>>512296 >>512296 it was capitalism that has enslaved humanity to paper currencies created by central authorities. all of which are interchangeable through the one central authority that rules them all.
the above capitalist disease caused the house of saud's printed currency to have power over other muslims. this combined with their oil meant that they always find people to do their bidding and gracious and generous while doing so.
from the beginning the house of saud was an ally of the west and the wahhabi islam is a crucial component in that alliance. the wahhabis are allied with the west because in truth they are hypocrites. even the most pious among them is a hypocrite enemy of humanity and an ally of the parasite.
if the nation states were never created to protect the central banks, one culture would have no influence over the other except through intellectual persuasion or naked aggression. the use of money is also aggression but it is the aggression of the con man. the centralized money is the chain that has bound humanity to slavery.
the cause of the problems of the islamic world is the imposition of western way of life upon them with the help of traitors within them.
From a theological POV, Islam was full of heresies and idolatries (veneration of the wali or the "Islamic" equivalent of saints, grave worships, etc. in fact it still is to this day) and he sought to fight them in order to restore true, strict, monotheistic worship.
'Abd al-Wahhab even managed to level the grave of one of Muhammad's Companions, Zayd ibn al-Khattab, because it was being worshipped, for example.
He introduced this idea that Bid‘ah, theological "innovation" within Islam, must be punished because one that commits those things isn't simply misguided or a sinner, but outside of Islam altogether, and needs to be given a chance to repent - failure to do so means death.
And this extends not only to illiterate nomads but Shia, Sufis, Ottomans, anyone.
>>512329 I recall a few people, i.e. Jonathan Sacks who wrote a bunch of books on religious violence, pointing out how important reformations have happened to Judaism (I'm not sure which one though) and Christianity after 15 centuries.
Now it would be Islam's own turn...
And given the shitstorm that is happening between Iran and the Saudis this very week, and the growing contact between Islam and Western civilization within one and within the other...
>>512335 i meant the beginning of wahhabification of islam around the world. but i also meant it in a spiritual sense. the wahhabi is spiritually an ally of the west. it was natural for them to find each other.
>>512340 I recall a few people, i.e. Jonathan Sacks who wrote a bunch of books on religious violence, pointing out how important reformations have happened to Judaism (I'm not sure which one though) and Christianity after 15 centuries.
this is further fantasies from the follower of the religion of progressivism based on the myth of human progress. as if the passage of time somehow brings forth improved things. like time is some kind of a god that leads humans towards and arbitrarily defined destination called progress.
>>512329 >Is the middle east ever going to have its own protestant reformation/wars of religion/30 years war? Wahhabism is protestantism to the tee. It's a literalist, reformationist and morally/ritually puritan movement directed against the perceived decadence of those in power. It was started as a lower class movement by a random dude (Luther/Abd al-Wahhab), then it was exploited by local nobility (the HRE dukes/the Sauds) as a means of becoming independent from both temporal (the Holy Roman Emperor/the Ottoman Sultan) and religious authorities (the Pope/the Ottoman Sultan who was also the Caliph). In the latter case by calling in question their very lines of succession.
>Or some catastrophic event that actually leads to rational treatment of religion in their world. Protestantism was anything but rational in the beginning. It discarded the scholastic school for instance. Also, read up on Luther's stance on witchcraft, or changelings (ie. disabled kids). It was only later that other events led to secularisation of the protestant countries. And Islam did have a rationalist movement in 800s. It was called Mu'tazila. Stemming from the idea that Quran was created rather than eternal, they established that the world and ideas were rational categories, able to be established through unaided reason. It's quite similar to scholasticism in that regard. Unfortunately, once the caliph al-Ma'mun recognized the school, he launched an inquisition to convert all scholars to it, murdering or perescuting many of them. The results were easy to foresee, and the school died out after his death. Interestingly, one of the scholars persecuted was Ahmad ibn Hanbal, who later founded the puritan and literalist Hanbali madhab, which is largely the basis for wahhabism.
>>512296 The Sauds have petrodollars up the roof, which allows them to monopolize Islamic education by founding schools and mosques where wahhabi imams teach.
I'd say the ignored answer that needs to be explored more is the "collapse" of Sufism and Batiniyya Islam. That is to say the regimes that be banning Sufi/Batini practices as they were anti-gov't and establishment
At its height the Sufi/Shia were extremely based (the Sufi/Sunni still tend to go extreme)
We have remnants of such groups such as the Druze, Yarsan, and Alevi (Alevi being the biggest of such groups at about 15-20 million and nearly exclusively in Turkey. They are not Sunni or Shia)
>>512296 Oil money and its alliance with the House of Saud.
