Counter-ideology for Wahhabis

[Fracker]

The first time the word "Wahabi" used by britishers (in 19th century, while abdul wahab died in 16th century), when Syed muhammad who returned from KSA after his Hajj declare jihaad against British rule. He killed by britishers, then British Government arrested many people who was looking to attack British and name all as "Wahabi". To tackle this problem Britishers promote Ghulam Ahmed Gadiyani. Again, secound time Britisher tag "Wahabi" to the Saud family who started independence struggle after Ottoman empire was captured by British and Frenchs.

Arabs are mostly Salafs (ahl-e-hadith) and hannbali, both are the part of Sunnism of Islam. Since they follow Imams of sunnis. Most of the western countries when try to degrade saudi authorities they call them "Wahabism" (while Abdul Wahab never been a scholar only his son Muhammad was). Now a days, muslims also follow same trend since muslims love to follow what westerns does..

 

[Comet]

One thing I want to clear: when ever Taliban, Al-Qaeda, LeT, JM etc etc are mentioned. The tag of Wahabism is associated with them.
I don't know about others, but Taliban are certainly not from Wahabi school of thought. They follow Hanafi school of thought.

 

[All-Green]

where and how this ideology came about is debatable and as far as l,m concerned not very important. Even the salafis (wahabis) can be split into two.
Of which the saudi salafis are of concern. You see who brought these people to the realms of power. You have to look back to the times of how the turkish caliphate and Islam as a one ummah was destroyed by arab nationalism (l,m talking about the middle east).
A famous man called Lawerence "of arabia" was sent by the british to cause un uprising among the arabs so that the middle east could be divided. The saud tribe which was a bedouin goat herding tribe was the first to sell it,s soul to the british master, they were also known to rob hajis (pilgrims) on the way to the holy lands. This tribe and their version of salafi ideology was promoted above all others in Arabia, they became kings from goat herders and even went on to name the country after themselves Saud e arabia which in fact was called hijaz.
The salafi ideology was suited initially to the west as a passive docile form of islam. The tables turned mainly around the Afghan soviet war era, where the saudi salafis declared a jihad on the communists in conjunction with the endorsement of the jihad by uncle sam himself. It was thought by uncle SAM that once these radicalised young jihadis finished with the soviets they would return home and over throw their Arab leaders and democracy would prevail in the muslim world. Well how wrong they were.
You now have one big sh.t sandwich which was well funded by the yanks, created by the british and now used by rich deviant arabs. Well it,s now time for the masters to take a bite of this sandwich.

Note one thing, it was the Islamic revolution carried out by House of Saud in alliance with Abdul Wahab which started the Arab-Ottoman Split in 18th century...this started the collapse of the Ottomans.
As per the rebel Arabs in the 18th Century, the Turkish Sultanate was not following the correct Islamic principles...I guess the actors are different but this story is repeating itself now....

Nationalism is not such a threat to Islam as some scholars and militant groups want us to believe, the threat is the abuse of Islam to claim political power and the abuse of Islam to label a Muslim as Kafir...
Military Jihad is for self defense or to fight those nations which do not allow the Muslims to live their lives according to Islam and instead persecute them... by virtue of this, in a Muslim majority country it is quite retarded to start an anti State civil war and name it Jihad, a country which is majority Muslim clearly does not stop anyone from following Islam...

The abuse of Islam to be used as purely political tool instead of focusing on Islamic reform and peaceful projection of Islamic values has caused a severe crisis in the Muslim countries...

It is the political mistrust and the difference in Islamic interpretation and the dislike that results from these aspects which always hinders the much demanded alliance of Muslim nations in any useful capacity...it is not nationalism alone which is the real cause of the split...
This dislike has only increased by the stance of certain sects to blame others as non Muslims over small things...
As long as a Muslim believes in the very basic tenets of Islam, he cannot be labeled a non Muslim.

I do not think Americans thought anything beyond the defeat of Soviet Union, does not seem to be the case...it certainly was not in overwhelming US interest to deal with democratic Arab countries since democracies are not easily swayed...so i really think there was no deliberate intent on part of US to promote democracy in Arab world via Afghan Jihad...

