The Virulet Virus of Wahhabi Intolerance

131 nb, Thanks to Chowk my Hindi is better and I am learning Urdu now. ALL my flatmates are B'deshis.

#127 muradbaig

[A revenge philosophy has however plagued Islam from its earliest days. The early Khalifs Umar and Uthman as well as The Prophet’s own son in law Ali were all assassinated by vengeful factions. The predominantly Bedouin Kharajite faction, who were unhappy that Ali had not avenged the assassination of Uthman, mainly caused the split into Sunni and Shia sects that was to cause so much bloodshed over the centuries. These Kharajites had a very narrow and extremist view of the words of the prophet]


There are numerouse examples of your pedophile, serial rapist, serial murderer prophet praising his followers who murdered people who said anything bad about him. He also beheaded 700 unarmed civilians and sold their INNOCENT AND HELPLESS women and children as slaves.

Your prophet, who cooked up the koran to achieve his personal goals, WAS the person who introduced the revenge philosophy by word and by example.

Of course, being a muslim, you'll find a way to obfuscate all of that, including his pedophilia.

The Pope is only infallible when he speaks ex-cathedra ;-) And while I agree that the Pope (both this one and the last one) are probably well meaning, they are hopelessly conservative and pretty much out of touch with reality.

In any case, I don't see the Holy Inquisition bringing back auto da fes or anyone in power in even heavily catholic countries seriously asking the Pope's views in the process of making basic public policy decisions.

If you look at population growth rates in Italy or Spain, it's clear that either no one is having sex there or they are using birth control. Most American Catholics pretty much ignore the Pope's teachings on many issues. You don't see the Inquisition burning heretics at the stake or local priests flogging people who want to go to a movie on Sundays instead of to church.

Absolutely true that a lunatic fringe like Koresh does exist; also true that not-as-lunatic a (bigger) fringe like Robertson, Falwell and Co also exists in the US; however, their power is definitely waning. In any case, the moderates are fighting back against them; no 'moderate' Muslim is fighting to condemn any whackjob Salafist or Takfirist; or did I miss the huge demonstrations against the suicide bombings in Pakistan?

fuzair: david koresh wasnt the only nut job in christianity. what do you call those who think an ex-ack-ack gunner in the nazi army is somehow the infallible spokesman for God on all matters ranging from birth control to the grant of eternal salvation vs damnation??

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Tahmed,

I wasn't referring to violence or power struggles, I was referring to Islam's unfortunate tendency to continually go back to the starting point (or what some crackpots consider to be the only acceptable form of Islam). The current Salafist movement is simpley the umpteenth version of the same thing.

Christianity, more or less, has managed to outgrow this unfortunate tendency (barring whackjobs like David Koresh). The major difference is that Koresh was clearly a fringe lunatic (despite their occasional unfortunate utterance--e.g., a good wife defers to her husband--the Southern Baptists aren't really in the whackjob category) but the fringe lunatics in Islam set the tone for the entire religion. Thus they are increasingly the mainstream of Islam and no longer the whackjobs.

Wahhabism began as a bunch of tribal lunatics who should have been exterminated by the Ottomans, or latest by the British in the 1920s. The Saudis are now خادم الحرمين الشريÙ?ينand are the Gold Standard for Muslims in Pakistan. Just ask any 'average' Pakistani where do you 'true' Islam in the world today.

++++++++++++++

Baig Sahib,

Islam in Spain was not uniformly tolerant or enlightened. The al Moravids, for example, did much to convince nonMuslims that they might be better off under some of the Christian rulers.

The Moravid ruler, Yusuf Ibn Tashfin, got a fatwa from Al Ghazali and others that the rulers of the taifa kingdoms in Spain were heretics (they apparently were too lax in enforcing Sharia) and should be deposed. The successor dynasty, the al Mohad, were also very orthodox and many nonMuslims left/were-expelled from much of Muslim ruled Spain.

The Golden Age, in the sense of tolerance and creativity, of Muslim rule in Spain was really only until 1000 CE or so; it was all downhill after that.

#130 Posted by nb on March 27, 2009 12:04:06 am


Arjun, it was just the other day, don't you remember it?


yeah...for islamic apologists like mr baig here, the 1500s are "recently" when it comes to the glories of islam...

i'm sure he thinks other events that don't portray islam in such a favorable light are ancient history...even if they occured in the 1800s..

Mr Baig, do you think you may be becoming more religious as you grow older? I ask this politely because these articles are a far cry from motorcycles.
Your article approaches the same issues as many posts daily discussed on chowk, who is the real Muslim? I also have to agree with other interactors about Wahabis not having any support in Pakistan, the PML is hardly Sufi. The foundation of the country is not on Sufi beliefs, and is influenced at least partly by Wahabis. War against people who would appear innocent to you or me seems to be acceptable to a large proportion of the population.
Secondly, who knows what proportion of Indian Muslims' ancestors were converted by Sufism and how many by fear or favour? Historians are unable to agree on this, how did you arrive at a conclusion? (In the meantime, most Pakistanis appear to have arrived at the happy conclusion that they are all descended from Iranians and Turks and are not "sons of the soil" at all.)
In short, you seem to be saying Wahabis are the problem, and a minority at that. Is this really true?

Re: # 118

Dear Minu2009.

I am not a bit hurt by your interact. Everyone is entitled to their opinions and this forum is to debate such burning issues. And sometimes a writer needs to be correced as well.

Re the desecration of Mecca and Medina please read T. E Ravenshaw's detailed accounts in `A memorandum on the Sect of Wehabees' It says in part ..."who also killed many sheikhs and believers who did refused to adopt Wahabeeism"... "They robbed the splendid tombs of the Muhammadan saints and who were interred there and their fanatical zeal did not spare the famous mosque( Kaaba) which they robbed of its immense treasures and costly furniture to which each Mohamedan prince of Europe, Asia and Africa had contributed."

