*deleted*

SpektaCoolAir

Established
Joined
Oct 19, 2017
Messages
247
the house of fraud has nothing to do with islam whatsoever & abuse/misuse of one of the names of Allah - The Owner of greatness and reverence - or slandering it - is not only a shame but a declaration of war against The Most High!



And to Allah belong the best names, so invoke Him by them.” (Qur’an, 7:180)


muhammad ibn abdul wahhab (may Allah have mercy on him) was a scholar - from what is now called "saudi arabia" - & the reviver (mujaddid*) of the sunnah (tradition of the prophet muhammad - may the peace & blessings of Allah be upon him) of his time.
one of the things that he is credited for is uniting the muslims back then - who were very much divided - so that there were 4 different congregations - 5 times a day (for every single obligatory prayer) - in the masjid al haram in makkah.
those 4 congregations consisted of followers of the 4 major schools of thought (madhahib) - that were established by the 4 great imams (abu haneefah - malik ibn anas - muhammad ibn idrees ash-shafi'ee - ahmad ibn hanbal (may Allah have mercy on them all).**
he united them all to pray together as one congregation.
furthermore he called the muslims - who were deeply involved in polytheistic practices - like praying to the dead in the graves - back to pure monotheism (taouheed).
he was very successful with it & the house of fraud took advantage of it because they were afraid of being removed & losing power.

that's how the so called "wahhabi-myth" started.
it was introduced by the enemies of pure monotheism (i.e. islam) & is used til this day to spread confusion & corruption within the islamic community (ummah islameeyah)!

so using that term is not only pure ignorant but also highly derogative & an insult towards
The Almighty.


*A mujaddid according to the popular Muslim tradition, refers to a person who appears at the turn of every century of the Islamic calendar to revive Islam, remove from it any extraneous elements and restore it to its pristine purity.
He might be a caliph, a prominent teacher, a scholar or some other kind of influential person.

Abu Hurairah (radiAllahu anhu) narrated that the prophet Muhammad (sallAllahu alaihi wa sallam) said, “Allah shall raise for this Ummah at the head of every century a man who shall renew (or revive) for it its religion.”
– Sunan Abu Dawood, Book 37: Kitab al-Malahim [Battles], Hadith Number 4278.


**


for those who are interested - this pdf is the most prominent works of the scholar with a brief biography of his:

https://www.missionislam.com/knowledge/books/tawheed.pdf
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
3,907
Two topics where the wahabis are incredibly stupid on

Bidah -religious innovation
As far as i'm concerned, islam is such a religion where if something is not haram or at least mukruh, it is HALAL and perfectly allowed.
However, there are things that have been enjoined on us ie the fard and sunnah. So where does bidah come in?

the wahabi perspective is specifically along these lines
'if the prophet SAW didn't do it, it is bidah.'
so what they're doing is harming the religion by preventing muslims from having anything in a religious context that wasn't directly done by the prophet SAW.
So if i decided to randomly start reading 4 extra rakahs of nafl every day...for whatever personal reason, that is not allowed..'prophet SAW didn't do it, therefore bidah'.
What this in effect does is, it limits us from experiencing Allah's infinite Mercy from a personal pov.

It's about closing us to the mystical dimension of islam entirely, from connecting with Allah's Imminence. Just a religious with strict control over all our religious/spiritual affairs...
you can only do xyz and nothing else, at least in a religious/spiritual context.


To me, bidah is anything that adds to or alters the fard/sunnah. For example is it haram for me to read additional prayers? nope
but what if i decided to enforce a new salat...where we only read nafl, but it is recognised as a 6th salat? that is an innovation that wasn't even technically haram yet it was certainly adding something there was no need for, to a structure that was already perfected, we have 5 salats for a reason, not 6. That is of course a bidah....but i don't see any evidence there is such a bidah?

The wahabis claim the celebration of the Prophet's birth is bidah.
How? it is neither something that's enforced that alters our religious obligations, nor is it haram (unless things are done that are obviously haram/mukruh). So for example if I decided to walk with my muslim brothers of various nationalities demonstrated our love and appreciation of the prophet SAW..we can come across far-right people who abuse the name of the prophet SAW and yet when we offer them food and talk to them on a level, many of them realise we're not causing trouble and are happy. However when we walk past the wahabis, they'll throw things, shout things like 'astagfirullah', start beeping their horns over us and mock us.....and they are not the type you can reason with.

