Iraqi Baathists are those who helped Hafiz al Assad to obtain power! Abdullah Azzam had stated in his lectures that Saddam Hussein is a disbeliever, and that his view on this is certain. Saddam Hussein and all these Baathist value Michael Aflaq as their leader, who is a Christian.

Brother @Ibn Shahid you are probably mixing the basic love for one's own race and the desire for unity with Arab nationalism. For the latter one has been started and deeply influenced by Arab Christians from Lebanon. If somebody doubts this he may have a look on the first literature promoting Arab nationalism. There is only place for one nation, which is Islam, so we may only have Islamic nationalism, nothing else. And this does not exclude the ordinary feelings of greater closeness and geniality towards one's own cultural (consequentially ethnic) environment.

I never said he wasn't a Baathist, I said he wasn't a Baathist like Assad. It is clear that this Hadith is of this era and to deny it is your loss.

- - - Updated - - -

There is no harm with fighting with the armed rebelions but he targted also unarmed people, children with chemical weapons. That gas bruttaly killed those Kurdish children in Halabja.

Those dogs in Peshmerga and other Kurdish nationalist movements exaggerate more than even the most extreme of Zionists ever would. The Halabja "massacre" is an exaggeration I'm surprised a Turk would trust the word of a Kurd these people have no morals, look at the degenerate cesspool called Rojava where Gays have more rights than Muslims.

- - - Updated - - -

I think your definitions are reaching the same end. What we should concentrate on should be whether Saddam Hussein's aim and the means he used to achieve it are proportional? Is a government in need of bombing an area with chemical weapons in order to suppress a revolt? But we are already disregarding international conventions on weapons when asking this question.

If he knew what these dogs would do today back then it would only be a shame that he didn't do more to handle the Rawafida and Kurdish murtadeen of Barzani and others.

 

[azc]

I think your definitions are reaching the same end. What we should concentrate on should be whether Saddam Hussein's aim and the means he used to achieve it are proportional? Is a government in need of bombing an area with chemical weapons in order to suppress a revolt? But we are already disregarding international conventions on weapons when asking this question.

and killing the innocent people without any valid reason can't be justified

 

[AllahIsAl-Malik]

I never said he wasn't a Baathist, I said he wasn't a Baathist like Assad. It is clear that this Hadith is of this era and to deny it is your loss.

- - - Updated - - -



Those dogs in Peshmerga and other Kurdish nationalist movements exaggerate more than even the most extreme of Zionists ever would. The Halabja "massacre" is an exaggeration I'm surprised a Turk would trust the word of a Kurd these people have no morals, look at the degenerate cesspool called Rojava where Gays have more rights than Muslims.

- - - Updated - - -



If he knew what these dogs would do today back then it would only be a shame that he didn't do more to handle the Rawafida and Kurdish murtadeen of Barzani and others.

I am inclined to believe you about Rojava. The Rojava thing sounds crazy and weird. Also it is backed by the US. I understand now that the US opponents like Assad aren't necessarily good guys either but... the US-backed Rojava stuff sounds very weird and bizarre to me. The ideology sounds bizarre.

I don't get the impression there should be independent Kurdistan or anything like that. I am not an expert on what is going on over there. But honestly, I hope the Rojava thing is crushed and not heard from anymore. It seems weird, dangerous and repugnant. The last thing Muslims need is exported radical feminist garbage. Colonialists are always trying to turn the women against the men. When the world needs guidance from Allah, it can turn to Islam. If the world wants to hear from experts in the experience of broken families, single motherhood, damaged children- let the West stay the experts in that field. With all this Rojava stuff and extreme ideology- I am inclined to wonder if Saddam had a good reason for what he did. The world needs promotion of Islam. Not promotion of filth like radical feminism and homosexuality. If that's what Rojava is about then may their movement be crushed.

 

[anatolian]

Those dogs in Peshmerga and other Kurdish nationalist movements exaggerate more than even the most extreme of Zionists ever would. The Halabja "massacre" is an exaggeration I'm surprised a Turk would trust the word of a Kurd these people have no morals, look at the degenerate cesspool called Rojava where Gays have more rights than Muslims.

