certifired_img

Books and Documents

Islamic History (13 Apr 2015 NewAgeIslam.Com)


Islamic State Descends from Wahhabism

 

 

 

By H.D.S. Greenway

April 13, 2015

WINSTON CHURCHILL recognized the danger that an Islamic state posed in 1921, when he rose in the House of Commons to warn of a then little-known sect emerging from “the vast deserts of Arabia:” the Wahhabis. But because those deserts contained much of the world’s oil supply, the world took no notice of Churchill’s caution. In time, the West unwittingly funded the spread of that sect throughout the Muslim world.

Churchill told the Commons that the Wahhabis represented a “form of Mohammedanism which . . . bears the same relation to orthodox Islam as the most militant form of Calvinism would have born to Rome in the fiercest times of the religious wars.

“The Wahhabis profess a life of exceeding austerity, and what they practice themselves they rigorously enforce on others,” he said. “They hold it as an article of duty, as well as faith, to kill all who do not share their opinion and to make slaves of their wives and children. Women have been put to death in Wahhabi villages for simply appearing in the streets. . . . Men have been killed for smoking a cigarette [and] for the crime of alcohol.”

Churchill was afraid the Wahhabis might emerge from the interior of Arabia to take over the Muslim holy places of Mecca and Medina, which were under control of Arabs allied with the British. Lawrence of Arabia had similarly worried about what would happen if these “marginal medievalists . . . intensified and swollen with success” were to prevail. In 1924, that is exactly what happened, and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was declared in 1932.

The alliance between the House of Saud and the fanatical Wahhabi followers was a delicate one. The deal was that the Saudi kings would look after politics and government while the Wahhabi religious authorities took care of spiritual and cultural matters. In many ways the Saudi kings were modernizers. They persuaded the Wahhabis that the telephone and, later, television were not the devil’s instruments, and damped down their fanaticism.

But to this day, Saudi TV has its proscribed measure of religious content, and miscreants can be beheaded, stoned to death, have their hands cut off, or be publicly whipped. Religious police regularly enforce proper dress codes and behavior, and women famously are not allowed to drive or go about without a male relative.

The arrangement allowed the Wahhabis to do pretty much as they wanted abroad, but they were not to stir up trouble within the kingdom itself. Yet there were always religious dissenters who thought the Saudi royal family insufficiently Wahhabi. The kingdom was severely embarrassed when armed fanatics took over the great mosque at Mecca in 1979 and had to be driven out. Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda had its origins in anger over the Saudi royal family allowing American troops to be based in the kingdom during the first Gulf War.

Franklin Roosevelt, recognizing the importance of Saudi oil, cemented America’s alliance with the House of Saud when he met with the Saudi king aboard an American warship in the Suez Canal during World War II. The arrangement ever since has been Saudi oil in exchange for American protection.

The oil crisis of the 1970s resulted in a massive transfer of wealth from the West to the oil-producing countries, and this, in turn, allowed for the spread of Wahhabi schools and Wahhabi thought throughout the Muslim world. Muslims far removed from Saudi Arabia were attracted to the fundamentalist doctrines that Wahhabism represented, hoping that somehow returning to the practices of the Islam of centuries ago would provide answers to the chaos and disappointments of modernity and westernization.

Today the Islamic State enforces the same Wahhabi ferocity that Churchill warned against in 1921. “Intensified and swollen with success,” with its doctrines unwittingly spread and funded by western oil money, the Islamic State draws recruits from all over the world.

Saudi Arabia may have joined the American-led coalition against ISIS, but the fanatical beliefs we are fighting go straight back to the followers of Mohammed ibn al-Wahhab and the Saudi monarchy that rode the Wahhabis to power in the deserts of Arabia almost a century ago.

H.D.S. Greenway is a former editorial page editor of the Globe.