Now I don't really take part in these events but i've done it in the past during that time when the cartoon's fiasco happened. I realised the prophet SAW is subject to attacks on a big scale and we're people who believe in him, i wanted to show solidarity with the brothers but wahabis were the only enemy on the street that day.


Shirk -polythiesm
when you accuse a muslim of shirk, you declare that muslim a kafir. When you declare a muslim a kafir, you yourself become a kafir.
Why is that? really think about why accusing someone of kufr makes you a kafir? it's primarily because in doing this, you're closing the doors of Allah infinite Mercy on another person, so Allah closes the door on you.

An example of this
in sufi metaphysics, the 3 highest levels are Hahut, Lahut and Jabarut.
Hahut=the Essence of Allah.
Lahut=His eternal expression (His Word/Logos) representing the level where His attributes are known
Jabarut=Where those attributes manifest ie Allah is The Creator, so jabarut represents causation.
In this sense, Allah's bestowing of mercy on all creation (al-Raheem) represents jabarut.
The prophet SAW for example was a proof of Allah's jabarut.
In one speech a shia talked about how the imam mahdi will be proof of Allah's jabarut.
This video went viral in wahabi circles on social media..the titles, captions and message they added to the video was what?
"shias are kafirs, proof"
In other contexts it justifies them killing muslims ie as 'kafirs'.

So when the prophet SAW spoke of najd, he didn't merely talk of the house saud but he spoke of what would come from there within a religious context
ie
they will have the best of speech
their salat will put yours to shame
they will recite the Quran in abundance

YET they will all be thrown into hell. They will 'invite others to the doors of hell'
The only context justifying these hadith is that this group is actively engaged in destroying islam ie like in the above examples.

Aside from that, the way they're destroying the holy cities of Mecca and Medina says it all.
 

Etagloc

Superstar
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
5,291
Shirk -polythiesm
when you accuse a muslim of shirk, you declare that muslim a kafir. When you declare a muslim a kafir, you yourself become a kafir.
Why is that? really think about why accusing someone of kufr makes you a kafir? it's primarily because in doing this, you're closing the doors of Allah infinite Mercy on another person, so Allah closes the door on you.

An example of this
in sufi metaphysics, the 3 highest levels are Hahut, Lahut and Jabarut.
Hahut=the Essence of Allah.
Lahut=His eternal expression (His Word/Logos) representing the level where His attributes are known
Jabarut=Where those attributes manifest ie Allah is The Creator, so jabarut represents causation.
In this sense, Allah's bestowing of mercy on all creation (al-Raheem) represents jabarut.
The prophet SAW for example was a proof of Allah's jabarut.
In one speech a shia talked about how the imam mahdi will be proof of Allah's jabarut.
This video went viral in wahabi circles on social media..the titles, captions and message they added to the video was what?
"shias are kafirs, proof"
In other contexts it justifies them killing muslims ie as 'kafirs'.

So when the prophet SAW spoke of najd, he didn't merely talk of the house saud but he spoke of what would come from there within a religious context
ie
they will have the best of speech
their salat will put yours to shame
they will recite the Quran in abundance

YET they will all be thrown into hell. They will 'invite others to the doors of hell'
The only context justifying these hadith is that this group is actively engaged in destroying islam ie like in the above examples.

Aside from that, the way they're destroying the holy cities of Mecca and Medina says it all.
That is another thing. I don't get- why not study the sufi metaphysics you're talking about?

Why snuff out creativity and originality? That is no different than "we don't need medicine- we will pray". We don't need innovativeness, creativity, initiative, originality- we have God. If having a place for creativity and vision is a violation of God's oneness... that's like saying taking medicine is a violation of God's oneness.
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
3,907
@Etagloc it's kind of like when muslims quote from the Quran and say
"look, Allah has TOLD US"
for example, jihad was compulsory on able men.
There are those verses where Allah talks about the hypocrites who refused the call ie they basically turned their backs on their muslim brothers because they feared death.
So i've had wahabis quote these to me personally as an example (not an accusation) that in reality we're supposed to fight jihad.

