[salman]

Interesting discussion.

This post has been edited by salman: 29 March 2010 - 01:13 PM

[Hamoudeh]

Despite the attempts of participants to engage in a discussion, brother Muzzammil has simply been telling his own story, over and over again. Its purpose has been diametrically opposite of what the title and introduction allude to. It has nothing to do with scapegoats, but clearing their name from heterodoxy. Perhaps it has nothing to do with this movement altogether, but rather with their name being 'a derogatory word especially in India even for those who had no relation with them whatsoever ... Ahmad Shaheed, for example, ... and Ismail Shaheed.' That it came back like a boomerang with Ibn Ajibah on the topic of Takfiri and Irhabi methodology - what being a scapegoat was supposedly all about - is an ironic ending. If someone would truly wish to address scapegoats, the blame would not merely shift from one group to the other. Instead, one would look at actual factors in the cause of terrorism, aside of any ideological motives, such as cultural, psychological, political, social, economic and personal factors. Endlessly citing De Long-Bas certainly doesn’t make up for such an academic lacking. A review of her book can be found here.

Wassalam

[salman]

subhanallah wa'l hamdulilah... la hawla wa la quwwat ila billah

That review really does put the book into clear perspective. Some snippets from the review:

Quote

Here, DeLong-Bas relies on two main sources, Ibn Ghannam (d. 1810) and Ibn Bishr (d. 1873).

Quote

Ibn Ghannam and Ibn Bishr wrote their chronicles to serve a political and religious agenda. In other words, they were Wahhabis themselves and writing with a long history of success and conquests in their mind.

Quote

Given her primary sources, it is inevitable that her book would only be a re-enactment of the official Wahhabi history, albeit written in a contemporary, reader-friendly style.

Quote

A well-organized epistle penned by a contemporary of Ibn Abdul Wahhab, al-Tandatawi, indicates that the four chief muftis of Mecca were well aware of Ibn Abdul Wahhab’s core teachings 3, and indeed, were keen on exposing them.

Quote

While Shaykh Ibn Abdul Wahhab might have been careful to remove any mention of violence in his writings, which he knew would be scrutinized by the leading scholars of his time, he was not squeamish about labeling the greater part of the Muslim world as being pagans who had lost sight of tawhid, or to be more accurate, his idea of divine unity.

Quote

I would therefore argue that the violence perpetrated by Ibn Abdul Wahhab’s followers are the logical conclusion to his teachings. The ease with which most extremists, past and present, are able to adopt and customize Ibn Abdul Wahhab’s paradigm for reform is proof of this.

I hope this is clarified on other forums where this book was used to "up" the image of Ibn `Abd al-Wahhab.

Wassalam
Salman

[mansoor malik]

Salam,

So I read through the posts and I think the ruling of the majority is that brother Muzammil has built a nice big castle on a pile of sand. Looking through his references, most if not all major premises relating to the life and times of ibn Abdul Wahhab and his intellectual progeny are supported by secondary and tertiary sources; most of whom have relied on the likes of ibn Bishr and other propagandists.

As to the supposed la madhabi tendencies of figures such as Sanusi, ibn Idris etc, I gather that if I ask for the supporting evidence it will also be from secondary orientalist critiques - knowing first hand a number of blunders they've made in this regard with Dehlewi and ibn Fudiye in particular. After all, one wonders that given the spiritual lineages of these luminaries who passed so recently, why their spiritual descendants haven't thrown of the shackles of madhabs and 'saint veneration', while the 'pro-taqlid' wahhabies with an equally recent heritage are free to leave their madhab whenever the 'evidence' is strongest...

As to the 'Palestinian link', brother Muzammil, I think you need to conduct some field research and get your head out of the jstor archives; take a trip to Jordan and speak to Hudhaifa the son of Abdullah Azzam to see how well representative his fathers views are amongst the modern warmongering elite:

http://sunnatheologi...in-laden-et-al/

This post has been edited by mansoor malik: 03 April 2010 - 12:26 AM

[suleimanibnsalim]

I see muzammil is back, perhaps he could answer to the above points?