Wednesday, July 20, 2016

Catherine Shakdam — Wahhabi Saudi Arabia and the Disappearing of Islam’s Heritage

Backgrounder.
While world nations remain mostly oblivious to the crippling danger presented by Saudi Arabia – a nation which wealth has shielded it from criticism, and whose leaders have stood immune from legal pursuits, the Kingdom has a lot to answer to …
Actually it is not so much Saudi Arabia as a political construct which should worry you, but rather the faith it has leaned on to draw legitimacy from: Wahhabism.
Born in the desert of Nejd in the 18th century – an unwelcoming stretch of land which for centuries has echoed from the war cries of looters and tribal warlords, Wahhabism came into the world courtesy of one self-professed Islamic erudite: Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab. A follower of Ibn Taymiyyah*, Ibn Abdul-Wahhad imagined himself a religious authority so grand that only his teachings could be deemed worthy – a sanctity onto Islam, the one school of thought to surpass all others, and in shame bind them!
Or so he claimed …or so he made others believe!
An ascetic, violent and reactionary faith, Wahhabism is not just anchored in bloodshed, it has been weaved around hate, bred on exclusion, and grown on ignorant bigotry.
If ever there was an antithesis of Islam, Wahhabism would most certainly qualify to that title.
But enough already on this individual … although we have to admit that it is his poisonous thoughts which continue to darken our skies, by allowing powers to wage “holy wars”.
You might know Wahhabism under a different name – that of Islamic radicalism.

It is at this point in my article that I will ask you to review your definition of radicalism and learn to call this abomination by its real name: Wahhabism.
The Duran
Wahhabi Saudi Arabia and the Disappearing of Islam’s Heritage
Catherine Shakdam

Ibn Tamiyyah declared the teaching of Ibn Arabi, whom Sufis call "the greatest (spiritual) leader" (al-shaykh al-akbar), heretical. He was also highly critical of Shite Islam. Ibn Tamiyyah is regarded as the source of Salafism. Wahhabism is an extreme form of Salafism. Salafism is a fundamentalist interpretation of Islam and Wahhabism is perhaps the most extreme view of it. Equating Salafism with Islam would be like equating Christian Fundamentalism with Christianity. Equating Wahhabism with Islam would be like equating Christian Dominionism with Christianity.

6 comments:

Matthew Franko said...

"Equating Wahhabism with Islam would be like equating Christian Dominionism with Christianity."

This is interesting Tom... what is probably going on is that Christendom has a sort of the same problem with its own sectarianism so it can't understand/deal with what is going on over there very well either...

Most often imo people cannot recognize/understand important divisions...

Matthew Franko said...

btw imo the left attacking all of the "inequality!" misses it too... all of that "inequality!" BS from the left seems to me like the ostrich sticking its head down in the hole.... left doesnt want to admit that people are "unequal"... like a collective repression of this reality...

Tom Hickey said...

I would say it is more about fair share than numerical equality of income and wealth. The owner-worker share ration is approaching the Gilded Age in the US and it's worse world-wide. When a very small number of people relative to the total population own or have claims on almost all the resources, people start thinking that it not a fair share and there must be something wrong with the distribution system. The just deserts explanation has broken down. People don't know exactly why because they do not understand economic rent, rent seeking, and rent extraction. Most economists do have have kept their mouths shut because they know who butters their bread. Not only that, economic rent and rent extraction is associated now with Marxism and communism. But now the BS is breaking down as prominent economists like Joe Stiglitz start blowing the lid off the scam.

Ignacio said...

"btw imo the left attacking all of the "inequality!" misses it too..."

Is you who are missing it, there is just too much back up that says that the higher economic inequality a society has, the worst social problems are.

And don't conflate inequality re individual characteristics with economic inequality. In this context inequality means skewed distribution of income and assets, nothing more and nothing else.

jrbarch said...

The only thing between left and right, good and bad, right and wrong - is you. Look around – it is people making the choices.

Whatever path they choose, it is for the exact same reason: - they want to ‘feel good’. Even at the expense of others.

If you say to people there is a way of feeling good, simply by sitting down and going inside, their eyeballs roll around in their sockets. :-)!

Jeff65 said...

Matt Franko,

Separate wealth and political power and unequal distribution would greatly reduce over time. There would be no need for redistribution. The incumbents will find that they are winning not because they are smart, but because they have a thumb on the scale.

Redistribution is needed only if the incumbents resist the loss of political power. And they always do.