Wahabis/Al-shabaab, the know-nothing party.

[galbeedi]

 

When I say the know nothing party, most of you may think this as a derogatory label intended to put down these extremist groups. The biggest surprise here is they wish to be called the know- nothing monument. If you are a student of history, there were movements and even political parties who campaigned as the Know- Nothing Party. In 1849, an anti , catholic and immigrant party was formed by the nativist Americans called the know-nothing party. In 2012, during the Egyptian election, a famous scholar and writer called the Wahabi based " Hisbul Nuur " of Egypt, the know-nothing party, because of close mindedness and backward thinking. During the Musrsi government they incited violence and one of their TV announcers called the elimination of the opposition party leaders since they are against the Amir. As soon as the military took over the power, they aligned themselves with Saudi financed dictator, and denounced Mursi and his movement.

 

 

As I stated in the previous article, they quote hadiths out of contest, and they assume wrongly the word of their founders may out weight that of the Qur'aan itself. Allah says in the quraan, " Ask the people of knowledge if you don't know". In another Surrah He says, " Are those equal, those who know from those who don't". Knowledge , experience and patience isn't their virtue. A young person asked someone , " how could I be like you/", he said, " you must live many years and read many books".

 

 

During the golden years of Islam, knowledge and education meant some thing. Even in the early years , Imam Shafaci was asked about being a Mufti ( scholar) to make a Fatwa ( religious edict). He said " I memorized the Quraan when I was seven years old,, and before I was declared a scholar, a group of learned men certified my knowledge. In the thirteen century, you couldn't become a mufti unless you mastered the knowledge of that era. That means you must be a master of medicine, astronomy, and science or you wouldn't be allowed to have an opinion on matters of religious and worldly debate. About ten years ago I read a book called " The Medicine of the Prophet" written by Ibnu Qayim Aljawzi , some six hundred years ago. This was one of the most progressive books Witten in the thirteen century. It writes abbot all matters of health, physiological deceases , depression, insomnia, and all matters of personal relationship. I was astonished when he was describing the love making approaches between husband and wife. He suggests that, rather than making love immediately, he was recommending cuddling kissing and foul l play before the final love making. since this is a family page I will leave there, but when I read the book, I thought these were some of the most modern statements I ever hear. Every thing in the book was either quoted from Quran, Hadith or other medical knowledge.

 

 

If the thirteen century Muftis were required to master astronomy, medicine and science, then, what is the modern day requirement of those who are dispensing Islamic knowledge , wisdom , social issue and technological advances. In 2006, in United sates of America , there was huge debate about the destruction of the Embryonic Stem Cells. After five days of fertilization the inner cells could be isolated from the Embryo which results the destruction of the Blastocyst. Some people believe that during the implantation period, these embryos might have developed as human beings, which ethically means destroying living beings. Other argue, the stem cells are needed for research to find cure for some of the deceases.

 

 

During this debate about these ethical dilemmas, , some Muslim scholars couldn't find any answers. So they went to Al-Azhar university in Cairo, Egypt, the seat of the one thousand years old institution. There , the scholars of Al-Azhar said " We have no knowledge of these issue, it is the first time we heard such thing as stem cell ", so they have to go the drowning board to find the right ruling on the issue.

 

 

Judging by today's standard, a Muslim Mufti, who shall decide in the matters of great importance , should be an educated scholar of many things. Different people may have different requirements. For me, I would like to suggest that those Muftis who will be deciding matters of live and death, progress and backwardness, violence and peace , must be people of high knowledge and integrity. My requirements are :

 

 

1- They should master the Quran and Hadith , ancient and modern history. They should also must be familiar with science and modern technological advances of the day. Definitely they should be familiar with anthropology and other social sciences.

 

2- They must be fluent in Arabic, and they should be able to read and comprehend the modern language of business and politics, which means English.

