Glimpses Into Early Wahhabi Thought

[rahat]

Muhamamd ibn Abdul Wahab's sons and grandsons make up the Saudi Royal Family. It is an undeniable fact that the "royal family" came into power via violence.

Of course, many of the people on this forum are either "Salafi" revisionists or in favor of revisionism, so no realistic discussion can be had.

I mean this notion that every group was actually a subsect of another group simply proves the point. "No they were ikwanis, who were actually bedouins, who were actually this, who were actually that"

-
rahat

[Chisti]

rahat said

Muhamamd ibn Abdul Wahab's sons and grandsons make up the Saudi Royal Family. It is an undeniable fact that the "royal family" came into power via violence.

Of course, many of the people on this forum are either "Salafi" revisionists or in favor of revisionism, so no realistic discussion can be had.

I mean this notion that every group was actually a subsect of another group simply proves the point. "No they were ikwanis, who were actually bedouins, who were actually this, who were actually that"

-
rahat

Don't all royal families come into power via violence ?

[Jaysh]

As-Salam Alaykum.

Bismillah.

Chisti said

but it is undeniable that Abdul Wahab studied and associated with Sufi inclined people, BUT was against certain practices during that era, which he associated with shirk.

Also, the scholar that most wahahbis held in high esteem was Ibn Taymiyya, again someone closely associated with the Qadiri sufi tariqa ...

The idea that Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah was part of a tariqah is false.

If, however, you are merely trying to say that Shaykh Ibn Abdul Wahhab and Shaykh al-Islam were not opposed to all Sufis, then this is correct, and this is the belief of the contemporary Salafis as well. What my shaykh has said is that we judge a person not by the epithet he uses, but rather by what he calls to, i.e. the substance of what he says. Therefore, it doesn't matter if someone calls himself "Sufi"; what matters is what he means by that. For example, the Shaykhs that Chisti follows are Sufis, and we oppose them and declare them to be innovators. But this does not mean that we do this to all people and groups that call themselves Sufis. For example, Deobandis call themselves Sufis, and yet we do not treat them in the same way; rather, we respect and love them. Yes, we have some differences, but we say that they are closest to us.

Therefore, your entire argument is based on the false premise that the Salafis of today hate all Sufis in toto. This is not true. It wasn't true of Shaykh al-Islam nor is was it true of Shaykh ibn Abdul Wahhab nor is it true of contemporary Salafis.

Chisti said

Thanks Abu Hind ... so there were some people who went nuts and had to be taken care of by the King ... what those nut cases did does not represent wahahbis since the King was a wahabi himself ... how is this causing drama??? there are nut cases in every group of people.

The Ikhwan were crushed and destroyed by none other than Imam Ibn Saud himself.

I never heard before that Abdul Wahab himself went on a killing spree

Shaykh Ibn Abdul Wahhab was free of that, and those that did go to excess were crushed and destroyed by Imam Ibn Saud himself at the Battle of Sabilla.

SyedShoaib786 said

a shaykh is not known except by his students.

Yes, that is what we say to your Sufi scholars such as Shaykh Nazim al-Haqqani, but then all we ever hear is "you cannot accuse a scholar based on the actions of his students!" Which is what you said in your next sentence, so thank you for that.

Rida said

k seriously though. I read somewhere that Abdul wahhabs father & brother were followers of sufi tariqahs. Is it true?

They were opposed to his views, yes. Prophet Ibrahim's father was opposed to Prophet Ibrahim's views, and Prophet Muhammad's uncle was against the Prophet's views.

rahat said

Muhamamd ibn Abdul Wahab's sons and grandsons make up the Saudi Royal Family. It is an undeniable fact that the "royal family" came into power via violence.

Yep. They vanquished the enemies on the battlefield. Al-Hamdu Lillah. And so Tawheed was saved, and religion was only for Allah [swt].

Of course, many of the people on this forum are either "Salafi" revisionists or in favor of revisionism, so no realistic discussion can be had.

