Would you befriend a Wahhabi?

[SIAR14]

17 hours ago, Waseem162 said:

Salamun Alykum. I just had this question in my mind.

Keeping Islamic Ethics in mind, Would you like to befriend a Wahhabi just to establish a normalizing relationship with him? It may happen that his misconceptions about Shiism and Shias get cleared when he knows you better..?

What are your views on this?

PS : I am talking about a normal Wahhabi and not a Takfiri.

I have 3 wahabi friends, 1 Deoband, and some other suni friends, who don't know which suni branch they belong to. But all of them have respect for shia islam. And those who do islamic research have respect for Ahlul bayth (A.S). It's been almost more than 9 years, some of us guys are together but none us ever disrespected views of each other. Infact we help eachother getting close to Allah.

Edited March 17, 2018 by SIAR14

[Urwatul Wuthqa]

Many wahabi's are in my friend circle. My good relation with them has changed their view point about Shia's. Many of them have accepted that their views about shias were totally negative & ridiculous. They started to join me in the niaz of 22 Rajab (koonday), they started to join me in Aashura processions on 9th & 10th of Muharram and in the annual majlis at my home on 18th of Muharram,

 

[Ahmed_516478]

A good friend of mine is a salafi/wahabi. I would be fine with being friends with them as long as they don't believe I am a kafir and are respectful. They don't have to agree with my beliefs and I don't have to agree with theirs. And as some other people said it can clear up misconceptions about shia. When many sunnis think we are having mut'a orgies in ashura and worshiping Ali (as), you know there is a problem. Someone told me that shia believe that Khomeini was infallible. I asked him what gave him that impression, he said shia believe their imams are infallible they call khomeini, imam khomeini therefore they believe Khomeini is infallible. Then he asked me if he lead salah would I believe he is infallible since he would be the imam of salah, sigh. Sadly many people easily fall victim to wahabi propaganda.

[Ibn Al-Shahid]

I’ll take a Hindu or an Atheist over a wahhabi anyday. I wouldn’t even touch a wahhabi with a stick. What fault did the stick do to deserve being tainted.

[Khadim uz Zahra]

43 minutes ago, Ibn Al-Shahid said:

I’ll take a Hindu or an Atheist over a wahhabi anyday. I wouldn’t even touch a wahhabi with a stick. What fault did the stick do to deserve being tainted.

I would suggest you repent over such blatant hatred. Even Wahhabis are human beings. Do you think this is how the Prophet of Islam would speak of people? You claim to hate Wahhabis over their blind hatred; do you not see that statements like the above show you have become that which you hate?

[Ibn Al-Shahid]

2 minutes ago, Khadim uz Zahra said:

I would suggest you repent over such blatant hatred. Even Wahhabis are human beings. Do you think this is how the Prophet of Islam would speak of people? You claim to hate Wahhabis over their blind hatred; do you not see that statements like the above show you have become that which you hate?

Shimr was a human being as well, would you touch him with a stick? Would you accept anyone who agrees with Omar that burning the house of Fatima while she was in it was the right thing to do because she didn't give bayaa to Abu Bakr?

And for your information, if someone claims to be a Wahhabi and disagrees with some of their notions, he's not a Wahhabi. Just like someone who claims to be a Shia but disagrees with some of the notions that are authentic, he's not a Shia, he's a Muwali.

Do not twist my words simply because you misunderstand. Ask for clarification before you start your cute crusade.

[Khadim uz Zahra]

4 minutes ago, Ibn Al-Shahid said:

Shimr was a human being as well, would you touch him with a stick? Would you accept anyone who agrees with Omar that burning the house of Fatima while she was in it was the right thing to do because she didn't give bayaa to Abu Bakr?

And for your information, if someone claims to be a Wahhabi and disagrees with some of their notions, he's not a Wahhabi. Just like someone who claims to be a Shia but disagrees with some of the notions that are authentic, he's not a Shia, he's a Muwali.

Do not twist my words simply because you misunderstand. Ask for clarification before you start your cute crusade.

Except, Shimr was an oppressor. Wahhabis are a denomination, numbering in the millions, among whom there are some terrible people like ISIS, and also some normal people who, as the multiple people who have posted here show, even befriend Shi'as and treat them with respect.