 

3- They must travel around the world , and immerse themselves to different cultures. They must visit in persons nations like India, China, North America, Africa , Europe, and East Asia. A sheikh driven in limousine in Jeddah , Saudi Arabia, can't answer the modern geopolitics of the 21st century. One of the Sheikhs who dominated religious rulings in the nineties was a blind Sheikh called Ibnu Baz. I remembers nomadic Somalis in Ontario kept quoting him even in the issues happening in Somalia. In any major university, the deans of politics, business and social issue travel around the world to gage the emerging markets, cultural and other characters of those countries.

 

4- They shouldn't be Ullema under the pockets of the government. In the Gulf , sheikhs are asked to furnish religious edicts (Tatwa), desired by the kings and their people.

 

5- Those who are moderate, balanced and have a sound and constructive judgement must be considered, rather than the war mongering acting in mob mentality.

 

 

Finally, on Somali matters, a council of learned Ullema must be assembled and given instruction to rule issues concerning the well being of the people and the nation. If these steps are not taken, we will end up with crazy, blood thirsty and ruthless men like Ahmed Godane and company deciding on matters of life and death. These men like Godane cold easily be exposed as lunatic know-nothing imposters who want to judge among the people while their respectable Ullema are present. The calamity in Somalia was that most of the ullema were unable or unwilling o speak against Godane and company while spilling the blood of the innocent. To tell you the truth, the Somali Ullema are mostly conformists who will not raise their voice for truth.

 

 

The other problem is everyone is afraid to be ladled as opposing Sharia law or the Islamic way of life. In western Europe , the emergence of Neo Nazi and anti immigrant parties forced the center right governments to shift themselves more to the right in order to attract more votes. The same thing goes with Islamic movements. The Takfiir people consider the Wahabis weak and indecisive, while the Wahbis consider e themselves the chosen ones.

 

 

It is really astonishing how drifters like Godane, Fuad Shoongale and others, who never had any extensive Islamic knowledge or degree are issuing Fatwa on matters of peace and war. The Know-Nothing movement is still alive, and must be pushed out to have a sane society. The best solution is to identify Wahabism as a dark sect that will destroy the Muslim countries. A Chechen President was trying to negotiate Russia for autonomy and freedom. He was the legitimate leader. Suddenly a Wahabi inspired man showed with his fighters and plunged that country for war and destruction. How can a small band of Arabs and Chechens defeat the second most powerful nation on earth. Well, Wahabis think they are chosen and no one can defeat them. Reasoning is out of the question for this punch. We must stop them before they destroy us all.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[CidanSultan]

Ok...you need to learn how to make a concrete or coherent argument. Galbeedis arguments are always mind numbingly stupid.

 

 

Example: Wahhabism the evil within our society

 

Argument: there use to be a nazi party, a man once jumped up and down in Vietnam, the communist blablabla. Wahhab was so evil blablabla.

 

 

Firstly my deluded nonsensical friend. Wahhab and alshabab have nothing to do with one another. Like we told you million of times. Wahhab only argued to return to puritant Islam. Islam free from blemish of idolatry as was his time. Shias and ahmadias and sorcery and various political and ideological influences. For that he is a hero. He didn't create a new religion. Wahhab didn't argue for armed conflict or armed struggle. He argued only based on a theoretical concept of personal and practical basis.

 

 

How you linked this philosophical rebirth with alshabab is beyond me. You haven't actually made any valid argument just nonsense we come to expect from galbeedi. Alshabab is a political group, objective is sharia law and the removal of foreign forces. Sharia law is not a concept that is Wahhabi as you would call them. It's islamic concept even the Shia claim to use sharia in Iran.

 

Like I have said to you before galbeedi etheir produce a valid argument or shut up.

 

 

 

[DoctorKenney]

I completely agree. Muslims in Somalia and elsewhere are being held hostage by know-nothings like Ahmed Godane and others like him. It's all-too-easy to grow a beard and wear an imamad and pretend that you're a person of knowledge. Although their actions and statements prove them to be very ignorant and with little wisdom.

