Sufis vs Wahhabis

you are probably right, but in the right hands all that wealth could do so much good to benefit mankind.

and how much is the illegal war in Iraq costing wealthy countries like the US and UK?

I wonder how many starving children in the world 830 billion dollars could feed?

Cost of War | National Priorities Project

So my question would have to be ... who are the right hands?
 
This is Muhammad's grave:

There must be a way to explain exceptions to the espoused aesthetic standard concerning "overdecorated" graves/shrines.

I have to confess Netti this is something that deeply concerns me.

When I read something like this

The grave of the Prophet Muhammad (Allah bless him and grant him peace) is more blessed than th

I always wonder where it comes from ... the Prophet told us he was no more than a man. He never said he was superior to any Prophets that went before him. The Quran talks of Isa more than the Mohammad (pbut). It is forbidden to house a grave inside a building and decorating a grave is forbidden.

I do wonder where the line between deep respect and worship is sometimes. :eek:
 
and how much is the illegal war in Iraq costing wealthy countries like the US and UK?

I wonder how many starving children in the world 830 billion dollars could feed?

Cost of War | National Priorities Project

So my question would have to be ... who are the right hands?
I'm curious. If the battle field tactics ended in 2003, after 179 days, and no insurgents from other countries came into Iraq, to perpetuate the fighting, and the US and UK would have been allowed to continue pouring in billions of dollars to help the Iraq nation rebuild, and they did rebuild and were functioning well enough on their own, with their own voted leaders at the helm, and the revenues the Iraq nation made with the oil they could sell were spilling out of the goverment coffers, and women and children could move about in peace, men had jobs, and people could argue their political thoughts 'till the cows came home, with no fear of reprisal...would it still be an illegal war?

Or is the illegality of the insurgents who don't even live in Iraq but want to attack the "great Satans" for their own purposes, the illegal actions?

And if we had left back then...what do or who do you think would be running the country today? Moderate Imams? Secular leaders voted in? Al-Queda and the Taliban?

Suffis? Sunnis? Shiite? or Wahhabis?

Tell me, for all the variety of people in the UK, and US, why aren't we in the middle of civil strife, yet once again Iraq and Iran and Afghanistan are?

It seems that it is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation over in the Middle East.

How ironic that the Khurds of northern Iraq are not in strife, not with the south, nor with Turkey. And they have a self governing body and are making money, and building homes and lives, everything...why is that?

Why exactly is this "war" illegal? I want to know from your perspective.

Thanks.

Q
 
Why exactly is this "war" illegal? I want to know from your perspective.

Thanks.

Q
Namaste Q,

The doctrine of pre-emptive war against a country that has not provoked you.

Attacking a soviergn nation based on lies.

We knew we didn't have evidence of WMDs or a yellow cake sale when we sent Colin Powell to the UN to tell them we did.

We knew there was no connection to AlQueda and 911 when we indicated there was.

We now know that Cheney and Rumsfeld ordered the extraordinary interrogation methods (torture) in order to obtain this proof and after hundreds of attempts they found nothing.

When Bush 1 was in GW1 Cheney stated all the reasons why not to go after Sadam (its on tape) When Bush 2 instigated GW2 he stated all the above 'facts' as reasons to go. Cheney now admits there was no connection.

We now like to remind everyone of the UN resolutions that Iraq ignored, but never want to mention the number of UN resolutions that the US or Israel or Saudi Arabia ignore...

Pile it all together and watch Cheney say we shouldn't go to war....and you see exactly what happenned today YouTube - Cheney in 1994 on Iraq and why I among others consider it an illigal war.

We must remember, if we didn't go in we'd have over 4000 families who didn't lose a family member, we'd have not wasted trillions of dollars and probably not have collapsed the world economy.
 
I'm curious. If the battle field tactics ended in 2003, after 179 days, and no insurgents from other countries came into Iraq, to perpetuate the fighting, and the US and UK would have been allowed to continue pouring in billions of dollars to help the Iraq nation rebuild, and they did rebuild and were functioning well enough on their own, with their own voted leaders at the helm, and the revenues the Iraq nation made with the oil they could sell were spilling out of the goverment coffers, and women and children could move about in peace, men had jobs, and people could argue their political thoughts 'till the cows came home, with no fear of reprisal...would it still be an illegal war?