You are confusing dfferent occasions and using something wrong as a tool to justify the injustice in the other occasion. What is going on in rojava today is not directly related to what happened in halabja 30 years ago. I justify fighting with PKK and all other terrorist groups but I cannot justify intentional attacks on non fighting people, most especially children who have no or limited accountability on whats going on. This has nothing to do with being turk but being human and muslim..

 

[Yahya.]

I never said he wasn't a Baathist, I said he wasn't a Baathist like Assad. It is clear that this Hadith is of this era and to deny it is your loss.

Right, it is clear because you tell that... This is a dogmatic approach. Look what the muhaddithun have said about that hadith.

If he knew what these dogs would do today back then it would only be a shame that he didn't do more to handle the Rawafida and Kurdish murtadeen of Barzani and others.

You are the ones who have started the resentful battle between Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq, they had lived for centuries in peace under the Ottomans and the pre-Saddam period. The wahhabis of Najd started attacking their holy sites, like in Karbala, and massacred their people. And then their descendants from ISI continued on their path by bombing Shiite places, not obeying the orders of their leader from the Al Qaeda Centre in Khorasan, who discouraged such attacks. After invoking all these hatred, the supposed representatives of the Sunnites, the Islamic State group or Saddam Hussein, have just redrawn and left our Sunni brothers on their own to the rancor of Shiite militias. And Saddam Hussein is a part of all these crimes. Are there any Sunnis south of Baghdad today? If not, how did this demographic change occur?

 

[JustTime]

You are confusing dfferent occasions and using something wrong as a tool to justify the injustice in the other occasion. What is going on in rojava today is not directly related to what happened in halabja 30 years ago. I justify fighting with PKK and all other terrorist groups but I cannot justify intentional attacks on non fighting people, most especially children who have no or limited accountability on whats going on. This has nothing to do with being turk but being human and muslim..

You have not studied history of the Iraqi Baath Government, and you are only looking at one narrative.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Zafar_7

Iran was invading Northern Iraq with Kurdish support, in Halabja there were PUK, Peshmerga, and Iranian soldiers occupying the city and the Iraqi military was already exhausted and spread out by their forces in the South trying to take Ahwaz and Khuzestan. The narrative told is no different than other exaggerations, not even as I said Zionists make stories that are so full of falsehood.

- - - Updated - - -

I am inclined to believe you about Rojava. The Rojava thing sounds crazy and weird. Also it is backed by the US. I understand now that the US opponents like Assad aren't necessarily good guys either but... the US-backed Rojava stuff sounds very weird and bizarre to me. The ideology sounds bizarre.

I don't get the impression there should be independent Kurdistan or anything like that. I am not an expert on what is going on over there. But honestly, I hope the Rojava thing is crushed and not heard from anymore. It seems weird, dangerous and repugnant. The last thing Muslims need is exported radical feminist garbage. Colonialists are always trying to turn the women against the men. When the world needs guidance from Allah, it can turn to Islam. If the world wants to hear from experts in the experience of broken families, single motherhood, damaged children- let the West stay the experts in that field. With all this Rojava stuff and extreme ideology- I am inclined to wonder if Saddam had a good reason for what he did. The world needs promotion of Islam. Not promotion of filth like radical feminism and homosexuality. If that's what Rojava is about then may their movement be crushed.

Rojava is garbage and its supporters are the worst of people, if you look at its supporters young usually white liberals that are covered in tattoos and piercings and smoke marijuana and believe that morals are outdated and that there needs to be a "revolution", when they are done bringing that filth to Sham they'll bring it back home to America and Europe and corrupt their nations further.

In Rojava they want to ban all religious weddings and only have Civil weddings, and their "brave" soldiers that can't advance until at least 100 airstrikes occur on their off time are required to wear women's clothing to get rid of "gender specific clothing".

- - - Updated - - -

Right, it is clear because you tell that... This is a dogmatic approach. Look what the muhaddithun have said about that hadith.




You are the ones who have started the resentful battle between Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq, they had lived for centuries in peace under the Ottomans and the pre-Saddam period. The wahhabis of Najd started attacking their holy sites, like in Karbala, and massacred their people. And then their descendants from ISI continued on their path by bombing Shiite places, not obeying the orders of their leader from the Al Qaeda Centre in Khorasan, who discouraged such attacks. After invoking all these hatred, the supposed representatives of the Sunnites, the Islamic State group or Saddam Hussein, have just redrawn and left our Sunni brothers on their own to the rancor of Shiite militias. And Saddam Hussein is a part of all these crimes. Are there any Sunnis south of Baghdad today? If not, how did this demographic change occur?

