Islamic group to build mosque adjacent to ground zero

[Fragony]

NO, it's just wrong. I'd estimate the numbers at easily less than 10%. There would be less of a problem if the 90+% did more to declaim this minority of nutters.

It's just a branch of Islam, much less than 10% are nutters. Schizm thingie after the last good kalif Ali, the sunni/shi'ite breakup, Hax probably can tell you more.

edit wikipage is incorrect, there were 5 good kalifs not 4.

[al Roumi]

It's just a branch of Islam, much less than 10% are nutters. Schizm thingie after the last good kalif Ali, the sunni/shi'ite breakup, Hax probably can tell you more.

Naming controversy: Wahhabism and Salafism
Among those who criticize the use of the term Wahhabi is social scientist Quintan Wiktorowicz. In a footnote of his report, Anatomy of the Salafi Movement, he said:

Opponents of Salafism frequently affix the "Wahhabi" designator to denote foreign influence. It is intended to signify followers of Abd al-Wahhab and is most frequently used in countries where Salafis are a small minority of the Muslim community but have made recent inroads in "converting" the local population to the movement ideology. ... The Salafi movement itself, however, never uses this term. In fact, one would be hard pressed to find individuals who refer to themselves as Wahhabis or organizations that use "Wahhabi" in their title or refer to their ideology in this manner (unless they are speaking to a Western audience that is unfamiliar with Islamic terminology, and even then usage is limited and often appears as "Salafi/Wahhabi").

Indeed, to this day, the term is still used to stir up conflict between Muslims.

Other observers describe the term as "originally used derogatorily by opponents", but now commonplace and used even "by some Najdi scholars of the movement.".


Wikipedia can tell you more:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salafi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabi

[Fragony]

I believe it's ethnic, the schizm was because the bloodline of Muhamed died with Ali, so the next rulers weren't accepted. Wahibi are hardcore arab supremacists, salafists are much more broadly defined.(sorry if I got it wrong it's very complicated stuff)

[al Roumi]

I believe it's ethnic, the schizm was because the bloodline of Muhamed died with Ali, so the next rulers weren't accepted.

That's the Sunni/Shia split.

[Edit:] which is analogous to the Catholic/Orthodox schism in the Christian faith.

Wahibi are hardcore arab supremacists, salafists are much more broadly defined.

No, Wahabi/Salafi is a question of perspective: no-one will self determine themselves as Wahabi, they would call themselves Salafist. Wahabi is a term for those who are not, to refer to those who call themselves Salafis.

The term Salafism is sometimes used interchangeably with "Wahhabism". Adherents usually reject this term because it is considered derogatory and because they believe that Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab did not establish a new school of thought but revived the original teachings of Muhammad as was practiced by his companions and the earliest generations of Muslims. Salafis will never self-describe themselves as "Wahabis." Nonetheless, modern-day Salafis do regard Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab as a great Islamic scholar and reformer, a fact that is confirmed by their close adherence to his doctrinal teachings. It is claimed that adherents of Salafi movements describe themselves as Muwahidoon, Ahl al-Hadith,[6] or Ahl at-Tawheed.[7] However, the most common appellation is for Salafis to simply refer to themselves as Salafis.

Sauce: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salafi

(sorry if I got it wrong it's very complicated stuff)

The conclusions you draw are quite serious, so it would be better for all if you didn't say the first thing that came into your head.

[Fragony]

I know about the schism thankyouvermuch, didn't I bring it up, just because I'm an idiot doesn't mean I'm uneducated.

But you can't become a wahhibi if you aren't arab, it's a racial thing. Wiki isn't always right, there were 5 good kalif's for example, not 4 like wiki says.

[al Roumi]

I know about the schism thankyouvermuch, didn't I bring it up, just because I'm an idiot doesn't mean I'm uneducated.

Sorry but a) the schism isn't relevant, b) some of your views have rather serious consequences and I'd hope one wouldn't make statements without having a firm grasp of the subject matter. But then this is teh internet.

But you can't become a wahhibi if you aren't arab, it's a racial thing. Wiki isn't always right, there were 5 good kalif's for example, not 4 like wiki says.

Yes Wiki can be wrong all the time. I'm not aware that you have to be Arab to be a Salafist, there are plenty of converts to Islam who are not Arab and who become Salafists. (Many converts are more hard-line than people who have grown up with Islam, as is the case with Christianity) - as Lemur's post yesterday states.

[Fragony]

The schism IS relevant, because it's ethic in nature, bloodline. You will find plenty of salafists in dark Africa and Indonesia, hardore islamists but that's it. There is your mixup of definitions. And I said wahhibi, read.

