Saddam Hussein

[Zzz_]

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.

And what is the source of your information? most of anti ibn abdulwahhab scholars, speakers or laymen are from the subcontinent and those who follow sufi and their own nafs. Have you read his books personally? Most who reject him are the ignorant caught up in the hate propaganda or are part of the hate propaganda themselves.

I've met most of these rejectors, nothing more than slaves of their own desires.

You grow a beard, "oh you become a wahhabi"
You do niqab, "oh you become a wahhabi"
you don't do birthdays, "oh you become a wahhabi"
you don't do milad, 'oh you become a wahhabi"

give it another decade or two and it'll be
you don't do zina, "oh you became a wahhabi"
you don't drink, "oh you became are a wahhabi"

that's what majority of your anti wahhabi lots consists of, ignorant cultural Muslims
--

If we want to know more about him, we cannot find anyone who can describe the man better than himself, because when there is a man concerning whom people’s opinions vary greatly, with some praising him and some condemning him, we should look at what he says in his writings and his books, and at what is correctly attributed to him, then weigh that against the Qur’aan and Sunnah. What Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab said, describing himself, was:

“I tell you that– praise be to Allaah – my belief and my religion, according to which I worship Allaah, is the way of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah, which was the way of the imaams of the Muslims, such as the four Imaams and their followers until the Day of Resurrection. But I explain to people that they must devote their worship sincerely to Allaah (ikhlaas). I forbid them to call upon the Prophets and the dead among the righteous and others, and from associating them with Allaah in any act of worship that should be done for Allaah alone, such as offering sacrifices, making vows, putting one’s trust, prostrating and other actions which are due to Allaah and in which no one should be associated with Him, not any angel who is close to Him or any Prophet who was sent.

This is the Message which was proclaimed by all the Messengers, from the first of them to the last of them, and this is the way of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah. I hold a high position in my village and people listen to me. Some of the leaders denounced that because it goes against the customs they grew up with. I also obliged those who are under me to perform regular prayer, pay zakaah and fulfil other Islamic duties, and I forbade them to deal with ribaa, drink intoxicants and other kinds of forbidden things. The leaders could not criticize that or find fault with it, because it is something that is liked by the common folk, so they directed their criticism and enmity against that which I enjoin of Tawheed and that which I forbid of shirk, and they confused the common folk by saying that this goes against what everyone is doing, and they caused a great deal of fitnah…” (al-Durar al-Sunniyyah, 1/64-65, 79-80)


Any fair-minded person who studies the books of this man will know that he is one of those who call people to Allaah with sure knowledge, and that he bore many difficulties and hardships in order to restore Islam to its pure form, when it had been altered a great deal at his time, and that was because of his opposition to the whims and desires of the leaders, who stirred up the ignorant masses of the common people against him, so that they could continue to enjoy their positions of worldly leadership and wealth.


I urge you not to be easily influenced by others with regard to what you listen to and believe. Rather you should be a seeker of truth, defending it no matter who is promoting it, and I urge you to avoid falsehood and error no matter who is promoting it. So if you look at any of the books by this shaykh – and I recommend you to read Kitaab al-Tawheed alladhi huwa haqq Allaah ‘ala al-‘Abeed [Kitaab al-Tawheed is available in English translation] – you will find out how great the Shaykh’s knowledge was, and how important his call is, and the extent to which his words have been twisted and accusations have been made against him.

https://islamqa.info/en/12932

 

[Yahya.]

And what is the source of your information? most of anti ibn abdulwahhab scholars, speakers or laymen are from the subcontinent and those who follow sufi and their own nafs. Have you read his books personally? Most who reject him are the ignorant caught up in the hate propaganda or are part of the hate propaganda themselves.

There are also objective Muslim researchers who explain their ideas and development based on their own works. I know some works in Turkish regarding this. As I said, I did not read his books personally, but I trust the persons I listen to and seek correct citations. There are some chronicles written by Ibn Abdulwahhab's followers themselves, like Unwanul majd fi tarikhi Najd by Ibn Bishr an-Najdi. He openly explains how they treated the people of the places they conquered. For example in the year of 1216 H. (1802), they conquered Taif, and in page 260 (Arabic version) he says: "Allah conquered it [Taif] for them in coercion without a fight, people of the city were killed in markets and houses, some two hundreds were killed from them." Is this how Muslims are treated? And this is just what's narrated in this book... I have downloaded a PDF version of the book that was printed in Saudi-Arabia.