The moment you begin rambling about "Wahhabis" is when your true colors emerge. And it doesn't matter what AQ, the Shuyukh or anyone says it's what is said in the Quran and Sunnah that matters. There may be ones who disregard what they "People of Knowledge" say but it doesn't matter when those who are learned disregard what the Quran and Sunnah says.

In the Pre-Islamic Period of Ignorance there was a house called Dhu-l-Khalasa or Al-Ka'ba Al-Yamaniya or Al-Ka'ba Ash-Shamiya. The Prophet said to me, "Won't you relieve me from Dhu-l-Khalasa?" So I set out with one-hundred-and-fifty riders, and we dismantled it and killed whoever was present there. Then I came to the Prophet and informed him, and he invoked good upon us and Al-Ahmas (tribe). Sahih Muslim

Narrated Qais:

Jarir said to me, The Prophet said to me, "Won't you relieve me from Dhu-l-Khalasa?" And that was a house (in Yemem belonging to the tribe of) Khatham called Al-Kaba Al Yamaniya. I proceeded with one-hundred and-fifty cavalry from Ahmas (tribe) who were horse riders. I used not to sit firm on horses, so the Prophet stroke me over my chest till I saw the mark of his fingers over my chest, and then he said, 'O Allah! Make him (i.e. Jarir) firm and one who guides others and is guided on the right path." So Jarir proceeded to it dismantled and burnt it, and then sent a messenger to Allah's Apostle. The messenger of Jarir said (to the Prophet), "By Him Who sent you with the Truth, I did not leave that place till it was like a scabby camel." The Prophet blessed the horses of Ahmas and their men five times.

Jarir said "Allah's Apostle said to me, "Won't you relieve me from Dhul-Khalasa?" I replied, "Yes, (I will relieve you)." So I proceeded along with one-hundred and fifty cavalry from Ahmas tribe who were skillful in riding horses. I used not to sit firm over horses, so I informed the Prophet of that, and he stroke my chest with his hand till I saw the marks of his hand over my chest and he said, O Allah! Make him firm and one who guides others and is guided (on the right path).' Since then I have never fallen from a horse. Dhul-l--Khulasa was a house in Yemen belonging to the tribe of Khatham and Bajaila, and in it there were idols which were worshipped, and it was called Al-Ka'ba." Jarir went there, burnt it with fire and dismantled it. When Jarir reached Yemen, there was a man who used to foretell and give good omens by casting arrows of divination. Someone said to him. "The messenger of Allah's Apostle is present here and if he should get hold of you, he would chop off your neck." One day while he was using them (i.e. arrows of divination), Jarir stopped there and said to him, "Break them (i.e. the arrows) and testify that None has the right to be worshipped except Allah, or else I will chop off your neck." So the man broke those arrows and testified that none has the right to be worshipped except Allah. Then Jarir sent a man called Abu Artata from the tribe of Ahmas to the Prophet to convey the good news (of destroying Dhu-l-Khalasa). So when the messenger reached the Prophet, he said, "O Allah's Apostle! By Him Who sent you with the Truth, I did not leave it till it was like a scabby camel." Then the Prophet blessed the horses of Ahmas and their men five times.

al-Bukhaari (3020) and Muslim (2476) narrated that Jareer ibn ‘Abd-Allaah al-Bajali said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said to me: “O Jareer, will you not relieve me of Dhu’l-Khalsah?” That was a house (in Yemen) belonging to the (tribe of) Khath’am, which was called Ka’bat al-Yamaaniyyah. I set out with one hundred and fifty horsemen. I used not to sit firm on horses and I mentioned that to the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). He struck me on my chest with his hand and said, 'O Allaah! Make him firm and make him one who guides others and is guided on the right path.' " So Jareer went and burned it with fire, then Jareer sent a man called Abu Artaat to the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). He said, “I did not come to you until we had left it like a scabby camel.” Then the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) blessed the horses of (the tribe of) Ahmas and their men five times.