Can you tell me, my beloved Rahat, how did Shias become a majority in Iran? How did your beloved Shah Ismail I change the majority population of Iran from Sunni to Shia? Was it with flowers? Actually, he converted them by the sword and he was truly a man of bloodshed and tyranny.

Who then, sir, is the revisionist?

I mean this notion that every group was actually a subsect of another group simply proves the point. "No they were ikwanis, who were actually bedouins, who were actually this, who were actually that"

Except for the fact that Imam Ibn Saud destroyed the Ikhwan himself.

Fi Aman Allah

[rahat]

Jaysh said

As-Salam Alaykum.

Bismillah.

Yep. They vanquished the enemies on the battlefield. Al-Hamdu Lillah. And so Tawheed was saved, and religion was only for Allah [swt].

Can you tell me, my beloved Rahat, how did Shias become a majority in Iran? How did your beloved Shah Ismail I change the majority population of Iran from Sunni to Shia? Was it with flowers? Actually, he converted them by the sword and he was truly a man of bloodshed and tyranny.

Who then, sir, is the revisionist?

Fi Aman Allah

The "enemies" they slaughtered were the peaceful innocent Sunnis of Medina and Makkah. It is those types of Sunnis I support, love, and make dua for. People who want to kill peaceful innocent Sunnis are the kind you hate, and praise their killing. That is the difference between us.

I rely on textbooks for the history of Iran, not revisionist Wahabis. The majority of textbooks, written by Muslim, Sunni, Shia, and non-Muslim historians say that Iran converted to Shiaism quite peacefully. At least, thats what my university professors taught.

-
rahat

[SyedShoaib786]

Jaysh said

Yes, that is what we say to your Sufi scholars such as Shaykh Nazim al-Haqqani, but then all we ever hear is "you cannot accuse a scholar based on the actions of his students!" Which is what you said in your next sentence, so thank you for that.

yes, this means if a bad act is prevalent in a scholars students then you can not say that the teacher is a bad person etc (unless you can prove he ordered haram to be done) as the same rules of the sunnah towards others hold for him...however it would be wise to stay clear of fitna and those who cause it...

p.s. "your" sufi scholars?

[LEGALEAGLE]

rahat said

The "enemies" they slaughtered were the peaceful innocent Sunnis of Medina and Makkah. It is those types of Sunnis I support, love, and make dua for. People who want to kill peaceful innocent Sunnis are the kind you hate, and praise their killing. That is the difference between us.

I rely on textbooks for the history of Iran, not revisionist Wahabis. The majority of textbooks, written by Muslim, Sunni, Shia, and non-Muslim historians say that Iran converted to Shiaism quite peacefully. At least, thats what my university professors taught.

-
rahat

Which books are these ?

[Rambo]

one look at the saudis gives you an idea what whahabhism has done to them.

[Jaysh]

rahat said

The "enemies" they slaughtered were the peaceful innocent Sunnis of Medina and Makkah. It is those types of Sunnis I support, love, and make dua for. People who want to kill peaceful innocent Sunnis are the kind you hate, and praise their killing. That is the difference between us.

I rely on textbooks for the history of Iran, not revisionist Wahabis. The majority of textbooks, written by Muslim, Sunni, Shia, and non-Muslim historians say that Iran converted to Shiaism quite peacefully. At least, thats what my university professors taught.

-
rahat

So basically you are a revisionist when it comes to Shi'ism, but you demand that we not be revisionists with "Wahhabis". Nobody but a revisionist would claim that Persia converted to Shi'ism "peacefully". I remember my Berkeley professor saying that Muslims have never forcibly mass converted any group, unlike what many idiot Islamaphobes think; and then he talked about how the only forced mass conversion that took place was between Sunnis and Shias, and that was in relation to Persia.

And yes, please refer me to the textbooks you are talking about. I will check it out myself at Barnes n Noble or the library. So pretty please tell me: which books are these that say that Persia converted from Sunni to Shia peacefully? Cite page number, book, etc. and I'll go check it out.

wikipedia said

Ismail I embraced Shi'a Islam, which he made mandatory for the whole nation upon penalty of death. Ismail forced conversion of the local population to Shi'ism.