"In 1804 a Wahhabi army again crossed the great desert into the Hijaz and destroyed the ancient cemetary at Madina despoiling the grave of the Prophet Muhammad. In the following year the Wahhabis entered Mecca for the second time and, having massacred those who refused to accept their creed, now claimed it for themselves."

Yes Wahhabism is quite a recent phenomenon.

VRV, I strongly suspect you were fraternising with Bihari Muslims in Kolkata, since they're the only ones who would have been able to speak any Hindi or Urdu. Some of them have lived in Bengal for decades and not learnt any Bengali, but Bengalis don't try to burn down their taxis because it's too much work. Just wondering, how good is your Hindi, is it possible they took advantage of your not knowing Hindi?

Arjun, it was just the other day, don't you remember it??

VRV Garu,

There isn't any thing that distinguishes a Bihari Ms from a Bengali Ms in WB

Dunno how well Bong Muslims get on with Bihari Muslims in WB, possibly you are extrapolating from Calcutta where most Muslims are bilingual. But I have a feeling that rural Bengal is a different ball game.

As a matter of fact most domestic helps in Delhi are Bong Muslims (from either WB or BD), most of them are rather poor with Hindi/Urdu. They usually dress in sarees (unlike North Indian muslim women who mainly wear salwar kameez) and eat fish (whenever they can afford to).

Regards

#127 Posted by muradbaig on March 26, 2009 9:04:30 pm

16th century is recently?

Re: # 110
[It is true that there were extremists before Wahhab but Islam had become a gracious and magnanimous culture in its years of greatness..]

From the 7th to the 16th century Islam was not militant. The history of the crusades shows how magnanymous the Muslim countries were as compared to the rabid Christians.

The Christian conquest of Jerusalem in July 1099 was marked by the slaughter of over 40,000 Jews and Moslems in two days and the crusaders rode their horses through the Temple of Solomon with blood up to their knees. The second Crusade was mainly instigated by the fiery St. Bernard who tirelessly inflamed all Catholics.

By contrast to this fiery spirit, the capture of Jerusalem by Salahuddin in October 1187 was achieved without shedding a drop of blood and Christians were allowed to stay or to leave with their property. Muslim rulers would routinely release Christian prisoners in exchange for a ransom. In August 1191, Richard, of lion hearted fame, however casually slaughtered 2,700 Muslim prisoners who he had been unable to feed. Saracen rulers always honored their treaties but the Christian knights broke theirs as soon as opportunity allowed on the grounds that there was no sanctity to any pledge made to a heathen.

The records of the Crusades clearly show that Islam had been very tolerant till quite recent centuries. Jews and Christians had lived in security under Muslim rulers in Palestine, Spain and other places in total contrast to the bloody massacres of Jews and Muslims by Christians when they conquered Jerusalem and Spain. For 500 years the Moorish rule over Spain was a model of peace and tolerance. The gentle words of Christ had also been superseded by revisionists like the authors of the book of Revelations, composed a century after the crucifixion, that predicted the Antichrist and Great Beast and a warlike triumph of Christianity making the religion vengeful and militant. The Spanish inquisition marks a watermark in religious intolerance.

After the Muslim countries in India and west asia faded before European nations Islam became narrow and bigoted. A revenge philosophy has however plagued Islam from its earliest days. The early Khalifs Umar and Uthman as well as The Prophet’s own son in law Ali were all assassinated by vengeful factions. The predominantly Bedouin Kharajite faction, who were unhappy that Ali had not avenged the assassination of Uthman, mainly caused the split into Sunni and Shia sects that was to cause so much bloodshed over the centuries. These Kharajites had a very narrow and extremist view of the words of the prophet

Majumdar & nb & Dost Mitter,

I agree that older generation Bongs don't speak Hindi but new gen ppl do speak Hindi (TV & Bollywood). I saw similar things in rural Gujarat and Punjab. Contrary to what I thought, older ppl in rural parts of those states don't speak a word of Hindi/Urdu (On way to Attari-Wagah border From Amritsar I tried to speak to some buzurgs who spoke nothing but Punjabi).

nkg,

It'd be proper if you criticise without being vile (Musla thingy).

I wonder why some ppl reject the fact of illegal Bangladeshi
migration to Assam & other parts of India. May be Ummah spirit works.

MJ Akbar on Pakistan

excerpts:

"He said in South Asia, the Indians and the Pakistanis are actually the same people, who had the same strengths and same weaknesses sixty years ago when the partition took place.

"We began the process of creating modern nation states and the most important thing to remember about India and Pakistan is that we were the first nations to achieve freedom from the European colonial rule. So, why it is that Pakistan has gone into one trajectory and India gone on the other?' he asked.

"My understanding is that the idea of India is stronger than the Indian and the idea of Pakistan is weaker than the Pakistani. Pakistan in my view is a medieval idea (where) a faith can be the basis of nationalism," Akbar said.

India, he said, has three equalities and one equity.

'There is political equality, which means one citizen has one vote; religious equality, which means that irrespective of one's religion, one is equal before the Constitution and third and the most important is that gender equality which is a lacking in many Muslim countries,' he said.

'I keep telling people that if you do not have gender equality you will not enter into 19th century. Who is inviting you into the 21st,' he said.

Fourthly, he said, India has economic equity.

'There has never been something called economic equality. But in post-colonial society, if the elimination of poverty is not a primary objective of a state, you would never achieve modernity,' Akbar said, adding that Indian Muslims have enjoyed democracy unlike in many parts of the Muslim world."

http://news.rediff.com/report/2009/mar/26/journalist-akbar-says- pak-has-become-a-jelly-state.htm