And my views lol to that, who do you prefer, me or these EDL donkeys who understand nothing about what they are howling at.

[al Roumi]

The schism IS relevant, because it's ethic in nature, bloodline. You will find plenty of salafists in dark Africa and Indonesia, hardore islamists but that's it. There is your mixup of definitions. And I said wahhibi, read.

eh? I've just posted two things, including copypasted text, that says Salafism = Wahhabism, although no-one who is a salafi will call themselves a Wahabi, as they consider it a derogatory term.

Edit:

And the schism is between Sunni and Shia forms of Islam. Salafists are hardline Sunnis, so they have a dislike of Shia forms of the religion. AlQaida, hate Shias and most attacks in Iraq by AQ are along sectarian, sunni/shia divides.

Whether sunni/shia is also an ethnic division is possible, as certain tribes/ethnicity follow different religious practices.

And my views lol to that, who do you prefer, me or these EDL donkeys who understand nothing about what they are howling at.

With as much respect as I can muster, I don't feel you are doing a good job of distancing yourself from EDL types with respect to either howling or "understanding".

[Fragony]

No it's bloodline, Ali was the last of it, Ali was assasinated and the main capital became damascus, I am sure you can find a similar eventsomewhere.

And the suggestion that I like EDL is kinda offenive

[al Roumi]

No it's bloodline, Ali was the last of it, Ali was assasinated and the main capital became damascus, I am sure you can find a similar eventsomewhere.

Look, your points on the schism and khalifs are irrelevant! read the damn wiki on Salafism!

"History of Salafism
From the perspective of Salafis, the history of salafism starts with Muhammad himself. They consider themselves direct followers of his teachings as outlined in the Qur'an and Sunnah (prophetic traditions), and wish to emulate the piety of the first three generations of Islam (the Salaf). All later scholars are merely revivers (not 'founders') of the original practices. Modern scholars may only come to teach (or remind) Muslims of the instructions of the original followers of Islam.
...
Many Salafis today point instead to Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab as the first figure in the modern era to push for a return to the religious practices of the salaf as-salih or "righteous predecessors".[17] His evangelizing in 18th century Saudi Arabia was a call to return to what were the practices of the early generations of Muslims.

His works, especially Kitab at-Tawhid, are still widely read by Salafis around the world today, and the majority of Salafi scholars still reference his works frequently.[18] After his death, his views flourished under the generous financing of the House of Saud and initiated the current worldwide Salafi movement."

Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab is widely seen as the first to preach Salafism, in the 18th century. From his surname "Abd-al-Wahhab" are his followers refered to as "Wahhabis".

And the suggestion that I like EDL is kinda offenive

Many of your posts are offensive.

[Fragony]

Only offensive to the offended, willingly or justified.

So how does that contradict? You are really awful at confusing me

[Rhyfelwyr]

I think people could be forgiven about getting confused with the terms, since the terms the people themselves used, and their opponents, are usually completely different. We have the same thing in Christianity.

'Christian' was a derogatory term for the early followers of Christ at Antioch, who preferred to term themselves followers of 'the way'. Yet the Christians use term themselves by the time Acts is written.

'Puritan' was a derogatory term for the English Calvinists, when they preferred to call themselves 'the elect/godly'. Yet within a few decades they adopted the term.

'Wahhabist' is a derogatory term for the followers of Abd-al-Wahhab, who prefer to call themselves 'Salafists'. Although as alh_p indicated, they seem to be adopting the term Salafist, just as the Christians did before.

At least I think that's how it goes.

[al Roumi]

So how does that contradict? You are really awful at confusing me

I assume you mean the stuff on why I think the Khalifs etc are irrelevant?

1. Most muslims in the world are Sunni. Salafis are Sunni, but "strict" ones.
2. The Sunni and Shia Islam schism begain right after Muhamad died in 632 AD, over the choice of who should continue as leader of Islam.
3. Salafism/Wahhabism "began" in the 18th century.

http://www.islamfortoday.com/shia.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shi'a%E2%80%93Sunni_relations

Perhaps it would be better for you to explain (with sources) how you think the schism has any effect on Salafis, or our present discussion, which is (correct me if i'm wrong) about why most muslims are not extremist terrorists/jihadis?

[Rhyfelwyr]

3. Salafism/Wahhabism "began" in the 18th century.

This is the point that the Salafists would contest, since the reason they don't like to call themselves 'Wahhabists' is that they don't want to make it seem like Mr. Wahhabi himself came up with a new idea they follow. Instead, they identify with the earlist form of Islam, and see modern non-Salafist Islam as the product of 'innovations' in the religion.

