de ziekte van de islam: het wahhabisme.

[tomcruse]

The Wahhabis
Wahhabism

These Masonic leaders seemed, then, to have embarked on a plan to subvert Islam from within, and to distort the Islamic world and render it predisposed to a confrontation with the West. Key to this strategy was the creation of the Salafi movement, which was an outgrowth of the emergence of the Egyptian Freemasonry of Cagliostro, which today is closely aligned to the Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia.
According to their devious strategy of “divide and conquer”, the British deliberately created the Wahhabi movement in order to upset the Ottoman Empire. At the height of its power, between the sixteenth and seventh century, the Ottoman Empire spanned three continents, controlling much of Southeastern Europe, the Middle East and North Africa. It stretched from the Strait of Gibraltar in the west to the Caspian Sea and Persian Gulf in the east, and from the edge of Austria, Hungary and parts of Ukraine in the north to Sudan, Eritrea, Somalia and Yemen in the south.
However, at the same time, the British were beginning to encroach upon former Muslim territories, in particular, making significant inroads into India. Nevertheless, they continued to have designs on the various parts of the Ottoman Empire, and worked to aid in its collapse by fomenting rebellion from within.
The brunt of their strategy was focused on the creation of the Wahhabi sect of Saudi Arabia. Today, the Wahhabis insinuate themselves as legitimate members of the Sunni body of Islam. They will even reject the appellation, claiming there is no such thing as a “Wahhabi”. However, what they retain in common is an adherence to the so-called reforms of their founder, Mohammed Abdul Wahhab. And while the Wahhabis employ various tactics to defend the legitimacy of their ideology, the most incriminating facts against them lie in their history in the subversion of the Islamic world.
The British creation of the Wahhabi sect is outlined in a document named The Memoirs of Mr. Hempher: A British Spy to the Middle East, said to have been published in series in the German magazine Der Spiegel, and later in a prominent French paper. A Lebanese doctor translated the document into Arabic, from which it was translated to English and other languages. While some have attempted to refute the legitimacy of the document, it provides the only reasonable scenario for explaining the very extreme and absurd claims of Abdul Wahhab. In any case, Mir’at al Harramin, a Turkish work by Ayyub Sabri Pasha, written in 1888, made the same claim, stating that in Basra, Abdul Wahhab had come into contact with a British spy by the name of Hempher, who “inspired in him the tricks and lies that he had learned from the British Ministry of the Commonwealth.”70
Hempher claims to have been one of nine spies sent to the Middle East for such a purpose. He reports, “we were designing long term plans to wage discord, ignorance, poverty, and even diseases in these countries. We were imitating the customs and traditions of these two countries, thus easily concealing our intentions.” The pretext Hempher offered for his actions was:


We, the English people, have to make mischief and arouse schism in all our colonies in order that we may live in welfare and luxury. Only by means of such instigations will we be able to demolish the Ottoman Empire. Otherwise, how could a nation with a small population bring another nation with a greater population under its sway? Look for the mouth of the chasm with all your might, and get in as soon as you find it. You should know that the Ottoman and Iranian Empires have reached the nadir of their lives.
Therefore, your first duty is to instigate the people against the administration! History has shown that “The source of all sorts of revolutions is public rebellions.” When the unity of Muslims is broken and the common sympathy among them is impaired, their forces will be dissolved and thus we shall easily destroy them.