 

[All-Green]

The first time the word "Wahabi" used by britishers (in 19th century, while abdul wahab died in 16th century), when Syed muhammad who returned from KSA after his Hajj declare jihaad against British rule. He killed by britishers, then British Government arrested many people who was looking to attack British and name all as "Wahabi". To tackle this problem Britishers promote Ghulam Ahmed Gadiyani. Again, secound time Britisher tag "Wahabi" to the Saud family who started independence struggle after Ottoman empire was captured by British and Frenchs.

Arabs are mostly Salafs (ahl-e-hadith) and hannbali, both are the part of Sunnism of Islam. Since they follow Imams of sunnis. Most of the western countries when try to degrade saudi authorities they call them "Wahabism" (while Abdul Wahab never been a scholar only his son Muhammad was). Now a days, muslims also follow same trend since muslims love to follow what westerns does..

A correction here my friend, Muhammad ibn 'Abd Al-Wahhab lived in 18th Century and the House of Saud started their campaign in defiance of Ottomans in the same century...

There was agreement between Ibn Saud and ibn 'Abd Al-Wahhab that he will support their cause if they promise to implement his interpretation of Islam which he believed was the return to the right values and a purge of the various innovations which had nothing to do with Islam...
This was a marriage of necessity...
Muhammad ibn 'Abd Al-Wahhab was not liked by many for his tough purgatory actions in which he went overboard...he started from Uyanya which was his birthplace, this town was the site of past battle between the Muslims and the Apostates right after the passing away of Prophet Muhammad PBUH.
He ordered the the leveling of the tomb of Hazrat Zaid bin Khattab RA (brother of Hazrat Umar bin Khattab) who was martyred when commanding his troops against the apostates, this site was revered by many who came to pay their respect to this great Muslim Sahabi.
Muhammad ibn 'Abd Al-Wahhab was made to flee when the neighboring tribes and leaders became hostile to him...

He needed to form an alliance to survive and propagate his views and found a willing partner in the house of Ibn Saud whose brothers had studied under Muhammad ibn 'Abd Al-Wahhab and introduced the two men.

The campaign of the House of Saud to gain control of present day Saudi Arab spans well over a century...

 

[Coolyo]

One thing I want to clear: when ever Taliban, Al-Qaeda, LeT, JM etc etc are mentioned. The tag of Wahabism is associated with them.
I don't know about others, but Taliban are certainly not from Wahabi school of thought. They follow Hanafi school of thought.

Incorrect, the Taliban are hardcore Salafi/Wahabi extremists... Some are also quite conservative Deobandis (which are basically a lighter form of Salafis, but non the less still Salafis/Wahabis)!

The Hanafi madhab is not a sect in Islam, it is a school of thought. Wahabism is a sect, and not a school of thought! Learn the difference, and stop making stuff up.

There are only 4 (Sunni) schools of thoughts in Islam: Hanafi, Shafi, Malaki, and Hanbali.

Sects do not constitute these schools of thoughts...

 

[EjazR]

Well according to your definition Coolyo, even Deobandis are a school of though and I would agree with you on that, and same applies for Salafis. We may have difference of opinions among schools of thought but there is nothing that should cause them to fight or condemn each other with fake accusations. There are extremists in every school of thought and these should be neutralised and foster a healthy appreciation of each others viewpoint. Besides 90-95% of practices are common among most of these schools

A deobandi can actually follow any Imam, Hanafi, shafaee e.t.c. Basically any graduate who studies the dars-e-nizami as per the Deoband pattern would be a Deobandi. Do the the vast majority of madrassas in NWFP, FATA and Pakistan Kashmir follow the dars-e-nizami? The answer is no. The just rely on Quran memorization and arms training and indoctrination.

The original Deoband universities and scholars in India have already condemned Taliban style sharia and their activities as early as the late 90s. The salafi scholars have also condemned OBL and his AQ. Why do you think he ran to Afghanistan as early as 95? Because he was a wanted man in Saudi Arabia and would be beheaded if he steps his foot there.

 

[logic]

It was IBN WAHAB NAJDI that proclaimed the fellow Muslims as kafir thus laying the foundations of Modern Saudi Arabia.

It was the NAJDI philosophy that calls the vast majority of Muslims as MUSHRIK.