BTW, for those who keep associating Salafists with political extremism, this bit from wiki was intersting:

Current disagreements and division
All Salafi Scholars spoke against present so called jihad and they hold their opinion as ""No individual has the right to take the law into his own hands on any account. Even the closest of Muhammad's companions never killed a single of his opponents even when invectives were hurled at him day and night in the first thirteen years of his Da'wah at Makkah. Nor did they kill anyone in retaliation when he was pelted with stones at Ta'if"".

But in recent years they have been falsely associated with "jihadi" of Al-Qaeda, and related groups calling for the killing of civilians, and opposed by many Muslim groups and governments, including the Saudi government. Debate continues today over the appropriate method of reform, ranging from violent "Qutubi jihadism" to lesser politicized evangelism.[citation needed]

Despite some similarities, the different contemporary self-proclaimed Qutubi groups often strongly disapprove of each other and deny the others Islamic character

[Rahwana]

Let me speak something in this matter, I knew that Cute Wolf may be biased a bit since he was the one who endures discrimination the most from those wahhabists, but believe me, as I was the one you'll call as "abangan" (or secular muslims, in that matter - at least officially in my ID card, I myself is an atheist now), the Wahhabis are pretty much different than us, they forced their wifes to worn hijab, and forced everyone to accomodate their "needs", but when they come in power, they strip everyone out of their group (even secular muslim one), from their rights.

Cute Wolf is 90% Right, your average european muslims want the "rights" to worn those hijab, and that proves that they are "As sunnah wal jamaah", the Wahhabist movement. You may say I'm confused with that, you could speak as you please, especially alh_p (which never endure discrimination anyway, unless you're muslim yourself and want to undermine your country system delibrately), but I knew that those wahhabis did enforce their influence by systematically terrorizing the opposite group, and actively recruits criminals for their works (from prison converts, they allready done there).

As far as my own interpretation goes (as standard Indonesian muslim interpretation, oh yeah, Indonesian muslims are mostly, and historically adhere Sufism), those laws are meant to be act metaphorically:
- the law of halal-haram was meant to be hygenic law one, back there in ancient arab, pigs are unsuitable to desert cndition, and they are prone to contract worms and other type of parasites, and you must remember the context, Arabs that time rarely eat well-done meats, but most often eat them rare, you can't do that with pigs.
- as hijab law concerned, they are more about morality rather than actual dress code. The anshar women that worn black veils with only one of their eyes shown are meant to be taken as "they never tempt the passion of any other man rather than their own husbands" because eyes are regarded as the primary values of women's beauty, and "shown only one eye" are meant "faithful to their husbands (in one way)". You must remember that some decades ago, bar some isolated community in southren arabs, afghanistan, and some other isolated pockets, muslim women generally worn little to none head coverings, you could see examples from arts, photos, and literatures. Did they aren't as pious as today's standards? NO, they are even more pious and spiritual than today's muslimah that press for earthly appearances, but forgot that the essence of spirituality was spiritual one. It was ridiculous thing that today's muslimah press for hijab, when women at the early caliphates only worn that in religious occasions (did they want to be more pious than first generation? ridiculous! - read several literatures from that time, and you'll found that women are mentioned comb their hair in the open, have beautiful hair that waved harmoniously with the wind, and their dyed hair sparkle under the sun...)
- as beer and alcoholic beverages, the anti alcohol laws are specifically mention "Khamr" which was a version of extremely high content alcoholic drinks mixed with poppy sap... that was actually narcotic drinks and they are pretty harmful allready. the fermented milk, as well fermented fruits (that contains alcohols anyway) are still permitted to be drank.
- the law to not befriend christians and jews are meant to be translated as to avoid befriend harsh tax collectors (roman tax collectors), and miserly usurer (jews are often streotyped as such), not in literal sense.
- the law of no skin touch and sex seggregation meant to be translated as suggestion for "abstience", as "skin touch" have sexual connotations because that was the same thing as "flirt sexually" that time...

If you said that was my personal interpretation, ask yourself again, that was what great sufi imams teach back in medieval times, and I believe today's muslims are less pious compared with them.

[Fragony]

You have arab imams over there? I am wrong about the arab supremacy thingie if Indonesians can be wahhibi

A welcome voice anyway, Euros and Americans don't understand it. Trying to understand as hard as I can but it's really in a different sphere of reason.

