WI: Wahhabism never exists

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?

The Shi'i Rawafidh had attacked those of Ahl Sunnah Wa Jama'ah first. Al-Saud went forth and waged jihad upon them, the inaction of the Ottomans in defence of the Sunni in Iraq is their nullification. War against taghoot who allowed the murder of Sunni and later actively murdered those who were dhimmi (Armenians and other Christians) is not the ones to defend. Simply calling one khilafah does not make it khilafah, especially when it is failing in its authority.

I do not consider the Ottoman hegemony to be radical Sufi, however they became taghoot in their regime. Once they had transgressed in Iraq, jihad from al-Saud was permissible.

You likely know nothing of Shari' law, if you did, then you would not make that statement.

Muhammad Ali Pasha was a taghoot, I cannot answer for the munafiq.
 
Kick
I was under the impression that Muslims who follow the school of thought Whahab created reject the label Whahabist as to not glorify a mere mortal man.
Is that somewhat accurate @John7755 يوحنا ?

Well, Wahhabi is an insult sent upon those who either follow Hanbali fiqh or do not use a standardized Sunni madhab. Muhammad abd al-Wahhab began no school of thought per say, he claimed to be preaching the ideas of Ibn Taymiyyah and the principles of Hanbali Fiqh. Which, Saudi Arabia uses a system of fiqh that is considered Hanbali.

Though, such distinctions are irrelevant. Hanbali fiqh is extremely similar to other major fiqh, to a western eyes they are exactly the same.
 
The Shi'i Rawafidh had attacked those of Ahl Sunnah Wa Jama'ah first. Al-Saud went forth and waged jihad upon them, the inaction of the Ottomans in defence of the Sunni in Iraq is their nullification. War against taghoot who allowed the murder of Sunni and later actively murdered those who were dhimmi (Armenians and other Christians) is not the ones to defend. Simply calling one khilafah does not make it khilafah, especially when it is failing in its authority.

I do not consider the Ottoman hegemony to be radical Sufi, however they became taghoot in their regime. Once they had transgressed in Iraq, jihad from al-Saud was permissible.

You likely know nothing of Shari' law, if you did, then you would not make that statement.

Muhammad Ali Pasha was a taghoot, I cannot answer for the munafiq.

None of that justifies the massacres described, and conducting those massacres still makes people dishonourable.
 
Okay. This ends here. If one can justify the massacre of religious minorities or accuse Muslims of being taghoots I refuse to enter a discussion.

I hope the mods will look at the comments... not sure if this is allowed to say.

I am every day more thankful that Allah gave Mustafa Kemal pasha as our leader.
 
Okay. This ends here. If one can justify the massacre of religious minorities or accuse Muslims of being taghoots I refuse to enter a discussion.

I hope the mods will look at the comments... not sure if this is allowed to say.

I am every day more thankful that Allah gave Mustafa Kemal pasha as our leader.

I did not justify massacre. I described why the war was fought according to the Nejdi. You were the one who entered the conversation accusing me of various things. If it offends you that your dear leader was a taghoot in my opinion, then block or ignore me.
 
I did not justify massacre. I described why the war was fought according to the Nejdi. You were the one who entered the conversation accusing me of various things. If it offends you that your dear leader was a taghoot in my opinion, then block or ignore me.

Yes, you did. His post described the massacres of Shia as preventing people being honourable and you contested it based on who started the war. It is the equivalent of excusing genocide based on the supposed crimes of the victim group.
 
Okay. This ends here. If one can justify the massacre of religious minorities or accuse Muslims of being taghoots I refuse to enter a discussion.

I hope the mods will look at the comments... not sure if this is allowed to say.

I am every day more thankful that Allah gave Mustafa Kemal pasha as our leader.

I would also point out to the mods that "rawafidh" is a derogatory slur against Shia Muslims.
 
I would also point out to the mods that "rawafidh" is a derogatory slur against Shia Muslims.

Rawafidh means those who reject. The Shi'i of Iraq are from the Twelver school which by definition reject the Salaf of Muhammad. The term Wahhabi is a term that is far more offensive, yet you see fit to use it. Any Twelver Shi'i ulema will tell you that they do not disagree to the term Rawafidh as it coincides with their rejection of Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman. Further, you will not find a single person in Saudi Arabia who claims to be a Wahhabi or accepts this term.
 
Yes, you did. His post described the massacres of Shia as preventing people being honourable and you contested it based on who started the war. It is the equivalent of excusing genocide based on the supposed crimes of the victim group.

Where did I say massacre was permissible? I was stating the reason for the Nejdi invasion of Iraq which the Nejdi documented. I see you are willing to attack me for stating this. However, there are those on this site who state numerous reasons for the slaughter the Mongols enacted, yet you don't go and try to ban them.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Well, Wahhabi is an insult sent upon those who either follow Hanbali fiqh or do not use a standardized Sunni madhab. Muhammad abd al-Wahhab began no school of thought per say, he claimed to be preaching the ideas of Ibn Taymiyyah and the principles of Hanbali Fiqh. Which, Saudi Arabia uses a system of fiqh that is considered Hanbali.

Though, such distinctions are irrelevant. Hanbali fiqh is extremely similar to other major fiqh, to a western eyes they are exactly the same.
I have no idea what set you off, but half your posts in this thread are actionable.

I will give you one last shot here. This will be your fourth kick for insults/vast overreaction all related to the House of Saud and/or the Sunni/Shi'a divide. If you can not deal with other posters here in a reasonable, non-insulting manner on matter like this you need to stop getting involved.

This should, in all likelihood, be a Ban. However, we'll try one last time.

Kicked for a week.
 
Hmm moving on to the main topic of the thread, if the alliance between Wahhab and the house of Saud fails to materialize due to Wahhab dying/vanishing/whathaveyou before he starts preaching his views, then things get interesting for the region. You might see the house of Saud fall to the Rashidi or at least left impotently flailing at any within reach, and the Hejaz might end up becoming an independent state not subject to the whims of the Nejdi.

As a result countless historical artifacts get to not be bulldozed over in order to build tacky and out of place hotels or whatever. Seriously, there is more than enough space in Arabia to build ridiculously oversized vanity projects as Dubai proves, no need to destroy sites of immense historical/cultural/religious value just because you're an Iconoclast with a stick up your rear.
 
Can this thread be salvaged?

Possibly. If we just move past the incident above.

As to no Wahhabism, I have to ask the OP, did you mean that (and by extension Salafism), or do you mean no return to Ultra-Conservatism in general?

Because if it is the former, there is always a risk, and the latter would be contingent on conditions being positive enough that the arguments such groups make don't appear to have merit. Which would have an impact on the WI.

However, at the very least we'd avoid Salafism, and probably the rise of Saudi Arabia. I'd also argue that we'd likely have a less conservative Middle East, if only because of the OPs conditions.

We'd also probably see a change to the Arab Revolt - with the Sauds less able to justify their second attempts at unifying the peninsula, in fact, their first may not succeed to the extend it did IOTL.

If you went down a "Wahab was killed, not driven out" route for this, then chances are you may come across other similar preachers over time, but avoiding that I'd like to think you have a chance of something emerging like a Mega-Trucial States, that eventually turns into a Arab Federation. But considering the incredible British Influence involved there, and the large oil resources, I fear it may go the way of Iran - or for the same reason, succeed - because it would be an oligarchy/monarchal federation and as such can be 'Princely States'-ified.

I'm pretty comfortable with saying that WI Wahabbism, you may have seen an Arabian government that evolves into a Federal Republic like Germany or India - rather than Saudi Arabia.
 
Top