The Sunni ulama, the religious authority, were either killed or exiled. Ismail brought in Shi'a religious leaders, granted them land and money in return for loyalty...

[Jaysh]

Bump for Rahat

[MrZ]

Rida said

k seriously though. I read somewhere that Abdul wahhabs father & brother were followers of sufi tariqahs. Is it true?

Jaysh said

They were opposed to his views, yes. Prophet Ibrahim's father was opposed to Prophet Ibrahim's views, and Prophet Muhammad's uncle was against the Prophet's views.

You're comparing his father and brother, both of whom wrote sober and rational objections to Abdul Wahab's teachings... to idol-worshippers? And Abdul Wahab... to the prophets? Wow... takfir by implication is no better than takfir by outright statement.

[proudtobemuslim]

Inshallah I shall formulate a longer post regarding the cult of Wahabism later but this claim that the Iranians converted to Shi'ism as a result of a forced conversion is a lie. Iran was already a Shia country by the time Ismail al-Safawi in 1502.

to quote one of your historians al-kawthari

ولو لا شدة ابن تيمية في رده على ابن المطهر في منهاجه إلى أن بلغ به الأمر أن يتعرض لعلي بن أبي طالب كرم الله وجهه على الوجه الذي تراه في أوئل الجزء الثالث منه ، بطريق يأباه كثير من أقحاح الخوارج مع توهين الأحاديث الجيدة في هذا السبيل – لما قامت دولة الغلاة من الشيعة في بلاد الفرس والعراق وشرق الآسيا ( كذا ) الصغرى وأذربيجان من عهد الملك المغولي " خدابنده " وابن المطهر الحلي لما وصل إليه كتاب ابن تيمية هذا ، قال : كنت أجاوبه لو كان يفهم كلامي ، ولكن جوابي يكون بالفعل ، حتى سعي سعياً إلى أن تمكن من قـلب الـدولـة السنـية مـن تـلك الأقـطـار غـاليـة في التشيـع يحـمل " خدابنده " الملك الشعوب على المتذهب بمذهب ابن المطهر ، ولم يزل الغلو في التشيع في تلك البلاد منذ علم ابن تيمية هذا ، ولم كان يسعى بحكمة لما بعدت شقة الخلاف بين الإخوان المسلمين على الوجه الذي تراه

If it were not for Ibn Taymiya's strictness in his refutal of Ibn Mutahar al-Hilli in the book minhaj al-sunnah to the point he disrespected Ali (may Allah honour his face) which you see in the start of volume 3, the Shia state in Persia and Central Asia and Iraq and Azerbaijan would not have been established at the time of the Mongol king Khudabanda, and Hilli said to Khudabanda when ibn Taymiyas book reached him, "I would answer him if he understood my words, but my answer will be in actions, in making a big Sunni country with a Shia majority." Khudabanda became Shia and the extremist Shia in those countries have remained since Ibn Taymiya's time

all this was in the 14th century AD. Shah Ismail was in the 16th century AD

[LEGALEAGLE]

proudtobemuslim said

Inshallah I shall formulate a longer post regarding the cult of Wahabism later but this claim that the Iranians converted to Shi'ism as a result of a forced conversion is a lie. Iran was already a Shia country by the time Ismail al-Safawi in 1502.

to quote one of your historians al-kawthari

ولو لا شدة ابن تيمية في رده على ابن المطهر في منهاجه إلى أن بلغ به الأمر أن يتعرض لعلي بن أبي طالب كرم الله وجهه على الوجه الذي تراه في أوئل الجزء الثالث منه ، بطريق يأباه كثير من أقحاح الخوارج مع توهين الأحاديث الجيدة في هذا السبيل – لما قامت دولة الغلاة من الشيعة في بلاد الفرس والعراق وشرق الآسيا ( كذا ) الصغرى وأذربيجان من عهد الملك المغولي " خدابنده " وابن المطهر الحلي لما وصل إليه كتاب ابن تيمية هذا ، قال : كنت أجاوبه لو كان يفهم كلامي ، ولكن جوابي يكون بالفعل ، حتى سعي سعياً إلى أن تمكن من قـلب الـدولـة السنـية مـن تـلك الأقـطـار غـاليـة في التشيـع يحـمل " خدابنده " الملك الشعوب على المتذهب بمذهب ابن المطهر ، ولم يزل الغلو في التشيع في تلك البلاد منذ علم ابن تيمية هذا ، ولم كان يسعى بحكمة لما بعدت شقة الخلاف بين الإخوان المسلمين على الوجه الذي تراه