We can follow these Najadi traits in Taliban today that use Religion as tool for political purposes.

If you read the magazine's of taliban supporters they call Pakistani people and Pakistan Army as Kuffar.

when anyone exposes there false beliefs they come with the argument of Muslim brotherhood. why don't they use the same argument and stop blowing our schools university and colleges.
On the contrary they kill our children men and women and claim responsibility for the psychotic acts too.

There is no place for these NAJDI FASCIST in Pakistan.

Maulan Diesel Jamat e Islami are agents of these NAJDI FASCITS and hence they people of Pakistan give them the same coutsey at polls that they give to taliban.

Anyone who abuses religion for gaining political power is a deviant.

DEATH TO TALIBAN there SUPPORTERS and there SYMPATHIZERS

 

[MilesTogo]

Thanks ejaz.

Let me use an anology to present my understanding.

Imagine an xyz from abc country gets inspired by reading hitler's biography and decides to conquer the world by violent means.

Now, we can not blame the book, or it's publisher or Hitler or the Germans for xyz's actions.

I think the same should apply in some sense to the current extremisim crisis. No matter where they get their inspiration from, the individuals committing the acts of violence are only to be blamed for their actions.

Moreover the best you can do to prevent more people from getting influenced by such ideas is to educate them.

May be I am over-simplifying...

Ps - it is really difficult to understand the dynamics within the Muslim world.

 

[Mercenary_ali]

It is quoted that Zia Ul Haq was the founder of extremism. Maybe true in some way but this is also true that it was a necessity of time. Time plays strange games, Zia Ul Haq was the man of the job and so he did play his part.

WAHABISM was the outcome, an outcome because of the increasing differences of opinions and thoughts and ideas. Muslims developed very different ideas at that times, The Turkish Caliphate was opposed by the Arabs because of CHEAP Funding by the authority in Turkey. Many other believes had crept into the mainstream Islamic views. It is here that SOME PEOPLE rose and created this Wahabism. In short, Wahabism was a reaction to THE peoples' increasing inclining towards unIslamic practices.

The same Thing was noticed by Shah Waliullah but he was a GREAT PERSON who did not reacted in an immodest way but rather reacted the Beliefs very Politely and tried to persuade the Muslims with Wisdom.

But, Abdul Wahab failed to do so and Contrary to the Teachings of Islam he set out to Make People follow the Teachings of Islam which in his eyes were TRUE.

Deobandi is another thing altogether, Although it can be slightly linked with REAL Salafism which is to follow the Exemplary ancestors of Islam. And This is not at all bad. This DEOBANDI movement also started as a reaction to the growing influence of Qadiyanis the peoples inclination towards un-Islamic practices(according to them). But deobandi was JUST a Movement, not EXTREMISM. THEREFORE ALLAMA IQBAL said that the "Initiation of Qadiaynism and Deboandi Movement was similar",- deobandi aur Qadiyani ka Sarchama Aik Hai. But it should be noted that Iqbal never in His Poetry FAVORED QADIYANISM OR OPPOSE DEOBANDI movement.
Syed MAududi was taught in Deobandi Madarsa . He had a Great Admiration of Imam Ayatollah Khomeini. This proves that Deobandi and Wahabism are different.--Mawlana Diesel is Fazlur Rehman and he is Lota, he is from JUI not from JI.

There s nothing BAd in being Islamist IF one uses the prorogation of his ideas via PEN. But the problem arises when YOU HAVE NO AUTHORITY and then you FORCE people to abide to the LAw, which in your eyes is correct.

The Counter Ideology to Such Militancy and Extremism can only be possible if comprises are made and people of different set of believes sit together. Te Dilemma is that there are two Extreme Points in our community in regard to Religious IDEAS and Thoughts . Things cannot work out Unless and Until the two portions reach a consensus.

There are Many other complexities which cannot be mentioned du to the fact that people do not want to go into them while that is perhaps the only way to BREAK the Wall in between.



-MAY ALLAH Guide us All in understanding the REAL Essence of Islam.

 

[EjazR]

Thanks ejaz.

Let me use an anology to present my understanding.

Imagine an xyz from abc country gets inspired by reading hitler's biography and decides to conquer the world by violent means.