Yes

Or is the illegality of the insurgents who don't even live in Iraq but want to attack the "great Satans" for their own purposes, the illegal actions?

Is defending a nation attacked in an illegal war insurgency?

And if we had left back then...what do or who do you think would be running the country today? Moderate Imams? Secular leaders voted in? Al-Queda and the Taliban?

Why is it your business who would be running their country, if they chose lunatic radical Islamists then that is for them to decide.

Would that be the same Al-Queda your government recently admitted were not in Iraq before their illegal war?

Is that the same Taliban your government supported, trained and armed when it suited their purposes?

Just curious ;)

Suffis? Sunnis? Shiite? or Wahhabis?
]

Well that would have been a damned good question for your government to ask BEFORE they took us all into a war in an area we simply didn't understand, rather than Bush asking after the fact what Sunni and Shia meant.

Tell me, for all the variety of people in the UK, and US, why aren't we in the middle of civil strife, yet once again Iraq and Iran and Afghanistan are?

For Iraq and Afghanistan the answer is probably because we are still blowing the **** out of them in our illegal war on terror and have added greatly to sectarian troubles in both nations.

It seems that it is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation over in the Middle East.

Now tell me what right we have to even be in the Middle East. Did the people ask us to come and be their saviours? Did they ask for democracy to be foisted on them?

How ironic that the Khurds of northern Iraq are not in strife, not with the south, nor with Turkey. And they have a self governing body and are making money, and building homes and lives, everything...why is that?

What a nice picture you paint, shame it is far from reality:

Kurds lay claim to oil riches in Iraq as old hatreds flare | World news | The Observer

I would think that if Iraq is paying mens salaries and they pay taxes to Kurdistan then of course Kurdistan will gain wealth but of course the big factor is, as always in the Middle East, OIL.

Ahmed al-Othman, 71, a Kurdish native of Kirkuk. Othman goes round town in the traditional Kurdish shirwal (baggy trousers) and says his closest friends are Arabs. "I've never left and I have never thought to leave," he said. "Until recently.

"Last year, my brother was killed by an explosion in the market and so were two shopkeepers I drank coffee with for years. Since then, things have not been the same. Arab eyes don't always look at me now and the marketplace is not what it was. The greed surrounding all the oil may change this place."


Why exactly is this "war" illegal? I want to know from your perspective.

I can't add anything to what Wil has said, it sums it up perfectly.
 
Namaste Q,

The doctrine of pre-emptive war against a country that has not provoked you.

Attacking a soviergn nation based on lies.

We knew we didn't have evidence of WMDs or a yellow cake sale when we sent Colin Powell to the UN to tell them we did.

We knew there was no connection to AlQueda and 911 when we indicated there was.

We now know that Cheney and Rumsfeld ordered the extraordinary interrogation methods (torture) in order to obtain this proof and after hundreds of attempts they found nothing.

When Bush 1 was in GW1 Cheney stated all the reasons why not to go after Sadam (its on tape) When Bush 2 instigated GW2 he stated all the above 'facts' as reasons to go. Cheney now admits there was no connection.

We now like to remind everyone of the UN resolutions that Iraq ignored, but never want to mention the number of UN resolutions that the US or Israel or Saudi Arabia ignore...

Pile it all together and watch Cheney say we shouldn't go to war....and you see exactly what happenned today YouTube - Cheney in 1994 on Iraq and why I among others consider it an illigal war.

We must remember, if we didn't go in we'd have over 4000 families who didn't lose a family member, we'd have not wasted trillions of dollars and probably not have collapsed the world economy.
Iraq attacked the United States in 1987, firing two exocet missles into the frigate USS Ward, kiling 47 sailors, and nearly cutting the ship in half. Hussein was later noted in saying he wanted to see what mettle the US was made of...

Pre-emptive strike? By whom?

I'm not even going near the rest of that...it isn't worth it.
 
Iraq attacked the United States in 1987, firing two exocet missles into the frigate USS Ward, kiling 47 sailors, and nearly cutting the ship in half. Hussein was later noted in saying he wanted to see what mettle the US was made of...

Don't you mean the USS Stark, where 37 sailors died during the Iran/Iraq war?

