Sufis vs Wahhabis

This is the political doctrine of the Saudi state. When Obama goes down on King Fahd he supplicates himself to that ideology.
 
Well this again is the ultimate paradox


Wahabis are a bunch of crack smoking monkeys,,, :p

cos dontcha know?

They dont stand for any sunni inovation :eek:

under the pretense that their existance is a counter the westernism of modern sunnis,

i mean i wonder what innovation sunnis have?

irrespective of my beliefs, people of all other religions cannot deny the faKt that the shahaba were quranites.. we can argue till the cows come home that they where

"revealed at the same time" but for a bedazzling amount of historical evidence contradicts that

this is a fight against sufism because its the most liberal strain of islam..

I see no wahabis destroying al masjid al nawabi which is THE biggest count of shirk ever..

nor the black stone..

nor anything else that benifits saudi

But destroying the graves of some sufi's for idolatatory

funny that..
 
I think the sooner the oil dries up the better to be honest.

Even if you take the strictest interpretation of Islam then you could remove the decoration from graves or remove any buildings over graves (even if a mosque) but NOTHING I can find allows bodies to be dug up (unless there is a practical reason and it's done with all reverence and they are then re-buried in another plot).
 
yeh hypocrisy is worse by the so called ultra orthodox, with the most luxurious malls ever selling the top end of western consumerables and sheiks jetting off to syria for a bit of hanky panky at strip clubs for the weekend.
 
Its a sad story. Ottomans tried to eliminate Wahabbis, Wahabbis helped British eliminate Ottomans, in return British gave Sauds the most wealthy region in Arabia. Since then Sauds have used their wealth to sustain US colonisation, & inreturn got legitimacy-certificate from US. It seems US & Sauds work side by side, creating a WWE "no holds barred" drama-match everywhere, while common muslims want neither Wahhabiism nor Americocratic democracy.

The other thing they are good at is spreading a scary almost hypocritical version of islam. There is a verse in Quran that goes something like "You (Jews) enjoin righteousness upon others.....yet you forget your own selves.....& that too when you have got the book......dont you have any sense. Fits perfectly upon Sauds. I am not saying Wahhabiism is all-evil (nothing is), but the net outcome isnt good.

Anyways, the other side of the story....grave worship is an endemic among muslims, so what to do about that?
 
I see no wahabis destroying al masjid al nawabi which is THE biggest count of shirk ever..

nor the black stone..

nor anything else that benifits saudi

But destroying the graves of some sufi's for idolatatory

They dont allow any shirk in masjuid al nabvi, they did actually destroy all graves in Jannat-al-baqi, converted all old houses (Like that of Khadija) into offices, & have also closed down grave of eve in Jeddah

Black stone is different, its not worshiped. Just symbolic.
 
farhan: I see in you this tendency among the Arabs to pretend that everything is somebody else's fault. It is not true that "Wahabbis helped British eliminate Ottomans", it was the Hashemites who helped the British, then the Wahabbis threw the Hashemites out of Arabia. Britain didn't "give" the Sauds Arabia, nor were they in favor of it. The US allied with the Sauds in WWII because we needed what they had; we didn't create your crazies, we just have to deal with them.

And when you say " Black stone is different, its not worshiped. Just symbolic." this is the height of hypocrisy. This is what the Somalis would say too. It is not for you to judge others.
 
It is a clash of two ends of the same spectrum, between isham and shariah.
I don't understand. Sharia is not an ideology, so how can there be an ideological conflict involving Sharia?

Sharia is a way of developing laws, and the way this is done is regional.
 
I don't understand. Sharia is not an ideology, so how can there be an ideological conflict involving Sharia?

Sharia is a way of developing laws, and the way this is done is regional.

Forgive my misusage. Perhaps I should have stated radical shariah law? Or how would you put it?
 
Forgive my misusage. Perhaps I should have stated radical shariah law? Or how would you put it?
I would have to study the dynamics to see if any existent terminology applies. My point is not really about terminology, though. It's more about out tendency to simplify reality with language in general. We may fool ourselves into believing that if we have words for it, then we understand what's going on.

To get back to the topic, it seems to me that public attitudes are important since the whole idea is for certain ideas to shape a way of life. You might find this article interesting:
Iranians, Egyptians, Turks: Contrasting Views on Sharia

Especially interesting: predominantly Muslim populations differ markedly on Sharia. In Iran, only 14% of men and women feel Sharia 'must be the only source of legislation' By comparison, in Egypt it's 64% (2007 Gallup data)

As a general comment, I think it helps to include facts in these kinds of discussions, preferably findings based on the population of interest because we know that attitudes can vary greatly among countries that are conveniently labeled "Muslim." Attitudes toward Sufism can be expected to vary, too.
 
farhan: I see in you this tendency among the Arabs to pretend that everything is somebody else's fault.
I am not Arab, atleast not for the last 500 years. And I didnt say everything is somebody elses fault, Arabs allowed it to happen, they are the yin half of problem.

