Wahhabism is an ultra-conservative branch of Sunni Islam. It is a movement among the most orthodox believers, an inspiration to return to the earliest fundamental beliefs. There is a relationship between Wahhabism and Sufism, by which I mean to suggest ultra-conservatism.
The Wahhabis movement gained unchallenged precedence in the Arabian Peninsula through an alliance between Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahhab and the House of Saud. Islamic writers have suggested that the overall popularity of this movement is due in part to the alliance with the House of Saud, and the ruling family’s willingness to fund the Wahhabi movement. In the past 20 years, the House of Saud has provided $87 billion to the Wahhabi movement.
Wahhabis condemn other religions. Wahhabi mosques in the United States routinely provide pamphlets that encourage its adherents to “always oppose” infidels and to hate them in every way—for Allah’s sake. There is not a definite tie between Wahhabism and the Moslem Brotherhood, but the Wahhabis well understand how successful the Moslem Brotherhood has been in converting Americans to Islam, particularly within the prison systems … where criminals proudly serve the interests of Allah, even in opposition to their own country.
Of the nineteen hijackers who participated in the coordinated terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001, fifteen were Saudis.
With that in mind, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano has recently concluded an agreement with top Saudi officials to grant Global Entry Status to Saudi Arabian citizens, allowing “pre-approved, low risk travelers” to pass through US customs “more quickly.” It was Napolitano’s goal to facilitate legitimate trade and travel while working to minimalize terrorist threats.
Hard to believe, isn’t it?
Well, no… Not really. This is the government Americans overwhelmingly elected, right? I say hell yeah … let those barbarians in. Put them on the fast track. While we’re at it, let’s increase the numbers of Moslems granted non-quota immigration visas. I don’t even think we should subject these Christian-hating fundamentalists to bomb sniffing machines or even the mildly curious perverts from TSA. No, I say we should give these Saudi terrorists a free pass and focus instead on the 90-year old retired Nuns, wounded warriors, and the six-year-old little girls who provide a clear and present danger to the American people.
Source
The Wahhabis movement gained unchallenged precedence in the Arabian Peninsula through an alliance between Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahhab and the House of Saud. Islamic writers have suggested that the overall popularity of this movement is due in part to the alliance with the House of Saud, and the ruling family’s willingness to fund the Wahhabi movement. In the past 20 years, the House of Saud has provided $87 billion to the Wahhabi movement.
Wahhabis condemn other religions. Wahhabi mosques in the United States routinely provide pamphlets that encourage its adherents to “always oppose” infidels and to hate them in every way—for Allah’s sake. There is not a definite tie between Wahhabism and the Moslem Brotherhood, but the Wahhabis well understand how successful the Moslem Brotherhood has been in converting Americans to Islam, particularly within the prison systems … where criminals proudly serve the interests of Allah, even in opposition to their own country.
Of the nineteen hijackers who participated in the coordinated terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001, fifteen were Saudis.
With that in mind, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano has recently concluded an agreement with top Saudi officials to grant Global Entry Status to Saudi Arabian citizens, allowing “pre-approved, low risk travelers” to pass through US customs “more quickly.” It was Napolitano’s goal to facilitate legitimate trade and travel while working to minimalize terrorist threats.
Hard to believe, isn’t it?
Well, no… Not really. This is the government Americans overwhelmingly elected, right? I say hell yeah … let those barbarians in. Put them on the fast track. While we’re at it, let’s increase the numbers of Moslems granted non-quota immigration visas. I don’t even think we should subject these Christian-hating fundamentalists to bomb sniffing machines or even the mildly curious perverts from TSA. No, I say we should give these Saudi terrorists a free pass and focus instead on the 90-year old retired Nuns, wounded warriors, and the six-year-old little girls who provide a clear and present danger to the American people.
Source
Saudi Arabia, the land of Mohammed and the land of Petro-Islam, is viewed by the ummah as twice blessed by Allah. The Arabian Peninsula enjoys special status in Islam well beyond what most Westerners can imagine.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if the ummah view the Obama administration's granting of Global Entry Status as thrice blessed and proof that it is the will of Allah that Islam should dominate the world and the United States (aka the Great Satan).