contexts
-Those verses were in truth, specifically for the muslims who were alive in that time, with the prophet SAW with them. They refused his call.....that is a far greater hypocrisy than a muslim living in the modern age who doesn't take part in jihad.
-Also all the prophets are important in islam, so what was the attitude of Jeremiah or Jesus in a time when a colonial power ie babylon or rome...had conquered the holy land and defeated God's chosen ummah? They didn't walk around preaching jihad. Moses, David, Solomon, they would have preached jihad. But Jeremiah didn't. Daniel who was every bit a colonial subject, served the king of babylon, respectfully.
shit..imagine if trump bombed mecca and slaughtered muslims on alarge scale, and a muslim served him with respect? most muslims would say that guy is not a true muslim, right?
Yet even in the Quran is Surah 17 when Allah talks about the babylonian conquest of jerusalem, Allah refers to them as 'my servants'.
The attitude the prophets had was literally that the evil empires attacking jerusalem, were sent as a punishment from God. So their primary concern was their own state and connection with God. They did not allow the monkey mind to control their narratives.
Yet all i get from muslims on my whatsapp and facebook is
'pray for the ummah, hindus/jews/americans are going this'.
yet this only reveals our own collective hypocrisy because it took a black man, Paul Pogba to talk about slavery in Libya for even a muslim like me to learn that there were savage libyans putting black economic migrants into slavery through force, which is totally haram.
of course...wahabis caused the whole mess in libya in the first place.

there are so many areas to look at, but anyone with an ounce of intelligent ought to already know this stuff.
it isn't a 'sufi message' its a regular person perspective, we should all know that our connection to Allah matters more.


As for reading other scriptures
no..i would not willy nilly advocate that, it took me years and a lot of experiences to even approach the bible, let alone other texts, but by that point i was confident in my ability to distinguish truth from falsehood.
a lot of people don't have the same ability to discriminate the right away.

Also if people are not going to learn willingly than Allah will force their hand through life events.
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
3,907
The Gita actually explained the philosophy of non-action that allowed me to make sense of the new testament themes and even the story of Khidr AS in islam. The only difference is I did not take the Gita to be literal truth but more like a perception of people that perhaps was lacking in correct tawhid? I saw it like the same way i see christianity as a religion that's more on the mystical front, but even this approach came about because im familiar with sufi themes.

the Tao te ching does cover that Moses vs Khidr theme very well, but I know what you're saying too. Try to control things too much and it backfires, right? ive seen that in a lot of examples over the years.
Just allow things to come around in their own way, that too. It's kind of why i mellowed down on my own spiritual growth, i realised it's better to just learn my lessons depending on how life comes at me, rather than tot ry and force my life to fit within a certain paradigm only for it to fail.

it's interesting how the tao te ching talks about people not being able to understand it. Moses could not understand Khidr. The 2 seas meet...yin/yang right? they meet at the point the fish goes 'missing'...the fish symbol in christianity, the Ichthys...

The story of the birth of Christ is said to be a result of the spring equinox entering into the Pisces, as the "Savior of the World" appeared as the Fisher of Men. This parallels the entering into the Age of Pisces.





two points meet...two seas meet


As for general spiritual knowledge amongst muslims. Bro, there are treasure troves of wisdom in our religion..but it's overlooked/forgotten because a lot of muslims don't give it thought.
I believe this sect game is the biggest bunch of BS around.
in the modern age, the sufis are fake, they're a parody of themselves and the wahabis are a reaction to that, then the sufis react to wahabism..it's a downward spiral.
 

Etagloc

Superstar
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
5,291
I want to mention Qutb. I am not really all that knowledgeable on Qutb but I don't think that Qutb is totally black and white.

What I mean is... you could say he was anti-American in a sense.

To me, I think the problem with Qutb is the big, obvious one. I think Qutb wanted Muslims to rule the world or something like that. If I'm not mistaken (and I might be because I'm not all that familiar with Qutb) and that's what he believed...... of course I am totally against that.

But as far as anti-American.... I am not disagreeing you with but what I mean is.... you could say he was anti-American but I think he would be anti-American in the sense that Robert Bork, Spengler and Jose Ortega Y Gassett were anti-American.... I think what he had to say about the US was in a large part a critique against decadence..... obviously, I'm not for what Qutb wanted if he really wanted Muslims to rule the world.... but Qutb writing about spiritual decadence of the West.... he probably had some interesting things to say.
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
3,907
As an aside, it might be worth mentioning that, as I only superficially understand, many of the so called (for the sake of convenience and categorization) Wahhabi/Salafists do draw from establishment Islamic theology, philosophy and tradition. Ibn Wahhab himself, for instance, was reportedly much influenced by Ibn Taymiyyah, whose writings are complex and voluminous. Many of the current intellects -and jihadist militants- of the school of thought refer to the late (Egyptian) Sayyid Qutb, practically our contemporary, and to his largely anti-modernist, anti-secular and anti-American works. That is not to suggest, though, that all Wahhabi/Salafists are anti-American and accept Sayyid Qutb uncritically. I am speaking in general terms.

