Whatever, Abu. Bring it.
Posted on 05/25/2005 10:16:30 AM PDT by quidnunc
The words are chilling, especially to non-Muslim ears.
"(We) will pursue this evil force to its own lands, invade its Western heartland and struggle to overcome it until all the world shouts by the name of the Prophet, and the teachings of Islam spread throughout the world."
This missive, found in a Houston mosque, was identified by the Washington-based human rights organization Freedom House as an example of Wahhabism, a fundamentalist Muslim philosophy that is the state religion of Saudi Arabia.
Outside that country, Wahhabism is often regarded as an extremist interpretation of Islam that calls for the violent defeat of the world’s non-Muslims. It is invoked by Osama bin Laden and other terrorists as the theological basis for their jihad, and some say that it is the religious foundation for Islamic terrorism.
Islamic scholars have a different view. They say today’s Wahhabism is a mutation of the movement’s founding principles, and that it must be understood in its historical context, from its founding in the 18th century up to its controversial status today.
"I do not believe in a Wahhabi conspiracy that is going to kill us in our beds," said Hamid Algar, a professor of Islamic studies at the University of California at Berkeley.
Princeton historian Bernard Lewis, a highly respected scholar of Islam, has likened Saudi Arabia’s exportation of modern-day Wahhabism to a hypothetical situation Americans can more easily understand. "Imagine that the Ku Klux Klan gets total control of the state of Texas," Lewis told Princeton’s Alumni Weekly. "And the Ku Klux Klan has at its disposal all the oil rigs in Texas.
"And they use this money to set up a well-endowed network of colleges and schools throughout Christendom, peddling their peculiar brand of Christianity. You would then have an approximate equivalent of what has happened in the modern Muslim world."
Unlike Wahhabist teachings today, the founder of Wahhabism, Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, did not direct his interpretation of the religion at non-Muslims at all. Instead, he criticized Shiite Muslims for what al-Wahhab believed was a violation of the basic principle of monotheism.
Shiite Muslims believe that 12 imams, or spiritual leaders, were direct descendants of the prophet Muhammad who had the ability to interpret the Koran infallibly. The tombs of those imams are revered as holy sites and visited by Shiite pilgrims. A major difference in belief between Shiite Muslims and Sunni Muslims, which include Wahhabis, is that Sunnis believe that Muhammad was the only human being who could infallibly interpret scripture.
Al-Wahhab taught that these core Shiite beliefs constituted idolatry because, he said, Shiite Muslims pray to the 12 imams instead of directly to God. But Berkeley’s Algar says that al-Wahhab "mistook intercessors for worship," meaning that Shiites pray to God through the imams and not to the imams themselves.
Wahhabists are known for "litmus tests of belief," said Muqtedar Khan, a professor at Adrian College in Michigan. For Wahhabi Muslims, the central issue is the belief in uncompromised monotheism. "If you don’t believe in that, they question whether you are a good Muslim or a Muslim at all," Khan said.
Wahhabism does not, however, inherently lead to violence, Khan said. "It is not just Wahhabism that has led to the emergence of al-Qaida." Instead, he said, "Wahhabi intolerance, when combined with Cold War geopolitics, created terrorist jihadism."
Islamic scholars say the initial focus of Wahhabi theology was those inside the religion, not outside it.
"Wahhabism at its first emergence was a movement directed not against non-Muslims, but against other Muslims who they regarded as apostates, traitors to the faith," said Algar.
Wahhabism’s anti-Western message really began to take shape during the 1940s, he says, when American forces were first stationed on the Arabian Peninsula, which by that time was controlled by the Saudi family with Wahhabism adopted as the state religion.
During the first Gulf War, tensions heightened, and through "the force of circumstance," according to Algar, bin Laden emerged in Saudi Arabia, citing Wahhabism as his theological foundation.