In 1710, the British government sent Hempher to Egypt, Iraq, Arabia and Istanbul, where he learned Arabic, Turkish and Islamic law. After two years, he first returned to London for briefing, before being sent to Basra, a mixed city of Sunni and Shiah, where Hempher met Abdul Wahhab. Recognising his insolence towards the Qur’an and traditions of Islam, Hempher recognised him as the ideal candidate for the British strategy. Stipulations were that he was to be supported with adequate financing and weaponry, to protect himself against states and scholars who would certainly attack him after he would announce his ideas. And, that a principality ought to be established in his native country of Arabia.
Ultimately, the reforms issued by the British through the mouth of Abdul Wahhab were designed to instigate the Muslims against other Muslims, and more specifically, against the Ottoman Empire. Thus, despite the very grave problems that were plaguing the Muslim world, as well as the encroachment of non-Muslim powers on traditional Muslim lands, Abdul Wahhab sought to identify the ills troubling the Muslims, in accordance to the stipulations of the plan, as their practice of visiting mausoleums and asking intercession from “saints”, or deceased holy men.
Muslim worshippers were often in the habit of visiting the graves of holy men, and asking them to pray on their behalf. To fulfil his obligation to the British, Abdul Wahhab used the justifiable objection to this practice as a pretext to argue that, by asking help from someone other than God, they were actually “worshipping” these holy men, and were ignorantly committing an act of idolatry that caused them to forfeit Islam and become apostates. It was then permitted, he argued, to fight them. This was the pretext used by the British, through the mouth of Abdul Wahhab, to incite the Arabs against the Turks.
To further his argument, Abdul Wahhab suggested that all the world of Islam was mired in a state of ignorance, which could be likened to Arabia prior to the arrival of Islam. There are several instances in the Qur’an where God calls attention to the hypocrisy of a man who will pray to God alone when he is faced with some calamity, but that, once he is free of distress, returns to his idols. Abdul Wahhab declared then, that the Muslims were similar, and that, despite otherwise insisting they were worshipping the one God, they were nevertheless also idol worshippers.
The brother of Abdul Wahhab, Shaykh Sulaiman bin Abdul Wahab, said about his brother, in Sawaa’iqul Ilahiya, “The horn of Satan which the Prophet (peace be upon him) referred to is you.” He was referring to the hadith found in Sahih Bukhari:
Ibn Umar (Allah be pleased with him) reported the Prophet (Peace be upon him) as saying: “Oh Allah, bless us in our Syria; O Allah, bless us in our Yemen.” Those present said: “And in our Najd, O Messenger of Allah!” But he said, “O Allah, bless us in our Syria; O Allah, bless us in our Yemen.” Those present said, "And in our Najd, O Messenger of Allah!” Ibn Umar said that he thought that he said on the third occasion: “Earthquakes and fitnah are there, and there shall arise the horn of ash-Shaytaan.”


Footenotes:


70 Ayyub Sabri Pasha. Part Two: The Beginnings and Spread of Wahhabism.


Ibn Taymiyyah

Abdul Wahhab declared it incumbent upon his followers to wage “Jihad” against all the Muslims, and that it was permitted for them to enslave their women and children. This approach was derived from the influence of Ibn Taymiyyah, a controversial Islamic figure, who had remained largely in obscurity until his reputation was revived by a number of reform movements that emerged beginning in the mid-nineteenth century, and who remains to this day an important influence guiding the principles of Islamic terrorism.
Ibn Taymiyyah’s life was marked by persecutions. As early as 1293, he came into conflict with local authorities for protesting a sentence, pronounced under religious law, against a Christian accused of having insulted the Prophet. In 1298, he was accused of having criticised the legitimacy of the Islamic scholarly establishment, and of anthropomorphism, or ascribing human characteristics to God, despite a tradition in Islam of avoiding all such allusions. Ibn Battuta, the famous traveler and chronicler, reported that while Ibn Taymiyyah was preaching in the mosque, he said, “God comes down to the sky of this world just as I come down now,” and descended one step of the pulpit.
Opinions about Ibn Taymiyyah varied considerably. Even his enemies, like Taqi ud Din al Subki, were ready to concede to his virtues: “Personally, my admiration is even greater for the asceticism, piety, and religiosity with which God has endowed him, for his selfless championship of the truth, his adherence to the path of our forbearers, his pursuit of perfection, the wonder of his example, unrivalled in our time and in times past.”71
And yet, he was chided by one of his own students, the famous historian and scholar, Al Dhahabi, who said, “Blessed is he whose fault diverts him from the faults of others! Damned is he whom others divert from his own faults! How long will you look at the motes in the eyes of your brother, forgetting the stumps in your own?”72 It was for his intemperance that Ibn Battuta declared that Ibn Taymiyyah had a “screw loose”.73
During the great Mongol crisis of the years 1299 to 1303, and especially during their occupation of Damascus, Ibn Taymiyyah led a party of resistance, and denounced the faith of the invaders which he considered suspect, despite their conversion to Islam. Until the Mongol invasion, Ibn Taymiyyah had lived in Harran, the seat of the occult Sabian community, and may have come under their influence. Their texts expounded on anthropomorphic visions of the cosmic Adam, in a manner similar to the Kabbalistic idea of Shiur Khomah. During the ensuing years, Ibn Taymiyyah was engaged in intensive polemical activity against the Sufis and Shiah. In 1306, however, he was summoned to explain his beliefs to the governor’s council, which, although it did not condemn him, sent him to Cairo. There, Ibn Taymiyyah appeared before another council on the charge of anthropomorphism and was imprisoned for eighteen months.
If he adhered to such ideas, as was customary among Ismailis, he shared them only secretly with select disciples advanced to higher grades. Abu Hayyan, who knew him personally, held him in great esteem, until he was introduced to a work, in which Ibn Taymiyyah offered anthropomorphic descriptions of God.74
The book had been acquired deceptively by a man who had pretended to be among his supporters in order to receive the instructions that Ibn Taymiyyah reserved only for his inner-circle of initiates. This demonstrates that Ibn Taymiyyah had one doctrine he espoused in public, and a more esoteric doctrine he confided only to initiates, a doctrine similar to occult ideas.
Ibn Taymiyyah’s repudiation of praying to saints was perceived by him as an attempt to purify Islamic monotheism. The pillar of Islamic belief is the unity of God, or monotheism. Islam began as a message that confronted the paganism of the Arabs and called for a return to the worship of the one God, the same worshipped by the Prophets of the Old Testament. Therefore, worshipping any being or object other than God was considered tantamount to apostasy. This idea Abdul Wahhab carried to the extreme. Also inherited from Ibn Taymiyyah was his anthropomorphism, which continues to pollute the Wahhabi conception of God, as exemplified in Tawheed, by Muslim convert Abu Ameena Bilal Phillips, who studied at the University of Medina.

[Piero]

? http://www.ummah.net/Al_adaab/wah-36.html ?

http://www.amsterdampost.nl/wahabism...-europabalkan/

[tomcruse]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Piero

? http://www.ummah.net/Al_adaab/wah-36.html ?

http://www.amsterdampost.nl/wahabism...-europabalkan/

Bedankt Piero,

Al jaren waarschuw ik voor de salafisten.
Ze zijn als het HIV voor de Islam geweest.

Dat wijlen koning Boudewijn zijn paviljoen in Brussel afstond om er een Islamitisch centrum van te maken kan geen toeval zijn.

Maar terwijl de ziekte het salafisme zelf ten gronde richt zijn er resistente afgeleide sekten ontstaan die zelfs doodsbedreigend zijn voor de salafisten.

Salafisten waren eenzaten, stille excentriekelingen, broeders en zusters met sponsorgelden ter beschikking om internetsites op te starten, lessen te geven en verenigingen op te richten. Zij zijn de absolute segregatie genegen maar verder had je er niet veel last van. Soms zoals met de hoofddoeken traden ze op de voorgrond.

Ik heb zelf N T bezig gezien in Brussel, het is erg, meer wil ik niet over kwijt.

Maar ze hebben dus afgedaan.
De jihadisten en takfiris zijn in de plaats gekomen, en het Moslimbrotherhood doet gestaag verder en neemt de fakkel over tot ook zij de pedalen zullen verliezen onder druk van de provocaties zoals van shariah4belgium.

Zelfde doelstellingen maar een andere agenda.