It is almost single handedly responsible for 80% of the shit that goes on in the middle east today, and it serves Saudi Arabia's geopolitical goals by forcing the U.S to support it to try to stabilise the middle east.
>>512332 >the wahhabis are allied with the west because in truth they are hypocrites. even the most pious among them is a hypocrite enemy of humanity and an ally of the parasite.
I wonder if the house of Saud is even Muslim. When you think of how the Catholic church might be the anti-Christ etc, the Sauds seem way more corrupt and have much more influence over Islam than Catholicism does over Christianity.
>>512479 There were fanatics...and there were groups that were not fanatics
Sufism in general does not produce fanatics though, heck in Persia religious fanaticism rose up after Sufism was dissolved/banned (IIRC there was a coup d'etat of sorts by the Ulema after the Sufi were broken/Sah stopped favoring them)
>>512494 >I wonder if the house of Saud is even Muslim.
It depends what you consider to be included in the 'house of Saud' I think
There's hilarious stories out there about the younger sheikhs getting into all sorts of debauchery (cocaine and high-class prostitutes) abroad with their diplomatic immunity ensuring that they have nothing but a good time
Wouldn't be able to tell you about the higher ups though. I suspect it's a mix. They've got a ton of reasons other than personal beliefs to promote Wahhabism but also a lot of motivation to conceal any personal beliefs that might conflict with that public image/promotion.
>>512399 To be honest I don't see a sufficiently reformed Islam that wouldn't follow the same patterns as the Mu'tazila, maybe they'd have a better chance these days.
>The name Muʿtazili is derived from the reflexive stem VIII (iftaʿala) of the triconsonantal root ع-ز-ل "separate, segregate" (as in اعتزل iʿtazala "to separate (oneself); to withdraw from"
I think Quranism is too radical to get any serious following.
The Mu'tazila had the best approach to the Hadith: follow the mutawatir, the non-mutawatir mustn't contradict the Qur'an and are not binding in theology, but useful only in terms of law if the narrator is competent and trustworthy.
1.) It allied itself with a political power (al-Saud) and the tribal elements tied to it. One similar success story was that of Twelver Shi'ism in Iran which became (in some form or another) the official religion of the Safavid House and the Qizilbash tribal warrior elements.
2.) The Wahabi elements also managed to secure to some degree an alliance or peace with Western elements that secured their rise to power. al-Saud's rise to power owes a lot to Britain's support of Arab revolts against Ottoman Turkish control. In the later 20th century, Wahabi and by then Salafi religious elements were some of the fiercest opponents of Soviet control and communism in places like Afghanistan, so Western powers like the USA saw no problem in supporting them ideologically or financially. Westerners didn't really care about the religious differences between Wahabis and other Muslims, assuming they even understood that there were any
3.) Ideologies like Wahabism had an appeal to people because it was very simplistic, puritan and egalitarian and it seemed to challenge perceived corruption and deviance in Islamic governments and society.
Nobody really likes to say this, but honestly, that region would probably be a whole lot WORSE without al-Saud.
People tend to think that it's the Saudi family encouraging the greatest extremism, but it's actually the opposite way around. The cult of personality of al-Saud and their autocratic authority mixed with their more lackadaisical approach to Wahabism has actually been what's keeping the more radical Wahabi elements in check if you can believe that. If that place became a democracy, those more radical elements would quickly take over and unleash wholesale slaughter of the Shi'a of the Eastern Province and less radical Sunni and Wahabi groups in their midst.
The problem is the Sauds have "made their bed" so to speak with the blanket of Wahabism so they have to also appease these elements lest anti-Saudi and anti-royal Wahabi groups like al-Qaeda gain more ground in their kingdom. If the Saudis stopped patronizing Wahabism today and started favoring a more liberal form of Sunnism or even converted to Shi'ism, their power would not last very much longer, I can assure you. And one of the reasons countries like Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Qatar are known for exporting terrorism is precisely because the last thing they want are those people in their countries messing things up.
Saudi Arabia's problem is not the royal family's own Wahabism, which is very minor, but the popular Wahabi element which can be felt even in some of the most liberal elements of Saudi society. If you ask the Shi'a of the Eastern Province who they think their greatest protector from being slaughtered by the Wahabis is in the government, most of them will probably say the royal family, because even the so called "Sunni liberals" who want Western democracy in the country share many of the same criticisms and distrust that the Wahabis have of them.
>that region would probably be a whole lot WORSE without al-Saud.
