Understanding Deobandis, Barelvis, Wahabis, and Shias

[Screambowl]

I would like to start this thread to shed more light towards some terms related to islam in our Subcontinent.

I would like to discuss about the similarities and deferences between intra Sunni islamic sects and inter Shia-Sunni .

We all know that Darul Uloom Deoband was established to counter Aligarh Muslim University, through salafist ideology but with pro Indian nature. What went wrong that they could not achieve this agenda? Where as Barelvis who were demanding Pakistan succeeded in gaining the goal of getting Pakistan.

More over Role of Shias in freedom struggle and keeping Pro Indian agenda must be discussed! And know about the actual problems inter Islamic sect and Intra Sunni sects ( Deoband, Barelvi and Wahabi) .

 

[asingh10]

Nadir Shah, Tipu, Shuja ud Dawlah, Qaid-e-Azam were Shias. Owaisi is also a Shia.

 

[asingh10]

These theological debates and contemplating the various nuances of Abrahamism is a waste of time imo. Likes of Tarek Fatah will have you believe that this sect or that sect is the problem but really all strains of Islam have been hostile to Hindus. Even the Ahmadiyyas who are considered apostates by mainstream. It's really a game you cannot play and win. The only winning move is to not play the game. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Mad Indian]

These theological debates and contemplating the various nuances of Abrahamism is a waste of time imo. Likes of Tarek Fatah will have you believe that this sect or that sect is the problem but really all strains of Islam have been hostile to Hindus. Even the Ahmadiyyas who are considered apostates by mainstream. It's really a game you cannot play and win. The only winning move is to not play the game. Just my 2 cents.

One thing I don't understand is, think why it is our damn problem that Islamic sects are barbaric at the moment or why we should care or take part in reforming it.

 

[pmaitra]

One thing I don't understand is, think why it is our damn problem that Islamic sects are barbaric at the moment or why we should care or take part in reforming it.

I am sure I can expect you to be fair and elaborate more than mere generalization?

Surely, you cannot cay that Sufis are barbaric. The more I see, I can say there are quite a few sects who are pretty much liberal. There are the Bohras, who are one of the most progressive. I have friends from the former Soviet Union, who are nominally Muslims, and great guys to hang out with. There are plenty of posts in the Syria thread. How do you think so many minorities survived in Syria and Iran?

Much of the world's problems with Muslims are due to:

• Saudi Theocrackpots spreading their Wahhabism to the rest of the world.
• They are funding mosques, madrassas, and teaching people their barbaric ways.
• They are poisoning the minds of those who would otherwise be liberal Muslims.
• The problem is that Wahhabism survives only through propagation of fear, because at the core of it, it is essentially empty, and Wahhabis know that. While several Muslim countries, including Sunni majority Egypt have a lot of history and culture to be proud of, the Saudis have none. Whatever they had, they have either destroyed, or have kept hidden.

 

[OneGrimPilgrim]

There are the Bohras, who are one of the most progressive.

Sufis, i now have mixed feelings about this 'unislamic' sect (from the wahaabi pov); surely not barbaric, but the medieval sufis in India were a mixed bag i guess. anyway, this is not about the past. but regarding the above, just an anecdote - had once said a similar thing to a cab-owner/driver i know. he just smilingly dismissed it and replied that one can't be so sure, for once he had visited one such family for some matter, and caught from the corner of his eye them spitting into, mixing in, the tea to be served to him. :|

 

[cannonfodder]

I would like to know more. Do you have any data to back your claim that Wahhabism is responsible?

Most studies performed treats Islam as one group and haven't seen data collection done on basis of sect. Do they look favorably towards pagans/hindus, jews and atheists ? What do they think about reforming violent verses against infidels/kafirs?

I am sure I can expect you to be fair and elaborate more than mere generalization?

Surely, you cannot cay that Sufis are barbaric. The more I see, I can say there are quite a few sects who are pretty much liberal. There are the Bohras, who are one of the most progressive. I have friends from the former Soviet Union, who are nominally Muslims, and great guys to hang out with. There are plenty of posts in the Syria thread. How do you think so many minorities survived in Syria and Iran?