You would think that our government would have figured out by now that the carrot does not work with these extremists. They grab the carrot and then turn around and show us how weak we are by not using the stick.
ReplyDeleteAnn Coulter is right about this: We have a problem with LEGAL immigration in this country.
ReplyDeleteDebbie
Right Truth
http://www.righttruth.typepad.com
In the past I have been willing to give the regime the benefit of the doubt and concluded that the ignorance they demonstrate is from some misguided idealized philosophy. No more. What they are doing is a commitment to destroy our lives and our nation.
ReplyDeleteNothing new
ReplyDeleteThere were and still are close ties between the Bush family and the House of Saud as well as the bin Laden family. It appears that Obama has beneifited from those connections too.
ReplyDeleteAt a lectue in a church about the subject of Islam during the question and answer part someone asked "Is Obama a Muslim ?" One of the speakers who was in times past both a Muslim and a Hezbollah member but now a Christian answered "I dont know if he is a Muslim but his deception is Islamic" and that "Whenever he speaks he sounds just like a Muslim." The speaker also said of Obama that "he is going to hurt this country."
ReplyDelete"Whenever he speaks he sounds just like a Muslim."
ReplyDelete----
Funny, he always sounds like an amoral corporate pimp to me.
Oh well, our mileage may vary.
Jack,
ReplyDeleteLiberalmann's are typically deleted as a matter of course. Just FYI.
Ah, so you're deleting Libmann's comments, too, huh? One has to; he adds absolutely nothing but rudeness, hate and lies to the conversation.
ReplyDeleteAs for Wahabis...and allowing Saudis in; I HONESTLY sometimes wonder if we've been threatened by nukes or chemicals and our gov't knows and must comply "or else"..it's the only thing that salves my soul when I hear of stupidities like actually considering the Ground Zero Mosque...or not allowing the feds in to hear Imamas in mosques...or how we've practically given a pass to the Ft Hood killer, or how we treat Gitmo jerks with great food and gyms, or how we're selling Helal food and not even telling folks who've bought it! I could go on and on.
Are we NUTS and PC's gone more amuk than we'd thought OR are we threatened.....the islamic way; any lie, any threat for Allah?
Z,
ReplyDeleteLiberalmann visits several conservative blogs and copies and pastes the same comment all over the place. That is spam as far as I'm concerned!
"I keep wondering how leftist females, who are infamous for making demands for equal rights for women, demands for the equal treatment of women in the work place, demands that women not be treated as sexual objects, and demands for unrestricted abortion rights for women, can sit idly by while Moslem culture perpetrates one of the cruelest abuses upon women (genital mutilation) and of course, offer not even a single peep when many mosques across the USA teach Moslem men how to beat their wives without leaving any physical evidence.
ReplyDeleteI find this very perplexing … unless leftist women are simply hypocrites."
A simple Google search would have solved your perplexity in this matter.
I found dozens of sites that reported on women activists on female abuses in Muslim countries.
This is just one, which is about female activists in Saudi Arabia.
And this is an example of one I found based here in the U.S.
Wonder no more, the internet is full of information to enlighten us all.
Shaw apparently thinks that Saudi women activists are leftists. She thinks that Women Thrive Worldwide is a branch of the National Organization of Women. Nice try, though sadly … no cigar. What responsible society wouldn’t rail against the rape of a child? I notice, however, that Women Thrive have taken a stand against Honor Killing, so they by definition are not a leftist organization.
ReplyDeleteNo, I was talking about the leftists all across the United States who talk the talk, but who steadfastly refuse to condemn female genital mutilation. Ideologically, they cannot walk the walk.
Meanwhile, the important issues for NOW, according to their website, are “Fighting the Right,” Lesbian Rights, and Marriage Equality (for queers). Which is perfectly fine if you don’t regard yourself as a viable organization for good.
From this, we must assume that Shaw is part of the problem, rather than being part of the solution.