I think it's more likely a non-Wahhabi hegemon like the Hashemites in Arabia would have just done their best to quash the movement entirely - wahhabism has always been manichean so it was always going to be beat them or join them
Ayatollah Khomeini was actually himself a scholar of "irfan" or "gnosis/Sufism". While he criticized the traditional Sufi Orders of dervishes, he was also a commentator and follower of the school of the great Shi'ite Iranian mystic/philosopher Mulla Sadra (16th/17th century AD/CE)
Khomeini appealed to many broad segments of Iranian society that the Shah couldn't by his favoring only the most liberal and Westernized elements of Iran.
He appealed to Shi'a of the more Sufi and mystical variety because he was a teacher of Shi'ite mysticism and a scholar of Iranian Sufism. Unlike some of his contemporaries, he was sympathetic to Sufi ideas and took a middle ground of opposing the organized orders of dervishes but still following Sufism academically and informally. Many of his more devout followers thought of him as like a saint in that same tradition and his works on Islamic mysticism and some of his own mystical Sufi poetry are still read today.
He also appealed to philosophically and rationally minded Shi'a as he was formerly a teacher of Islamic and Greek philosophy and probably one of the main modern revivalists of such thought in Iran
But he appealed to legalists by his committment to make the Shariah the law of the land and his justification of "rule of the jurist" was based in certain traditional Shi'i legal theories.
He appealed to modernists because he was not really a traditionalist. He sought to introduce a republican system of government based in more egalitarian (some might call it socialist) principles than the traditional monarchical order. His administration also continued many of industrialization and nationalization policies of the Shah, just now in the hands of clerical elements. And he was not opposed that opposed to modern science and technology, which he saw as necessary for the strength of Iran against the West.
His views on women too struck a good middle ground between liberals and conservatives.
There's a lot of talk about bringing democracy to Saudi Arabia or getting rid of the monarchy, but if you replaced the Saudi monarchy with a republic or some kind of democratic order, the Wahabi element would probably become a lot stronger.
Keep in mind that many of the Wahabis themselves are the ones calling for more democracy in Muslim countries because they're tired of being limited by monarchical power or by more secular dictators.
>>513053 >Nobody really likes to say this, but honestly, that region would probably be a whole lot WORSE without al-Saud. only if we were to throw out the Saudis now. If the hashemites were in power it would feasibly be a lot better
>>513240 >Abou El Fadl, Khaled (2005). The Great Theft: Wrestling Islam from the Extremists. Harper San Francisco. p. 51. "Abd al-Wahhab described the Ottoman caliphate as al-dawlah al-kufriyya (a heretical nation) and claimed that supporting or allying oneself with the Ottomans was as grievous a sin as supporting or allying oneself with Christians or Jews." He must've thought they didn't agree with his ideas on monotheism and/or fundamentalism.
>>512296 Abdul Wahhab founded his philosophy from a 12th century Syrian philosopher. It caught on because it appeals to a sense of crisis as a way of explaining what's going wrong. Wahhab allied with the house of Saud in the 1700's when he was writing. The two intermarried over time to bring the house of Saud into the core of the ideology. They managed to then fund wahhabist preachers to travel and spread the message which caught on in places like Pakistan and Afghanistan and in the gulf where people didn't like western liberalism and still clung to tribal traditions which wahhabism supports.
Unitarians still believe Jesus is the Son of God and many don't even believe in God at all except maybe as some metaphor for nature or something.
Also, Tawhid is a concept that goes beyond just being one god. It's more accurate to call tawhid as traditionally understood a form of monotheistic panentheism that's probably closer to Hindu ideals of divinity than it is to Western conceptions.
>>513468 >Many don't. Many don't even identify as Christian and many Christians don't accept them as such.
The early Unitarians like William Ellery Channing, Andrews Norton, Henry Ware Jr. and Michael Servitus (who lived before the label of "Unitarian" but is an early anti-trinitarian reformer) were very much devout Christians.
The growth of Unitarian Christianity into the wider Unitarian Universalist movement traces itself back to the transcendentalism of Unitarians like Ralph Waldo Emerson who was influenced by writings of Eastern traditions as well as the Christian Jesus.
Unitarians always stood out as liberals and rationalists who took a very logical approach to Christianity based principally on the Bible which may be why Unitarian Christianity, at first just another fringe form of Protestantism based in Sola Scriptura, eventually morphed into the Unitarian Universalist movement. That's why I said modern Quranists feel a little more like Unitarian Christians or even Unitarian Universalists in some cases. They tend to be liberal, scripturalist, and have a more inclusive and pluralist view of the definition of "Islam" or "submission".
In contrast, "orthodox" Sunnis and Shi'a often have a very complex philosophical and mystical theology rooted in in hadith traditions and the writings of religious "patriarchs" throughout the centuries, not just simply a rational approach to the Qur'an that is friendly to many modern political and social ideals. Sunnis however, placed more emphasis on strict adherence to "tradition" decided as per consensus than Shi'a, whose approach combined rationalism, traditionism, and mystical intuition. This is why I suggested that Sunnis can be compared to Orthodox Christians while Shi'a can be more compared to Catholics.