Source: https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2015/04/12/islamic-state-fanaticism-dates-wahhabism/k4HrlhdkDliQithTQuhBRP/story.html

URL: http://www.newageislam.com/islamic-history/hds-greenway/islamic-state-descends-from-wahhabism/d/102433

 

 




TOTAL COMMENTS:-   16


  • Mr. Greenway is fair and reasonable.
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 4/13/2015 2:36:57 PM



  • Mr. Curious Traveler,

     

    You are absolutely right, “We can’t afford to waste time fighting each other.” Who is fighting?

     

    Yes, the Muslim world is going through an identity crisis. The main reason being that certain Muslim commentators do not want to be questioned by their fellow Muslims.   

     

    On Greenway’s article, I already asked Naseer Ahmed Saheb. the following three questions:

     

    Can any Muslim reader on this forum find out from Naseer Ahmed Saheb about what is Bernard Lewis plan?

     

    Is Naseer Saheb telling us that “Tablighi Jamaat,was also heavily influenced by the so-called Bernard Lewis plan?

     

    If U.S. was directly responsible for the spread of “Jihadists” mindset, then should we stop shifting the blame on the perverted Mullahs?

     

    Bear in mind that Mr. H.D.S. Greenway is not reachable, therefore, it is upon the Muslim readers to question the learned Muslims on this forum, who have already contributed their respective comments. That’s the only way, we can collectively find out the root cause of the problems in the Muslim world. Am I right or wrong?

     

    All in all, when an honest criticism is raised in defense of Islam, then why should one call it a malicious agenda? Do you have any answer, Mr. Curious Traveler?

     

    For now, I shall be eagerly waiting for Sultan Shahin Saheb to confirm it in writing that he no longer desires any comments from an ordinary Muslim named Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia that causes embarrassment for certain commentators.

     

    Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia  

     

    A Pen1  www.myfellowmuslims.com

    http://www.wethemoderatemuslims.com

    http://www.readingisliving.com


    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 4/13/2015 12:13:43 PM



  • Respected Sultan Shahin Saheb,

     

    As-Salaam Alay-Kum

     

    It will be great if you can confirm it in writing as “Yes,” or “No.” This will be far more professional, than to merely write, “Very kind of you indeed.”      

     

    If my comments are causing disruption to a few of your commentators, then you should give a valid reason. If you allow those, whose business is to smear the religion of Islam to contribute, then there must be something about my comments that is also deeply bothering to you too.

     

    Are you afraid that many Muslim readers will be discouraged to read your “Comment” section? If you are, then let me know why are my comments so disturbing? If I can be called a “Pig,” then you are the best judge of character?

     

    In any case, please be kind and courteous to openly say “Mr. Lodhia, your comments are not appreciated in New Age Islam forum,” in black and white. Is that too much to ask, Sultan Shahin Saheb?

     

    Very respectfully yours,

     

    Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia

     

    A Pen1  www.myfellowmuslims.com

    http://www.wethemoderatemuslims.com

    http://www.readingisliving.com


    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 4/13/2015 11:57:58 AM




  • Thank you for this offer Lodhia Saheb, "If he does not want Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia to participate in his forum, then I will be more than happy to graciously bow out." Very kind of you indeed. Much obliged.


    By Sultan Shahin - 4/13/2015 11:39:08 AM



  • Dear Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia,

    Again, I hold no ill-will to anyone. I'm not sure why you think I have a malicious agenda. In any case, I think it's best we focus on responding to articles themselves, my friend. Do you have an opinion on H.D.S. Greenway's article? Amir, Muhammad Yunus and Naseer Ahmed all contributed to the topic. I'm sure you can too.

    The muslim world is unfortunately going through an identity crisis now. We can't afford to waste time fighting each other.
    By Curious Traveler - 4/13/2015 11:37:54 AM



  • To: Respected Muslim Readers @ New Age Islam

     

    Holy Moly! Sure “Secular Logic,” did not have any guts to answer tough questions pertaining to his own culture and religion. The mysterious commentator ran away for a while, but he/she will be back.

     

    Ignoring is easy. Why is Naseer Ahmed Saheb being so bothered with my comments? Of course, I am indirectly questioning his intelligence. It is all the more apparent that he is pissed off big time.

