WI: Wahhabism never exists

Wahahbism is the most extreme interpretation of Islam that exists. It does not tolerate any deviation from sharia law. It endorses practices such as forcing women to conceal themselves and capital punishment for 'crimes' such as adultery, homosexuality and blasphemy. It denounces anyone who does not follow Wahhabism or Islam in general as heretics.

It was founded in the 18th Century by Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, a theologian who had become disillusioned with many of the accepted Sunni practises such as the veneration of saints and the visitation of their tombs, which Wahhab considered heresy and idolatry. This ideology would help Wahhab form a dynastic alliance and power-sharing arrangement with Muhammad bin-Saud and his family, which would eventually lead to the creation of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, a country which spreads Wahhabism throughout the world, allowing it to lead to the creation of groups such as Al-Qaeda and ISIL.

With all of that being said, what if Wahhabism never existed?
 
Last edited:

B-29_Bomber

Banned
I think an easier PoD would be to prevent the rise of the house of Saud. That's would minimize Wahhabism to practically nothing.

Even if you prevent Wahhab from creating his ideology, there's nothing that states that someone else wouldn't eventually.
 
And some other "visionary" comes along and we get something even "worse"? I am starting to think human cultures evolve to fill a cultural niche. And desesrts being rather extreme environments tend to promote "extreme" cultures. To prevent Wahhab just opens the door to something or someone else.
 
There is no such thing as Wahhabism and claiming that the honorable shaykhs of Saudi Arabia led to 'Dawlah Islamiyyah' or al-Qayda, I consider high slander. Though I dare anyone on this site to present me clear differences between do called Wahhabism and any Madhab in all of Ahl Sunnah Wa Jama'ah. This challenge has been laid for nearly three years and none has taken it upon themselves to enlighten me.

Further, there is no such thing as Wahhabism, there is not one person who uses this term. It exists only due to the efforts of radical Sufi and the Rawafidh-Gulat among the Shi'i. Saudi Arabian Sharia uses, Hanbali fiqh and is influenced primarily by the figure of Ibn Taymiyyah, as is every Sunni nation in the Mid East.

Further, you have no read the texts of Muhammad abd al-Wahhab certainly. The general Muslim of Ahl Sunnah, does not venerate saints (?), this is a fixture of radical Sufism. Further this was not the only form of worship Muhammad al-Wahhab took issue too. Regardless, his views were almost entirely from Ibn Taymiyyah, who was born 500 years earlier in the period of the Ilkhans.
 
There is no such thing as Wahhabism and claiming that the honorable shaykhs of Saudi Arabia led to 'Dawlah Islamiyyah' or al-Qayda, I consider high slander. Though I dare anyone on this site to present me clear differences between do called Wahhabism and any Madhab in all of Ahl Sunnah Wa Jama'ah. This challenge has been laid for nearly three years and none has taken it upon themselves to enlighten me.

Further, there is no such thing as Wahhabism, there is not one person who uses this term. It exists only due to the efforts of radical Sufi and the Rawafidh-Gulat among the Shi'i. Saudi Arabian Sharia uses, Hanbali fiqh and is influenced primarily by the figure of Ibn Taymiyyah, as is every Sunni nation in the Mid East.

Further, you have no read the texts of Muhammad abd al-Wahhab certainly. The general Muslim of Ahl Sunnah, does not venerate saints (?), this is a fixture of radical Sufism. Further this was not the only form of worship Muhammad al-Wahhab took issue too. Regardless, his views were almost entirely from Ibn Taymiyyah, who was born 500 years earlier in the period of the Ilkhans.

There is nothing honourable about clerics that teach such intolerance towards atheists, apostates and homosexuals.
 
There is no such thing as Wahhabism and claiming that the honorable shaykhs of Saudi Arabia led to 'Dawlah Islamiyyah' or al-Qayda, I consider high slander. Though I dare anyone on this site to present me clear differences between do called Wahhabism and any Madhab in all of Ahl Sunnah Wa Jama'ah. This challenge has been laid for nearly three years and none has taken it upon themselves to enlighten me.