And it is utter nonsense for you to define what a Wahhabi is or isn't, and to assign a violent hatred of Shi'as to all of the people who claim to be Wahhabi/Deobandi. In that, you are no better than the actual bad Wahhabis who spout similar tales about all Shi'as worshiping Imam Ali and so on.

[Ibn Al-Shahid]

8 minutes ago, Khadim uz Zahra said:

Except, Shimr was an oppressor. Wahhabis are a denomination, numbering in the millions, among whom there are some terrible people like ISIS, and also some normal people who, as the multiple people who have posted here show, even befriend Shi'as and treat them with respect.

And it is utter nonsense for you to define what a Wahhabi is or isn't, and to assign a violent hatred of Shi'as to all of the people who claim to be Wahhabi/Deobandi. In that, you are no better than the actual bad Wahhabis who spout similar tales about all Shi'as worshiping Imam Ali and so on.

And yet again that has absolutely nothing to do with my post. If you don't adhere to the complete principles of Wahhabism and reject their notions of what is right and wrong (especially when it comes to the rights of Sayyida Fatima [as] and Imam Al-Hussain [as]) then you're not a Wahhabi, no matter how much you claim to be. You're a spin off of the sect.

Edited March 17, 2018 by Ibn Al-Shahid

[Khadim uz Zahra]

15 hours ago, Ibn Al-Shahid said:

And yet again that has absolutely nothing to do with my post. If you don't adhere to the complete principles of Wahhabism and reject their notions of what is right and wrong (especially when it comes to the rights of Sayyida Fatima [as] and Imam Al-Hussain [as]) then you're not a Wahhabi, no matter how much you claim to be. You're a spin off of the sect.

What if I Wahhabis took your approach and started saying you're not a Shi'a if you don't believe Ali is God? The very basic principle of any kind of comparative religion studies or inter-religious dialogue is that you can't define the beliefs of the opposing party; you have to let them do it.

Exactly what makes all Wahhabis so worthy of hate in your eyes? Hatred of Shi'as? Like others have pointed out, they have Wahhabi friends so obviously that's not a universal truth. You refer to the rights of Lady Fatima and Imam Hussain. If you're referring to Fadak, then not just Wahhabis but a ton of other Sunni groups also believe that Abu Bakr was right and that Prophets don't leave an inheritance to their children. So, will you not touch all Sunnis with a stick and hate them, then?

About Imam Hussain, perhaps you're referring to some Wahhabis who say it was all a battle between two princes or even some who claim that he was wrong. For one, you can already see a spectrum of beliefs among them regarding Karbala. Secondly, let's assume all of them take the worst possible view: that Imam Hussain was wrong. How can you use Imam Hussain to justify your hatred when the Imam himself to his last breath was trying to guide them? You think if even one of those people dropped their swords, the Imam wouldn't immediately embrace them? How can you say you follow Imam Hussain when your opinion of millions of human beings is that they are worse than faeces? How are you supposed to be a representative of the Ahlulbayt and guide such people if you would not even talk to them?

I read above someone saying, "If they were to realise there wrong beliefs by themselves and stop being Wahhabis, then I would be their friend." Is that what we see in the actions of Allah? Because, if that were the case, why did He send 124,000 Prophets if people are just supposed to figure it all out by themselves? If Wahhabis have the wrong beliefs, we are supposed to act as the representative of our Imams and try and guide them; that's definitely not going to happen given what you think of all of them, and not just the really bad apples like ISIS.

[Ibn Al-Shahid]

15 hours ago, Khadim uz Zahra said:

What if I Wahhabis took your approach and started saying you're not a Shi'a if you don't believe Ali is God? The very basic principle of any kind of comparative religion studies or inter-religious dialogue is that you can't define the beliefs of the opposing party; you have to let them do it.

I read your whole post, there's either a problem with you understanding what I'm saying or we simply view the term "Wahhabi" differently. "You have to let them do it", not really, it doesn't work that way. If that was the case everyone's Islam would be different. We'd have more than a billion type of Muslim because most people will not agree on everything. So no, I don't accept your logic. We have books we consider to be our representatives, we have living scholars that can tell you what Shi'ism is, so I don't get the whole "Ali is God" comment.