Wil de Belgische staat iets doen aan godsdienstvrijheid laat ze dan beginnen met de uitwassen op te ruimen, Al Minara.be, Bekeerdemoslimas.nl, Al Mawada, Ivoe, Boeh dat zichzelf feministisch noemt maar even indoctrinerend werkt als Al Minara.
Laat de buitenlandse mooipraters niet toe op Europese bodem om er "congressen" te leiden. Enz.
Er geldt geen godsdienstvrijheid binnen de islam, laat staan erbuiten.
De eerste slachtoffers van de onverdraagzaamheid binnen de moslimgemeenschap zijn de moslims zelf.
Geef ze hun godsdienstvrijheid, het is een grondwettelijk recht!

Het klinkt on-democratisch maar de tegenstanders zijn dictatoriaal.

Het is als kiezen tussen de pest of de cholera maar het is het niet.

[suqar_7loe]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door tomcruse

Wil de Belgische staat iets doen aan godsdienstvrijheid laat ze dan beginnen met de uitwassen op te ruimen, Al Minara.be, Bekeerdemoslimas.nl, Al Mawada, Ivoe, Boeh dat zichzelf feministisch noemt maar even indoctrinerend werkt als Al Minara.

Wat is er zo indoctrinerend aan die organisaties?

[tomcruse]

http://truesalafi.com/b2/blog1.php/2...ing-each-other

Waarom vechten moslims tegen elkaar en geven ze het Westen dan maar de schuld? Omdat ze de Koran en de islam niet begrepen hebben!

Omdat hun geleerden liegen en de verzen verdraaien en uit hun context lichten.

Omdat ze God niet meer vrezen maar hun eigen wensen willen volgen.

Omdat ze de prettige dingen van het Westen willen maar daar niets willen voor doen. Het moet in hun schoot vallen.

Omdat ze in de 14de eeuw gestopt zijn met nadenken en het sindsdien verleerd zijn.

Omdat ze achter de verkeerde mensen aanzeulen die hen verkeerd voorlichten.

Daarom!

[tomcruse]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door suqar_7loe

Wat is er zo indoctrinerend aan die organisaties?

Dat ze een bepaalde aqeedah volgen en geen andere mening dulden.

Dat ze mensen uit hun vertrouwde omgeving losweken en hen opvangen en verwelkomen, prijzen voor hun beslissing.

Ze tot sekteleden maken volgens de geëigende technieken en ze dan volproppen met schuldgevoelens voor Allah zodat ze zich onzeker gaan voelen en door welwillende zusters en broeders begeleid worden naar het "ware" geloof.

Dat de buitenwereld slecht is, verdorven en pervers. Vooral dat laatste doet het goed. Dat men zich ertegen moet beschermen met kledij. Met haat. Met vermijden van contacten. enz. Je kent het wel suqar_7loe.

99% mooipraterij en 1% pure indoctrinatie, je merkt het niet eens.

Een specifieke organisatie in je vraag op het oog?

[suqar_7loe]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door tomcruse

Dat ze een bepaalde aqeedah volgen en geen andere mening dulden.

Dat ze mensen uit hun vertrouwde omgeving losweken en hen opvangen en verwelkomen, prijzen voor hun beslissing.

Ze tot sekteleden maken volgens de geëigende technieken en ze dan volproppen met schuldgevoelens voor Allah zodat ze zich onzeker gaan voelen en door welwillende zusters en broeders begeleid worden naar het "ware" geloof.

Dat de buitenwereld slecht is, verdorven en pervers. Vooral dat laatste doet het goed. Dat men zich ertegen moet beschermen met kledij. Met haat. Met vermijden van contacten. enz. Je kent het wel suqar_7loe.

99% mooipraterij en 1% pure indoctrinatie, je merkt het niet eens.

Een specifieke organisatie in je vraag op het oog?

Niet echt. Ik ken de organisaties die je noemt heel goed. Af en toe moet ge ze eens volgen en u als vrijwilliger opgeven. Ge zou nogal eens kunnen verschieten

Een man als Chatouani geeft af en toe lezingen bij Al Mawada. Wat denk je daarvan?