I think, in some ways, and though the final chapter has yet to be written, obviously, the future might show that, for instance, what Marx's Das Kapital and Hitler's Mein Kampf were to the prior generation, some of Sayyid Qutb's writings will be to our own. Lines are drawn. Some will align themselves with while others will oppose them, often violently. This we are seeing. Oxford University and others have published Qutb bios and readers, but I am unable to find any of his writings translated into English and available online within the public domain.

Basically we're all 'influenced' by anything that corroborates our dominant narrative.
 

Etagloc

Superstar
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
5,291
Thanks. I am still somewhat lurking, or, rather, listening, but I always enjoy reading your insights as well. The subject of "Wahhabism" interests me.

I am primarily trying to be a sort of "ideas reporter," reporting on some of the theological and philosophical underpinnings of Wahhabism/Salafism. The subject interests me.

In that case, I tend, at times, to be radical myself, speaking generally.

I mention both as examples of men whose ideas were powerful and affected especially the past generation. World wars were fought in response to them; entire ideologies arose which were built upon them. In the near future, that might also be said of Qutb.

Have I made myself clearer?

No problem. And thank you for clarifying.
Yes you have made yourself clearer and it makes sense.

I think the critique-of-decadence aspect of Qutb could definitely be long lasting and have long-term influence and relevance. I think there are aspects of his thinking that were interesting.

With Marx and Hitler..... the reason they cannot be considered both as giants of modern thought..... is that the spirit of Marx's philosophy will bury the spirit of Hitler's philosophy.
 

Serveto

Star
Joined
Apr 20, 2017
Messages
1,043
Yes you have made yourself clearer and it makes sense.
Good. Thank you.
I think the critique-of-decadence aspect of Qutb could definitely be long lasting and have long-term influence and relevance. I think there are aspects of his thinking that were interesting.
There are. That is why I was hoping to find his actual writings, or articles, translated into English and available online (in the public domain). I still want to read him, but might have to buy the two above-linked books to do so.
With Marx and Hitler..... the reason they cannot be considered both as giants of modern thought..... is that the spirit of Marx's philosophy will bury the spirit of Hitler's philosophy.
As I see it, the struggle, in a sense, continues. We are seeing the rise, not necessarily of Nazism as such, but certainly the far right both in Europe and here in the States (and elsewhere), and some, though not all, of those alt-rightists and nationalists are students of Hitler, at least of his tactical mistakes and blunders. The alt-right often position themselves against the so called "cultural Marxists" of the Frankfurt School, the new Marxists who, following their lack of success in the economic spheres, reportedly decided to concentrate on culture rather than economy.

With all of that said, and given that Hitler's was a fiercely "national" as opposed to, say, Trotsky's "International" socialism, I think it can be reasonably argued that both Marx and Hitler were operating from the political left end of the spectrum. I am not necessarily the guy to argue that, though, because I don't claim to understand either of their ideologies in any great detail. I am just a spectator, sitting in the seat at Wimbledon, watching the tennis matches, hoping to not get hit in the head by flying balls and rackets in the process.
 
Last edited:

Kung Fu

Superstar
Joined
Mar 24, 2017
Messages
5,087
Good. Thank you.

There are. That is why I was hoping to find his actual writings, or articles, translated into English and available online (in the public domain). I still want to read him, but might have to buy the two above-linked books to do so.

As I see it, the struggle, in a sense, continues. We are seeing the rise, not necessarily of Nazism as such, but certainly the far right both in Europe and here in the States (and elsewhere), and some, though not all, of those alt-rightists and nationalists are students of Hitler, at least of his tactical mistakes and blunders. The alt-right often position themselves against the so called "cultural Marxists" of the Frankfurt School, the new Marxists who, following their lack of success in the economic spheres, reportedly decided to concentrate on culture rather than economy.

With all of that said, and given that Hitler's was a fiercely "national" as opposed to, say, Trotsky's "International" socialism, I think it can be reasonably argued that both Marx and Hitler were operating from the political left end of the spectrum. I am not necessarily the guy to argue that, though, because I don't claim to understand either of their ideologies in any great detail. I am just a spectator, sitting in the seat at Wimbledon, watching the tennis matches, hoping to not get hit in the head by flying balls and rackets in the process.
This was beautifully said.
 

