Why propagate Wahhabi doctrine?

Submitted by Abdul Rahman Reijerink (Australia), May 28, 2006 at 09:04

Siddi, it is refreshing to hear someone recount your arguments who is not so full of hatred towards Islam. but please, Wahhabis have a lot of money behind them, but that does not give them moral authority, parroting their "theology" only serves to give it credibility, it should only be publicised to be refuted as the rubbush it is. I feel that many "western" experts are actually strengthening the terrorists by giving their blasphemous ideas credibilty instead of turning to more beautiful (ie in line with the beautty of a Creator who gave us hummingbirds and butterflys) interpretations of Islam to demonstrate how abberant their ideas are from genuine scholarship,as opposed to the rubbish put out by the ruling clique in Saudi, and believe me, it is intellectual drivel.

Yes, all this theory of abrogation does have currency among Puritans who think that they are the bearers of the Noor (divine light) from Allah swt, but they really lack good scholarly training (as I also do).

as far as I know, abrogation is a very tricky subject that it takes years of study to come to grips with. Scholars that I trust look at the Qur'an as a whole, not just the sum of its parts which is a poor (yet admitedly traditional) way of doing it.

Allah calls Godself Rahman and Raheem at the beinning of 113 out of 114 Suras... The very definition of Mercy. The overwhelming message of Allah is patience, doing good and to worship with sincerity only the true God. everything else must be viewed through this lens.

Verses that seem to enjoin unlimited violence must be read in context for the period of their revelation (reading behind the text), as well as within the text (ie its entireity). I will not go into it here, except to say that they refer to open enemies of Islam who broke treaties with the muslims during a time of war endangering their erstwhile alllies, by joining or aiding and abetting the enemy. Many more verses enjoin compassion and restrict violence to when the enemy attacks and stops it when they flee, ie unlike in most warfare where the majority of casualties come AFTER the battle, preventing the old, women or childen from being killed, even crops are sacrosanct (ie religiously prohibited from burning crops... a common tactic even today)

The doctrine of Dar al harb/islam has no basis in the Sunnah, it is a reflection of the geopolitical reality of the time it was developed (ie several hundred years after the death of the prophet Muhammad saws). All states were in an assumed state of war unless a treaty was in place (all states of this time subscribed to this outlook). Further, there is a third abode, that of neutrality, that never seems to make the headlines. Plus, the abode of war was limited to places where a Muslim was not allowed to practise their religion freely, therfore, it would not apply to any nation on earth today (especially the US and my beloved home Australia) except ironically some "muslim" lands and probably dictatorships like in South western China and nth Korea. And, as peace is the assumed state between nations now, the application of this theory is ahistorical and has no basis in muslim traditions, especially since those propagating it do not have legitimate state power, which puts them in the same catagory as the worst sort of bandit (ie in modern terminology terrorist) if they act upon it, making them lawful to be KILLED ON SIGHT, as they have convicted themselves through their actions.

May Allah grant us an increase in knowledge and I seek refuge in Allah from the deceptions of Satan.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".