Didn’t know whether to ask this question in the other Wahhabi thread. If Wahhabis consider themselves to be ‘orthodox’ Muslims who scrupulously follow the letter and intent of Islam, what’s their take on Saudi Arabia’s current form of political governance? How do they reconcile their (alleged) adherence to Islamic principles and - simultaneously - their largest base of support is in a country that practices dynastical dictatorship? From their pov, is there a contradiction of recognizing a form of governance where power is passed from the eldest male to his son, no elections, no shura, no minority rights, but yet Wahhabis consider themselves to follow the purest form of Islam? We all know the Wahhabi movement derives much (if not all) of its money from the Saudi Arabian government… if they were really following the ‘purest’ form of Islam, how do they rationalize that their entire existence is financially & diplomatically endorsed by a form of political governance that has never been endorsed in the Quran?
Nadia. To use a person's name to represent the belief of people is idiotic, please try to avoid it. In that case call yourself a Muhammadi, or an Ibrahimi since the religion of Muhammad and the religion of Ibrahim is what you claim to be following.
As for the original question, I dont really see ANY country in the world which is actually following the principles laid out by Shariah. Any movement, whatever may be its cause, needs its source of funding. AFAIK, anybody and everybody knows that the government in SA is illegitimate (islamically speaking ofcourse) however 1) since it is allowing and even enforcing general following of Islam and 2) since muslims are not in a large enough number to overthrow them, therefore I dont see what other options are there with the "wahabis".
I belonged to the class of Muslims that worshipped graves and went to pirs and faqirs…All ignorance…
What is the Wahabi creed? Destroy innovations and hold on to the rope of Allah :swt: and the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet :saw:. I now follow Islam more on the lines of Wahabism than I do any other. What’s wrong with that?
And as for Wahabis suddenly coming in the limelight in the light of current events, well, we can thank our staunch Muslim brothers the likes of Fareed Zakaria. Who while sipping an 80 year old wine can not only expound the divisions between the Muslim Ummah to the rest of world, but can pick out a random name like ‘Wahabism’ to use as a scapegoat.
Question is, what gives you the right to curse someone who has not done anything to you or you hardly know anything about? Nothing. Unless you propose to become a self-proclaimed defender of the faith by proclaiming Wahabis ^%$ or (&^%$ simply on your deep knowledge and insight gained through a childhood spent studying Time and Newsweek.
Unlike SherazCT who has so knowledgeably and eloquently put Wahabis in a nutshell by his years of scholarly study and research into Wahabis and Wahabism, true ignorance is really put into place when you mouth off other’s way of belief ignorantly.
Every Muslim in Saudi Arabia is opposed to the current form of government...A kingdom. There is no kingdom in Islam.
And I guess in Time or Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria "alleged" that Wahabism is supported by Saudi government. Now, unless you yourself know personally if that's a fact, there is no proof behind it.
I myself at a time, believed in wasila and grave worshipping etc.... Not any more Alhamdulilah. So called "Wahabism", to me is the purest form of Islam. It is based purely on Quran and Sunnah and is free from innovations.
[QUOTE] Originally posted by ammarr: *
**Any movement, whatever may be its cause, needs its source of funding. AFAIK, anybody and everybody knows that the government in SA is illegitimate (islamically speaking ofcourse) however 1) since it is allowing and even enforcing general following of Islam and 2) since muslims are not in a large enough number to overthrow them, therefore I dont see what other options are there with the "*wahabis".
[/QUOTE]
**
Ammarr, i used the term 'wahhabis' because as, far as i am familiar, that is a term they use themselves and have so far never heard a replacement word for it. i am truly sorry if it offends you - if there is another term for it, then i will most happily use it. Instead of calling me idiotic, if you had suggested another word for 'wahhabis', then i would have been filled with sincere happiness for your taking the time to educate me.
Regarding the statement that there are no other options for them to obtain their funding - in effect, then, they are allying themselves with a brutal & dictatorial government and they will be wise to realize that that casts serious doubts upon their own commitment for genuinely adhering to Islamic principles. They obtain their funding from the Saudi Arabian government and as the saying goes, one can't bite the hand that feeds one, i.e., they will never state anything that goes against their principal source of funding - even if that happens to be a form of poli. governance whose very existence is not even sanctified in the Quran.
^ Nadia I don't think the "wahabis" actually like the term wahabi although people including myself use it, their objection is since it may imply worshippers of Wahab and could be considered shirk and you have to remember that the puritanical movement first arose under the Hanbali movement, and the Berbers of the Maghreb had something similar in the 12th century so Wahab wasn't responsible for it's creation, i believe they used to call themselves Muwahidin (I think it means puritans).
With regard to your comment about the contradiction between the Wahabi philosophy and their state sponsors, I think now that the extreme elements have sufficient sustainable financial resources of their own and iwth the decline of the Saudi Economy the split between the Royal Family and most Wahabi's is quite obvious.
Sister Nadia the Saudi government does not represent Salafi Islam even though they might claim to be its followers. No form of government today is Islamic.