Renegade

Veteran
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
737
As an aside, it might be worth mentioning that, as I only superficially understand, many of the so called (for the sake of convenience and categorization) Wahhabi/Salafists do draw from establishment Islamic theology, philosophy and tradition. Ibn Wahhab himself, for instance, was reportedly much influenced by Ibn Taymiyyah, whose writings are complex and voluminous. Many of the current intellects -and jihadist militants- of the school of thought refer to the late (Egyptian) Sayyid Qutb, practically our contemporary, and to his largely anti-modernist, anti-secular and anti-American works. That is not to suggest, though, that all Wahhabi/Salafists are anti-American and accept Sayyid Qutb uncritically. I am speaking in general terms.

I think, in some ways, and though the final chapter has yet to be written, obviously, the future might show that, for instance, what Marx's Das Kapital and Hitler's Mein Kampf were to the prior generation, some of Sayyid Qutb's writings will be to our own. Lines are drawn. Some will align themselves with while others will oppose them, often violently. This we are seeing. Oxford University and others have published Qutb bios and readers, but I am unable to find any of his writings translated into English and available online within the public domain.
Here you go..http://www.holybooks.com/milestones-by-syed-qutb-shaheed/
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
3,907

Sheikh Imran beat me to it!

I had been thinking how Salafism/Wahhabism was so similar to a protestant version of Islam and had been thinking about how to conceptualize this.... Sheikh Imran beat me to it!

And if you look at Sheikh Imran...... Sheikh Imran- as he himself explains here- is only able to be the Sheikh Imran who is so known and loved because he rejects the Wahhabi methodology.
anyone with half an ounce of intelligence would reject salafism/wahabism. The problem with imran hossein on this matter is that he's clearly an agent of russia/iran since he praises them to high heaven.
I also cannot stand the way he forms his opinions out of thin air. I know how I come across saying this esp in light of how certain people view me...but every point I've made in the past it has a clear consistent argument behind it.
For example, the hadith prophecies talk of Rome. The malhamma are the end times wars between the arab/muslims and the 'romans'.
Now imran hossein claims that the romans at the time of the prophet were the byzantines and since there is no more roman/byzantine empire then it means the romans are the eastern orthodox church. It's also true that in the prophecies it talks of the breaking of the cross and therefore to him it's a war between muslims and the eoc. However before these wars happen there's going to be an alliance where they defeat a common enemy. His view is that this refers to defeating america. It's kind of pathetic how he literally appeals to the russian/eoc in one of his videos like 'our brothers'..'alliance'. Why his view is vastly dangerous, i'll explain.

Daniel 2 tells us about the 2 periods of rome, the latter one being the 'feet of iron and clay'. This is end times rome, specifically the beast of the sea mentioned throughout Revelation.
In Revelation, the whore sits on the beast. The whore refers to the zionist/jewish who control the money/global culture/entertainment etc. The key is that the beast is using the whore to accomplish it's own purpose ie to grow strong. in that respect the colonial nations allowed jews to practice usury and everything else to bring people under control. Their own purpose was to establish a one world government where they hold total control. The jews are their tool, not the otherway round. So the alliance between romans and muslims is when the fall of mystery babylon happens and it coincides with the hadith prophecy where muslims will kill jews and the stones/trees will speak as witnesses against them (this is not literal but is connected with various linked themes in the OT).
Now suppose this occurs through russia...I already believe dajjal's manifestation comes from the shadow of shia mahdi-ism ie the living mahdi in occultation.
the trick is this is also dajjals way of deceiving people esp muslims, ie to allow the destruction of the modern state of israel.
Is it any wonder dajjal comes with an army from isfahan? 70,000 jews? there are not even 10,000 jews in isfahan today which suggests these are jews by blood ie crypto-jews (just like ahmadinijad).
Basically russia's role in supporting the iran/anti-israel axis is where the deception happens.

In hinduism, this type of deception is called mayamoha...it's an illusion created out of chaos/bewilderment and of course the background of this term, mayamoha, is rooted in the same theme ie of a dajjalic figure who deceives people.
https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/the-vishnu-purana/d/doc57607.html
what's interesting here is this deception was used against the asuras who were demonic, it was done to weaken them and then allow the good side to defeat them. in the context ths is a little bit like saying dajjal is God's plan to totally separate good and evil in the world, cause the evil side to fall so far into an illusion that it becomes easy for the good side to destroy them.
It's just like when Jesus said

Matthew 13
24 Jesus told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25 But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 26 When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.


27 “The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’


28 “‘An enemy did this,’ he replied.

“The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’

29 “‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’”


I def think imran hossein is a disinfo agent. if you present israel itself as the dajjalic system, then whoever destroys israel is what?
 
Top