Iraq quickly apologizes for the attack. The US continues to patrol the Gulf, and continues its program of re-registering Kuwaiti oil tankers under the American flag in order to protect them from Iranian attacks. A diplomat says that given the scale of casualties in the incident, the American public is going to start asking “what the hell is the US doing in the Gulf?” Iran calls the attack on the Stark a “divine blessing.” US officials quickly divert blame for the attack on Iran, accepting an Iraqi explanation that the fighter pilot must have mistaken the US warship for an Iranian vessel.

“We’ve never considered them hostile at all,” says President Reagan in regards to Iraq’s military. “They’ve never been in any way hostile.… And the villain in the piece is Iran.” Senator John Warner (R-VA), a former secretary of the Navy, denounces Iran as “a belligerent that knows no rules, no morals.” Fellow senator John Glenn (D-OH) calls Iran “the sponsor of terrorism and the hijacker of airliners.” Iraq later determines that the Stark was in its so-called “forbidden zone,”

and that's the reason Bush went to war in Iraq ... WOW

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a051787ussstark#a051787ussstark

I'm not even going near the rest of that...it isn't worth it.

I would be most interested to hear your explanation of Wil's comments in support of your governments actions.
 
Don't you mean the USS Stark, where 37 sailors died during the Iran/Iraq war?

Iraq quickly apologizes for the attack. The US continues to patrol the Gulf, and continues its program of re-registering Kuwaiti oil tankers under the American flag in order to protect them from Iranian attacks. A diplomat says that given the scale of casualties in the incident, the American public is going to start asking “what the hell is the US doing in the Gulf?” Iran calls the attack on the Stark a “divine blessing.” US officials quickly divert blame for the attack on Iran, accepting an Iraqi explanation that the fighter pilot must have mistaken the US warship for an Iranian vessel.

“We’ve never considered them hostile at all,” says President Reagan in regards to Iraq’s military. “They’ve never been in any way hostile.… And the villain in the piece is Iran.” Senator John Warner (R-VA), a former secretary of the Navy, denounces Iran as “a belligerent that knows no rules, no morals.” Fellow senator John Glenn (D-OH) calls Iran “the sponsor of terrorism and the hijacker of airliners.” Iraq later determines that the Stark was in its so-called “forbidden zone,”

and that's the reason Bush went to war in Iraq ... WOW

Context of 'May 17, 1987 and After: USS ‘Stark’ Attacked by Iraqi Warplane, 37 Sailors Die; US Holds Iran Responsible'



I would be most interested to hear your explanation of Wil's comments in support of your governments actions.
Yes it was the Stark (I don't know why I was thinking Ward, and it was in March of 87). The final body count was 47. But then who is counting. 35 bodies were recovered, the rest are at rest at sea. The ship was over 200 miles away from Iraq, and warned off (read that as identifying self, plus IFF transmition continuously) over a dozen times. The missles were deliberately set to fly at wave top level in order to avoid radar (sorry, appology not accepted). So I ask again, pre-emptive strike? By whom? Still, we stimied the Iranian intent to cause havoc in the area, which helped Iraq, but we don't forget...

And Wil can explain his own thoughts on the matters post his position on pre-emptive strike. His is a rather "civil" view compared to mine.

v/r

Joshua
 
Iraq attacked the United States in 1987, firing two exocet missles into the frigate USS Ward, kiling 47 sailors, and nearly cutting the ship in half. Hussein was later noted in saying he wanted to see what mettle the US was made of...

Pre-emptive strike? By whom?

I'm not even going near the rest of that...it isn't worth it.
Then the response for that should have been 1987...

Or are you ready to punish your child now for not cleaning up his room 15 years ago?

Please find one statement from anyone in power that your cause was the justification for our lies to the UN....

Of course the rest isn't worth discussing it is all 100% factual.
 