     

    Another grand excuse comes in a shape of “you are stalking a commentator and trying to drive him off.” How so? As a Muslim, why should I not comment when New Age Islam is free for all. If it allows those who smear the religion of Islam, then why should the editor stop a Muslim who follows the religion of Islam? That does not make any sense.  

     

    Lastly, Naseer Saheb wrote, “I believe Shahin Sb was also constrained to speak up for the same reason.” No one is stopping Sultan Shahin not to speak his own mind. If he does not want Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia to participate in his forum, then I will be more than happy to graciously bow out.

     

    Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia

     

    A Pen1  www.myfellowmuslims.com

    http://www.wethemoderatemuslims.com

    http://www.readingisliving.com


    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 4/13/2015 11:12:05 AM



  • Secular Logic had a good way of putting it across. He refuses to get into a scrap with a pig and get dirty because the pig will only enjoy it! I would like to ignore you for the same reason. 

    If I have spoken up it is because you are stalking a commentator and trying to drive him off. I believe Shahin Sb was also constrained to speak up for the same reason.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 4/13/2015 10:59:48 AM



  • To: Respected Muslim Readers @ New Age Islam

     

    Wow! Just like the Muslim dictators and their henchmen, it is clear that Naseer Ahmed Saheb simply cannot take any criticism. He has to retaliate, and that is what he has been trained to do.  

     

    Now, let’s see how Sultan Shahin Saheb translates another viscous verdict, “And do you know that stalking is a crime and that you are one inveterate stalker?”

     

    Will Sultan Saheb give another pass to a commentator of New Age Islam? Why is Naseer Ahmed Saheb scared to handle my comments? I am not addressing to him directly. So what’s his beef against Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia?

     

    Guess what! Am I not allowed to post my comments to the Muslim readers? Where is the so-called “Freedom of Expression”?

     

    Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia

     

    A Pen1  www.myfellowmuslims.com

    http://www.wethemoderatemuslims.com

    http://www.readingisliving.com


    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 4/13/2015 10:47:57 AM



  • Mr Lodhia,

    First your partner in wethemoderates website tried to get me to write for your website which I politely refused. 

    Now you seem determined to wreck this website and engaged full time in the task. Have you given up on your websites? 

    With your brilliant mind and thoughts, you should surely be able to make them work.

    And do you know that stalking is a crime and that you are one inveterate stalker?


    By Naseer Ahmed - 4/13/2015 10:34:17 AM



  • To: Respected Muslim Readers @ New Age Islam

     

    Can any Muslim reader on this forum find out from Naseer Ahmed Saheb about what is Bernard Lewis plan?

     

    Is Naseer Saheb telling us that “Tablighi Jamaat,was also heavily influenced by the so-called Bernard Lewis plan?

     

    If U.S. was directly responsible for the spread of “Jihadists” mindset, then should we stop shifting the blame on the perverted Mullahs?

     

    Again, kindly allow me to remind all the readers of Naseer Saheb’s genuine comment, “but let there be transparency in place of the hypocrisy of paying only lip service.” That’s right. Transparency is all that is needed to find out as to what Naseer Saheb is truly to convey to the Muslims.

     

    Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia

     

    A Pen1  www.myfellowmuslims.com

    http://www.wethemoderatemuslims.com

    http://www.readingisliving.com


    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 4/13/2015 10:24:37 AM



  • Not only that Churchill knew so much but his successors exploited the very same phenomena of wahabism to achieve their political ends as part of what is know as the Bernard Lewis plan.

    The US, GB and their NATO allies have systematically exploited the fault lines in our theology to achieve their own political ends by fanning Islamic extremism and "Jihad" starting with Afghanistan to defeat the Soviets. Isn't  the US directly responsible for the spread of the "Jihadi" mindset by funding the production of such literature for use as textbooks in schools?