 

[Zzz_]

There are also objective Muslim researchers who explain their ideas and development based on their own works. I know some works in Turkish regarding this. As I said, I did not read his books personally, but I trust the persons I listen to and seek correct citations. There are some chronicles written by Ibn Abdulwahhab's followers themselves, like Unwanul majd fi tarikhi Najd by Ibn Bishr an-Najdi. He openly explains how they treated the people of the places they conquered. For example in the year of 1216 H. (1802), they conquered Taif, and in page 260 (Arabic version) he says: "Allah conquered it [Taif] for them in coercion without a fight, people of the city were killed in markets and houses, some two hundreds were killed from them." Is this how Muslims are treated? And this is just what's narrated in this book... I have downloaded a PDF version of the book that was printed in Saudi-Arabia.

What you say would be more convincing if you put names to those researchers and people you completely trust. I do not find any trust worthy that is going call it a 'wahhabi movement' and paint it as nothing more than takfiri zealots. Nor would I consider quotes allegedly from a follower as the only proof presented of their "evil" ways. If you want to talk about wahhabism, then i suggest reading this first: http://sultan.org/articles/wahabism.html

 

[anatolian]

They were the ISIS of the Ottoman Empire two hundred years ago. Ibn Abdulwahhab declared jihad against the Khalifa at the end of his life. His sons took action. They gathered an army of bedouins ,terrorized the Arabian Peninsula, invaded Iraq and killed thousands of innocent Shias and were finally executed by the Sultan. They started with mischief and continue with mischief.

 

[Misbah-Abd]

There is a lot of misconception about Shiekh Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab's teachings due to those of the ahlu bidah who disparaged him because of his opposition to their beliefs.

 

[Zzz_]

They were the ISIS of the Ottoman Empire two hundred years ago. Ibn Abdulwahhab declared jihad against the Khalifa at the end of his life. His sons took action. They gathered an army of bedouins ,terrorized the Arabian Peninsula, invaded Iraq and killed thousands of innocent Shias and were finally executed by the Sultan. They started with mischief and continue with mischief.

you sound like the sufi members we have here who claim he was part of the rebels who rebelled against the Ottomons. He wasn't even in lands of the Ottoman's empire. Where is your proof?

 

[anatolian]

you sound like the sufi members we have here who claim he was part of the rebels who rebelled against the Ottomons. He wasn't even in lands of the Ottoman's empire. Where is your proof?

You can read the actions of the Suud in all historical records. How they killed people in Arabia. Ofcourse they were influenced by the teachings of Ibn Abdulwahhab.

http://www.wiki-zero.com/index.php?q=aHR0cHM6Ly9lbi53aWtpcGVkaWEub3JnL3dpa2kvRmlyc3RfU2F1ZGlfU3RhdGU

I am following the sufi interpretation of Islam myself. In fact, most of Turkish Muslims are following the sufi interpretation of Islam.

 

[Zzz_]

You can read the actions of the Suud in all historical records. How they killed people in Arabia. Ofcourse they were influenced by the teachings of Ibn Abdulwahhab.

http://www.wiki-zero.com/index.php?...cGVkaWEub3JnL3dpa2 kvRmlyc3RfU2F1ZGlfU3RhdGU

Wikipedia is not considered a reputable source in academia, not by a long short and nor should an educated person trust it. I doubt there will be much reliable information found in the mainstream world about "wahabi movement" or historical facts surround the events. Not to mention, much of the history the world learns is fake.

I am following the sufi interpretation of Islam myself. In fact, most of Turkish Muslims are following the sufi interpretation of Islam.

Well that explains why you consider them ISIS. I don't know the historical facts around the formation of saudia arabia and I certainly will not take my knowledge from lying propaganda outlets like wiki nor from sufi Turkey of post kemalist era . Regarding the killing and stuff, that's been going on for 1400 years among the shia and sunni so i'll just leave that at that. Regarding the shayk being involved in the rebellion, i recommend reading this :https://islamqa.info/en/9243

 

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Maybe this thread will shed some light on the subject on the origins.

