Globalists Created Wahhabi Terrorism
to Destroy Islam and Justify a Global State
Reply to Criticism
by David Livingstone
Serendipity

A reader of David Livingstone's article wrote to say:

I find great fault with this article, why, because (1) I am Muslim and (2) I am one of those you call "Wahhabis". I would like to set the recond straight, because it's amazing that someone would take the time to try and study the origins of what they are reporting on, but still report false statments and lies about individuals who did nothing [wrong]. Imam Abdul Wahhab did not find or invent a new brand of Islam, or as people call it, fanatical Islam. Imam Abdul Wahhab only re-established the pure form of Islam in Saudi Arabia when Islam had become corrupt and many of the Muslim were practicing other than what was commanded by the Prophet Muhammad (sallahu alayhe was sallam) [peace be upon him]). They were doing such acts has having elevated graves with head markers, mausoleums, etc.; this is not allowed in Islam. They were calling on other than Allah in worship; again this is against the teaching of Islam. Because we Muslims believe in monotheism we do not worship or call on any other than Allah, the Lord of all that exists. You can read a bio of Iman Abdul Wahhab at http://www.fatwa-online.com — look under Bios. He is listed there ... Also there is an excellent book out called "The Wahhabi Myth"; you can download the book — I believe for free — here: http://www.thewahhabimyth.com/. It not only clears this great scholar and reformer of Islam of the lies that people assert of him, but also clears up the notion that Usamma bin Laden is a Salafi [Wahhabi], that in fact he is a Karawij and follows the likes of Syed Qutub who preached and taught violence and was admitted to Saudi [Arabia], I believe in the 60's, after being kicked out of Egypt, but under the banner of being Salafi, and this is how the corruption which is rampant in Saudi [Arabia] was spread, from Syed Qutub. I hope you take the time to follow this up and do your research and correct this article and stop spreading this false notion of this Imam. Thank you for taking the time to read my rebuttal, if you'd like to call it that.

— U. A. A.

P.S. I'm sorry — here is the link to his bio. It's a tape, no reading involved.
http://www.troid.org/audio/seerah/thosewhofollowedthem/ibnabdulwahaab.htm

I forwarded this message to David Livingstone for comment. He replied as follows:

Dear concerned reader,

I understand your disagreements. Also, I am familiar with the information you have provided me, but I will ask you to consider the following details, which I believe bring suspicion upon the quality of Abdul Wahhab's message.

Basically, Wahhab claimed that the Muslims were in a state of "Jahiliyyah", comparing them to the ignorance and barbarism of the Arabs prior to the advent of Islam. The Koran mentions that though the people were pagan, they were in the habit of praying to the One God in times of distress. Therefore, Wahhab claims, acknowledgement of the One God is not a guarantee against unbelief.

And so, Wahhab justified that, while they also prayed to the One God, the Muslims were also guilty of paganism, or idolatry, by "praying" to Saints, thus treating human beings as equals or partners with God.

But that was not quite accurate. They did not "pray" to Saints, but asked these dead persons to pray to God on their behalf, due to their perceived holiness.

While I do not condone the practice necessarily, as I also find it dubious, with regard to the rigours of Islamic monotheism, it is clearly controversial, and surely does not justify Abdul Wahhab declaring it to be tantamount of apostasy.

Now, it's one thing to denounce these practices, but it is another, based on these presumptions, to declare the entirety of the Muslims, of the immense Ottoman Empire, then the guiding authority of Islam, spanning the whole of North Africa, the Middle East, parts of Central Asia, and part of Europe, aside from he and his followers, as all unbelievers.

Worse still, he declared "Jihad" against them, insisting for his followers that it was then a commandment upon them to kill the men and enslave the women and children.

We have to remember that he made these egregious declarations at a time when the British were beginning to encroach on the territories of Arabia. And there were very real problems that were beginning to mark the immanent decline of the Ottoman Empire, but Wahhab chose instead to harp not only on a grossly insignificant detail, but a controversial one at that.

Wahhab's manner of diminishing the character of the monotheism practiced by the Muslims, comparing it with paganism of unbelievers, was a great novelty in Islam, one that had not been seen throughout its history.

The Prophet Mohammed's habit was to appeal to the people gently for reform, not call for their wholesale destruction. Therefore, more fitting of the title of Khawarij than bin Laden, despite his evident excesses, are the Wahhabis, who, like them, called for war against Muslims, claiming them to be unbelievers.

And so, in 1746, even before he had aligned himself with Saud, Abdul Wahhab sent a delegation to the Sharif of Mecca, to seek permission to perform the Hajj pilgrimage. The Sharif discerned an ulterior motive, and therefore organized a debate between the Wahhabis and the scholars of Mecca and Medina. Abdul Wahhab's emissaries failed to defend their views, and the Qadi, or chief judge, of Mecca, instead pronounced them unbelievers, based on the principle of Islamic law that if one Muslim denounces another as an unbeliever then surely either the accuser of the accused is such.