Further, there is no such thing as Wahhabism, there is not one person who uses this term. It exists only due to the efforts of radical Sufi and the Rawafidh-Gulat among the Shi'i. Saudi Arabian Sharia uses, Hanbali fiqh and is influenced primarily by the figure of Ibn Taymiyyah, as is every Sunni nation in the Mid East.

Further, you have no read the texts of Muhammad abd al-Wahhab certainly. The general Muslim of Ahl Sunnah, does not venerate saints (?), this is a fixture of radical Sufism. Further this was not the only form of worship Muhammad al-Wahhab took issue too. Regardless, his views were almost entirely from Ibn Taymiyyah, who was born 500 years earlier in the period of the Ilkhans.

I know that I do not know Islam anywhere near well enough to debate the details of Islam with you. That is both a tribute and partially explains why no one has challenged you.

However, it is true there was a Wahabi who allied with the House of Saud and who influenced religious policy, and an ideology so associated with his name, closely associated with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

It is associated with the original Cleric Wahabi by name in these same sense 'Lutheran' is associated with Martin Luther whether or not a typical modern Lutheran congregation's policy has anything to do with him.

Most internet savey laymen know that Lutheranism exists. I would say they know of Wahabi Islam as a movement that exists and saying it doesn't exist is silly. Whether they have anything to do either man is irrelevant and simply a matter of semantics.
 
yeah Islamic revivalist movements that have tended to take a more puritanical outlook arent unique to Ibn Wahhab's movement. However in terms of the effects of no Wahhab, I wonder how much of an impact this would have on the growth of the Saud state in the 18th century. This could have pretty big ramification for the polities of the Peninsula and the the outside powers that intervened such as the Ottomans and British.
 
There is nothing honourable about clerics that teach such intolerance towards atheists, apostates and homosexuals.

I do not care for your opinions. Whether you're from the east or the west, crimes greater than intolerance are committed by your people. Either reject the claims or move on.
 
I know that I do not know Islam anywhere near well enough to debate the details of Islam with you. That is both a tribute and partially explains why no one has challenged you.

However, it is true there was a Wahabi who allied with the House of Saud and who influenced religious policy, and an ideology so associated with his name, closely associated with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

It is associated with the original Cleric Wahabi by name in these same sense 'Lutheran' is associated with Martin Luther whether or not a typical modern Lutheran congregation's policy has anything to do with him.

Most internet savey laymen know that Lutheranism exists. I would say they know of Wahabi Islam as a movement that exists and saying it doesn't exist is silly. Whether they have anything to do either man is irrelevant and simply a matter of semantics.

What I reject is the belief that the fundamental Islamic principles of fiqh is influenced by Shaykh al-Wahhab. He simply reiterated the same opinions made by Ibn Taymiyyah and his writings reflect this.
 
I do not care for your opinions. Whether you're from the east or the west, crimes greater than intolerance are committed by your people. Either reject the claims or move on.

I do not care for your opinions either, nor your pathetic whataboutism. I am happy to move on but you called the perpetrators of some sick oppressive beliefs "honourable" and I did not want to allow such an obvious falsehood to go unchallenged.
 
Thanks for the clarification. I suspect I would disagree with you were I more knowledgeable. By inclination, I suspect ATL Muslim me who could follow his own inclinations would be a Sufi or a Shi'ite.

Of course one of the things I greatly despise about how otl modern Islam is practiced is its hypocritical stance on "no compulsion in religion".
 
John is correct insomuch as the term Wahhabi is a term that Wahhabis themselves reject. I lack sufficient understanding to comment on whether or not Wahhabism, especially in it's modern incarnation, is copied whole cloth from ibn Taymiyyah.