Muslim (969) narrated that Abu’l-Hayaaj al-Asadi said: ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib said to me: “Shall I not send you with the same instructions as the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) sent me? ‘Do not leave any image without defacing it or any built-up grave without leveling it.’”

Muslim (832) narrated from ‘Urwah ibn ‘Abasah that he said to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him): “With what were you sent?” He said, “I was sent to uphold the ties of kinship, to break the idols, and so that Allaah would be worshipped alone with no partner or associate.”

The Demolition of Shriki shrines is not new to Islam, Mujdaddid Muhammad Ibn Abd al Wahab did not introduce this to Islam but only reminded the people of the importance of Tawhid in an era where the Jazeera of An Nabi :saws1: was filled with Shirk and Bidah and Bilad ar-Rafidayn was likewise filled with the Shirk of the Majoos.

And the Rawafida have been plotting to takeover the land of Mashriq and have succeded by their victories in Iraq and Sham because of the faliures fueled by the arrogance Asabiyya, ignorance, as well as greed. In Lebanon is when it began than in Iraq then Syria and now Yemen, these dogs Wallahi are the ones who will welcome the Dajjal.

Anas (May Allah be pleased with him) said:
The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said, "Dajjal (the Antichrist) will be followed by seventy thousand Jews of Isfahan and will be dressed in robes of green coloured satin."
Sahih Muslim

And we all know that the Shias are the students of Ibn Saba the Jew, the Rawafida are the biggest enemy of Islam on the face of the planet.

 

[Yahya.]

[MENTION=42224]JustTime[/MENTION]

it doesn't matter what AQ, the Shuyukh or anyone says it's what is said in the Quran and Sunnah that matters. There may be ones who disregard what they "People of Knowledge" say but it doesn't matter when those who are learned disregard what the Quran and Sunnah says.

After pledging allegiance to a Muslim leader, you are obliged to follow his orders, no matter if these please you or not. Obligations relate to timing and zone, this is a matter of maslaha (interest), that is decided by the amir one has given bayah to. One cannot just act individually disregarding the orders of one's amir. And in this case, as it is a matter of maslaha, you cannot forward the claim that the orders go against the shariah.

The Demolition of Shriki shrines is not new to Islam

It is not about the demolition of crimes, it is about massacring people! They did not do this just in Karbala, but also in Taif and other Muslim cities. The Wahhabi movement was nothing more than the blind aggression of uneducated Najdi Bedouins who had no clue of the Usul ad-Din. They had been reading verses and hadiths and acting according to their formal expression without any profound background knowledge on its wisdom (maqasid as-shariah) and usul, thus calling Muslims disbelievers and slaughtering them, just like IS does today.

 

[azc]

[MENTION=42224]JustTime[/MENTION]



After pledging allegiance to a Muslim leader, you are obliged to follow his orders, no matter if these please you or not. Obligations relate to timing and zone, this is a matter of maslaha (interest), that is decided by the amir one has given bayah to. One cannot just act individually disregarding the orders of one's amir. And in this case, as it is a matter of maslaha, you cannot forward the claim that the orders go against the shariah.




It is not about the demolition of crimes, it is about massacring people! They did not do this just in Karbala, but also in Taif and other Muslim cities. The Wahhabi movement was nothing more than the blind aggression of uneducated Najdi Bedouins who had no clue of the Usul ad-Din. They had been reading verses and hadiths and acting according to their formal expression without any profound background knowledge on its wisdom (maqasid as-shariah) and usul, thus calling Muslims disbelievers and slaughtering them, just like IS does today .

^Some people wouldn't like this part at all...

 

[Yahya.]

^Some people wouldn't like this part at all...

Unfortunately that's solely due to the great influence of Saudi Wahhabism on Salafis. Beyond all disagreements in aqidah and usul al-fiqh between Salafis and Ash'ariyyah-Maturidiyyah, the behaviour of the Wahhabi movement can only be described as sheer takfirism and aggression, which has no proof in the shariah, of course. But as all Wahhabis claim to be Salafis, and the Salafis regard Wahhabis as a part of themselves, Salafis will see it as an offense when somebody justifiably criticizes the crimes of the Wahhabi movement, whereas one is solely talking about historical facts and their proper evaluation. In reality these are two different layers; Islam on a scholarly level with aqidah, fiqh, tafsir etc. along its disagreements between different schools and sects, and an evident deviation in the manners (minhaj) that contradicts the shariah and comprises physical aggression harming other Muslims. So, no matter to which 'aqidah school' one belongs, one has to distinguish between these two. Criticizing manners is not criticizing beliefs.

