WI: House of Saud doesn't adopt Wahhabism

Mort the Reaper

In 1744, Muhammad bin Saud forged an alliance with Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, the founder of Wahhabism, and became a member of the sect. This alliance between the Wahhabis and the House of Saud lasted for more than two centuries, and is still active today.

What if bin Saud never allied with Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab or adopted his teachings? How would things change?
 
Marc

Marc

Donor
Mort the Reaper said:
In 1744, Muhammad bin Saud forged an alliance with Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, the founder of Wahhabism, and became a member of the sect. This alliance between the Wahhabis and the House of Saud lasted for more than two centuries, and is still active today.

What if bin Saud never allied with Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab or adopted his teachings? How would things change?
Click to expand...

The question back to you is how much do you think the success of the House of Saud depended on that clearly strategic alliance?
 
Dan1988

Dan1988

John7755 يوحنا said:
Everyone on this forum dislikes the idea of breaking groups into sects arbitrarily but yet does so for Hanbali fiqh practitioners in Arabia.
Click to expand...
Not quite. There are other ways to make the Hanbali fiqh work w/o having it imitate OTL, as well as other ways to interpret it. Its practitioners would just largely be concentrated in the Gulf area, and would reach the rest of the Peninsula slowly - but not the Hejaz, which follows its own fiqh.
 

John7755 يوحنا

Koprulu Mustafa Pasha said:
Well... everybody hates something. Some people dislike the Hanbali for some reason, and it seems you have a certain dislike for Shias... could be wrong though... o_O
Click to expand...

I do not dislike the Shi'a, however, they call themselves Shi'a and Rafida and so forth, at least the Twelver and Ismailiyyah; if I was derogatory, I would call them as Saudi media does, batiniyyah and majoosiyya and so forth. This is different than derogatorily referring to people in the Arabian peninsula as Wahhabi when they do not permit usage of this term in regards to them. Further, I even if you read many of my posts, go to great lengths to refer to sects of Islam as what they call themselves, hence why I call Khawarij as Shurha, just as the Ibadhi do of them. So, there is a difference between referring to a group by that name that they use, than it is to use a name held as derogatory. Further, few would question that I have some grasp on Shi'a jurisprudence, yet few people who speak of 'Wahhabi' have likewise knowledge of that topic.
 
Koprulu Mustafa Pasha

Koprulu Mustafa Pasha

John7755 يوحنا said:
I do not dislike the Shi'a, however, they call themselves Shi'a and Rafida and so forth, at least the Twelver and Ismailiyyah; if I was derogatory, I would call them as Saudi media does, batiniyyah and majoosiyya and so forth. This is different than derogatorily referring to people in the Arabian peninsula as Wahhabi when they do not permit usage of this term in regards to them. Further, I even if you read many of my posts, go to great lengths to refer to sects of Islam as what they call themselves, hence why I call Khawarij as Shurha, just as the Ibadhi do of them. So, there is a difference between referring to a group by that name that they use, than it is to use a name held as derogatory. Further, few would question that I have some grasp on Shi'a jurisprudence, yet few people who speak of 'Wahhabi' have likewise knowledge of that topic.
Click to expand...

Fair enough
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top