History of Saudi Arabia (House of Saud)

[TABLE="class: grid, width: 100%, align: center"]
[TR][TD] History of Saudi Arabia (House of Saud)
Salaam Like to share...[/TD][/TR][/TABLE]

 

[Misbah-Abd]

From the book: The Life, Teachings and Influence of Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahab by Jamal al-Din Zarabozo

"During the time of Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab, Najd fell under control of small states and rulers coming out of Bahrain or small emirates in the area....In reality, though, the Ottomans never gave much thought to Najd and had no influence over Najd. In fact, an Ottoman governemt document recorded by Yameen Ali Effendi in 1018 A.H. (1609) shows that the Ottoman state was divided into 32 states or provinces. Of those, 14 were Arab states; however, Najd was not included among them. The historian Ameen Saeed wrote, 'Every Sheikh or Amir in Najd had complete independence in running his land. He would not recognize the Turks nor would the Turks recognize him.' "

- - - Updated - - -

There have been eye witness accounts by Orientalists to the immoral condition and vices in the land of Hijaz during the time of the Shiekh. The book continues:

Vassiliev writes: "Since 1803, the Wahabis had put all kinds of obstacles in the way of pilgrims from the Ottoman Empire, particularly those from Syria and Egypt...The pilgrims were accompanied by musicians, playing tambourines, drums and other instruments (such as flutes). Many pilgrims brought alcohol with them and it was not unusual to find groups of prostitutes in the caravans. All this could not fail to provoke the Wahabis hostility because of its incompatibility with their religious and moral standards.....According to Bazili, the Wahabis demanded-not without reason- that there should be no boys nor other beardless persons in the caravans."

Vassiliev writes further about the reforms brought to Mecca as a result of its occupation by the followers of ibn Abdul Wahab:

The strict morals introduced in Mecca ran counter to its people's customs and habits. The status of the holy city made its inhabitants feel superior to all other Muslims and led them to excuse a certain lewdness or behavior. Whole blocks of Mecca belonged to prostitutes, who even paid a tax on their occupation. Homosexuality was widespread. Alcohol was sold almost at the gate of the Kaba and drunkenness was not uncommon. The new rules might meet with the approval of the pious scholars and sincere believers, but they were burdensome for the greater part of the population."

- - - Updated - - -

The American Lothrop Stoddard wrote about Islam in the 18th century:

"As for religion, it was as decadent as everything else. The austere monotheism of Muhammad had become overloaded with a rank growth of superstition and puerile mysticism. The mosques stood unfrequented and ruinous, deserted by the ignorant multitude which, decked out in amulets, charms and rosaries, listened to the squalid faqirs or dervishes and went on pilgrimage to the tombs of the "holy men" worshiped as saints an intercessors. As for the moral precepts of the Quran, they were ignored or defied. Even the holy cities were the holes of inequity. In fact, the life had apparently gone out of Islam. Could Muhammad return to earth, he would unquestionably have anathematized his followers as apostates and idolaters."

 

[Zzz_]

Could Muhammad return to earth, he would unquestionably have anathematized his followers as apostates and idolaters."

It's no wonder these "majority" made the devil out of ibn abdul wahab and his movement, it stood for the Islam of the Prophet and against everything they were doing, from prostitutes and alcohol to saint worship.

 

[Misbah-Abd]

It's no wonder these "majority" made the devil out of ibn abdul wahab and his movement, it stood for the Islam of the Prophet and against everything they were doing, from prostitutes and alcohol to saint worship.

Jamal al-Din Zarabozo writes:

"Like what happens to every purifying call or teaching, those who take part in evil deeds meet the steps of purification with great alarm and fear. There is nothing more alarming to an evil people than threatening their vices."

 

[Yahya.]

What you say would be more convincing if you put names to those researchers and people you completely trust. I do not find any trust worthy that is going call it a 'wahhabi movement' and paint it as nothing more than takfiri zealots. Nor would I consider quotes allegedly from a follower as the only proof presented of their "evil" ways. If you want to talk about wahhabism, then i suggest reading this first: http://sultan.org/articles/wahabism.html

There is a Turkish scholar-researcher who has a video series on the Wahhabi idea, in which he directly quotes from their own books. His name is Ebu Bekir Sifil.

As for my quote, it is not of an ordinary follower. Like I mentioned in my earlier post that you quoted here, he is from Najd and a supporter of Ibn Abdulwahhab who was considered a scholar among the Wahhabis of the First Saudi Dynasty. Then, ordinary people would not write any books those days... And the book was printed in Saudi-Arabia. So, Wahhabis themselves admit how they treated the Muslims; slaughtering them and looting their wealth. I did not really understand what disturbs you in this narration, do you doubt its authenticity? If you would do any research on primary sources, instead of sticking to biographies of Ibn Abdulwahhab, you would see that most Wahhabis are not bothered with such narrations and actions, because they regard the ordinary non-Wahhabi Muslim as disbelievers... You can observe this in Saudi state laws.