But Algar is troubled, he says, that today, "any Muslim that is seen to be in any way hostile to American policies is labeled as Wahhabi." He called the Freedom House report, which chronicled more than 200 Saudi-connected Wahhabist documents discovered in U.S. mosques, a "malicious" attempt to overestimate the importance of Wahhabism in the American Muslim community.
"As someone who frequents mosques, I can tell you this is not the case."
So what should one make of Saudi-sponsored Wahhabism? Is it true to what the movement’s founder taught?
Al-Wahhab’s teachings have historically been adopted to fit political movements of various periods, says Natana DeLong-Bas, a visiting professor at Brandeis University who studied al-Wahhab’s complete theological writings extensively in their original Arabic over four years.
For example, she cites the common criticism today that Wahhabism oppresses women, given that women in Saudi Arabia are not permitted to drive cars. Al-Wahhab himself, she says, "was supportive of the concept that there be a balance in rights between men and women" including access to religious education, and even the right to initiate divorce.
Today’s understanding of Wahhabism on both women’s issues and anti-Western sentiment, DeLong-Bas believes, is actually a "mutation" of al-Wahhab’s teachings that stems more from the medieval scholar Ibn Taymiyya than the writings of the founder of the movement.
During the Mongol invasion of the Middle East and the Christian Crusades of the medieval period, she explains, Ibn Taymiyya, whom bin Laden has referenced in his public statements, advocated armed resistance.
According to DeLong-Bas, "Al-Wahhab did not allow aggressive military action. Ibn Taymiyya did. The crusaders were to be fought as infidels."
Whatever, Abu. Bring it.
Hardly what I would call a mutation... "Moderates" are the mutation.
The author misunderstands the situation.
Wahhabism and the Islam practiced by the Shiite Ayatollahs of Iran are very similar. All they are is an attempt to follow Islam as Muhammad practiced it.
Trying to say Wahhabism is an aberration is just wrong. It is simply Islam as Muhammad practiced it.
Online books:
http://www.faithfreedom.org/library.htm
The one consolation I have about or illegal immigration situation is that at least our immigrants are, for the most part, Christians from Mexico. This was written at a Houston mosque- can you imagine the chaos we would have if there were Muslim countries in Latin America?
Poor Europe gets most of its cheap labor for Muslim countries, and they are having serious problems. Some folks are emigrating from Holland because of the Muslims.
Our situation could be worse ...
Which is traditional Mohammedan teaching and practice. The Mohammedans didn't conquer two-thirds of the Christian world by force of argument.
Well, that's a relief. There for a moment I thought they did things like fly hijacked airliners into buildings, but Hamid here set me straight. What was I thinking?
The difference is that Americans would actively oppose the KKK rather than sit around discussing whether or not they represent true Christianity.
I learn to understand it in the early afternoon of 9/11/01
Yeppers...those dang crusaders stole Europe right from under the poor muzzies...and then chased them all the way back to their desert kingdoms attenuating them sufficiently that we havent seen their murders, rapes,and evangelicalism by terror in the west till recently..
interesting, yes Ibn Tamiyaa was Wahhab's inspiration, he was a 12th century Islamic scholar who was apparently ridiculed at the time for his viewpoints, Ibn Tamiyaa is indeed the fav scholar for both Osama Bin Laden and more importantly Sheikh Azzam, because Azzam's theory of global jihad shaped Bin Laden and Al Zawahiri's philosophy, in fact Ayman was a student of Sheikh Azzam - anyone want interesting reading, if you can find the English translation of Azzam's writings, it explains everything.....