"No, I was talking about the leftists all across the United States who talk the talk, but who steadfastly refuse to condemn female genital mutilation. Ideologically, they cannot walk the walk."
ReplyDeleteSorry, Sam, just because you've found a few feminists not raging against genital mutilation does not prove what you're trying to pin on all feminists.
Just like the Westboro Baptists do not represent all Christians.
The head of Women Thrive Worldwide, Elise Fiber Smith, is described as this on their website:
Co-founder and Founding Chair of the Board of Women's EDGE (the Coalition for Women's Economic Development and Global Equality), which focuses on issues of international aid and trade with a gender perspective. Prior to that, she served as the Executive Director of the Overseas Education Fund (OEF), International, a leading international non-governmental organization in the field of women and development, leadership, legal rights and small business. She has originated and implemented programs in Africa, Latin America, Asia and the former Soviet Union and is a pioneer in the field of women in development.
Her goals and development programs are directed toward women. And that in itself is a pretty good indication of a "feminist" agenda.
It is YOU not I who is trying to make this into a left/right issue. But perhaps that's because you cannot open your mind to any other possibility.
Just read about the people who make up the board of directors of Women Thrive. You'll see that they are diverse, and more important, don't seem to give a flying donut about left/right politics when it comes to empowering women and stopping the abuse so many suffer.
SH: "Meanwhile, the important issues for NOW, according to their website, are “Fighting the Right,” Lesbian Rights, and Marriage Equality (for queers). Which is perfectly fine if you don’t regard yourself as a viable organization for good.
From this, we must assume that Shaw is part of the problem, rather than being part of the solution."
Fighting for equality for all Americans is never a "problem." People who have a burning need to make women's rights issues a right/left, us/them confrontation and to insult people rather than discuss solutions--those are the ones who contribute to the poisonous atmosphere we find ourselves in.
Actually, I don’t see much of anything “leftist” about the organization you cited. Which is what I wrote. And I am happy to hear that you are not part of that disgusting group of people who claim to support the rights of women to live their lives free of molestation of any kind, but then steadfastly refuse to condemn honor killings and genital mutilation. See, we can agree on something after all: if you are capable of rational thought, then you cannot be a leftist. I learned that from Beamish.
ReplyDeleteIs there a line one must not cross in the march for total equality, Shaw? I’m only asking because heretofore, I don’t think I know of any one more left that you are —other than Joseph Stalin, of course, and it intrigues me to think that in the future, you will be speaking with us from a middle of the road perspective and without the insulting tone that you are famous for. I look forward to your answer because I have a follow up question about your fight for equality.
Sam H. "Is there a line one must not cross in the march for total equality, Shaw? I’m only asking because heretofore, I don’t think I know of any one more left that you are —other than Joseph Stalin,"
ReplyDeleteThis statement comes from the person who claims I have an "insulting tone." Apparently you have no sense of irony, Sam.
Sam H.: "...of course, and it intrigues me to think that in the future, you will be speaking with us from a middle of the road perspective and without the insulting tone that you are famous for."
May I point out something obvious, Sam? The "tone" you assign to me may be in your head. If I use rhetorical devices in my comments, I am only using acceptable usage. If you choose to see them as snide and insulting, you may need to look into your political prejudices to understand why you think that way.
You just suggested that I'm in company with Joseph Stalin. (I don't think you'll find anything on my blog that comes close to suggesting that I murdered tens of millions of people for any political ideology.) By anyone's measure your comparison of me to Stalin is an insulting and outrageous remark. But it appears that in your and Z's universe only YOU are allowed free rein to denigrate those you disagree with. The rest of us get labeled when we use the same devices.
Rather imperious, wouldn't you say?
Sinclair, when you write something intelligent, I'll answer you.
ReplyDelete(for Sam H. and Z. someone who suggests that I approve of adults having sex with children is clearly not rational or intelligent.)
Sinclair: "Realizing that the leftist talking point is that there is no connection between homosexual liaisons and pedophilia; that is simply their point of view—and what other argument could they possibly use without alienating 99% of decent Americans? Both behaviors are decadent, immoral, disgusting, and psychologically harmful."