***

From the book: The Life, Teachings and Influence of Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahab by Jamal al-Din Zarabozo

"During the time of Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab, Najd fell under control of small states and rulers coming out of Bahrain or small emirates in the area....In reality, though, the Ottomans never gave much thought to Najd and had no influence over Najd. In fact, an Ottoman governemt document recorded by Yameen Ali Effendi in 1018 A.H. (1609) shows that the Ottoman state was divided into 32 states or provinces. Of those, 14 were Arab states; however, Najd was not included among them. The historian Ameen Saeed wrote, 'Every Sheikh or Amir in Najd had complete independence in running his land. He would not recognize the Turks nor would the Turks recognize him.' "

There have been eye witness accounts by Orientalists to the immoral condition and vices in the land of Hijaz during the time of the Shiekh. The book continues:

Vassiliev writes: "Since 1803, the Wahabis had put all kinds of obstacles in the way of pilgrims from the Ottoman Empire, particularly those from Syria and Egypt...The pilgrims were accompanied by musicians, playing tambourines, drums and other instruments (such as flutes). Many pilgrims brought alcohol with them and it was not unusual to find groups of prostitutes in the caravans. All this could not fail to provoke the Wahabis hostility because of its incompatibility with their religious and moral standards.....According to Bazili, the Wahabis demanded-not without reason- that there should be no boys nor other beardless persons in the caravans."

Vassiliev writes further about the reforms brought to Mecca as a result of its occupation by the followers of ibn Abdul Wahab:

The strict morals introduced in Mecca ran counter to its people's customs and habits. The status of the holy city made its inhabitants feel superior to all other Muslims and led them to excuse a certain lewdness or behavior. Whole blocks of Mecca belonged to prostitutes, who even paid a tax on their occupation. Homosexuality was widespread. Alcohol was sold almost at the gate of the Kaba and drunkenness was not uncommon. The new rules might meet with the approval of the pious scholars and sincere believers, but they were burdensome for the greater part of the population."

- - - Updated - - -

The American Lothrop Stoddard wrote about Islam in the 18th century:

"As for religion, it was as decadent as everything else. The austere monotheism of Muhammad had become overloaded with a rank growth of superstition and puerile mysticism. The mosques stood unfrequented and ruinous, deserted by the ignorant multitude which, decked out in amulets, charms and rosaries, listened to the squalid faqirs or dervishes and went on pilgrimage to the tombs of the "holy men" worshiped as saints an intercessors. As for the moral precepts of the Quran, they were ignored or defied. Even the holy cities were the holes of inequity. In fact, the life had apparently gone out of Islam. Could Muhammad return to earth, he would unquestionably have anathematized his followers as apostates and idolaters."

It's no wonder these "majority" made the devil out of ibn abdul wahab and his movement, it stood for the Islam of the Prophet and against everything they were doing, from prostitutes and alcohol to saint worship.

Brothers, it's a bit hypocritical if you accuse Sufis and that "deviated majority" of ignorance and bias and simultaneously do not fall in any doubts while coming up with books printed by the Saudi Dawah Ministery that bases its claims on the records of Western disbelievers...

It is an overly great word to claim that the holy cities were filled with prostitutes, homosexuals and drunkards...

So actually you are just saying, "they were apostates, so their killing and pillage was justified."

 

[Misbah-Abd]

There is a Turkish scholar-researcher who has a video series on the Wahhabi idea, in which he directly quotes from their own books. His name is Ebu Bekir Sifil.

As for my quote, it is not of an ordinary follower. Like I mentioned in my earlier post that you quoted here, he is from Najd and a supporter of Ibn Abdulwahhab who was considered a scholar among the Wahhabis of the First Saudi Dynasty. Then, ordinary people would not write any books those days... And the book was printed in Saudi-Arabia. So, Wahhabis themselves admit how they treated the Muslims; slaughtering them and looting their wealth. I did not really understand what disturbs you in this narration, do you doubt its authenticity? If you would do any research on primary sources, instead of sticking to biographies of Ibn Abdulwahhab, you would see that most Wahhabis are not bothered with such narrations and actions, because they regard the ordinary non-Wahhabi Muslim as disbelievers... You can observe this in Saudi state laws.