[Erwinvds]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door suqar_7loe

Niet echt. Ik ken de organisaties die je noemt heel goed. Af en toe moet ge ze eens volgen en u als vrijwilliger opgeven. Ge zou nogal eens kunnen verschieten

Een man als Chatouani geeft af en toe lezingen bij Al Mawada. Wat denk je daarvan?

Sugar, een vraagje aub.
Waarom moet je dat doen?
Als het moeten is ben je toch geen vrijwilliger?

[suqar_7loe]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Erwinvds

Sugar, een vraagje aub.
Waarom moet je dat doen?
Als het moeten is ben je toch geen vrijwilliger?

Ik moet helemaal niks. Als er conferenties of lezingen worden georganiseerd kun je als vrijwilliger meehelpen aan het project.

[tomcruse]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door suqar_7loe

Niet echt. Ik ken de organisaties die je noemt heel goed. Af en toe moet ge ze eens volgen en u als vrijwilliger opgeven. Ge zou nogal eens kunnen verschieten

Een man als Chatouani geeft af en toe lezingen bij Al Mawada. Wat denk je daarvan?

Jij bent van jongeren voor islam, de middenweg, je zit soms in Berchem in het Cultureel Centrum?
Ze heten nu Al Mawarda.
Ik ken Chatouani heel goed. Het is gevaarlijk om er op te antwoorden.
Ik speel niet op de man, behalve op abu imran die denkt dat hij de waarheid in pacht heeft en ze verkondigt tegen iedereen die ze niet wil horen.

Kijk naar wie er uitgenodigd wordt en je weet waar de wind vandaan komt.
Stilletjes islamiseren, geen golven maken, meewerken met de overheid, mooipraten, pioniers uitsturen, politiek gebruiken voor eigen doeleinden.

Alle middelen zijn goed om het doel te bereiken. Politiek opportunisme.
De politieke islam in actie.
Niet breeddenkend genoeg om het tij te keren en zelfde doel: macht!
Een tekening nodig of weet je het?

[suqar_7loe]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door tomcruse

Jij bent van jongeren voor islam, de middenweg, je zit soms in Berchem in het Cultureel Centrum?
Ze heten nu Al Mawarda.
Ik ken Chatouani heel goed. Het is gevaarlijk om er op te antwoorden.
Ik speel niet op de man, behalve op abu imran die denkt dat hij de waarheid in pacht heeft en ze verkondigt tegen iedereen die ze niet wil horen.

Kijk naar wie er uitgenodigd wordt en je weet waar de wind vandaan komt.
Stilletjes islamiseren, geen golven maken, meewerken met de overheid, mooipraten, pioniers uitsturen, politiek gebruiken voor eigen doeleinden.

Alle middelen zijn goed om het doel te bereiken. Politiek opportunisme.
De politieke islam in actie.
Niet breeddenkend genoeg om het tij te keren en zelfde doel: macht!
Een tekening nodig of weet je het?

Ik ben voor geen enkele organisatie. En al helemaal niet van Al Mawada, de fitnavereniging. De organisaties die je aanhaalt ken ik gewoon heel goed.

Wat Chatouani betreft, geen kwaad woord over hem. Ten minste nog iemand die oprecht en eerlijk is.

[Erwinvds]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door suqar_7loe

Niet echt. Ik ken de organisaties die je noemt heel goed. Af en toe moet ge ze eens volgen en u als vrijwilliger opgeven. Ge zou nogal eens kunnen verschieten

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door suqar_7loe

Ik moet helemaal niks. Als er conferenties of lezingen worden georganiseerd kun je als vrijwilliger meehelpen aan het project.

Ach ok dan. Zal ik iets mis gelezen hebben.

[suqar_7loe]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Erwinvds

Ach ok dan. Zal ik iets mis gelezen hebben.

Zeg jij dat niet soms? 'Af en toe moet ge nekeer wat meer ...' wat natuurlijk niet wilt zeggen dat iemand u daartoe verplicht. Heb je 'm?