Most importantly, is there anything we can do satisfying their needs wiithout compromising our own. I don't see it as something that is possible, especially because of the left who will claw eyeball over the mere suggestion that the islam isn't 100% ok.

[Hax]

Sufism is also Sunni.

Hmm..not necessarily, I think. Also depends on your perspective of "Sunni", Salafists don't regard Sufis as Sunni Muslims (or Muslims at all, heh).]


EDIT: Lord, this sounds way of out context right now. I thought we were still on page 24, you slowchatters, you.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I think this thread will take a little time out. We'll re-open it as soon as things have cooled a bit.


Cooldown concluded.

[tibilicus]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...nd-zero-mosque

A somewhat amusing and possibly slightly offensive (though not really) take on the whole situation.

Perhaps spatial reality functions differently on the other side of the Atlantic, but here in London, something that is "two minutes' walk and round a corner" from something else isn't actually "in" the same place at all. I once had a poo in a pub about two minutes' walk from Buckingham Palace. I was not subsequently arrested and charged with crapping directly onto the Queen's pillow. That's how "distance" works in Britain. It's also how distance works in America, of course, but some people are currently pretending it doesn't, for daft political ends.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I think the issue is a great example in support of the argumentative theory of reason.

[Beskar]

It is Charlie Brooker, when I saw the author after reading your quote, I thought instantly "That is the type of thing he would say."

But it was something I said near the very beginning was the distance.

[Rahwana]

I still wonder if Obama decide to hurt every family of 911 victims' feelings, this time, they done that in most painful way available. Speaking of distance, everytime those fundamentalist muslims sound the adzan, everytime a thousand blade stabs those hearts. As those sounds had a historical meaning of subduing a former enemy territory.

[Beskar]

All muslims are not monsters, I think History has showed us that. There was a moment of team where the Sarrans (Medievil name for Muslims) were the beacon of intellectual enlightenment, bringing culture, classical works, maps, discovered worlds, etc. I think the Multicultural centre of Norman Sciliy is the shining beacon of that, showing the West how stuck in the mud they were during the Islamic Golden Age.

We should all focus on the future, instead of the past. We learn history to learn from it, not to be doomed to repeat it. As for those ignorant, on either sides of the coin, they need to pull out some sticks and get moving.

[Fragony]

All muslims are not monsters

Who claims they are, all all all nobody says all. But A significant part does look at the future but that it isn't the future I have in mind for myself.

[Cute Wolf]

We should all focus on the future, instead of the past. We learn history to learn from it, not to be doomed to repeat it. As for those ignorant, on either sides of the coin, they need to pull out some sticks and get moving.

Past? Come on, right now, I have the bad things today, and I hope you westerners will never had it up to our ridiculous scale. Some of those left are too over-optimistic with peace, that even the "half-pagan muslims" here found threatening and annoying.

[Fragony]

aww forget it why bother

[tibilicus]

I think the Multicultural centre of Norman Sciliy is the shining beacon of that, showing the West how stuck in the mud they were during the Islamic Golden Age.

You must have watched the Normans last week. Fascinating documentary in my opinion. Some of the architecture produced when Orthodox Christianity, Catholicism and Islam met was breathtaking.

[Beskar]

You must have watched the Normans last week. Fascinating documentary in my opinion. Some of the architecture produced when Orthodox Christianity, Catholicism and Islam met was breathtaking.

Indeed, I did, it was a great show. I loved how the patron saint of the Normans was basically Saint Michael, the Holy Warrior, plus the amount of investment they put in to build such magnificant temples/buildings. I only look at the political use of religion in history, but I have to admit, I still think "Wow" when they do such breath taking architecture.

I am guessing PVC might have watched it too, he is keen on History. (if not, go and watch it. )

[Hax]

Indeed, I did, it was a great show. I loved how the patron saint of the Normans was basically Saint Michael, the Holy Warrior, plus the amount of investment they put in to build such magnificant temples/buildings. I only look at the political use of religion in history, but I have to admit, I still think "Wow" when they do such breath taking architecture.

Bam. There you go. Norman Sicily was extraordinary. Probably the coolest state of all Europe during the Middle Ages.

As those sounds had a historical meaning of subduing a former enemy territory.

Ringing church bells in Germany Germania is a stab in the heart to all Asatrú followers in the world. That must be it.

[Strike For The South]

It's a mosuqe, a house of worship and it is perfectly legal for them to build it on there land...that they bought....with private monies....

I lol now that the debate is trying to be framed in "Well they have the right, but should they?" I guess freedom and tolerance trully only extends to what you feel comfortable with