Wahhabis: a sect of Islam and their negative influence

Dear Arshad,

I highly recommend reading Cummins' The Wahhabi Mission.  It would have better if such a book were written by a Muslim, but it's symptomatic of the sorry condition we are in that Muslims today could not write such a book.  In fact, his book is not even critical of Wahhabism.

Rather, it is the history of Wahhabism itslef that is the most incriminating.  And Cummins also explore the various relationships that the Wahhabis maintained, and that with the Deobandis was the most long-lasting and pronounced.  But their modern relationship was even more intimate.  The CIA's strategy was to create a generation of Afghani  and Pakistani Islamic militants who could serve their purposes.  This was accomplished by the establishment of numerous Deobandi maddrasses along the Afghan border in Pakistan, all funded by Saudi Arabia.  The product was the Taliban.

But don't look at the political leanings of this or that group to determie if they are rightly guided.  This is how a lot of Muslims were fooled by al Quaeda and other Jihadi organizations, because they are seemingly the only group standing up to the excesses of Zionism.  This is always how we have been fooled.  And our enemies know how to fool us this way.  Judge each organization by their beliefs.

The Qur'an says, when you are asked to say who you are, say you are "Muslim".  That is, "those who submit to Allah".  We are not supposed to have names in Islam, like Salafi, Wahhabi, Deobandi, Tablighi and so on.  We are only Muslim.  And the right guidance is to follow a Mathhab. And a Mathhab is not a sect.  We know that all the Mathhabs are equally regarded as belonging to Sunni Islam.

There is not a lot of literature to refer to in our time, espcially not in English.  That's part of our punishment for having let things slide to this extent.  But as Muslims, and basically any other human being, we have to learn to decide matters for ourselves.  On the Day of Judgement, you will not be forgiven because you did something because so and so told you so.  Like belief in Islam itself, it's something you hve to decide for yourself that you believe.  And that's what the Qur'an means when we are told to say we are "those who submit themselves to God."

Thanks for the detailed answer.  It's tragic the degree to which these deviations have so penetrated Islam in both Pakistan and India.  But I believe this is attributable to those 2 countries being among the first to be so fully dominated by the British.  In fact, there was a spread of "revivalism" across the MIddle East starting in the middle of the nineteenth century.  But particularly, aside from Egypt, in India and Pakistan.

In fact, of these various splinters, the one that was most closely associated with Wahhabism from the very beginning was the Deobandis.  This continued into the 20th century, and it was Saudi Arabia who financed the proliferation of "madrassas" along the border with Afghanistan, run by Deonbandis, where the Taliban were indoctrinated.

The one point the Wahhabis have always used is "saint worship".  It is a questionable practice, and so yes they have had success is luring other Muslims into their brand of fanaticism.  But they themselves bring far worse innovations, particularly the abandonment of the traditional schools of jurisprudence (Mathhabs).

Free from these traditional constraints, they are able to re-invent Islam at will.  And this is the Taliban version of Islam.  It's an absurd caricature of Islam.  It's a very terrible shame.  But the fact is, they were a tool of the Pakistani government to colonlze Afghanistan.  in fact, the only reason the Islamic rebel groups in Afghanistan had any success at all was for the windfall of billions of aid and military equipment poured on the "mujahideen" by Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the CIA. (often funded through drugs).  But when the various groups started to bicker, Pakistan and Saudi Arabi (and the Americans) saw the Taliban as an opportunity to unify the country, and stabalize it for trade with the rest of Central Asia.

The Taliban did not stop drug production.  They did for a while.  But some say, like Masood, only to corner the market.  It's well documented that they then monopolized the massive drug trade in the country (with the excuse that it was allowed if sold to non-Muslims).

Now to answer your questions:

1. Ismailis and Assassins were Gnostics, and taught the worship of Lucifer in their highest grades.  I don't think their "persecution" justifies their resorting to terrorism.

2. The entire CIA project, following the suggestion from Brzezinski (himself influenced by Bernard Lewis) was to employ the MB in Afghanistan against the Russians.  Of the proliferation of rebel groups, it was all MB affiliated groups which they chose to support, particularly Hekmetyar.  This was all coordinated with the assistance of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.  And bin Laden was the one to deliver funds.  He's made out to have been a warrior in Afghanistan, but he did not fight.  Mostly, he was carrying funds there on behalf of his sponsors, like Saudi intelligence.  It was only later that the Americans began to build up his reputation as a "leader".  But you look at the entire architecture of terrorism financing, and it is internationally integrated with all MB affiliated organizations, and fully supported by Western interests.  It's too convoluted for al Qaeda to extricate itself from it.

3. Yes, it's a tragic irony that the only articulate opponents to Wahhabism these days are the Sufis.  But the Sufis themselves only represent the appropriation of the occult into Islam.  In fact, their sources were mostly the occult and pagan Sabians of Harran, who are the bridge for the transfer of occult knowledge from antiquity to the European Middle Ages.