Ibn Abdulwahab's book exists, his history exists, his notions and ideologies all exist to this day. A Wahhabi, to me, is he who adheres to the teachings of Ibn Abdulwahab. Otherwise, I do not consider you a "Wahhabi".

[Khadim uz Zahra]

15 hours ago, Ibn Al-Shahid said:

Ibn Abdulwahab's book exists, his history exists, his notions and ideologies all exist to this day. A Wahhabi, to me, is he who adheres to the teachings of Ibn Abdulwahab. Otherwise, I do not consider you a "Wahhabi".

 

Except, that's not how the word is used in reality, especially among the Shi'a. For one, a lot of who you would call Wahhabis prefer Salafi. Secondly, most Shi'a today use Wahhabi to refer to the ideologies of Salafism/Deobandism/Saudi family interchangeably. While all of these groups may hold Ibn Wahhab to a very high standard, not all of them follow his writings to the letter, not all of them hate Shi'as and so on. Many of the people who today call themselves Wahabis/Salafis would not fit your definition. Are they supposed to change their name just because you want to impose your definition on them?

As Intellectual Resistance pointed out above, Salafis are generally a puritanical movement who believe in practicing Islam in the exact same way as it was done in the time of, and by, the Prophet. Ibn Wahhab may be the most famous modern champion of such views but he's not the first, and not the only one to do so.

15 hours ago, Ibn Al-Shahid said:

"You have to let them do it", not really, it doesn't work that way. If that was the case everyone's Islam would be different. We'd have more than a billion type of Muslim because most people will not agree on everything.

 

Everyone's Islam is different. We do have a billion types of Muslim today. Shia's, Sunnis, Salafis, Hanafis, Shafi'is, Hanbalis, Malikis, Sufis, Urafa, Zaidi, Twelvers, Seveners, and so on and so forth. Even among each group, there are actually thousands of varieties of Muslims based on specific beliefs - we may all on this site believe in Twelve Imams but one of us might believe in Sahw an-Nabi and another might not.

We label specific groups based on a shared common understanding of the collective whole - the above two people would both be Shi'as because that is what the majority of those who wanted to be called Shi'a decided, and because they didn't want to be further divided into Sahwi Shi'as and non-Sahwi Shi'as. Similarly, Wahhabis today are the people who call themselves Wahhabis/Salafis, and not who you think they should be.

All of this brings to the fore the fact that many Shi'as today conflate Wahhabism with Salafism, and the two with the Saudi government. Sure, there are overlaps among them all but they are not a monolith, which is a basic fact about any religious group.

[Ashvazdanghe]

27 minutes ago, Ibn Al-Shahid said:

Ibn Abdulwahab's book exists, his history exists, his notions and ideologies all exist to this day. A Wahhabi, to me, is he who adheres to the teachings of Ibn Abdulwahab. Otherwise, I do not consider you a "Wahhabi".

Salam most of them call themselves as Salafi the main difference between them is that Salafis just focus on their praying & not involving in politics but Wahabis more active in politics & misguide salafis by their lies about shia Islam & muslims ,most of salafis are common people that get their beliefs (Aqeeda) from wahabi moftis & Imams of their  of their mosques as common shia muslim take it from shia scholars & Imam s of shia mosques & both side dont try to find out truth by themselves. 

[haideriam]

On 3/16/2018 at 4:55 AM, Waseem162 said:

Keeping Islamic Ethics in mind, Would you like to befriend a Wahhabi just to establish a normalizing relationship with him? It may happen that his misconceptions about Shiism and Shias get cleared when he knows you better..?

What are your views on this?

PS : I am talking about a normal Wahhabi and not a Takfiri.

Why not?

Only the rejectors or the Nasibis can be classified as not good to be friends with.

[Heavenly_Silk]

[Note from Mod: This topic has been temporarily closed for review by a moderator pending one of the following actions:

1) Cleanup: Topic will be reviewed, inappropriate posts will be deleted followed by warnings/bans being implemented and then reopened.

2) Topic will be permanently deleted or sent to the lounge.

3) Topic will remain permanently closed.

Please allow up to 48 hours for one of the above actions to take place. Contact the appropriate moderator for any further explanations

The ShiaChat.com rules can be found at: http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/12120-faq-shiachatcom-rules-and-policy/ [Auto]

[Heavenly_Silk]

This topic has been re-opened after off-topic posts were removed. Members are reminded to stick to the topic being discussed. Thank you for your participation.