It is not true that "Wahabbis helped British eliminate Ottomans", it was the Hashemites who helped the British, then the Wahabbis threw the Hashemites out of Arabia.
Yup you are right, I mixed Wahhabis with Hashemites

Britain didn't "give" the Sauds Arabia, nor were they in favor of it.
So who did? Sauds conquered, British allowed.....simple

The US allied with the Sauds in WWII because we needed what they had;
And this goes on till now....right?

we didn't create your crazies, we just have to deal with them.
You are getting touchy for no good reason, I never said you created them. You are just helping them retain Saudi Arabia, & they are helping you retain the world. It isn’t that bad after all, you ought to show some respect to those people who foolishly spend all their wealth sustaining US global rule. What if they nationalize their oil? Where would you be if they start selling their oil in Renminbi …. of course you will start bombing democracy over them. That’s the whole big fat "point".

And when you say " Black stone is different, its not worshiped. Just symbolic." this is the height of hypocrisy. This is what the Somalis would say too. It is not for you to judge others.
Well it depends upon perspective. From your point of view, it might be all the same, from mine it isnt. Black stone isnt worshiped, never was (in the last 1400 years), graves literally are...... everywhere. You wont find anybody praying to the black stone, people pray to graves everyday.
 
You are just helping them retain Saudi Arabia, & they are helping you retain the world. It isn’t that bad after all, you ought to show some respect to those people who foolishly spend all their wealth sustaining US global rule. What if they nationalize their oil? Where would you be if they start selling their oil in Renminbi …. of course you will start bombing democracy over them. That’s the whole big fat "point".

Lol! Just had to emphasis that point. :)
 
It's interesting that (1) this thread appears in "Religion, Faith, and Theology > Abrahamic Religions > Islam," and (2) that at least one suggested explanation (Post #2) invoked a religious dynamic. An economic and political explanation may make more sense.

I always say: follow the money if you want to figure out who is behind activities that may be survivalist/mercenary action. In this case the terrorists appear to be funded by the rogue Eritrean regime. Eritrea is considered a rogue because they sought independence from Ethiopia in a manner that violated International Law. The Wiki gives you some idea of how Somalia became implicated in the Eritrean struggle for independence:
The fighting also spread to Somalia as both governments tried to out flank one another. The Eritrean government began supporting the Oromo Liberation Front, a rebel group seeking independence of Oromia from Ethiopia that was based in a part of Somalia controlled by Somali warlord Mohamed Farrah Aidid. Ethiopia retaliated by supporting groups in southern Somalia who were opposed to Aidid, and by renewing relations with the Islamic regime in Sudan – which is accused of supporting the Eritrean Islamic Salvation, a Sudan-based group that had launched attacks in the Eritrea-Sudan border region – while also lending support to various Eritrean rebel groups including a group known as the Eritrean Islamic Jihad.
Eritrean-Ethiopian War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To get a better sense for the situation, let's consider this: Somalia has been having an ongoing internal power struggle. Somalia's existing Western-backed government is actually run by Islamic insurgents. However, as a result of a split that occurred last year, there is now a competing faction that's apparently supported by militants from other countries.
Analysis: Somali infighting could help al-Qaida - Boston.com

Al-Shaab appears to be part of a larger network of factions who want to overthrow the existing Somali government. They are not Saudis. They are Somalis.

There is reason to believe Al-Shaab is getting outside support not only from the usual Paki and Saudi suspects, but also from the Eritrean regime.
American Chronicle | Eritrea Reportedly Arming AlShabab Militants.

My sense is that these regional conflicts and power struggles are very complicated - far more complicated than a single news article would lead you to believe.
 

From the article:
But al-Shabab sees things differently.

The group's spokesman in the town of Kismayo, Sheikh Hassan Yaquub, told the BBC Somali Service that his movement considered that the memorials were being worshipped and that this was idolatry - banned by Islam.


"The destruction of graves is not something new: we target graves that are overdecorated and ones used for misleading people.


"We are not aiming at the sheikhs [religious leaders] and their standing in the society, but it is forbidden to make graves into shrines," Mr Yaquub said.


This is Muhammad's grave:

abbas-grave-wp-pd.jpg

There must be a way to explain exceptions to the espoused aesthetic standard concerning "overdecorated" graves/shrines.



 
So who did? Sauds conquered, British allowed.....simple

The British had nothing to do with it, and it was their friends who were the losers. By "allowed" you just mean that they did not have the spare troops to occupy the area and stop it? You might as well say that the Arabs "allowed" the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor: Arabs didn't do anything to stop it, did they?
You are getting touchy for no good reason, I never said you created them. You are just helping them retain Saudi Arabia

You did pretend that the British created the Wahabis, or at least put them in power, which was opposite of truth. And no, we do not "help" them retain Saudi Arabia: we would be glad to see them overthrown at any time, but it is up to the people there to do it.
You wont find anybody praying to the black stone, people pray to graves everyday.
I do not see the slightest difference. You bow to the black stone, and pray; people bow in other directions, and pray; one you think idolatrous and the other not, depending on whether it is YOU doing it or someone you have less sympathy for. That is the definition of hypocrisy.
 
Back
Top