***





Brothers, it's a bit hypocritical if you accuse Sufis and that "deviated majority" of ignorance and bias and simultaneously do not fall in any doubts while coming up with books printed by the Saudi Dawah Ministery that bases its claims on the records of Western disbelievers...

It is an overly great word to claim that the holy cities were filled with prostitutes, homosexuals and drunkards...

So actually you are just saying, "they were apostates, so their killing and pillage was justified."

If I quoted followers of the Shiekh then you would say they have a bias. I quoted Westerners because they don't have a horse in the race and were eye witnesses. Do you have eye witness evidence to the contrary? But it doesn't surprise me of this type of reaction.

 

[Yahya.]

If I quoted followers of the Shiekh then you would say they have a bias. I quoted Westerners because they don't have a horse in the race and were eye witnesses. Do you have eye witness evidence to the contrary? But it doesn't surprise me of this type of reaction.

Look my previous post:

There are some chronicles written by Ibn Abdulwahhab's followers themselves, like Unwanul majd fi tarikhi Najd by Ibn Bishr an-Najdi. He openly explains how they treated the people of the places they conquered. For example in the year of 1216 H. (1802), they conquered Taif, and in page 260 (Arabic version) he says: "Allah conquered it [Taif] for them in coercion without a fight, people of the city were killed in markets and houses, some two hundreds were killed from them." Is this how Muslims are treated? And this is just what's narrated in this book...

 

[Misbah-Abd]

Look my previous post:

There are some chronicles written by Ibn Abdulwahhab's followers themselves, like Unwanul majd fi tarikhi Najd by Ibn Bishr an-Najdi. He openly explains how they treated the people of the places they conquered. For example in the year of 1216 H. (1802), they conquered Taif, and in page 260 (Arabic version) he says: "Allah conquered it [Taif] for them in coercion without a fight, people of the city were killed in markets and houses, some two hundreds were killed from them." Is this how Muslims are treated? And this is just what's narrated in this book...

So you want to condemn a man for something that his followers did 10 years after his death? How is he personally responsible for that? And I really would like to see all the details of this incident before commenting. Allah will judge those who treated innocent Muslims harshly. But if this is you line of thinking and condemnation then you must really despise Abu Bakr r.a., and Salahudin. You see, there are times when commanding the right and forbidding the wrong can be achieved with dawah and other times the sword is necessary. For instance, Abdullah ibn Abbas r.a. was able to go into the Khawraj camp and use dawah and the correct interpretation of the Quran to win over some of their soldiers before they fought Ali r.a. On the other hand, Abu Bakr was firm and unleashed the Sword of Allah, Khalid bin Waleed r.a., on tribes who refused to pay the zakat. They said there is no god but Allah, they prayed, but they didn't want to pay zakat. He brought them back forcefully until they seen the errors of their ways and the strength of the Caliphate. Salahudin was not able to effectively expel the Crusaders out of Jerusalem and its vicinity because the Shiites and the Muslim governors in the area of Ash Sham were putting their whims and desires first and colluding with the Christians to preserve their control. So Salahudin had to eradicate the Fatimid Caliphate in Egypt and fight the Muslim governors by laying siege to their cities until they submitted under the banner of Islam. Then Salahudin was able to expel the Crusaders out of Jerusalem. So is this how Muslims are treated? Sometimes yes because Islam comes before Muslims and sometimes the sword has to be used to get those people under the Tawheed of Islam. And Allah Knows Best.

- - - Updated - - -

There is a lot of misinformation out there concerning the sheikh. But I also believe that the modern Saudi state contradicts some of his teachings and could very well violate some of his 10 nullifiers of Islam even though they claim they are followers of his.

 

[JustTime]

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" is a term used by extremely uneducated individuals who believe they sound smart while using it, Wahab is one of Allah's 99 names and using it in a derogatory fashion is nothing less than Haram, but indeed I am a follower of the most generous and therefore a Wahhabi, for taking from the knowledge of al-Wahab, Allah.

- - - Updated - - -

They were the ISIS of the Ottoman Empire two hundred years ago. Ibn Abdulwahhab declared jihad against the Khalifa at the end of his life. His sons took action. They gathered an army of bedouins ,terrorized the Arabian Peninsula, invaded Iraq and killed thousands of innocent Shias and were finally executed by the Sultan. They started with mischief and continue with mischief.