[monad]

7 hours ago, kirtc said:

it is God withholding guidance.. 

another comical apparition. Statements as such proclaim the motives of why atheism is so prevelant. That the thiestic God is playing a terrible game with its own creation, but appears like a tyrannical human and as such, the innate nature of mankind, expects a good God, saintly in that matter, however it doesnt seem so, therefore the belief in a creator is based on the premise that tyranny awaits if praise and appellation isnt given.

[monad]

56 minutes ago, kirtc said:

God withholds guidance from those that dont want it

Reflect upon this scentence of yours. You are practically stating that, If X state Y as being true, and I deny it, it implies it is my fault for my own demise. Considering humans comes in many intellectual forms added with personal motives. That is the dilemma of reality.

[Hassan-]

27 minutes ago, monad said:

Reflect upon this scentence of yours. You are practically stating that, If X state Y as being true, and I deny it, it implies it is my fault for my own demise. Considering humans comes in many intellectual forms added with personal motives. That is the dilemma of reality.

Surely those who disbelieve, it being alike to them whether you warn them, or do not warn them, will not believe. 

Allah has set a seal upon their hearts and upon their hearing and there is a covering over their eyes, and there is a great punishment for them. 

And there are some people who say: We believe in Allah and the last day; and they are not at all believers. 

They desire to deceive Allah and those who believe, and they deceive only themselves and they do not perceive. 

There is a disease in their hearts, so Allah added to their disease and they shall have a painful chastisement because they lied. 

And when it is said to them, Do not make mischief in the land, they say: We are but peace-makers. 

Now surely they themselves are the mischief makers, but they do not perceive.

- Quran [2 : 5-12]

[monad]

Clearly you guys arent thinking about the dilemma. But the verses your used, outlines my point. It is either a forceful belief system or it isnt . Follow the rules or burn. The same ideology is then practiced by many factions through out the earth, be it democrazy, communism or whatever new system is conjured up. The pattern and rules are always the same.

[ShiaMan14]

This is an excellent story by br. Khalil Jaffer and very much related to this topic:

 

 

[AbdusSibtayn]

On 3/19/2018 at 2:45 AM, monad said:

Clearly you guys arent thinking about the dilemma. But the verses your used, outlines my point. It is either a forceful belief system or it isnt . Follow the rules or burn. The same ideology is then practiced by many factions through out the earth, be it democrazy, communism or whatever new system is conjured up. The pattern and rules are always the same.

- The father repeatedly tells his wayward son to mend his ways.

- The son disregards his warning each time.

- After a point of time, the father stops speaking to the son, and leaves him to his fate.

- The son, sometimes later, sadly discovers that his father had a valid point, and that his thoughtless and stubborn rejection  has brought him to his doom.

There were three consequent options for the father-

- To go on repeating himself, till his admonitions and opinions carry no value anymore.

- To endorse the son's waywardness as correct, and compromise with the actually correct course of life.

- To stop sounding like a broken record and emerge with his dignity intact.

Quote

It is either a forceful belief system or it isnt . Follow the rules or burn. The same ideology is then practiced by many factions through out the earth, be it democrazy, communism or whatever new system is conjured up. The pattern and rules are always the same.

Nowadays, any system which is not spinelessly relativist in its outlook runs the risk of being branded a 'forceful' belief system. Lacking a clear criterion of wrong or right itself, and being laden with hegemonic value-judgments that falsify its own original premise, the accusation doesn't really carry much weight for the Muslims, at least not for those ones who actually understand what their God and their religion demands of them.

As for 'following the rules or burning', the people ought to know in advance the belief system that they're signing up for. If the 'rules' don't appeal to them, they are at liberty to not sign up.

On 3/18/2018 at 10:27 PM, monad said:

another comical apparition. Statements as such proclaim the motives of why atheism is so prevelant. That the thiestic God is playing a terrible game with its own creation, but appears like a tyrannical human and as such, the innate nature of mankind, expects a good God, saintly in that matter, however it doesnt seem so, therefore the belief in a creator is based on the premise that tyranny awaits if praise and appellation isnt given.