    The fact is also that they could have achieved nothing if there were no fault lines in our theology available to the world for systematic  exploitation. If we do not take steps to fix those fault lines, we are in for a long haul. What we need to do is brought out in my article:

    By Naseer Ahmed - 4/13/2015 10:08:34 AM



  • There is a very strong existential ground for some people joining ISIS: the plight and sufferings of Muslim civilians in just/ holy wars, defensive military actions of disproportionate measure, non-stop bombing using the most deadly weapon upon a civilian population blamed of storing weapons in their cellars, terrifying first had experience of millions of Muslim who know one thing: they had nothing to do with 9/11 attacks. When civilians are killed most unceremoniously and mercilessly, and reported in the world media as merely collateral damage and the story of millions of families are never heard, and they are never compensated for their losses or offered any apology, they conceive a hatred that fogs their minds to the extent that they they may take mad dogs barking at their enemy as bloodhounds and feed them without realizing that the wild pack is going to turn them mad as well.

    It is no emotional outburst. This writer had tabled and extensive refutation of a Taliban’s fatwa referenced below that had concluded with the following remarks:

     All in all the Taliban’s call dtd. March 2013 to wage violent Jihad to establishing a Pan-Islamic politically integrated state or Khilafah transcending national boundaries and governed by their version of Islamic Sharia Law is nothing short of a blue print to conquer hearts, minds and lands by exploiting the sentiments of the oppressed, marginalized and victimized segment of Muslim masses (Introduction). An ideological war is thus being spearheaded globally to turn Islam from a religion of peace, harmony and universal brotherhood into a cult of bestial violence and naked terrorism – a grand betrayal of faith, a monstrous conspiracy, let alone its bloody fallout.  

    In a grand irony of history the divine scheme has set the mightiest nation on earth to defend the faith of Islam on pressing political and terrorism grounds, but which country can be more suited for this noble task than the One that has the name of God engraved on each of its trillions of coins and printed on billions of currency notes. To wrap up this Refutation, let the following concluding remark, appearing in a recent exegetic publication [#] warn the ideologues of terror and assuage the anxiety of the terrorized humanity:

    A COMPREHENSIVE AND CONCLUSIVE REFUTATION OF “AZAN: A CALL TO JIHAD - ON THE ROAD TO KHILAFAH” DATED MARCH 2013.

    https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/contribute/conversations/topics/16466


    By muhammad yunus - 4/13/2015 9:47:01 AM



  • Curious Traveler,

     

    You wrote, “we can create an alternate theology that will dissuade from this.”

     

    My question to you is, “To whom you are referring to when you say, ‘we can create’ an alternate theology?”

     

    You know that you have conveniently skipped answering to my comment. So can I relate your version of “we” with Naseer Ahmed Saheb’s, “All of us.” I am delighted that you are ignoring. Let the Muslim readers be the judge.     

     

    Why not chime in, Mr. Traveler? No need to simply wither away. Remember, “Everything, must be discussed as per the rules of the editor of New Age Islam forum.

     

    Well then, let us move beyond “Kufr” and “Adultery.” Can “We”? Whoever is, involved in that particular group. So help us, the one up in Heaven.   

     

    Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia     


    By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 4/13/2015 9:40:27 AM



  • very intresting, amazing to know that churchil knew so much about the emerging saudi fanatical sect. it is widley accepted that the movement was borne outta the brilliant british diplomacy to check th emergence of russians and turks lawrence of arabia and hemphrey played the great role in establishing the fanatical sect. this is called running with hares and hunting with hounds
    By amirshahzad - 4/13/2015 9:25:56 AM



  • People are attracted to Wahabism because of its austerity and simplicity. Humans just crave simplicity so it's natural. It's exactly why Amish population is exploding now.

    The bigger problem with wahabist strains in Saudi Arabia is their militancy.  They have a burning passion to spread their ideology instead of just keeping to themselves like the amish and orthodox jews. Hopefully with more analysis, we can create an alternate theology that will dissuade from this.

    By Curious Traveler - 4/13/2015 6:35:28 AM



Compose Your Comments here:
Name
Email (Not to be published)
Comments
Fill the text
 
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the articles and comments are the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily reflect that of NewAgeIslam.com.

Content