But there truly is a connection between homosexual liaisons and religion, isn't there.
I have news for you Sinclair, decent Americans support equality of marriage by a majority.
Sorry Shaw. I thought I'd offered you a compliment.
ReplyDeleteSam, when you're serious, we'll talk. Right now you're only interested in being a comedian.
ReplyDeleteDon't give up your day job.
Wahabbism has a relationship with Sufism? What in Hell are you talking about, Sam, and why throw the Sufis into this mix, anyway?
ReplyDeleteSufism is Near Eastern's version of Zen Buddhism, with the same goal of attaining enlightenment, and the Wahabbists HATE the Sufis the same as they hate (and kill on sight) Bahai Faith adherents.
The relationship Sufism has with the rest of Islam is that you can be a Shia or Sunni and be a Sufi, only your goals are not to kill all the infidels, but to personally experiance the reality of god.
Give me a Sufi for a neighbor any day. They actually are peaceful muslims, which is partly why Wahabbists hate them, that and they aren't Wahabbists. You do the Sufis a real disservice by lumping them in with the insane effing Wahabbists.
Black Sheep,
ReplyDeleteAbout Sufism:
The Sufi branch of Islam has enjoyed spectacularly good press in the West. Hailed as peaceful mystics who believe jihad is a spiritual quest, nothing violent or unpleasant, Sufism has attracted favorable attention and converts from all sorts of Westerners, from new agers in Marin County, California, to East Coast intellectuals. But Sufis are not necessarily all peace—loving meditative seekers of the divine.
[...]
non—Muslims. It is also important to highlight, in contrast, the very flimsy theological foundation of the much ballyhooed Sufi notion of the so—called 'greater' spiritual jihad. Even the Islamophilic scholar Reuven Firestone has acknowledged the dubious nature of the hadith ostensibly outlining this potential interpretation of jihad...
More at the above link.
Black Sheep,
ReplyDeleteI, not Sam, left the link to the article in American Thinker.
One of the most ingenious and effective strategies of the Left (pick any topic) is to frame a debate and co-opt language so effectively that it becomes all but impossible even to discuss the subject honestly. Shaw has a peculiar genius for this, which makes her both obnoxious and entertaining at the same time … not unlike Don Rickles, but without the urinary incontinence issues. And besides that, Rickles is probably cuter. And remember Sam, there will be NO MIRTH in comments at this or any other blog.
ReplyDelete@BS
ReplyDeleteClassical Sufi scholars define Sufism as having the objective of turning away from all else but God. Normally, I might offer the suggestion that no one who has this thinking can be immune from radical influences, such as divorcing oneself from secular society … or punishing secular society for its sinful nature. Ahmad ibn Aliba wrote, “Sufism is a science through which one can know how to travel into the presence of the Devine, purify one’s inner self from filth, and beatify it with a variety of praiseworthy traits.”
Sufis often describe their beliefs in terms of a threefold approach to God: the canon, as the word; the order as the deed; the truth as the soul. Sufis thus believe that Shari ‘a Law is the word, Tariqa is the order, and Haqiqa (truth) are all mutually interdependent.
Now if this is true, then it is next to impossible for me to accept the notion that there is no connection between Sufi and Wahhabi Islam, or that one has no influence over the other. And I think it is a dangerous stretch, as well.
@ Robert
ReplyDeleteOkay, no more sniggering.
LOL, Sam you deleted my comment asking you to give a direct answer. I'm seriously beginning to see you as a hypocrite. I said how nice it was for you to never be wrong, when you talked around my question, and asked you about Sufi terrorism.
ReplyDeleteSo let me ask again and let's see if you delete it again. Hey, this could be fun for the whole family....
You lumped Sufis in with Wahabbists and I said that was doing the Sufis a disservice, and asked when any Sufis ever perpetrated a terrorist attack.
You didn't respond to that. You went on about ancient texts that referred to ideological connections.
Again, my question is, If Sufis are like Wahabbists now, not in thw 13th Century but now, modern times, THEN WHAT ACTS OF TERROR HAVE SUFIS COMMITTED?