The problem is that many Muslims, presumably also many sincere Muslims who otherwise follow Wahhab's teachings, are not accurately aware of his history. So I am sorry, but I respect your choice to follow that which you deem fit, but I regard the only plausible explanation for the anomaly of Wahhab's appearance and mission to be that it was in the service of a foreign policy of "divide and rule".

And so I hope that you will also respect my opinion, and regard it as one founded on a different interpretation of the same evidence, though I also welcome your input.

Respectfully,
David Livingstone


David Livingstone is the author of
The Dying God: The Hidden History of Western Civilization
His website is here.


Here is an interesting brief review (by Morgaan Sinclair) of a book mentioned by David Livingstone in his article, Stephen Schwartz's The Two Faces of Islam : The House of Sa'ud from Tradition to Terror.

In the very short space of several hundred pages, Schwartz does something really remarkable: Out of the backdrop of a solidly-researched and tautly-written history of Islam emerges the picture of a river splitting in two. One branch, the original river of Islam, having emerged from earlier wars and the Crusades, meanders on, mostly peacefully. But another branch diverges and becomes a virulent strain of psychopathically-distorted religious fundamentalism. This nightmare began to take shape from 1703 with the birth of Mohammad Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, the world's first Islamist terrorist, and descends to the present in its alliance with the Al Sa'ud. The Wahhabis — the Haters of Music — have always claimed all other forms of Islam to be heretical and have waged a 250-year war against all those who have resisted its ultra-puritanical doctrine — Shi'as, Sufis, Christians, Jews. Now that war comes to us. In a brilliantly, and often beautifully, written book, we watch the two rivers separate and flow down into our time. Schwartz's condemnation of Wahhabism is unapologetic, as is his antipathy for the duplicity of the Royal House of Sa'ud. But it is condemnation and antipathy irrefutably supported by the facts. And in this time it is a book of unmatched value: For with the information contained within this masterpiece on contemporary Islam, we are able to separate mainstream Islam from its evil twin and fight a more intelligent and more compassionate War on Terror. It is a profound and often lyrical book, and Schwartz is remarkably brave to have written it (after you read it, you'll understand why). If you read only one book on Islam in our time, let it be this one.


See also Kathryn Jean Lopez's November 2002 interview with Stephen Schwartz on Islam and Wahhabism: The Good & the Bad, wherein we read:

Lopez: How widespread is it?

Schwartz: Wahhabism is official in Saudi Arabia. ... Outside the Peninsula, Wahhabism is generally unpopular. But where trouble is found, Wahhabism may thrive. ...

As to other Middle Eastern regions ... Syria, although a radical Arab state, is Islamically pluralist and rejects Wahhabism completely. ... Iran loathes Wahhabism as much or more, because of its massacres of Shias and wholesale destruction of Islamic holy sites, among other issues. ...

Britain has a loud Wahhabi, neo-Wahhabi, and Wahhabi-wannabe element but little real support for it among local Muslims. Wahhabism and Islamic extremism in general are weak in Germany, where most Muslims are Turkish and Kurdish.

Lopez: How much of a threat is it within our borders?

Schwartz: Unfortunately, the U.S. is the only country outside Saudi Arabia where the Islamic establishment is under Wahhabi control. Eighty percent of American mosques are Wahhabi-influenced, although this does not mean that 80 percent of the people who attend them are Wahhabis. Mosque attendance is different from church or synagogue membership in that prayer in the mosque does not imply acceptance of the particular dispensation in the mosque. However, Wahhabi agents have sought to impose their ideology on all attendees in mosques they control.


Another book of interest is Hamid Algar's Wahhabism: A Critical Essay. This is from Amazon.com's product description:

Wahhabism, a peculiar interpretation of Islamic doctrine and practice that first arose in mid-eighteenth century Arabia, is sometimes regarded as simply an extreme or uncompromising form of Sunni Islam. This is incorrect, for at the very outset the movement was stigmatized as aberrant by the leading Sunni scholars of the day, because it rejected many of the traditional beliefs and practices of Sunni Islam and declared permissible warfare against all Muslims that disputed Wahhabi teachings. Nor can Wahhabism be regarded as a movement of "purification" or "renewal," as the source of the genuinely revivalist movements that were underway at the time. Not until Saudi oil money was placed at the disposal of its propagandists did Wahhabism find an echo outside the Arabian Peninsula.


A copy of the Serendipity website is available on CD-ROM.  Details here.

Global Research Refuses to Link to Serendipity
Globalists Created Wahhabi Terrorism
to Destroy Islam and Justify a Global State
Serendipity Home Page