Much of the world's problems with Muslims are due to:

• Saudi Theocrackpots spreading their Wahhabism to the rest of the world.
• They are funding mosques, madrassas, and teaching people their barbaric ways.
• They are poisoning the minds of those who would otherwise be liberal Muslims.
• The problem is that Wahhabism survives only through propagation of fear, because at the core of it, it is essentially empty, and Wahhabis know that. While several Muslim countries, including Sunni majority Egypt have a lot of history and culture to be proud of, the Saudis have none. Whatever they had, they have either destroyed, or have kept hidden.

 

[Compersion]

Iraq vs Iran was a baby match.

Iran vs Saudi ...

 

[pmaitra]

I would like to know more. Do you have any data to back your claim that Wahhabism is responsible?

Most studies performed treats Islam as one group and haven't seen data collection done on basis of sect. Do they look favorably towards pagans/hindus, jews and atheists ? What do they think about reforming violent verses against infidels/kafirs?

I would suggest you go through all the Syria related threads. There are plenty of reports, with links and references, from various news sources that talks about Wahhabism and Salafist being the prime motivator behind these terrorists.

 

[Mad Indian]

I am sure I can expect you to be fair and elaborate more than mere generalization?

Almost all sects of Islam are barbaric compared to the modern religions like Xtianity , Buddhism, Hinduism etc as practiced now. Are Shias any less violent than Wahabbis? Do they hate Kaffirs any less?

Surely, you cannot cay that Sufis are barbaric. The more I see, I can say there are quite a few sects who are pretty much liberal.

This is the problem with lefties, they use different yardstick for different sects, for the apologetic nonsense. Are sufis modern as other religions? Do they allow criticisml and free speech against their religion. If not no.

Wahabbis are psychopaths and that makes lesser psychopaths look sane.

Even then it doesn't answer my original question- why is it my effing problem? If the problem is within their sects, they have confront it and reform it themselves.

I have friends from the former Soviet Union, who are nominally Muslims

Another typical leftist double speak. Soviet union achieved it by crushing Islam within its borders and by making Russian Orthodox Church the only recognised religion within them. Will you guys allow it here?

There are the Bohras, who are one of the most progressive.

Bohras are a teeny tiny minority compared to other sects and they are not considered Muslims by their own majority. I have no obligation to put up with wahabbi mental cases who are the majority just because one or two muslims, who are bohras ,are normal.

 

[Mad Indian]

Much of the world's problems with Muslims are due to:

• Saudi Theocrackpots spreading their Wahhabism to the rest of the world.
• They are funding mosques, madrassas, and teaching people their barbaric ways.
• They are poisoning the minds of those who would otherwise be liberal Muslims.
• The problem is that Wahhabism survives only through propagation of fear, because at the core of it, it is essentially empty, and Wahhabis know that. While several Muslim countries, including Sunni majority Egypt have a lot of history and culture to be proud of, the Saudis have none. Whatever they had, they have either destroyed, or have kept hidden.

Is owaisis kutta also a wahabbi? I heard he is a shia. May be he is a wahabbi shia. Besides, its not my damn problem. The Muslims themselves have to come out and act against them if they want to be perceived as something other than barbarians

here are plenty of posts in the Syria thread. How do you think so many minorities survived in Syria and Iran?

The amount of nonsense in this statement is incredible. Why do parsis exist in India? And is this RSS concoction:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Bahá'ís

And does the Islamic barbarity start only at discovery of oil?

Were Muslims any less barbaric before that? You can apologise and rationalise all their atrocities to suit your ideological stance . but I or the billion other Hindus have no such compulsion and as such have no reason to engage in this nonsense

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

One thing I don't understand is, think why it is our damn problem that Islamic sects are barbaric at the moment or why we should care or take part in reforming it.

Not understanding the Abrahamics is the classic fault. You cannot fight it unless you know. And now the question- why do you want to fight it or know it? Because they form 15% of Indian population and better understanding would allow to solve the problem.

If you close your eyes and say it is your problem, the problem is not going to disappear. It is more important to study it and bring it out in open so that you can give some sense to some Mindus.

 

[Mad Indian]

Not understanding the Abrahamics is the classic fault. You cannot fight it unless you know. And now the question- why do you want to fight it or know it? Because they form 15% of Indian population and better understanding would allow to solve the problem.

