Are Luther and wahhab basically the same? >both wanted to

>>2409404
In essence yes, they share a lot of similarities with one another. What went wrong was Wahhabism was adopted by Bedouins, who have the tendency to fuck everything up.

Wahhab wasn't "accepted," he allied with Abdul Aziz. Abdul Aziz got the power of Wahhab's tribe's numbers in exchange for converting people to his religion by the sword, and Wahhab got more followers in exchange for helping Abdul Aziz conquer the peninsula.

Martin Luther's revolution was populist in nature

I doubt Luther made a blood pact with a certain family/tribe for eternal support for his ideology that today runs the Vatican.

Then again, I am not well-versed in Protestant history.

>>2409404
no abdul wahhab is more akin to english

>be pagan shitheads
>empire with religion comes
>"fuck you we want to stay pagan shitheads"
>try to reject the state imperial religious rule by claiming you're doing their religion better than them.

wahhabists are basically a follow-up of the khawarij movement who rejected the caliphate under the guise of "purity" cause they wanted to keep living as desert barbarians. same deal with the wahabists. they dont give a shit about religion or whatever, they just use the "purity" excuse to be able to keep doing whatever the fuck they're doing. wahabists would destroy the kaaba if it weren't for all the hajj money because they hate arab history that much.

>>2409418
Martin Luther's revolution was populist in nature
You can't really pin Luther's revolution as being one thing entirely. In the beginning his rebellion was populist but toward the end he was urging the princes to murder the peasants.

That assessment would be compley accurate. Part of the problem with the Kali Yuga is mass religion manifest in forms such as Protestantism and Wahhabism.