 

When it comes to contemporary issues, it's always advisable to listen to a Sheikh from your local community. A Muslim in America shouldn't have to listen to a cleric in Tunisia or Jordan, unless it's regarding theological issues. There's absolutely no reason why Somalis should be quoting Ibn Baaz when it comes to modern political issues in Somalia. He's been gone for 15 years and he had no knowledge about the political climate in Somalia. A Sheikh should be well-rounded in his knowledge. He should have a deep understanding of the modern world, and he should be well-positioned to defend Islam from the constant onslaughts of so-called "Modernists" and "Secular Reformers". Some Sheikhs involve themselves in superfluous debates which are completely inconsequential, about topics which most Muslims can't understand, let alone even care about.

 

And we have too many emotional Muslims, those who make blatant takfir on anyone they disagree with. These are Muslims who have extremely little knowledge on their religion, yet they over-leverage this knowledge and give themselves undeserved status. I've heard stories of 19 year old Muslim teenagers, who have barely any knowledge of Islam let alone the real world, challenging learned 60 year old Sheikhs who are held in great esteem. A great example is that of the 20 year old Somali kid from Calgary who joined ISIS in Syria. I've watched his interview on VICE News and he was unbelievably arrogant and he displayed remarkably little knowledge on Islam.

 

And the pattern keeps repeating itself

[DoctorKenney]

CidanSultan, I don't like the term "Wahhabi" either. These extremists we see nowadays need to be labeled using a new term, and I don't think Wahhabi is the appropriate term. Don't get into semantics here, we know very well what he meant.

 

And Shariah Law is not just a penal code. That's the mistake people make when discussing Shariah, including many Muslims themselves. Shariah is a legal system, a financial system, a labor system, a political/economic system. Shariah teaches us how to deal with the environment, how to treat animals, how to deal with your family, how to prepare contracts, the legal matters when it comes to creating corporate partnerships and conducting business, etc. It is uniquely adaptive and can be applied across all centuries.

 

There are entire libraries full of legal books on the Shariah. It's an all-encompassing, comprehensive system which is the only way a society should ever govern itself.

[CidanSultan]

A simple question? I have never supported alshabab as a group and I fully find the killing of innocent civilians unjustified.

 

Alshabab came out of the islamic courts union. Who destroyed and for what reason was the islamic courts union destroyed ?????

 

It was destroyed not because it was a terrorist organisation we all know they achieved the impossible and successfully without the support of au forces in 1 month. They were destroyed because the United States, Ethiopia and Kenya fear an islamic somali territory sharing a border with them. Ethiopia invaded the islamic courts union fell apart back to square one then the extreme elements like alshabab prevail. Alshabab is a bi product not the problem. The problem is the United States inferring in the affairs of countries and Ethiopia and Kenya wanting the continued choas of somali society.

 

 

It's easy to blame alshabab for everything. They kill people that's wrong but what do they want au forces out. You can not disagree with that. I want these rapists out. If the islamic courts union could stabilise mugdisho in 2 month without help why can't this joke of a puppet regime. Sharia law is what they fight for. All Somalis want sharia law.

 

The problem with you and galbeedi is you see the world in black and white. The world is multi colour. The us is to blame for this situation along with Kenya and Ethiopia who still remain on somali soil.

 

Yet oh my god alshabab ahhhhhhhh.... Alshabab ahhhhh....

 

This is the problem with fake nationalists like yourselves. You always never look at the bigger picture.

[DoctorKenney]

CidanSultan, that literally has nothing to do with the topic at all.

[CidanSultan]

That has everything to do with the topic. He is talking about alshabab declaring fatwas. Or their leaders declaring fatwas. Does someone really to need a fatwa to see that an occupying power should be fought. Or have you lost not only your balls but your honour.

