WAHHABI MOVEMENT

sarahrosecurry wrote: Community, What do you mean Christian Groups are not violent?! What about the IRA.  They are a Catholic terrorist group, advocating for political power with the backdrop of Christianity.  Or the Klu Klux Klan.  Don't simply dismiss the Jews because of their small size.  They control the American media which gives them the most capalbilty of doing mass harm to a populous.  Yes when Wahhabism was infiltrated into the Saudi culture it was violent. But that was on the House of Saud more than on the religous movement.  POlitical agenda has always been masqued with religous.  It is those religious undertones that gives unethical political movements credibility to the ordinary person.  Look at Bush and his persistence in Iraq, openly talking about God when he speaks to the American people.  Politics and religion go hand in hand, unfortunately, and it is often violent, no matter the religion, no matter the country.  Religous politics manipulates the people better than honest politics.

Yes and it starts with someone who thinks he has something better of knowledge then the rest(like Abdul Wahhaab thought)----

30:32 Those who devided up their way(religion), and become Sects,- each party rejoices in that which is with them. [chapter the romans]

-----It gets worse when they claim it is the right way, infact claim it is the only way, and then taking the arrogant step of forcing it upon others. I think the house of Saud simply chose the wrong partner, how can they choose the right partner anyway? when all they care about is nice houses and fancy cars and do not even look twice to the poor people of Africa and the rest of the world? or do you really think the movement was such a righteous movement? if so why would they chose an alliance with power hungry people who would not even shun violence against fellow muslims just because of nationalistic ambitions? The house of Saud felt that this movement would be a good partner for their goal of gaining more power and staying in power so they went into a partnership, a marriage. But now the movement they supported and used is slowly becoming the cause of their own ruin. It sounds like a very bad marriage, but then again i testify against myself that i am not always thankful.

Look at it this way, when people use words of people as proof by claiming they come from the prophet which can not be verified except by other peoples words (amazing is'nt it?) you must realize something is wrong, any sane and reasonable person can not accept the claims made by such people, the people who do accept it are those who do not realize or do not wish to realize that people can lie, deceive and even be wrong, no matter how nice they smile at you. They have volumes of books from scholars and written "narrations of the prophet" all written by men(you can not trust people blindly), and they expect people to just fall for their charming smiles and when that does not work they make threats. Besides all of this there is a narration supposedly coming from the Prophet in which he forbade people to write down his sayings, and even ordered the burning of the sayings(narrations) written down by those with him, so what are all those books there with them with all those narrations? they declare some of the narrations as false and then other as true, and this process still happens. Whatever fits in their agenda is true, and what goes against it is false, and i am sure they have invented narrations along the way. It suprises me that they have not declared the narration in which the prophet ordered the burning of all his sayings as false. So basically if this is what the faith is about, trusting on other people's words even if they can not be verified, they might aswell be secterian christians believing in revelations or believing the holy spirit came down upon such and such and told him to write it down and so people should follow, or secterian jews who believe the rabbis are to be obeyed even if what they say goes against the torah.

So whenever you have a sect or movement if you will like this, you must understand the probebility of trouble on the horizon is very likely, infact i dare to say that trouble is garanteed with sects like these.

I am not saying that I support the Wahhabi movement.  In fact, as an American and Muslim, I am for freedom of religion.  The Prohet (saw) taught Muslims to respectful of other religions because that is Allah's will to those people.  The house of Saud is wrong to force Wahhabi teachings in the public schools and make it the official sect of Islam in Saudi Arabia.  I just see the intensions of the origin of the movement.  I believe in the beginning, it was a rightous movement, one that intended to bring the people closer to the original Islam, back to their Creator.

sarahrosecurry wrote: The historical relationship between the House of Saud and the Wahhabi is more a political coalition rather than a religios one.  In the 18th century, the Saud family leadership entered into a pact with the prominent religious leader, Mohammed ibn Abdul Wahhab.  His followers who are termed "Wahhabis" advocate a strict literal interpretation of the Quar'an and the earliest teachings of Islam. Wahhabism is not a strand of Islam, there is only one true religion, Islam.  Wahhabism was simply a reform movement.  Muslims were beginning to stray away from the faith, and Wahhab brought them back to their faith.  What the Western world is taught of Wahhbi is that it is linked to terrorism and bin Laden.  However, the teachings of Wahhab do not advocate for terrorism.  These so-called Islamic terroists are misguided political martyrs.  Wahhabism is not to blame for the terrorists acts.  The  terrorists acts that occur are of political agenda, not relgious.  Even if the poor soul committing the act is deluded to the belief of jihad in his behavior.

"Wahhabism is not to blame for the terrorists acts."

What is to blame for the terrorist acts?  I think the blame lays squarely on those who do too little or do nothing in response to extremism - and that responsibility (to do something in response to evil) lies with us all.