The "Ottoman Khilafah" wasn't even valid, and by all Islamic standards they were indeed guilty of various forms of Bidah and Shirk, as well as their tyranny against Muslims, this Romanticized view of the Ottomans that plagues many is extremely distorted.

 

[azc]

[MENTION=42446]Misbah-Abd[/MENTION]:

Whole blocks of Mecca belonged to prostitutes, who even paid a tax on their occupation. Homosexuality was widespread. Alcohol was sold almost at the gate of the Kaba and drunkenness was not uncommon.

It's disgusting...!

How can you even imagine that imams of haramain sharifain and Arab and non Arab ulama who would visit haramain for haj and umrah remained silent nor they mentioned all these sinning in their books,

it's a big lie on the ulama and all Muslims. You only want to defend ibn abdulwahab and his party. You have no shame making these disgusting allegation on pious Muslims

 

[Misbah-Abd]

@Misbah-Abd:



It's disgusting...!

How can you even imagine that imams of haramain sharifain and Arab and non Arab ulama who would visit haramain for haj and umrah remained silent nor they mentioned all these sinning in their books,

it's a big lie on the ulama and all Muslims. You only want to defend ibn abdulwahab and his party. You have no shame making these disgusting allegation on pious Muslims

These were eye witness accounts. So show evidence to the contrary if you can. You can also read Ibn Jawzi's Tablis Iblis and he recounts the same type of debauchery in his time from those misguided and deviant sufi's 800 years earlier.

 

[azc]

These were eye witness accounts. So show evidence to the contrary if you can. You can also read Ibn Jawzi's Tablis Iblis and he recounts the same type of debauchery in his time from those misguided and deviant sufi's 800 years earlier.

Show me the prove from the books of the contemporary scholars of ibn abdulwahab that imam haramain sharafian and other scholars even common Muslims tolerated prostitution, homosexuality, drinking in pious cities...

Can you tolerate all this sinning....?

It's only an effort to justify the killing of innocent people in Arab perpetrated by wahabi insurgents.

- - - Updated - - -

Some of the contemporary scholars of his age:

Moroccan scholar, Ahmad ibn Idris, studied in Mecca and later established an independent state, run by religious leaders, in Asir province, to the south of Mecca.

Shah Wali Ullah, the outstanding Islamic thinker of India, studied in the Hijaz in the early eighteenth century. His teachers were Sheikh Abu Tahir Muhammad Bin Ibraheem Kurdi Madani, Sheikh Wafadullah Maliki Makki, Sheikh Tajuddin Hanafi Qalaei Makki

Shariat Allah, the founder of the Fara'idiya, a fundamentalist movement in Bengal, studied in Mecca for twenty years before returning home and agitating for fundamentalist goals.

Abd ar-Ra'uf as-Sinkili studied for nineteen years in Arabia before going back to Indonesia and spreading a Neo-Sufi order.

Abd as-Samad al-Palimbani studied and taught in Mecca before he too returned to Indonesia to propagate a brotherhood.

- - - Updated - - -

Some other scholars of 17th and 18th century but none of them mentioned all this in their books.

*. Abd al-Ghani al-Nabulsi
*. Abul Hassan Sagheer Sindhi
*. Al-Barzanjī
*. Sulayman Bal
*. Fatima al-Fudayliya
*. Subhan Ali Khan Kamboh
*. Liu Zhi (scholar)
*. Mirza Mazhar Jan-e-Janaan
*. Muhammad Baqir Behbahani
*. Muhammad Hayyat ibn Ibrahim al-Sindhi
*. Abdul Hakim Sialkoti
*. Abu'l-Mawahib al-Shinnawi
*. Mir Mukhtar Akhyar
*. Nuruddin ar-Raniri
*. Bahā al-dīn al-Āmilī
*. Seyyed Hashem Bahrani
*. Al-Bahūtī
*. Bari Imam
*. Hazrat Ishaan
*. Ismail Hakki Bursevi
*. Jana Begum
*. Mohsen Fayz Kashani
*. Khayr al-Din al-Ramli
*. Mirza Sayyed Hasan
*. Mohammad-Baqer Majlesi
*. Mustafa Devati
*. Osman Fazli
*. Qazi Sa’id Qumi
*. Mulla Sadra
*. Seyyed Nematollah Jazayeri
*. Shah Abdur Rahim
*. Sultan Bahu
*. Rajab Ali Tabrizi
*shah Rafiuddin
* shah Abdulaziz
* Firangi Mehhli