Now, we can not blame the book, or it's publisher or Hitler or the Germans for xyz's actions.

I think the same should apply in some sense to the current extremisim crisis. No matter where they get their inspiration from, the individuals committing the acts of violence are only to be blamed for their actions.

Moreover the best you can do to prevent more people from getting influenced by such ideas is to educate them.

May be I am over-simplifying...

Ps - it is really difficult to understand the dynamics within the Muslim world.

It would be completely wrong to just blame Hitler for vilence caused by AQ and Taliban. They are unique in their own way although their ideology and actions may have been influenced by it. All I have done is to show that extremism and related terrorist violence is not specific among muslims alone. In each case the people promoting the ideology are different. As I mentioned earlier, Syed Qutb and probably OBL's mentor Abdullah Azzam were probably most influential.


Tackling extremism particularly related to ethnic/religious issue has some similar steps although they have to be tailored for each situation. For example how was Nazism eradicated in Germany? Or the popularity of KKK demolished in the US?

Economic development and education is necessary among the poor. Good governance and justice with redressal to griveances. Interfaith or Inter-race dialogue so that people from different can understand each other and get rid of misconceptions. And a vigorous campaign by enlightened religious scholars and media to promote peace and harmony and disprove any theological basis that AQ or TTP use for their propaganda.

I can understand the difficulty to understand dynamics particular when it comes to fringe groups and ideologies like AQ or Taliban. The problem is that most of their literature is either in Arabic and Urdu and also hard to get as it is banned in most arab countires. Hence not just non-muslims but even muslims don't know much about them.

To get a better understanding of the "dynamics" I suggest you follow some arab based media such as al-jazeera or the quite investigative alsharq al awsat http://www.asharq-e.com/ . The latter has published material from AQ archives found in computers in Afghanistan as well as former religious nationalists (aka Islamists) as well as Jihadis (some of whom are imprisioned for life) who have agreed that AQ and OBL are unintended consequences of their wrong policies. And that Syed Qutb's ideology needs to be revisited.

Bottom line is that extreme religious or ethnic nationalism should not be used as a politcal tool and should not be promoted. And this is what people need to be educated about. These groups should not be banned unless they use violence as that would radicalise them further, but their idology should be proved as to why its negative and counter to for example Islamic principles in case of AQ or TTP

 

[MilesTogo]

^^
Thanks.
Hitler was just an example.

 

[Coolyo]

It was IBN WAHAB NAJDI that proclaimed the fellow Muslims as kafir thus laying the foundations of Modern Saudi Arabia.

It was the NAJDI philosophy that calls the vast majority of Muslims as MUSHRIK.

We can follow these Najadi traits in Taliban today that use Religion as tool for political purposes.

If you read the magazine's of taliban supporters they call Pakistani people and Pakistan Army as Kuffar.

when anyone exposes there false beliefs they come with the argument of Muslim brotherhood. why don't they use the same argument and stop blowing our schools university and colleges.
On the contrary they kill our children men and women and claim responsibility for the psychotic acts too.

There is no place for these NAJDI FASCIST in Pakistan.

Maulan Diesel Jamat e Islami are agents of these NAJDI FASCITS and hence they people of Pakistan give them the same coutsey at polls that they give to taliban.

Anyone who abuses religion for gaining political power is a deviant.

DEATH TO TALIBAN there SUPPORTERS and there SYMPATHIZERS

Yes brother... It is also important to note that these guys are the revival of the Kharjis (the munafiqs and enemies of Islam, during the earlier days)!

`Kharji` literally means an `outsider,`because these kind of peoples are not considered a part of the Muslim ummah!

 

[Fracker]

There was agreement between Ibn Saud and ibn 'Abd Al-Wahhab that he will support their cause if they promise to implement his interpretation of Islam which he believed was the return to the right values and a purge of the various innovations which had nothing to do with Islam...

yes you are right, muhammad ibn abdul wahab lived in 18th century, but his father abdul wahab was in 17th century.. who never ever been a scholar.. so how come "Wahabi"? Any ways, but i have my references about when British used "wahabi" words for syed muhammad who returned from hajj in 18th century...

can you post a single historian who written anything on Muhammad ibn Abdul wahab in his life? This will also clarify my point