SHIA SUNNI, MALEKI, SHAFI, HANAFI, WAHABI

aka2x2 wrote: Shia�s do not dispute the Quran. Anyone who claims otherwise is wrong by ignorance or malice. He should fear Allah (SWT) and not accuse fellow Muslims unjustly

However, I don't want to make this thread shia-Sunni debate. So, I won't present any proof, because if I present any proofs, many other issues like, Companions, Imamat, Bada, Muttu'ah, mourning, cursing of Sahabah, cursing mothers of believes will come into discussion, which is my last priority.

Please don't put words in my mouth..

Did I ever said that all shia deserved hell? But yes many shia are heretic.

You said

Yet you are very tolerant of the Wahabis

Definitely I am very tolerant of Wahabis.. specifically as compared to shia.

You said

Hateful rhetoric is not always cost free and bombs do not distinguish between Sunni and Shia. The sectarian violence that started in Iraq could spread throughout the region

Now, tell me who is playing rhetorics?? Did I ever called for violence?

Islam does not call for mixing truth and evil, but call for seperation of evil from truth and thus exposing evil. Tolerance does not mean that you start compromising on very basics of Deen.

 In continuation of my last post:

 Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab lived about 300 years ago. He started a movement to improve the beliefs of the muslims and to bring them closed to Tauheed and to keep them away from any Bad works. He was supported by the Saudi Shaikh of that time. The bond was strengthened through some marriage.

Since then the co-operation continued till today. The followers of Muhamamd bin Abdul Wahhab were called Wahhabis by their opponents. They were active in gaining the kingdom of Arabia for the Saud family (Abdul Aziz AleSaud), specially during attack on Taif , Saudi Arabia. I am not sure what the did against the Turks. But Turks were occupying the land in the east Arabia, Al Hasa, Dammam. The Saudis liberated that area from the Turks in 1913 A.D. At thattime nobody knew that there was lot of oil (black gold) underground.

The movement for the revival of Islam spread to India too. Its center was in Putnah, near Calcutta. There were many learned pious persons attached to the movement. In the late 18th century, in India, famous Wahhabis were Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, Mian Nazir Hussain Dehlavi and M. Hussain batalawi. All of them were faithful to the british government.

The Ahle Sunnah noted some bad points of the Wahhabis. I will list them later. The name Wahhabis was given to the followers of the new movement by the people, by the Ahle Sunnah. The sect people did not like that name. So, they requested the british government to pass an order that they should never be called Wahhabis. Instead, they liked to be called Ahle Hadith. That order was passed by the government in their favor.

I have described some part of their history. More in next post later....

minuteman wrote:    In continuation of my last post:  Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab lived about 300 years ago. He started a movement to improve the beliefs of the muslims and to bring them closed to Tauheed and to keep them away from any Bad works. He was supported by the Saudi Shaikh of that time. The bond was strengthened through some marriage.

This is over simplifying history:

1) There has been no real proof to suggest that there was anything wrong with the Tawheed of thousands of Muslims that were declared kafir and killed by he and his followers. 

2) His support from the Saud family was nothing more than a way to utilize this khawarij type movement to gain power. To try and over simplify the actual fitnah that cam about from this man and movement should not be sugar coated.

Since then the co-operation continued till today.

Another over simplification.

The sect was divided into two groups by the ruling authority.

Group one is put on the government payroll. They give the fatwas that the government needs.

Group two are those who feel the government is not strict enough.

The followers of Muhamamd bin Abdul Wahhab were called Wahhabis by their opponents. They were active in gaining the kingdom of Arabia for the Saud family (Abdul Aziz AleSaud), specially during attack on Taif , Saudi Arabia. I am not sure what the did against the Turks. But Turks were occupying the land in the east Arabia, Al Hasa, Dammam. The Saudis liberated that area from the Turks in 1913 A.D. At thattime nobody knew that there was lot of oil (black gold) underground.

1) The movement spanned the last 200 years of the Ottoman period. The initial rebellion was to throw out the Ottoman Turks who were the acting Caliphs of the time, in the name of purifying the land.

2) The British finished off the Ottoman Turks with the use of these bandits and helped establish the house of Saud, along with oil rights in the land for BP.

Your above explanation tried to erroneously mash the entire period into a decade. This is not accurate.

The movement for the revival of Islam spread to India too. Its center was in Putnah, near Calcutta. There were many learned pious persons attached to the movement. In the late 18th century, in India, famous Wahhabis were Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, Mian Nazir Hussain Dehlavi and M. Hussain batalawi. All of them were faithful to the british government.

You are trying to make a broad generalization.

The wahabi movement has only had "local" successes outside Saudi Arabia, usually in areas where the locals have had no traditional Islamic education. The "wahabi" movement has never produced a single, solid, reputable scholar who has been accepted by mainstream Sunnis, across the Sunni spectrum. I do not doubt they are pious, but that is irrelevant, as I know men who are pious due to Judaism, but their piousness does not make their belief correct.