No shirk in the prophets tomb

thats jokes.. that will keep me laughing all day

hahahah
hahhha
ahahhah
hahahaha

black stone is symbolic

ahahhahahhahaha
hahahahahhaha
hahahahaaahaha
ahahahaahahahah

all symbolism is shirk only allah swt has power

i feel sorry for the prophet pbuh

biggest religious corruption since paul..

bloody hadith
 
i live in saudi, and i can assure you that there is no such thing as "Wahhabi" this is only one of the many propaganda against islam, in 100 years only the west have wrote over 65,000 books against Islam, and the "Wahhabi" term came from these books, and if u want news about Islam, don't follow the BBC
 
hi rayyan and aleiqum salaam

in 100 years only the west have wrote over 65,000 books against Islam
er... who compiled this statistic? and how did they define "the west", or indeed "against"?

i live in saudi, and i can assure you that there is no such thing as "Wahhabi"

so who was this chap, then?

Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

the article notes that most people that would be considered "wahhabi" by others reject the label and gives some reasons, which is i suppose helpful.

was-salaam

bananabrain
 
Perhaps but it is the Salafi'i / Wahhabi fundamentalists that the article is talking about in Ethiopia. To assert that a decorated tomb=Shirk is to overlook Muhammad's own tomb.
 
Interesting coverage on the BBC on how Wahhabis' from Saudi who are fighting in Somalia are alienating the Sufi majority by digging up their graves and demolishing their mosques:
BBC NEWS | World | Africa | Somali rage at grave desecration

there could be more to this story than meets the eye, like tons of propaganda :)

sufism is an integral part of traditional islam, but some groups who pretend to be sufi's, have gone astray, such as those that listen to music and dance, and give too much reverence to graves... etc,; great saint/s of the past have listened to religious music for devotional reasons?, but only such great saints have the required level of faith and knolwedge to use it in a way that causes no harm and such saints are rare..., thus music is not meant for any common person that considers himself on the sufi-path

deviancy amongst some who call themselves 'sufi's' does even amount to polythiesm and idolatry, the very anti-thesis of Islam, hence it could be such groups that this party is taking a firm stance on, and such groups will number in a verry few minority

not sure about removing tomb stones, etc, but if specific graves are being used by 'fake sufi's' for saint worship, then it may be wise to remove signs of importance from such graves and stop such activities, alberint it should be done in a rewspectfull way [just guessing here so this is no opinion or ruling from me :eek:]; many a fake sufi groups are known to hold music and dance festivals at the graves of saints too, and this is a major disrespect to the dead

so really peeps, what i'm trying to say is, this maybe, mostly some prop and spin from the bbc, in collusion with some pro-gov parties in Somalia, to try and manipulate the somalian masses to think that it is the real Islamic sufism that this group have turned against ,and thus against all traditional muslims, whereas the reality may be that some activities to prevent/ restrict the immoralites which could include mortal and heretical sins, such as grave worship are being undertaken, only effecting a tiny minority of such deviants

in other words, we really cannot trust what the bbc says without verification, so we could be getting our feathers in a twist, over some imaginary scenariao really :)

here is a link that shows the idolatrous innovations of some groups who call themselves sufi's:

The Sufi Order International --- North America [this link is full of stuff saying that the man himself is 'god' [naudhubillah]

And here is a link that explains the Islamic sufism:

The Place of Tasawwuf in Traditional Islam

ps: there ofcourse is a possibilty that it could be aspects of true sufism that they have turned against, but in this context, is it enough to want to take up arms against fellow Muslims?
 
ps: there ofcourse is a possibilty that it could be aspects of true sufism that they have turned against, but in this context, is it enough to want to take up arms against fellow Muslims?
Namaste Abdullah,

By your definition and description, the Sufi's I know would be false Sufi's, however they are quite peaceful and promote interfaith activities and would never take up arms against fellow Muslims, as they also embrace Allah and Islam, (despite the music, singing and dancing).

However, we read regularly in the news about car bombs and suicide bombers in Iraq and Afganistan bombing those in mosques and outised of mosques, Muslims taking up arms against Muslims.
 
Namaste Abdullah,

By your definition and description, the Sufi's I know would be false Sufi's, however they are quite peaceful and promote interfaith activities and would never take up arms against fellow Muslims, as they also embrace Allah and Islam, (despite the music, singing and dancing).

However, we read regularly in the news about car bombs and suicide bombers in Iraq and Afganistan bombing those in mosques and outised of mosques, Muslims taking up arms against Muslims.

Salaam Wil,

It is a shame that Iraq has to be in this messy situation, lets hope that peace prevails soon
 
Back
Top