 

[Zzz_]

Unfortunately that's solely due to the great influence of Saudi Wahhabism on Salafis. Beyond all disagreements in aqidah and usul al-fiqh between Salafis and Ash'ariyyah-Maturidiyyah, the behaviour of the Wahhabi movement can only be described as sheer takfirism and aggression, which has no proof in the shariah, of course. But as all Wahhabis claim to be Salafis, and the Salafis regard Wahhabis as a part of themselves, Salafis will see it as an offense when somebody justifiably criticizes the crimes of the Wahhabi movement, whereas one is solely talking about historical facts and their proper evaluation. In reality these are two different layers; Islam on a scholarly level with aqidah, fiqh, tafsir etc. along its disagreements between different schools and sects, and an evident deviation in the manners (minhaj) that contradicts the shariah and comprises physical aggression harming other Muslims. So, no matter to which 'aqidah school' one belongs, one has to distinguish between these two. Criticizing manners is not criticizing beliefs.

wahhabi this wahhabi that. People need to educate themselves.

 

[azc]

[MENTION=38691]Yahya.[/MENTION]

But people run away from historical facts. This movement has produced ''Rejectors'' of agreed upon Islamic traditions.

 

[Yahya.]

wahhabi this wahhabi that. People need to educate themselves.

Look, my second post was exactly meant to avoid such disgression from my main statements. I did not address any of Ibn Abdulwahhab's teachings, for I honest have not read any of his works. I consciously said "the Wahhabi movement", because what he had supposedly been teaching seems to have been reflected a bit different in practice by his followers. I do not follow him, but I nevertheles, too, reject worshipping graves and erecting tombs, following Prophet Muhammad's teachings. He, or at least his followers, went as far as claiming that visiting graves itself is considered haram. But anyway, I was merely talking about their physical aggression and khariji-like harshness, not about his teachings, because this is a topic on politics, not fiqh or aqidah or something else. And the reason I mentioned it is because IS-sympathizers like [MENTION=42224]JustTime[/MENTION] are inspired by the Wahhabi movement and their mentality, they do not even reject it. It would be profitable for one to educate himself on the practice of teachings parallely, and not to stick by ideallistic theories.

As for the word "wahhabi" I do not agree to Shaykh Yusuf Estes. Semantics consists of two layers; the word and its meaning. Let's say in some language "wahhab" means sun and you say "wahhabi" in that language, are you then talking about Allah? No, you are talking about the sun. Just like this relation between different languages, the contextual difference of words are playing a primary role. We talk about the followers of Muhammad Ibn Abdulwahhab, it has been abbreviated like this and established itself, everybody knows this. Nobody can claim that we are talking, or even making fun of Allah! Audhubillah... Frankly he is digressing from the topic, or just attempts a conspicious introduction. May Allah have mercy on him, I respect him nonetheless.

 

[Zzz_]

@Yahya.

But people run away from historical facts. This movement has produced ''Rejectors'' of agreed upon Islamic traditions.

can you show proof of such a thing?

This movement stood against the grave worshippers who couldn't let go of their hindu and Zoroastrian roots.

 

[Yahya.]

can you show proof of such a thing?

This movement stood against the grave worshippers who couldn't let go of their hindu and Zoroastrian roots.

Brother, most people who reject, or at least take a dim view of Ibn Abdulwahhab, are not necessarily "grave worshipers". Of course there are many circles entrenched in deviated Sufi traditions (bid'ahs), but as of what I have heard from Muslim scholars and researchers, Ibn Abdulwahhab employed an exaggeratedly harsh tone and measures in fighting these superstitions. And after he passed away in 1792, his followers adopted extreme interpretations on takfir, which Ibn Abdulwahhab's words apparently allowed for, and went as far as massacring Muslims for failing their expectations in the knowledge of Tawhid. You may refer to the Taif Mosque Massacre, which I -looking at the map below- suppose happened after his death.