[tomcruse]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door suqar_7loe

Ik ben voor geen enkele organisatie. En al helemaal niet van Al Mawada, de fitnavereniging. De organisaties die je aanhaalt ken ik gewoon heel goed.
Wat Chatouani betreft, geen kwaad woord over hem. Ten minste nog iemand die oprecht en eerlijk is.

Zeer dubbelzinnig suqar!

Al Mawada = de fitnavereniging
Chatouani = oprecht en eerlijk.

http://www.islamic-events.org/tag/al-mawada/

gastspreker Al Mawada = Chatouani Alkhattab.

Andere gasten : Al Qaradawi, Bilal Philips, Khalid Yassin, Hussein Ye
voeg er nog Tariq Ramadan aan toe ter info.

Of Chatouani doet maar wat als een kip zonder kop of hij weet wat Al Mawada is. Wat denk je?

Aan de hand van bovenstaande namen wat is de strekking van Al Mawada?
Welk is hun voorkeurboekje? Wat willen ze bereiken?

[suqar_7loe]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door tomcruse

Zeer dubbelzinnig suqar!

Al Mawada = de fitnavereniging
Chatouani = oprecht en eerlijk.

http://www.islamic-events.org/tag/al-mawada/

gastspreker Al Mawada = Chatouani Alkhattab.

Andere gasten : Al Qaradawi, Bilal Philips, Khalid Yassin, Hussein Ye
voeg er nog Tariq Ramadan aan toe ter info.

Of Chatouani doet maar wat als een kip zonder kop of hij weet wat Al Mawada is. Wat denk je?

Aan de hand van bovenstaande namen wat is de strekking van Al Mawada?
Welk is hun voorkeurboekje? Wat willen ze bereiken?

Chatouani gelooft in de oprechtheid van de mens.

[Pieter B]

De Koran en Mohammed zijn de ziekte van Islam.

[tomcruse]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door suqar_7loe

Chatouani gelooft in de oprechtheid van de mens.

En jij gelooft in Chatouani.
Elhamdulillah.

[tomcruse]

The Saudis

Eventually, the British government managed to acquire for Wahhab the support of Mohammad Ibn Saud, the Amir of Dariyah. It was agreed between them that, from then on, power would be held among their descendants, with the Saudis maintaining political authority, and the Wahhabis administering the cult. The Saudis are an important Illuminati family, allegedly being secret Jews, like the Dönme counterparts in Turkey.
According to Mohammad Sakher, who was apparently ordered killed for publishing his findings, Ibn Saud, though pretending to defend the reforms of Abdul Wahhab, was of Jewish origin. In the fifteenth century, Sakher maintains, a Jewish merchant from Basra, named Mordechai, immigrated to Arabia, settling in Dariyah, where he claimed to belong to the Arabian tribe of the Anza, and there assumed the name of Markan bin Dariyah.75
The Aniza tribe, to which the Saudis belong, as well as the ruling Sabah family of Kuwait, originally issued from Khaybar in Arabia, and there are well documented traditions about descendants of Jews from the region, who were supposedly forcibly converted to Islam. More specifically, according to modern occult legend, the Aniza are regarded as being the source of the European Witch Cult, through the person of Abu el-Atahiyya. These legends were popularised by Gerald Gardner, the founder of the modern cult of Wicca. Gardner was also a close associate of Aleister Crowley, as well as a Co-Freemason, the irregular branch of French masonry, co-founded by Annie Besant, which admits women to the 33rd degree.
Gardner was also the friend and teacher of notorious charlatan Idries Shah, whose book on Sufism is disguised Luciferianism. Idries Shah described the “Maskhara” Dervishes who were also known as the “Revellers” and the “Wise Ones”, whose leader was Abu el-Atahiya. The name Aniza, he maintains, means goat and el-Atahiya was commemorated by the “Revellers” with the symbol of a torch burning between the horns of a goat, in obvious allusion to the Baphomet of the Templars. After Atahiya’s death, a group of his followers migrated to Moorish Spain.
In the early eighteenth century, the Aniza had entered the Syrian Desert where they established themselves as a powerful and influential tribe. German traveller Carlsten Niebuhr referred to them in 1761 as the strongest tribe in the Syrian Desert. Today the Aniza remain one of the largest Arabian tribes, having branches in Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
The Saudi family was primarily engaged in banditry. This pitted them in conflict against the Ottoman state. By declaring them all apostates, in 1746 the Wahhabi-Saudi alliance made a formal proclamation of “Jihad” against the Muslim world represented by the Ottoman Empire.
From then on, the Wahhabi movement was characterised by maliciousness towards the Muslims, despite the encroachments the “infidel” British were making in the region. When Mohammed Ibn Saud died, his son Abul Aziz became ruler of Dariyah. During the following two decades, the Wahhabis extended their sphere of influence, paralleling infiltration by the British. Nevertheless, the following year, Abdul Wahhab declared himself leader of the Muslims of the world, in direct opposition to the authority of the Caliph in Istanbul, reinforced by a Fatwa ordering “Jihad” against the Ottoman Empire. And, significantly, in 1788 Abdul Aziz ibn Saud was joined by British forces in occupying Kuwait.
In 1792 Abdul Wahhab died and Abdul Aziz assumed the leadership of the Wahhabi movement and extended raids over the next three years into the city of Medina and the regions of Syria and Iraq. In 1801 the Wahhabis attacked the Shiah holy city of Karbala, in Iraq, slaughtering thousands of its citizens. They ruined and looted the tomb of Hussain, the grandson of the Prophet Mohammed. As a result, it seems that Abdul Aziz was murdered in 1803, most likely by a Shiah avenger. His son Saud ibn Abdul Aziz then succeeded him. After sacking Karbala, the Wahhabis moved against Mecca. The Ottoman governor of Mecca failed to negotiate a peace and retreated into the fortress in the city of Ta’if, where he was pursued by some 10,000 Wahhabis.
In the taking of Ta’if, the Wahhabis then set about destroying all the holy tombs and burial grounds, followed by the mosques and Islamic madrassas. It is even said that the leather and gilt bindings of the Islamic holy books they had destroyed were used by them to make sandals. Al Zahawi, an Islamic historian of the time, recounted:


They killed everyone in sight, slaughtering both child and adult, the ruler and the ruled, the lowly and the well-born. They began with a suckling child nursing at his mother’s breast and moved on to a group studying Qur’an, slaying them, down to the last man. And when they wiped out the people in the houses, they went out into the streets, the shops, and the mosques, killing whoever happened to be there. They killed even men bowed in prayer until they had exterminated every Muslim who dwelt in Ta’if and only a remnant, some twenty or more, remained.
These were holed up in Bait al Fitni with ammunition, inaccessible to the Wahhabis’ approach. There was another group at Bait al Far numbering 270, who fought them that day, then a second and third day, until the Wahhabis sent them a guarantee of clemency; only they tendered this proposal as a trick. For when the Wahhabis entered, they seized their weapons and slew them to a man. They induced others to surrender with a guarantee of mercy and took them to the valley of Waj where they abandoned them in the cold and snow, barefoot, naked and exposed in shame with their women, accustomed to the privacy afforded them by common decency and religious morality. They then plundered their possessions, wealth of any kind, household furnishings, and cash.
They cast books into the streets, alleys, and byways to be blown to and fro by the wind, among which could be found copies of Qur’an, volumes of Bukhari, Muslim, other canonical collections of Hadith and books of Islamic jurisprudence, all mounting to the thousands. These books remained there for several days, trampled upon by the Wahhabis. None among them made the slightest attempt to remove even one page of Qur’an from underfoot to preserve it from the ignominy of this display of disrespect. Then, they razed the houses, and made what was once a town a barren waste.76