I don’t think any Salafi Muslim scholar agrees with the Saudi monarchy, the Salafi scholars believe that the perfect form of government is an Islamic Caliphate like that of our four rightly guided Caliphs (may Allah be pleased with them all). The Salafi scholars want the Muslim world to be united; they want to re-establish Islam, Caliphate and the Islamic Shariah throughout the Muslim world.
But the scholars have to be realistic and start with the most important matters of religion first and the next most important and then the next and so on… They have to first bring back the Muslim world to the Book of Allah and the Way of the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), the straight path. There cannot be an Islamic state without first understanding the religion of Allah and achieving Faith and Islamic Monotheism and ridding ourselves of Polytheism and Innovation. Our beloved Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) spent thirteen years calling people to the religion of Allah before establishing an Islamic state because there cannot be an Islamic state without a sound ideological foundation.
First we need to establish the Islamic state in ourselves, and it will be established for us in the land.
“Allah has promised those among you who believe and do righteous good deeds, that He will certainly grant them succession to (the present rulers) in the land, as He granted it to those before them, and that He will grant them the authority to practise their religion which He has chosen for them (i.e. Islam). And He will surely, give them in exchange a safe security after their fear (provided) they (believers) worship Me and do not associate anything (in worship) with Me” The holy Quran [24:55].
May Allah bless our Prophet Muhammad, his family and his Companions.
My understanding of Wahabism Vs Sunni is as follows:
The majority of Sunnis are followers of one of the the 4 Imams- Pakistanis are Generally Hanafi (Imam Abu Hanifa) and the main belief of the Sunni faith is that for guidance in any area of religion, you would seek judgement from Ulemas who would look into the teaching of the relevent Imam and Hadees before giving a verdict.
Wahabis on the other hand have a very "back to basics" approach and the main difference between them and Sunnis is that they do not believe in any of the Imams. They believe that one should draw his/her own conclusions from the Quran (some do not even believe in Hadees as some of it is not reliable). That is fine if you have the wisdom to do so but generally us mere mortals are influenced by our pre-judgements and do not have the wisdom to do so. Therefore you have all these radical militant types who interpret Islam as an aggressive religion. But Wahabism itself is not necessarily militant, it is the interpretation these days of it's followers that have distorted it.
Personally I do not agree with it as to me it is like bulldozering away the 1500 years of history and knowledge to start afresh- a very backward step.
I will respectfully disagree. I don’t think this is necessary true. Most followers of the teachings of Abdul Wahab (lets call them Salafis) do not negate Ahadeeth (that is a separate sect called “Qurayeen”, which is different from Salafis). They do understand that the four imams of ahl-e-sunnah provided explanations to the sharia based on their understanding of Quran and Sunnah, and so most Salafis follow one of the four imams in normal activities. I think, most Salafis in Saudi Arabia follow the guidance of Imam Maalik (I can be wrong, though).
The major difference is in the concept of tawassal. The main stream ahl-e-sunnah imams and the followers over generations have believed in tawassal, and that the love of the Prophet :saw: is the first step in the love for the Creator, Allah Subhan a Tallah. Yes, Salafis, do go back to the basics, and try to limit the role of the Prophet :saw: and insist that everything should go directly to the Creator. Its a long discussion.
^ interesting points Faisal; I don't think Wahabi's/salafis are followers of Imam Malik..but I am not sure, I have seen Saudi television use hadith around prayer times when broadcasted, but It was I think almost always Hadith agreed upon by all of the 4 Imams.
Khattana raises an important point about how they ignore Islamic history, and I think that is at the root of their clashes with other Muslim sects, whereas Barelvi's do the politics of the Mosque with Shia's for example, Wahabi's/Salafi's consider them historicaly as non Muslim (historically because when the movement was at it's militant prime in the early 19th century it's folowers sacked Karbala and Najaf)
Actually I think, one big mistake most observers make (even I have made it a number or times) is to think that most people in Saudi Arabia are Salafis (or the followers of the teachings of Muhammad Bin Abdul Wahab). I don’t think thats true. Yes, the House of Sa’ud did reach an agreement with the followers of Abdul Wahab (this is all documented in the history of the time when after WW I, the area was re-demarcated and the present rulers came into power), and that is why we constantly hear the term “the Wahabi rulers of Saudi Arabia” - however, most common people in Saudi Arabia do not subscribe to the teachings of Abdul Wahab. Ofcourse, due to a strict police enforcement of the thoughts and actions of the common people, we are more likely to confuse the official ideology of the rulers of Saudi Arabia with those of the common Saudis.
I am not sure when and how the Salafis became so militaristic in their approach. The only reason I can think of is that they take the word “forbidden” in a very aggressive way, where Allah T’allah says (3:110)
YUSUFALI: Ye are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing in Allah. If only the People of the Book had faith, it were best for them: among them are some who have faith, but most of them are perverted transgressors. PICKTHAL: Ye are the best community that hath been raised up for mankind. Ye enjoin right conduct and forbid indecency; and ye believe in Allah. And if the People of the Scripture had believed it had been better for them. Some of them are believers; but most of them are evil-livers. SHAKIR: You are the best of the nations raised up for (the benefit of) men; you enjoin what is right and forbid the wrong and believe in Allah; and if the followers of the Book had believed it would have been better for them; of them (some) are believers and most of them are transgressors.