 

Tell me what is unislamic about fighting au rapists in mugdisho. Who support a regime that is curropt and unwanted who is supported by a superpower who deposed an islamic authority supported by the people. Something are as clear as day.

 

Alshabab kills people. That's bad I agree. Suicide bombing that's bad I agree. But the overall struggle to fight any foreign power on your soil is a god given right and duty.

 

What is Kenya doing on somali soil? Are those fighting them wrong. No. They shouldn't be their at all. The United States argues alshabab are barbarians. To some degree they are suicide bombing is wrong, many things Hey do is wrong. But look whose preaching the United States a nation that enslaved 20 million black people, wiped out native Indian populations, wiped out half the world in war. The United States makes alshabab look like mother Teresa. The United States is the greatest proponent of chaos in somalia.

 

You don't need a fatwa or a anything to see that civilisations, organisations and groups need to evolve in their own time. You can not enforce an idea based on your own geopolitical interests in the region.

 

Us is fighting a losing war in the Middle East. We all know the somali army is a joke and they will lose in somalia eventually. They are losing in Afghanistan were the Taliban are back stronger then ever. They are losing North Africa.

 

The United States is bankrupt and it can't afford this war anymore.

 

 

Islam is the only solution to the somali problem.

[DoctorKenney]

All you keep talking about is "America America America" and how bad and evil the US Government is. Again, that has NOTHING to do with the topic!

 

The Muslim world has 2 major problems:

 

1. An internal problem (our own personal flaws, lack of unity, etc.)

 

2. An external problem (the aggression of the US, Israel, etc.)

 

Right now, Galbeedi is talking about Problem #1, the internal problem. Learn to stick to the topic, and stop getting out of hand here. We're not talking about the United States, we're talking about MUSLIMS and their internal issues!

[galbeedi]

CiidanSuldaan, the Wahabi ideology is connected to some of unexplained violence in the Muslim world. The return of puritan Islam they are talking is sawing discord and violence. The so called occupation Al-shabaab intended to fight were here because of their actions. They are also using everyone including criminals and others who poor and destitute.

 

In late nineteen eighties before the advent of violent religious movements, a well known Somali sheikh said " after observing the actions these Wahabis, not only they are capable of verbally attacking others , but they may raise their hands for other Muslims or even kill." This was long time ago. Dr.K I do not blame America or Israel anymore. If you act like a wild gog , you will be put down. look at Somalia, no foreign army came in 1990, it was the Somalis who destroyed their country. Look at Iraq, Saddam was offered an exile with all his families in order to save his country, he decided to destroy it with help of America. Look at Al-Sisi of Egypt, he killed thousands , he want to rule with blood in his hands, and no conscience.

 

check the difference. When the FIS movement of Algeria won the election the military cancelled and have taken power by force. The Wahabi inspired Islamic Army Group went total war and destruction. In Turkey, more than once they war disbanded more than once, but kept coming back. it is the ideology " I will get what I want or will kill".

[CidanSultan]

Galbeedi has no clue what he talking about. Ideologically there is no issue. The issue is political like I said to you a million times.

 

Saddam hussein doesn't represent Islam he was a Secularist. Sissi does not represent Islam he is a Secularist. Saudi Arabia does not represent Islam because it's a monarchical system with the gise of islam. The Algerian struggle was a nationalist struggle was an Islamic struggle and the military that denied them the victory were Secularist.

 

So I will say it again inside Islam their is no ideological struggle. The struggle itself is in Muslim countries but it's between those who subscribe to the desire of islam and those who support other ideologies be it Secularist, pan nationalist, communists etc.

 

What galbeedi is saying is there is a problem with deferring interpretations of islam. Therefore this is the main problem. He calls it a wild dog that needs to be put down. It seems galbeedi himself needs to be intellectually put down.

 

Before the Collapse of the Ottoman empire where there any problems?

 

NO..........

 

Why?