Next, the Wahhabis entered the holy city of Mecca. Ghalib, the Sharif of the city, repelled them, but Wahhabi raids then turned against Medina. Saud ibn Abdul Aziz addressed the people saying, “there is no other way for you than to submit. I will make you cry out and vanish as I did the people of Ta’if.” In Medina, they looted the Prophet’s treasure, including books, works of art, and other priceless relics that had been collected over a thousand years. Finally, while in control of these two holy cities, they imposed their version of Islam, barred pilgrims from performing the Hajj, covered up the Kaabah with a rough black fabric, and set about the demolition of shrines and graveyards.
Wahhabi perniciousness against the Ottoman Empire continued to serve British interests. During this time, Britain acquired as a client in southeast Arabia the state of Oman with sovereignty over Zanzibar in Africa and parts of the Iranian and neighbouring coasts. Britain also expanded its influence northward into the area of the United Arab Emirates. The British also eventually seized control of Aden, on the south coast of Yemen. Despite these encroachments into Muslim lands, by a hostile non-Muslim power, the Wahhabis would let nothing distract them from their “Jihad” against Islam.
The Wahhabis persisted in their violence in Arabia until 1811, when Mohammed Ali Pasha, the viceroy of Egypt, was engaged by the Ottoman Sultan to address the Wahhabi nuisance. He appointed his son Tosun Pasha commander, but his forces were badly defeated. Ali Pasha then assumed command, and in 1812 swept through Arabia, eradicating the Wahhabi problem. Two of the worst Wahhabi fanatics, Uthman ul Mudayiqi and Mubarak ibn Maghyan, were sent to Istanbul, paraded through the streets, until they were executed.
Ali Pasha also sent troops under his second son, Ibrahim Pasha, to root the Wahhabis out of Syria, Iraq and Kuwait. Those Arabs that had suffered at the hands of the Wahhabis rose in revolt, joining Ali Pasha. In 1818, the Wahhabi stronghold of Dariyah was taken and destroyed, though some of the Saudis received protection from the British in Jeddah. Saud ibn Adbul Aziz had died of fever in 1814, but his heir, Abdullah ibn Saud, was sent to Istanbul, where he was executed along with other captured Wahhabis. The rest of the Wahhabi clan was held in captivity in Cairo.
Despite their initial defeat, the Wahhabis regrouped in Najd, establishing a new capital in Riyad. Within a few decades, the Wahhabis began a renewed expansion which, as noted by Hamid Algar, “was fortuitous in that it ultimately brought the Sauds into contact with the British who were not only seeking to consolidate their dominance of the Persian Gulf but also beginning to lay plans for the dismemberment of the Ottoman State.”77


Footnotes:


75 The Saudi Dynasty: From Where is it? And Who is the Real Ancestor of this Family?
76 Ibid, p. 86.
77 Wahhabism, p. 37.

[suqar_7loe]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door tomcruse

En jij gelooft in Chatouani.
Elhamdulillah.

Ik geloof in God en in niemand anders. Ik stel gewoon dat Chatouani een oprechte persoon is. U maakt ervan wat u wilt uiteraard. Tenslotte is er maar 1 iemand die op de hoogte is van wat er zich in de harten verschuilt.

Misschien moet jij eens dieper beginnen nadenken. Het is niet omdat u denkt dat Al Mawada een niet-oprechte organisatie is dat alle mensen die naar de lezingen komen luisteren of de gastsprekers niet oprecht zijn. Indien u toch van die opinie bent, bent u geen haar beter dan degene waar u het over heeft.

Dat vind ik nogal kortzichtig.

Wat wil je eigenlijk bereiken met deze topic?

[Caligula]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door suqar_7loe

Ik geloof in God en in niemand anders. Ik stel gewoon dat Chatouani een oprechte persoon is. U maakt ervan wat u wilt uiteraard. Tenslotte is er maar 1 iemand die op de hoogte is van wat er zich in de harten verschuilt.

Misschien moet jij eens dieper beginnen nadenken. Het is niet omdat u denkt dat Al Mawada een niet-oprechte organisatie is dat alle mensen die naar de lezingen komen luisteren of de gastsprekers niet oprecht zijn. Indien u toch van die opinie bent, bent u geen haar beter dan degene waar u het over heeft.

Dat vind ik nogal kortzichtig.

Wat wil je eigenlijk bereiken met deze topic?

wat is dat "god"?