If you close your eyes and say it is your problem, the problem is not going to disappear. It is more important to study it and bring it out in open so that you can give some sense to some Mindus.

The understanding of them how barbaric rhey tend to be is fine. what I am opposed to is the "understanding " being used as a tool to whitewash their crimes and put less violent psychos as somehow moderate.

Many Mindus would believe here that Deoband is nationalist and progressive or other such crap while only wahabbis are psychotic dogs. Is it true on the ground?


Besides, do we have such analysis for Xtian evangelicals? We just analyse the problem and look for solutions. Do we go into why Protestants are less Evangelical than say Catholocs or any such apologetic crap and why we should ignore Protestants while we work on catholgoc evangelicals?


If your way of understanding is supposed to be about how dangerous they are, how they function and work and what they do to the country and society, then yes we need a broader understanding. But if it is to be on how different sects are peaceful and why only wahabbis are psychos or any such apologetic crap, then no, we don't need to understand anything.


All this wahabbis being the problem for an otherwise peaceful religion is just apologetic crap from the Mindus

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

The understanding of them being barbaisans is fine, what I am opposed is the understanding being used as a tool to whitewash their crimes and put less violent psychos as somehow moderate.

Many morons would believe here that Deoband is nationalist and progressive or other such crap while only wahabbis are psychotic dogs. Is it right?


Besides, do you have such analysis for Xtian evangelicals? We just analyse the problem and look for solutions. Do we go into why Protestants are less evangelical or any such apologetic crap and why we should ignore them?


If your way of understanding is supposed to be about how dangerous they are, then yes we need a broader understanding. But if it is to be on how different sects are peaceful and why only wahabbis are psychos or any such apologetic crap, then no, we don't need to understand anything

Well, you need understanding to tweak your response. Would you treat evangelists same as catholics? No. They all want conversion-true, but who should be more regulated- evangelists.

I did not say anything about whitewashing. All I said is better understanding helps and I don't want to bring up Bohras or some other minorities to say everything is nice/rosy.

Btw, Deobandis did not support partition. Perhaps they knew under democracy muslims can outbreed everyone in Indian sub-continent. Unless you understand that some leftists can claim that Deobandis are so nationalist that they did not even want partition!!

 

[Mad Indian]

What many Mindus don't know is that Arab Islam dint come to India via conquest at all. It came via trade and that too only in Kerala. Most of the spread of Islam was done by Turks(seculars) and Persians (shias) and not Arabs. And yet somehow, people here waste no time praising Shias and turkey while bashing Arabs.


No matter what the facts are, they will try to find any bull shit excuse to suit their narrative and they come up with- feeling of persecution among muslims even if the muslims enjoy more freedom and rights here than in any barbaric country in the world, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, poverty , ignorance, illiteracy, USA, Britshits. Anything but the mental disease called Islam

 

[Rowdy]

Surely, you cannot cay that Sufis are barbaric.

If you are a hindu you are an Untermensch to them ... I'm too lazy to dig up history so do a little googling yourselves.

 

[Mad Indian]

did not say anything about whitewashing. All I said is better understanding helps

That was not a response directed against you. I just wanted to clarify what I meant. As I already said, we need to understand them as to what they are but not as to white wash or be apologetic about what they are.

 

[Mad Indian]

Btw, Deobandis did not support partition. Perhaps they knew under democracy muslims can outbreed everyone in Indian sub-continent. Unless you understand that some leftists can claim that Deobandis are so nationalist that they did not even want partition!!

This part is true. You don't even have to go look for reasons. They themselves gave the reason- Partition was unislamic as the concept of nation state or a state based on Islam is unislamic. That is why they opposed partition. They were not that smart to think they can outbreed(giving them credit of being smart would imply giving them the ability to act smart and probably reform in future) nor did they do it out of patriotism (as the leftist apologists shamelessly bull shit around). It was all because of their dogmatic belief in Islam.


What we have to understand is that dogmatic belief is what makes them dangerous in the first place!

 

[Rowdy]

wahabbis being the problem

The only disagreement these morons have from the Wahabbis is how to divide the spoils after infidels are gone. Mindus™ are pretty much irrelevant

 

[Yusuf]

This thread has gone as usual, yawn