 

because a single system that the populas were happy with was being implemented I. E. Islam

 

Where there problems after the Collapse of the Ottoman empire....

 

YES.... WHY....

 

BECAUSE OF THE RISE OF NEW FORCES....what new forces.

 

Bathism which is atheistic pan Arabism. Secularism, communism.

 

 

How are these ideologies the problem of the Muslim world. They removed God from the equation, made race, the state and other subjective things more important. What was their result.

 

Dictatorship, tyranny and struggle.

 

What has this struggle led to...

 

the rebirth and rise of political Islam.

 

Galbeedk HAS NO CLUE WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT. talking out of his a55 again as usual.

 

You can on and on in your jibberish but the reality and the historical fact is that Muslims ideologically do not have a problem. There are different madhabs obviously but the core principles are the same. Excluding shias who are not Muslims.

 

The recent problems we all see is a reaction to problems that are created and driven by external concepts and the proponent who fight for them in Muslim countries.

 

I. E. This is a battle between Islam and other ideologies not Islam itself

[CidanSultan]

Don't come up with Shia Sunni divide. Shia is not Islam and they are not Muslim.

 

Answer my argument

[galbeedi]

CiidanSuldaan, there were ideological problems during the ottoman and even before. Where are the Tatars ruling the caucuses in 16th century and after. They were busy with slave trades and other issues. They used to raid and and fight the Russians with equal or superior footing, Suddenly the tide turned. They refused to modernize and advance technologically. A German born lady Catherine the great became the queen of Russia who built a modern army with superior organization. She not only defeated the Tatars but forced them to be under the protection of the Russian Empire. They survived few centuries after that because of the ottomans, finally, they became one of the small ethnic groups under the soviet.

 

Even the Ottomans were going down technologically, economically and organizational level before the first world war. A modern state is different from small bands of Ansaru -al sharia, ISIS, and other groups rooming the land with pick up trucks. In Libya, soon you will have four or five factions fighting one another for supremacy. Working with others and tolerating dissent is not their character. expect anarchy and violence.

 

If you can't remove the dictator in peaceful organized way, then you must be patient and accept the current situation and wait for another day. Look at Russia, a DICTATOR is running the country. His term is already expired in 2008, yet he came back with different mechanism. The people saw his moves but accepted for their common interest. The Muslim world is bigger than Iraq, Libya or Syria. It bigger than the Arab world. The Indian subcontinent has more Muslims than the entire Arab world. This is the struggle Arab society to manage their affairs. They have been blaming Israel for all their weaknesses and problems. Well, they must look in the mirror and smell the coffee.

[CidanSultan]

Again galbeedi I'm sincerely pleading with you to argue a concrete coherent argument. You have just written more gibberish.

 

There were ideological struggles during the Ottoman empire? When? Between whom?

 

The Ottoman empire did not have any ideological struggle within it. The only ones that existed were between the druz (a none Islamic sect that believes in reincarnation and gibberish) and Christians in the sham of Lebanon and syria.

 

The Muslims had no ideological struggles what so ever. Please explain more about the ideological struggles.

 

Catherine the great, blah blah blah this blah blah that... Just doesn't cut it.

 

A coherent argument please.

 

What ideological struggle existed by this I mean Islamic ideological struggle existed in the Ottoman empire, between who and when?????

 

 

Please galbeedi enlighten us?

[CidanSultan]

We will get back to Catherine the great, industrialisation, the sick man of Europe etc later.

 

My fundamental starting argument is that the problems in the Muslim world is an ideological one and this didn't happen before.

 

So provide for us these ideological problems that existed prior to the abolishment of the chalipahate?

[CidanSultan]

It's been over a day now so I can safely say similar to the title of your thread galbeedi is the know nothing individual. Easy to accuse others. Should we put this stray out of his misery or wait for him to do his google quick research.

 

Galbeedi???

 

Mr nonsense. Talk out of his a££, We are waiting.