This isn't a hard question, but I am questioning your statement equating Sufis with Wahabbists, I think you're utterly wrong. Am I, Sam? Show me that you're right with some news stories from any credible source.
Or delete this comment as the easy way out. I mean, you can if you want to.
Show your stuff to us, Sam.
B/S ...
ReplyDeleteI have not deleted any of your comments. Your initial comment, directed at me, was answered by AOW; there was nothing more for me to say. You then shared with us how you are not a peace loving soul. AOW answered you about that, too. I find your third comment surprising, and tiresome.
As for the topic at hand, I think you should believe what you wish. I am not here to debate with you, or convince you of anything. I write to express my point of view. I believe it is a considered point of view, a product of a lot of reading and discussions with those who have expertise, and whom I respect. If you agree with my findings, that’s great. If you don’t agree, that’s okay too.
Recall that the one sentence that apparently caused your synapses to melt was this: “There is a relationship between Wahhabism and Sufism, by which I mean to suggest ultra-conservatism.”
There is a concern among those who follow Middle Eastern affairs, particularly in Syria, that the more radical elements of Islam are successfully co-opting Sufis. Whether or not this is actually happening, or to what extent, is yet to be seen.
In Pakistan, Amir Rana believes that the Sufis are being radicalized, observing that the only reason Sufis in his country have not been more prominent in Arab Jihad is because of political, rather than ideological considerations. Since I am not presently living in Pakistan, I cannot claim that he has undisputed credibility.
Likewise, Stephen Schwartz directs a center for Islamic pluralism; he believes that Iranian pressures on their Sufi community is pushing them toward adopting a more fundamentalist approach to Islam.
"Recall that the one sentence that apparently caused your synapses to melt was this"
ReplyDeleteWow. You may have outdone yourself in snottiness and snideness. I think less of you each time you rant because of that. Always attack when you're losing the debate, right?
In other words, AOW deleted my comment. I guess you didn't want to say that. And... you admit that no Sufis have committed any radical acts that you know of, but you won't come right out and say that, either.
Instead you advance the assumption that they may do so some time in the future, to back up your totally erroneous position that Sufis are like Wahabbists. Therefore you are still right, right?
Attaboy, Sam. NEVER admit that you spoke out of your anus.
See, this is why this blog has deteriorated into a forum for space-cadet radicals of all persuasions, homosexuals, bigots, self-aggrandizers, attention freaks and hypocrites. You only have a couple straight-shooters left that come here. There's no longer any "right truth" to it, not when the people posting articles and comments in it can't admit that they may have overspoken. You could have done at least that, and said, "well maybe my sources aren't all entirely correct" or some other weenie cavil, but you don't even have the honesty to do that.
No truth here, Sam, and you're to blame for that as much as anyone else here.
LOL
ReplyDeleteOkay, thanks for stopping by.
Whoa! Full moon again, huh Sam?
ReplyDeleteBlack Sheep,
ReplyDeleteAOW deleted my comment.
Hold.
The.
Phone.
I DID NOT DELETE ANY OF YOUR COMMENTS!
I don't see any stray comments from you in the spam folder, either.
Until just now, I was offline as of 6:30 P.M. EDT yesterday.
You and I have had our differences, but I give you my word that I did not delete any comment you made here. Therefore, the antagonism you have expressed is unwarranted.
Those who are truly Sufi exist in a class beyond any of the jurisprudential traditions of Islam. The Sufi masters, have traveled through a tremendously difficult training track which includes annihilation up the chain of command through the various Sufi masters. The Sufi track is high-end scholarship and extreme paranormal experience.
ReplyDeleteHaving received an offer to embark on such a course of study as a distinct discipline, I turned it down. The Sufi master requires the complete will of the student be handed over to his guardianship whilst moving through the spiritual hoops. I jump off the Sufi cliff at times, but it is solo flight and with a crash landing on my part. smile
Many of the famous Sufi are known for their poetry. Omar Khayyam graces my book shelf. His quatrains are quite enjoyable. They read like wine, women and song, but in fact, the adulation is directed upward.
Tammy Swofford