If it were not for Ibn Taymiya's strictness in his refutal of Ibn Mutahar al-Hilli in the book minhaj al-sunnah to the point he disrespected Ali (may Allah honour his face) which you see in the start of volume 3, the Shia state in Persia and Central Asia and Iraq and Azerbaijan would not have been established at the time of the Mongol king Khudabanda, and Hilli said to Khudabanda when ibn Taymiyas book reached him, "I would answer him if he understood my words, but my answer will be in actions, in making a big Sunni country with a Shia majority." Khudabanda became Shia and the extremist Shia in those countries have remained since Ibn Taymiya's time

all this was in the 14th century AD. Shah Ismail was in the 16th century AD

I think you've missed the point entirely.

Rahat claims that he has books which state that the people of Persia converted to Ithna Asharism of their own free will.

I have asked him to provide us with details of these books, journals, articles etc..

Jaysh has shown him from Ithna Ashari sources that Persians and Iranians were forced to convert by the sword.

Can you disprove those claims ?

[Jaysh]

Here are some "Wahhabi" sources:

1. University of Calgarry website's says:

In addition to Ismail's numerous military pursuits, he also initiated a religious policy that influenced the future of Iran up to the present-day. That policy declared Shi'a Islam to be the official religion of the Safavid Empire, and the fact that modern Iran remains an officially Shi'ite state is a direct result of Ismail's actions...He enforced conversion among his subjects...Unfortunately for Ismail, most of his subjects were Sunni. He thus had to enforce official Shi'ism violently, putting to death those who opposed him. Under this pressure, Safavid subjects either converted, or pretended to convert. It is nearly impossible to determine exactly how many truly converted, because virtually the entire population claimed to have converted, out of fear of the consequences. Still, it is safe to say that the majority of the population was probably genuinely Shi'ite by the end of the Safavid period in the 18th century, and most Iranians today are Shi'ite, although small Sunni populations do exist in that country.

source: Erica Fraiser, The Islamic World to 1600: The Rise of the Great Islamic Empires (The Safavid Empire)

2. Payvand's Iran News:

in 1500s Safavid Shah Ismail forced Shia Islam as the state religion and made conversion compulsory

author: Pouya Alimagham, President of the Iranian Student Alliance in America
source: What has kept us and keeps us Iranian?

3. David Zeidan, PhD (comparative religion) writes:

After the foundation of the Safavid Persian state...Twelver Shiism was proclaimed state religion, with a special role for the Safavi Shahs as descendants of Ali and the Imams... Twelver [Shia] theologians were recruited from Jabal Amil in Lebanon and from
Bahrain, and most Iranians were forcibly converted to Twelver Shiism.

http://www.alevi.dk/ENGELSK/THE_ALEVI_OF_ANATOLIA.pdf

4. The National Academic Quiz Tournaments, LLC says:

The Safavids were founded by a Sunni Sufi (mystic) order under Shah Ismail, and ruled Iran from 1502 until 1736. They forcibly converted Iran to Shi'ism

author: Brian Ulrich
National Academic Quiz Tournaments, LLC

5. NationMaster.com says:

Shah Ismail I sacked Baku in 1501, and, avenging his grandfather, exhumed bodies of Shirvanshahs, buried in the mausoleum and burned them. Most of Baku population was forcibly converted to Shi'ism thereafter.