there are two obligations of jihad, one is compulsory, one is only if other Muslims call for your help, and in either case it is the duty of every man woman and child and Azzam goes so far as to say any woman or child does not need the permission of the husband or parent to go fight jihad if it is a compulsory duty
he says in one essay, if all Muslims had been true to their faith and every man, woman and child had descended on Israel in 1948, there would be no Israel, ironically however Azzam is the one who appointed Afghanistan as the compulsory jihad because he said it was clear that between Israel and Afghanistan the need was greater and the possibility for victory was greater in Afghanistan, in other words Azzam recognized that Israel is a formidable foe
now the thing is the reason Wahhabism took off was the alliance between the House of Saud and Abu Wahhab and his followers
and frankly I've read a more cynical version of why Wahhabism took off
essentially it was this - the House of Saud wanted to conquer Arabia, Islamic rules of warfare state you cannot attack other Muslims unless they attack you first or they are apostates, in other words bad Muslims, this posed a religious problem for the politically and greed motivated House of Saud
my understanding was that Wahhabi declared that all unbelievers were attackable/killable and that Muslims who were not good enough were therefore infidels and therefore attackable
the House of Saud saw a way around their problem (and in fact were not a religious lot even back then by any means) but made an alliance with Wahhab in order that they could conquer Arabia in return for allowing Wahhab's version of Islam to be the religion of the land
this allowed the House of Saud not only to challenge Shia Muslims but other Sunni Muslims - for example the Hashemites, a Sunni tribe, was pushed out of the area, right on up to Jordan, as a matter of fact, I suspect any Jews still living in Arabia at that time were also driven out, because that is also part of the Wahhabi credo that the Arab penisula be free of all infidels, Jews and Christians, even though they are people of the book, I need to read up on how Wahhab deals with the contradictions in the Koran about the people of the book.......
whether Wahhab got this from Tamiyaa or came out with it himself, he was certainly known for not being at all flexible, and he was known for being petty and fanatic that every rule and sub rule of the Koran and hadith be followed to the letter and it was he that introduced harsher and harsher penalties for failure to comply....
of course it took about 150 years for the Saud Wahhab alliance to triumph, in 1931, with the help of the British I might add
it is interesting some Sunnis think the Wahhabis are Shaytan or devils -hundreds of thousands of Sunnis let alone Shias were killed in the battle to control Arabia
I've also read a Sunni website that claims the Wahhabis were a British Zionist conspiracy to destroy Islam, just as Shiites are a Zionist conspiracy to destroy Islam, LOL
but the hatred is quite palpable between some Sunnis and Wahhabis, let alone Wahhabis and Shias......
the Ku Klux Klan analogy is apt, I recall in the early days after 9-11 when I knew little about Islam let alone Wahhabism, I found an article by a Muslim entitled, Wahhabis, the Ku Klux Klan of Islam, and that solidified the notion of what the Wahhabis are - the problem is of course that the Saudi took their petrodollars and have been systematically trying to infect all of Islam with Wahhabism,
including North American mosques.....
I also noted that since it was asserted that the Wahhabis think they are the chosen people of Allah, that arguable the Wahhabis are the Jehovah Witnesses of Islam as well
"Wahhabism’s anti-Western message really began to take shape during the 1940s, he says, when American forces were first stationed on the Arabian Peninsula, which by that time was controlled by the Saudi family with Wahhabism adopted as the state religion."
The Wahhabists were in power long before the U.S. got involved with the oil deposits in Arabia.
And the Saud family was helped in its conquest of the Arabian Penninsula by Wahhabist fanatics. They are wedded together in a death embrace.
And long before Wahhabism targeted non-Muslims, its lunatic fanaticism surfaced. Thousands and thousands of non-Wahhabi Muslims, including non-Wahhabi Sunnis, Shhites and Sufis were massacred when the Wahhabists and their Saudi strongmen allies took over Arabia, and the Islamic holy sites there.
Wahhabism is totally evil, totally intolerant, totally inhuman, totally anti-female, and has been so since its inception by the lunatic mentioned in this article.
Nor was Wahhabism the ONLY radical movement of this type to rise in Islam. This phenomenon has a peridocity in Islam. One need only look to the Al Moravids in Spain and north Africa in the Middle Ages.