Not actually. The comical argument of the atheists results from a normalization of stubborn rejection, and in the same breath,the desire to be given the benefit of doubt and escape from the consequences of the same rejection- a strange cocktail of overconfidence and under-confidence, both at once. It has already been made clear in the aforementioned verses that the 'withholding of guidance' follows the establishment of the conviction that  the individual concerned cannot be reasoned with any further. There's the element of responsibility for one's actions and free-will, rather than tyranny or high-handedness in the argument.

The 'follow the rules or burn' principle need not necessarily be seen in the framework of power-dynamics. We encounter it in our day to day lives. Drinking and driving? Meet with an accident. Excessive drinking? Be prepared for cancer/cirrhosis. Not studying? Fail the exams. Professional negligence? Get fired from your job. Neglecting health/hygiene? Fall sick. Administering an overdose of a drug to yourself? Die. Not following traffic rules? Meet with an accident.

The crucial line is, we are responsible for our actions at the end of the day. The principle is not necessarily evil.

I find this whole personalized/customized religion/ideology thing quite amusing. It normalizes stubbornness and egotism, and panders on to people's egos, giving them the hollow satisfaction of thinking that they possess a better understanding of their belief system than their creator, or in case of secular ideologies, the founding theorist(s), and also furnishing them with an opportunity to play the holy lamb and make martyrs out of themselves when they encounter opposition. Nonetheless, it is only to be expected in these times of consumer culture underwritten by 'unbound individual consciences', when individuals presume themselves to be the best judges and 'buy' whatever appeals to them.

When a mujtahid infers and reaches a correct decision, he is given a reward. When he infers and reaches the incorrect decision, he is still given half the reward for his sincerity and effort, but even he knows that there are red lines that he ought not to transgress, not for fear of punishment, but because him challenging them and trying to prove them wrong will falsify his claims of adhering to the belief system with which he associates, since he admittedly no longer identifies with those principles he is critiquing, and by extension, the belief system based on those principles, and hence be a logical absurdity. The point being, if I doubt the rule that 'labor creates value', or that matter is the ultimate reality upon which the ideational aspects of civilization are contingent, I doubt whether I would still remain within the fold of Marxism, or 'burn'(read expelled from the fold).

 

[TheGreenWanderer]

I haven't dealt with any Wahhabi's in person yet, to my knowledge, so I cannot say until I experience it myself. I would like to think aside from religious differences, there's possibility of friendship. The Prophet (s) had good manners and respect towards others in general. I would rather try not to judge someone, before I know them. Shah was fine and I got on well with him and he was Wahhabi. The Muslims I have had the most problems with so far are culturally driven Muslims, who look down upon me because I'm a different nationality and a revert.

 

 

 

[Rashīd al-Hanafī]

Not generally, no. Maybe in an exceptional case. Wahhabis tend to be annoying on a personal level, and uninteresting. And one of the things I love talking about most -- `ilmu-l kalam -- they abhor.

[Ron_Burgundy]

On 3/16/2018 at 4:55 AM, Waseem162 said:

Salamun Alykum. I just had this question in my mind.

Keeping Islamic Ethics in mind, Would you like to befriend a Wahhabi just to establish a normalizing relationship with him? It may happen that his misconceptions about Shiism and Shias get cleared when he knows you better..?

What are your views on this?

PS : I am talking about a normal Wahhabi and not a Takfiri.

Yeah, it would be fun to have an Islamic conversation with them. 

[notme]

9 minutes ago, Ron_Burgundy said:

Yeah, it would be fun to have an Islamic conversation with them. 

A single conversation is not a friendship. 

[Ron_Burgundy]

32 minutes ago, notme said:

A single conversation is not a friendship. 

or debate. 

[Mohamed1993]

I had a salafi friend, he was quite nice, I can't say he had any anti-shia feelings or if he did, he never displayed them openly. He was my roommate in university, he told me that after living with me, he realised the differences between us are not major, people just like to hate each other for no reason. At times, I felt he wasn't very religious though, for one I hardly saw him pray and then, as is common practice in the West for muslims to have a water can in the bathroom for washing, it didn't appear that he used one.

[Guest]

I have a very good friend who comes from a very pro wahaabi family. We have never discussed religious issues but she is a very kind and considerate person overall. I have long time co-workers with strong ties to KSA. I don't have a problem being friends with wahaabis as long as they respect my faith.