RE: How it was forged.
October 14, 2015 at 5:21 pm
(This post was last modified: October 14, 2015 at 5:27 pm by ReptilianPeon.)
Okay , first of all, Wahaabism is not about obeying the Saudi royal family. It just so happens that al-Saud family worked with Abdul Wahaab. I have never heard of them viewing the monarch as a god/worshiping (thus committing sin). Saudi is a monarchy, like the U.K. but even in the reasonable U.K. going against the monarch is treason. Defying the Saudi royal family has nothing to do with religion, and all to do with nationalism.
Although I can imagine the Saudis, as lots of nations throughout history have done, will use religion to their advantage. It's like how during election times, priests, imams, bishops, etc. might try and use the influence to get people to vote a certain way with sermons. Like how you have pro-Brotherhood imams masking their voices heard during recent Egyptian elections (e.g. this article about the fight over Mosques in Egypt).
Qatar sees itself as a Wahaabi country as well, if I recall correctly. Would Qataris swear allegiance to the al-Saud family? Qatar has its own royal family. Maybe Qatar is a Saudi/United States puppet.
By some accounts Saudi has spent over US$100 billion doing Dawah. Book I need to buy: The Wahhabi Mission and Saudi Arabia by David Commins. Landing on the moon used less money than the amount Saudi is estimated to have spent on Dawah (moon landing cost breakdown). And yet people like Yusuf Estes have the audacity to claim Guide Us TV (as an example) is not funded by Saudi! I wish I had a shoe to throw at Yusuf Estes. Saudi even plants textbooks in the schools of children in other countries.
The way I see things, Salafis are Wahaabis that refuse to acknowledge Abdul Wahaab because they are pretty much the same. Wahaabism is the branch of the religion endorsed by Qatar too so it's not just official in Saudi. You can argue that countries like Qatar are Saudi and/or United States puppets but that's irrelevant to this discussion.
If Salafis have got the time of the Salaf down to a tee, as they say, then I'd have hated to be ruled by the Salaf. I think Salafism is disgusting and it's just another word for "Wahaabism". In the same way that "Kafala system" is a dressing up of the word "slavery". Salafists don't want to admit how much they agree with Abdul Wahaab.
In term of "extremism", I'm not fond of the word. We get into the realms of the "no true Scotsman fallacy". If we were maybe to claim that nobody is as strict as the Wahaabis then I would be more inclined to agree. Either way, Salafis are just as bad.
So in regard to Quran 17:33 you are saying to me that all killing of another human is wrong unless that person actually wants to be killed (e.g. turning off life support machine)? But Quran 64:11 says this:
No kind of calamity can occur, except by the leave of Allah: and if any one believes in Allah, (Allah) guides his heart (aright): for Allah knows all things.
So the pain would only happen if Allah allowed it to happen. And Quran 81:29 makes it sound as though I have no free will whatsoever:
81:29 But ye shall not will except as Allah wills,- the Cherisher of the Worlds.
And, of course, the reason I still haven't uttered the Shahada yet is because of Quran 63:3 which says this:
63:3 That is because they believed, then they rejected Faith: So a seal was set on their hearts: therefore they understand not.
Actually, I don't think there is consensus on Noah being the first prophet. Adam is considered a prophet by the majority of believers, therefore he would be the first prophet. Regardless, I think most of the prophets are fictional people or people based on people that existed that the Israelites wanted to copy (e.g. Noah). The story of Noah is stolen from the Epic of Gilgamesh from the time when the Jews were in exile in Babylon.
Good starting point: Relationship of the Epic of Gilgamesh with the Hebrew Bible. The author of the Quran came along and further muddied the waters by combing Bible stories with Gnosticism. (e.g. Syriac Infancy Gospel)
Actually, the Mayans died out before the Europeans, and it's still a mystery why. The Europeans were the doom of the Aztecs not Mayans. All of the tribes that hated the Aztecs (every one of their neighbours basically) united with the Europeans against them.
Although I can imagine the Saudis, as lots of nations throughout history have done, will use religion to their advantage. It's like how during election times, priests, imams, bishops, etc. might try and use the influence to get people to vote a certain way with sermons. Like how you have pro-Brotherhood imams masking their voices heard during recent Egyptian elections (e.g. this article about the fight over Mosques in Egypt).
Qatar sees itself as a Wahaabi country as well, if I recall correctly. Would Qataris swear allegiance to the al-Saud family? Qatar has its own royal family. Maybe Qatar is a Saudi/United States puppet.
By some accounts Saudi has spent over US$100 billion doing Dawah. Book I need to buy: The Wahhabi Mission and Saudi Arabia by David Commins. Landing on the moon used less money than the amount Saudi is estimated to have spent on Dawah (moon landing cost breakdown). And yet people like Yusuf Estes have the audacity to claim Guide Us TV (as an example) is not funded by Saudi! I wish I had a shoe to throw at Yusuf Estes. Saudi even plants textbooks in the schools of children in other countries.
The way I see things, Salafis are Wahaabis that refuse to acknowledge Abdul Wahaab because they are pretty much the same. Wahaabism is the branch of the religion endorsed by Qatar too so it's not just official in Saudi. You can argue that countries like Qatar are Saudi and/or United States puppets but that's irrelevant to this discussion.
If Salafis have got the time of the Salaf down to a tee, as they say, then I'd have hated to be ruled by the Salaf. I think Salafism is disgusting and it's just another word for "Wahaabism". In the same way that "Kafala system" is a dressing up of the word "slavery". Salafists don't want to admit how much they agree with Abdul Wahaab.
In term of "extremism", I'm not fond of the word. We get into the realms of the "no true Scotsman fallacy". If we were maybe to claim that nobody is as strict as the Wahaabis then I would be more inclined to agree. Either way, Salafis are just as bad.
So in regard to Quran 17:33 you are saying to me that all killing of another human is wrong unless that person actually wants to be killed (e.g. turning off life support machine)? But Quran 64:11 says this:
No kind of calamity can occur, except by the leave of Allah: and if any one believes in Allah, (Allah) guides his heart (aright): for Allah knows all things.
So the pain would only happen if Allah allowed it to happen. And Quran 81:29 makes it sound as though I have no free will whatsoever:
81:29 But ye shall not will except as Allah wills,- the Cherisher of the Worlds.
And, of course, the reason I still haven't uttered the Shahada yet is because of Quran 63:3 which says this:
63:3 That is because they believed, then they rejected Faith: So a seal was set on their hearts: therefore they understand not.
Actually, I don't think there is consensus on Noah being the first prophet. Adam is considered a prophet by the majority of believers, therefore he would be the first prophet. Regardless, I think most of the prophets are fictional people or people based on people that existed that the Israelites wanted to copy (e.g. Noah). The story of Noah is stolen from the Epic of Gilgamesh from the time when the Jews were in exile in Babylon.
Good starting point: Relationship of the Epic of Gilgamesh with the Hebrew Bible. The author of the Quran came along and further muddied the waters by combing Bible stories with Gnosticism. (e.g. Syriac Infancy Gospel)
Actually, the Mayans died out before the Europeans, and it's still a mystery why. The Europeans were the doom of the Aztecs not Mayans. All of the tribes that hated the Aztecs (every one of their neighbours basically) united with the Europeans against them.