I've heard a few other quiet reports that the Dutch are beginning to recognize what their "we tolerate everyone and everything" philosophy has wrought. I'm not personally concerned about whether Wahabbism is original Islam, a recent development, a mutation, etc. All non-Muslim nations that want to retain their own culture and religion must wake up to the threat of Islamic-extremist immigration.
"Princeton historian Bernard Lewis, a highly respected scholar of Islam, has likened Saudi Arabia’s exportation of modern-day Wahhabism to a hypothetical situation Americans can more easily understand. "Imagine that the Ku Klux Klan gets total control of the state of Texas," Lewis told Princeton’s Alumni Weekly. "And the Ku Klux Klan has at its disposal all the oil rigs in Texas."
What an ass!
Put your mind at ease, Algar. I believe I speak for many in FR when I say that we don't label "hostile" Muslims as Wahhabi Muslims -- we just call 'em Muslims.
well Abu Wahhab says his school of thought is the definitive school of thought, just like the Jehovah Witness think their version of Christianity is the right way, is it?
speak to a Sufi scholar and he can tear apart the Wahhabis and why they aren't following the Koran etc......keeping in mind that Babba Zee has already forewarned that even Sufi scholars are to taken with some skepticism [the Taqiyaa]
but clearly Islam was different before Wahhab developed his own school of thought because many Arabs opposed his efforts and Wahhabism didn't grow really until those petrodollars started flowing - Bernard Lewis does have a theory though- he says take the Arab humilation at watching the Ottoman Empire crumbling, suffering under colonialism, watching the Europeans beginning to surpass the formerly great Islamic Empire in all things - as a people, you have two responses - either you figure out what the other guy is doing right, and try to do it better or you turn inwards, thinking God is punishing us for being bad so we must become better Muslims, therefore the appeal of fundamentalism, of course what Lewis says is the Muslim's chose the wrong door because as a result the Islamic world only falls further and further behind and becomes more and more frustrated.....all prime recruitment for Islamist terrorists.....who want to take Islam all the way back.....to the 7th century......one suspects however even in Mohammad's day, Islam was not as strict as practiced by the Wahhabis, it could not have been or the Islamic Empire would not have reached the heights that it did.......
there are four schools of thought in Sunni Islam alone, more in Shia
yes the Iranian Mullahs have the same concepts politically and to some extent religiously but there are some big variations between Shiite and Sunni, big,
like the whole concept of temporary marriages - it is just an excuse to have sex before marriage
if anyone has read Ayatollah Khomeini's writings, a lot of sexual perversion seems to be "allowed" in Shia as practiced in Iran
the Iraqi Shias are a different sect than Iranian Shias, even some Iraqi Shias don't approve of some practices of Iranian Shias for example, Iraqi Shias actually have it in their sect that clerics should not hold political office, [it is unseemly and hey, they have a great point] that is why Sistani does not believe in a theocracy......
I remember reading as well that the Wahhabis and the Mullahs both believe in the Global Ummah but they have different ways of achieving it, I cannot remember now how it was different, in any event where they truly differ of course is the Wahhabis believe in the Sunni Ummah and the Mullahs in the Shia Ummah, so if it ever comes to that, that will be a fun conflagration - Shia vs Sunni, the Shia are outnumbered but frankly they seem to have more passion....put your bets down......
the key however to the expansion of Islamist terrorism some opine is that the Shia and Sunni terrorist crowds have for the most part come to a understanding that it is better for them to fight vs the West and in particular US and Israel together rather than each other, United We Stand, Divided We Fall, and I think that helped the Global Jihad Movement grow during the 1990's.....they figure let's get rid of our enemies first, we'll fight later about whose going to prevail in the Global Ummah later.......
You might try reading Dore Gold's book (former Israeli UN Advisor and current lecturer for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.) The name of the book is "Hatred's Kingdom", and is the most thorough research that I have ever read on Wahabbism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.