NationMaster - Encyclopedia: Shirvanshah

6. Dr. Jahanian's speech at the 7th World Zoroastrian Congress held in Houston, Texas in Dec. 2000:

The ancestor of the Safavids, Sheikh Saffi Ardbili was a Sunni Moslem. The founder of the dynasty, Shah Ismail embraced Shiism to unify the nation and encourage them to fight against the Ottoman Turks who were Sunnis. This policy was favored by the major European powers that faced the threat of the Ottaman Turks from the east. Turks were invading Europe and Islamizing the eastern parts; the goal was to keep them engaged in the south. The conversion of Iranians however was not an easy task. The majority were Sunnis...The other problem was the absence of Shiite clergy to educate the public...The shortage of clergy was resolved by bringing them from other areas such as Lebanon and Bahrain. Conversion of the Sunni majority to Shiism was carried out by force and bloodshed...

Although the Safavid unified Iran but the Iranians paid a very heavy price. Coercive conversion of Iranians to Shiism and concern about reversion resulted in many blood baths. Worse than all they used the power of clergy and religion to legitimate their actions and continue despotic rule. The damages caused by them, is well discerned in our time...[Iranian] books of history have maintained a total silence toward the dreadful massacre...and the coercive and violent conversion...In the latter case usually a distorted picture of peaceful self-conversion is presented.

http://www.vohuman.org/Article/Islam...Iran.htm#_edn1

[Jaysh]

7. Rozaneh Magazine writes:

The historical division of Islam went underway under Shah Ismail. He declared Ithna Ashari Shiitism as the official and compulsory religion of his new Qizilbash state in 1501 A.D...Iranians were forced to become Shiite by Shah Ismail....

Rozaneh Magazine

8. The Daily Kos writes:

At the time of the Safavid and Qizilbash ascendancy to power in Persia, most of the population was Sunni...Under Safavid rule, there was no distinction between the Shi'a religious aristocracy and the government. The Sunni leadership was killed or exiled, conversion became mandatory, and any practice of Sufism was banned upon penalty of death (alas, how quickly we distance ourselves from our roots...). Lands and money were doled out to Shi'a religious leaders who promised their loyalty to the Safavids and their increasingly intrigue-ridden corps of Redheads, and the Shah was held to be the divinely ordained leader of both the faith and the nation.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4...270/834/491388

9. Washington State University's website says:

By 1512, he controlled all of Iran (do the math yourself). Adopting Persian models of government and bureaucracy, Isma'il declared himself Shah of Iran and became the first Shah of the Safavid dynasty. He enforced Shi'ism on everyone; at the time, Sunni Muslims vastly outnumbered Shi'ites in Iran. He forced them to curse the first three Caliphs and to be ruled under the Shi'ite ulama ...His efforts to turn Iran into a Shi'ite population was remarkably successful, and Iran to this day is almost entirely Shi'ite.

by Richard Hooker
Shi'a: The Safavids

10. The Iran Chamber Society says:

Shi'ism became the state religion, Esma'il ignored the Sunni branch of Islam and tried to force people to become Shi'a, which was a difficult task

History of Iran: Safavid Empire 1502 - 1736

11.Converting Persia: Religion and Power in the Safavid Empire (International Library of Iranian Studies) :

Soon after Shah Ismail I ascended to the throne, he mandated that all regions under Safavid control accept Twelver Shi'ism. His immediate successors also perserved in their efforts to conert Persia's numerous tribal groups and social classes to Twelver Shi'ism.

Amazon.co.uk: Converting Persia: Religion and Power in the Safavid Empire (International Library of Iranian Studies): Rula Abisaab: Books

12. The History of Islamic Political Thought
by: Antony Black

When Isma'il was warned that "The People may say they do not want a Shi'i sovereign, and if the people reject Shi'ism, what can we do about it?", he is said to have replied "If the people utter one word of protest, I will draw the sword and leave not one of them alive." Many Sunnis were executed. Rvial Sufi orders were attacked. Never before in Islam had such piety gone with such intolerance. Thus was the first substantial Shi'ite state since Fatimid Egypt established....The early ideology of the Safavid monarchy combined Sufi, Shi'ite, and patrimonial ideas.

