format_quote Originally Posted by
Yahya.
1) Methodology of the Wahhabi movement in fighting bidah - takfir then slaughter
Actually I did not want to express any condemnation of Ibn Abdulwahhab. For, honestly I do not have certain knowledge on his teachings. I can merely judge on what his followers did, and they are but attributed to him - that's not really my fault. We where talking on Saddam Hussein and the post-Saddam conditions in Iraq. And my main concern was to touch upon the great similarities between the Islamic State in Iraq (ISI) and the early Wahhabi movement, as they carry the same mentality and methodology. To me, I cannot say anything concerning the question whether these ideas did really emanate from him, or if it was just misinterpreted by his followers. And nor is that any concern for me, because there is no benefit in accusing dead people. Only the Wahhabi mentality concerns me; takfir on Muslims, massacring/slaughtering them and looting their goods, attacking people and running away to let the remaining Muslims bear the burden. You may call it something else, it does not really matter. But if we follow the course of this idea, it may be helpful in exploring its causes...
As for using the sword. Abu Bakr (r.a.) unleashed the sword and eliminated those who transgressed against the authority of Muslims and caused fitnah (here strife-kufr) between the Muslims. Furthermore, the fight between different Muslim dynasties was just as you have described, a fight between armies and forts. Did Salahuddin slaughter the Muslims of Egypt in the markets and in their houses? That is exactly what the Wahhabis did, as the Najdi Ibn Bishr has described in plain Bedouin accent. This can only indicate that they were viewing single Muslims as disbelievers, not a particular city-collective that exclaimed its riddah by rejecting zakat or prayer. And if this analogy had been valid, that would mean the Hejaz just left Islam... I understand your loathing of bidah, which I, and every truthful Muslim shares, but that does not mean that we should just start a movement, enter cities and kill those who partake in bidahs. This exactly what's meant by "takfir due to major sins", which is not from the methodology of Ahl as-Sunnah, but rather an ill concept of deviated extremist sects like Kharijis, and obviously Wahhabis.
As we all here do not have profound historical knowledge on the events, maybe it would be better to just talk about actions and manner beyond their perpetrators? And that was actually my main intention when addressing this topic. Historical movements and people themselves do not concern me personally, only their remnants and influence on the present do.
2) Wahhabi movement - Ottoman Khilafa relations
a- If you have read my previous posts, I responded to the claim that one is supposedly talking about Allah when using the word Wahhabi. It is a coined term, it is not a conventional Arabic word. We are talking about the Wahhabi movement, not about al-Wahhab, subhanahu wa ta'ala. Instead of derailing the topic, concentrate on the core...
b- As for the Ottoman Khilafah, you would have to explain what you mean by valid. I admit that they had fallen into many illegitimate actions, but my main concern is not a rebellion against an unjust imam, though it is regarded contra-productive by most scholars, but rather the manner how the Wahhabi movement treated ordinary Muslim living in the Ottoman Khilafah, and with with they had replaced that order, a just one? Then, agreeing to the scholars, they contributed to a major mafsadah by this rebellion, as they opened another front against the Muslims contemporaneous to the attacks of the disbelievers. And if an actual collaboration can be proofed, as what is claimed for the "later Wahhabis", this would be a grave error; allying with disbelievers against Muslims. But of course, people carrying the Wahhabi mentality will choose the exit door and claim that the Ottomans were, beyond unjust leaders, apostates... why not?
3) Disgusting conditions in the holy haram ash sharif
As you admitted yourself, your source is forwarding the accounts of Western travelers, and in Islam the witness of disbelievers is not accepted. As for Ibn Qayyim rahimahullah, did he mention the holy lands particularly in his work? And did he particularly talk about fornication and homosexuality?
Moreover, it is very disrespectful and irrational to build ones claims around a false target and then attach every evil to them... You are talking as if everyone else beside Salafis /"Wahhabis" were "Sufis", which is a very vague term also. As if the Muslim world was divided into two parts, where the people in Najd where the only righteous people adhering to the true belief, and every others from Istanbul to Delhi deviant Sufis. This has actually been the premise for the bloodshed of Muslims by people carrying this mentality. You may not precisely consider it like this, but this lies in the unconscious. Wallahu a'lam. Anyway, if you have any claims, please state them in particular instead of attaching everything to the "deviant Sufi" dummy.
Bookmarks