However as an ideology, and particularly as a political ideology, the role of Wahhabism is significant globally and I'm certain it's absence would be felt in a variety of ways, but it's a conversation I think is more appropriate for Chat. That said, conservatism is a widespread reaction to modernity and I think radical conservative forms of Islam seeking to revert the course of their religion towards a mythologized past will always happen in a world where a Muslim Middle East lags behind other parts of the world in development and suffers the resource curse brought on by point source resource extraction.

In the short term, Central Arabia would have a different ideology, but I assume that some sort of reaction to idols, saints, and other more or less heterodox elements of Sunni practice would always happen in Arabia unless you go back far enough to change the evolution of Islam substantially.
 
Of course one of the things I greatly despise about how otl modern Islam is practiced is its hypocritical stance on "no compulsion in religion".
Modern Islam isn't some monolithic entity, there are millions (tens or hundreds maybe?) of Muslims who either couldn't care less what somebody else believes, or else won't do or say anything against others' religion. Their reality of Islam is very different from the insane reality of those who compel others.
 
There is no such thing as Wahhabism and claiming that the honorable shaykhs of Saudi Arabia led to 'Dawlah Islamiyyah' or al-Qayda, I consider high slander. Though I dare anyone on this site to present me clear differences between do called Wahhabism and any Madhab in all of Ahl Sunnah Wa Jama'ah. This challenge has been laid for nearly three years and none has taken it upon themselves to enlighten me.

Further, there is no such thing as Wahhabism, there is not one person who uses this term. It exists only due to the efforts of radical Sufi and the Rawafidh-Gulat among the Shi'i. Saudi Arabian Sharia uses, Hanbali fiqh and is influenced primarily by the figure of Ibn Taymiyyah, as is every Sunni nation in the Mid East.

Further, you have no read the texts of Muhammad abd al-Wahhab certainly. The general Muslim of Ahl Sunnah, does not venerate saints (?), this is a fixture of radical Sufism. Further this was not the only form of worship Muhammad al-Wahhab took issue too. Regardless, his views were almost entirely from Ibn Taymiyyah, who was born 500 years earlier in the period of the Ilkhans.

If you say so...

I can't really see anything honorable about declaring jihad against the 'caliphate' and sack the cities owned by them just because they don't fit in your eyes as good muslims or radical sufis as you would call them.

Okay maybe what I said was wrong and the early Sauds wanted to 'defend' the the holy cities and did not sack or pillage the Hedjaz, why the hell did they massacre the Shia's in Najaf and Kerbela multiple times? How in Gods name is that honorable or allowed by Sharia law?

What was the reason Muhammed Ali pasha had to march to the middle of the desert if the Sauds posed no danger?
 
Wahahbism is the most extreme interpretation of Islam that exists. It does not tolerate any deviation from sharia law. It endorses practices such as forcing women to conceal themselves and capital punishment for 'crimes' such as adultery, homosexuality and blasphemy. It denounces anyone who does not follow Wahhabism or Islam in general as heretics.

It was founded in the 18th Century by Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, a theologian who had become disillusioned with many of the accepted Sunni practises such as the veneration of saints and the visitation of their tombs, which Wahhab considered heresy and idolatry. This ideology would help Wahhab form a dynastic alliance and power-sharing arrangement with Muhammad bin-Saud and his family, which would eventually lead to the creation of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, a country which spreads Wahhabism throughout the world, allowing it to lead to the creation of groups such as Al-Qaeda and ISIL.

With all of that being said, what if Wahhabism never existed?

If Muhammed Ali's expedition executed all the Saud male members after the conquest of Diriyah there would be no Saud rulers in Nejd and the Rashidi's would rule the most of what is todays Saudi Arabia. But I am not sure why a few dynasty members were spared even after what happened.

The existence of a caliphate would avoid more of such influences. If Wahabism gets extinct odds are different sort alike versions will come. But the influence will remain low.

Then there is also other influences outside of the no caliphate:
- The creation of Israel
- The failing ideology of Arab nationalism in the Arab-Israeli wars
- The only force actually doing something for Muslims (Soviet invasion of Afghanostan, Chechen wars, Bosnian and Kosovo war).
 
Top