The History of Islamic Political ... - Google Book Search

13. BBC News:

One of Shah Ismail's most important decisions was to declare that the state religion would be the form of Islam called Shi'ism, that at the time was completely foreign to Iranian culture.
The Safavids launched a vigorous campaign to convert what was then a predominantly Sunni population by persuasion and by force. The Sunni ulama (a religious council of wise men) either left or were killed.


To promote Shi'ism the Safavids brought in scholars from Shi'ite countries to form a new religious elite. They appointed an official (the Sadr) to co-ordinate this elite - and ensure that it did what the Shah wanted. The religious leaders effectively became a tool of the government.
The Safavids also spent money to promote religion, making grants to shrines and religious schools. And most craftily of all, they used grants of land and money to create a new class of wealthy religious aristocrats who owed everything to the state.


In specifically religious terms the Safavids not only persecuted Sunni Muslims, but Shi'ites with different views, and all other religions. Alien shrines were vandalised, and Sufi mystic groups forbidden.


This was surprising, since the Safavids owed their origins to a Sufi order and to a form of Shi'ism that they now banned. They also reduced the importance of the Hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca), replacing it with pilgrimage to Shi'ite shrines.

BBC - Religion & Ethics - Safavid Empire (1501-1722): Religion

14. MacroHistory and World Report:

By 1500 the Safavids had adopted the Shia branch of Islam. Safavid males wore red headgear for identification, and they were eager to advance Shi'ism by military means...Shi'ism became the state religion, Isma'il denigrating the Sunni branch of Islam and trying to force people to become Shia - a difficult task as his authority with a variety of tribes had been little accepted.

Iran, the Safavids and Ottomans, to 1629

[Jaysh]

15. Maziar Behrooz, Middle East Historian and Associate Professor @ San Francisco State University, writes:

From the very beginning the cursing of the first three Rashidun Caliphs was used to push for conversion; use of force proved more effective against ordinary people as it took Isma'il ten years to unify Iran under his rule. Resistance came from the Sunni ulama. These were either killed or forced to flee into exile (mostly Ottoman domain).

New Page 1

16. Dr. Brian Miller for the Wilmette Institute writes:

The Safavids forced Iran to convert to Shi'ism, because their founder, Shah Isma'il venerated Ali and thought himself to be his spiritual return

Chronology of Mid-East History during the Islamic Period

17. Morality Tales, by: Leslie Pierce :

The Safavids staked their survival in part on differeentiating their subject population from that to the west and to the east. It was, in the main, a process of forced conversion that rendered the population of Iran shi'i.

Morality Tales: Law and Gender in ... - Google Book Search

18. Iran's Diverse Peoples, by Massoume Price

During the Safavid period...[they] faced repeated persecution and forced conversion.

Iran's Diverse Peoples: A Reference ... - Google Book Search

19. Iran and America: by Badi Badiozamani, Ph.D. :

From the very beginning the dynasty was established on two foundations. One was Shi'i and the other Persia, and Esma'il concentrated more on the first than the second. His hatred of the Sunnis knew no bounds, and his persecution of them was ruthless. The alternative for the majority of the Persians who were Sunnis, at the time, was either convert to Shi'ism or accept death. Conversion must have been rapid, because half a century later Iran was a Shi'i country and gradually became an island surrounded by a sea of Sunni Islam. While regretting the cruelty of forced conversion, modern Persian historians are generally agreed that the establishment of Shi'i religious hegemony saved Iran from being incorporated into the Ottoman Empire.

Iran and America: Re-Kind[l]ing a ... - Google Book Search

20. The Middle East and Islamic World Reader: By Marvin E. Gettleman, Stuart Schaar

Taking the title of shah (king), he founded the Safavid dynasty that lasted into the eighteenth century. Since most of its population embraced Sunni Islam, early Safavid shahs expelled the Sunni Ulema and brought in a new Ulema corps

The Middle East and Islamic World Reader - Google Book Search