Saddam Hussein

format_quote Originally Posted by Zzz_

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.

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.

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.

format_quote Originally Posted by Zzz_

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...2F1ZGlfU3RhdGU

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

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."

format_quote Originally Posted by Zzz_

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."

format_quote Originally Posted by Zzz_

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.

***

format_quote Originally Posted by 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.' "

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."

format_quote Originally Posted by Zzz_

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."

format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya.

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.

format_quote Originally Posted by Misbah-Abd

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...

format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya.

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.

format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya.

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 - - -

format_quote Originally Posted by 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.

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.

format_quote Originally Posted by azc

@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.