>>512340 >>513240 >>513275 if from what I've read before is right the ottomans weren't really that Islamic which didn't fly well with the Wahhabis and if they tolerated any other faiths then the Wahhabis wouldn't take to kindly to that side note that ugly hotel the Saudis built use to be where a fortress to protect the holy site from Wahhabi raiders stood
>>513699 >if from what I've read before is right the ottomans weren't really that Islamic
But who the hell has the authority to define who or what is Islamic though. The Ottomans were the biggest patrons of Sunni Islam for hundreds of years, it's really hard to say they aren't Islamic
One problem I've noticed is that both Oriental historians and Christian scholars often have a tendency to favor the Wahabis' interpretation of history. Maybe this is because of the pervasiveness of Wahabi propaganda or maybe it's because these people have an interest in trying to make Wahabism to be somehow closer to "real Islam", or maybe it's because they think Wahabism is more "rational" or egalitarians and therefore closer to Muhammad's message, but often times it feels like the side of the Ottoman supporters (many of whom still exist and consider themselves devout Muslims) goes unheard.
Assuming they can get support from their governments (Malaysia more than likely to would support them, US might be hesistant at first), you'd basically have the World's largest Muslim Country and the world's strongest country exporting a version of Islam that is more in line with Western ideals that might be politicized to make it less an issue of the West vs. Islam and more a West v. Arabia or West vs. Wahhabism. However that is seriously a shot in the dark of what could happen, many ME scholars consider Mutazilla unsavory at best and heretical at worst so unless a large financial effort is put into place to make it more popular in areas to combat fundamentalism, it'd probably be just another false Islam to fanatics.
Not just that, but even some of the Orientalists who had more positive views of Islam tended to offer an interpretation of Islam similar to the Wahhabi narrative. For example, both the Wahhabi and Orientalist scholars saw the veneration of saints and cults of holy shrines or the belief in miracles associated with relics to be against Muhammad's teaching of tawhid despite the fact that most Muslim scholars of both Sunni and Shi'a schools throughout the centuries didn't see any real contradiction. There's also the tendency to portray Muhammad as a paragon of a more modern egalitarianism.
I think Wahhabi and Orientalist narratives' tendency to overlap probably has to do with how the two often share modernist outlooks.
>>514549 >In fact, being a member of the Muslim Brotherhood is a capital offense in Syria.
And the Muslim Brotherhood are among the most organized members of the resistance coalition calling for "democracy" in Syria.
Like I said, Wahabis like to co-opt democratic movements because either monarchs or dictators, even those that are nominally part of their school, can curtail or outlaw their activity if it displeases them.
>>512329 >Is the middle east ever going to have its own protestant reformation/wars of religion/30 years war?
The Shiia-Sunni "schism" can be regarded as the protestant breakup/30 years war/ of the Middle-East. It was/is a political conflict wrapped in the veil of sacrality.
>Or some catastrophic event that actually leads to rational treatment of religion in their world.
The more catastrophic the situation is, generally the more radical the people in it behave, regardless of whether they legitimise their radicalism by religion, nationalism or racial theories etc. In fact, Arab secular nationalism happened and the Middle-East started to take rougly the same course of development as Europe. The West continuosly shitting on the Middle-East in the past few decades and the affairs of Israel put an end to that and the Middle-East plunged into the state we see now.
Although it's true that some utter cataclysm can lead to progressive change in a region's culture, like in Europe after WWII. What's going on there as we speak could be the beginning of such an event, although it must be said that Islamic radicalism is also an anti-West sentiment. Racism, anti-semitism and radical nationalism quickly subsided in Europe (well, or at least was swept below the carpet), but those things were not the results of the perceived threat of an oppressive outer power (that still persists.) if we talk about Europe as a collective. And while the main conflicts of the Middle-East are internal as of now, I'm 100% sure that a sense of historical humiliation as an entire region and culture is a decisive element of modern-day Middle-Eastern extremism. (Also it must be added that the entirety of the Middle-East still can't be considered radical, but I hope we all know that.)
>>516881 Ethno nationalism as prescribed by Bismarck is the poison that threatens the world And that is definitely pushed by Jewish lobbyists - cf Kurdistan Heck take an example from my area - a Muslim by name MP and junior minister got caught fiddling his expenses and thus we found out he was having an affair with a Jewish lobbyist Now read up her statements about it - it's clear that in the Jewish community people are encouraged to push other communities to seperste on ethnic grounds etc, they have had some traitor kashmiri speak at the Knesset saying the world should ignore Palestine
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.