Deadly NATO attack in Pakistan

[Pardalis]

people interested in the origins of Wahhabism should consult the Confessions of Hemper as an antidote (not saying that it's entirely true).

The preface starts with this:

Allâhu ta’âlâ declared in the eighty-second âyat ofMâidasoûra of Qur’ân al-kerîm, “The biggest enemies of Islam are the Jews and mushriks.” The first mischief contrived to demolish Islam from within was instigated by a Jew[...]

You really want us to read that?

 

[Childlike Empress]

I already changed the link because of the preface. I agree with you on that. (Mark that red in the calender).

 

[Pardalis]

I already changed the link because of the preface. I agree with you on that. (Mark that red in the calender).

You changed the link?

So you suggested a book you disagree with and didn't read yourself?

 

[gumboot]

LOL. Incredible. You offer me a book on Wahhabism as evidence that Deobandism creates terrorism, while I generously, for the sake of refuting your non-argument, stated that Saudi Wahhabism is, if any ideology, the source of terrorism in Islam?

I wouldn't try guess what a book is about before reading it. It makes you look stupid.

 

[Pardalis]

I wouldn't try guess what a book is about before reading it. It makes you look stupid.

She prefers to ignore the blatant antisemitism of the preface.

Nothing to see here.

 

[Virus]

Islamophobes and people interested in the origins of Wahhabism should consult the Confessions of Hempher as an antidote (not saying that it's entirely true).

Do you believe the book is true?

 

[Childlike Empress]

You changed the link?

So you suggested a book you disagree with and didn't read yourself?

I read the book many years ago and that was the first link that showed up in a search. I changed the link, evidenced by your post #41 quoting stuff that wasn't there at the time you submitted your post.

 

[gumboot]

She prefers to ignore the blatant antisemitism of the preface.

Nothing to see here.

I was referring to "God's Terrorists". She read the title, saw it had "Wahhabism" in it and not "Deobandism", and determined that book would not reveal how Deobandism is responsible for terrorism around the world, nor how Deobandism and Wahhabism are very closely linked both ideologically and historically.

She is... well... wrong. Laughably so. As anyone who has read the book is aware.

 

[Pardalis]

I read the book many years ago and that was the first link that showed up in a search. I changed the link, evidenced by your post #41 quoting stuff that wasn't there at the time you submitted your post.

You changed the link because you found things in there that made you uncomfortable so you chose to ignore them, even though they are clearly there in the preface.

You can't pick and choose, either you recommend it or you don't. If you do, you recommend the preface too. I can't imagine what else is there in the other version was left out.

 

[Childlike Empress]

I wouldn't try guess what a book is about before reading it. It makes you look stupid.

I read the description you linked to. You still have to elaborate on that Pakistani brand of Islam that creates those "terrorists" (Pakistani soldiers killed in this event). And its connection to Saudi Arabia, the terror sponsor and US ally.

 

[Virus]

Childlike Empress recommended a book considered a forgery and "an Anglophobic variation on `The Protocols of the Elders of Zion`”

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memoirs_Of_Mr._Hempher,_The_British_Spy_To_The_Middle_East

OMG you just reccomended that and now you can't go back and un-reccomend it. That is so funny.

 

[Childlike Empress]

You changed the link because you found things in there that made you uncomfortable so you chose to ignore them, even though they are clearly there in the preface.

You can't pick and choose, either you recommend it or you don't. If you do, you recommend the preface too. I can't imagine what else is there in the other version was left out.

I changed the link because what i've read in the preface of the first source i've found, after posting it, made me uncomfortable, that's correct. And that's a bad thing?

 

[Pardalis]

I changed the link because what i've read in the preface of the first source i've found, after posting it, made me uncomfortable, that's correct. And that's a bad thing?

The bad thing is you chose to ignore the racist preface and recommend the book anyway.

If they edited out the preface, what else do you think was edited out in the entire book?

 

[Childlike Empress]

The thing is that the very existence of those countries is a heritage of colonialism - the Brits literally drew the border lines. The idea that they promoted the spread of extremist views is not at all far-fetched. Certainly not more than gummi's whateverism fairy tales.

 

[Childlike Empress]

The bad thing is you chose to ignore the racist preface and recommend the book anyway.

If they edited out the preface, what else do you think was edited out in the entire book?

I did not know about the preface. I changed the link before you were able to react, in a few minutes. Knock yourself off.

 

[Pardalis]

I did not know about the preface.

Now you do, and you still recommend it.

 

[Pardalis]

The idea that they promoted the spread of extremist views is not at all far-fetched.

Extremist views are common place in every nation and culture, your own (you should know, you're a German) and mine included.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Now you do, and you still recommend it.

The book, not the preface. As i've stated in the part of my post you didn't quote, evidenced by the timeline of this thread.

 

[gumboot]

I read the description you linked to.

I linked to a book and suggested you read it.

You still have to elaborate on that Pakistani brand of Islam that creates those "terrorists" (Pakistani soldiers killed in this event). And its connection to Saudi Arabia, the terror sponsor and US ally.

Covering the basics, at the end of the 18th Century a Pathan Muslim leader in the Northwest Frontier region of what was then the British Raj by the name of Syed Ahmad made a pilgrimage to Arabia. While there he was exposed to Muhammad Ibn Abd-al-Wahhab's emerging ideology. Due to cultural similarities between the Pathans and Arabs (both harsh tribal cultures with strict honour codes), Ahmad saw Wahhabism as a good fit for revitilising Indian Muslims who were under attack from British Colonialism.

He returned to the Raj with this new ideology were it fed a series of rebellions against the British over the next century, including the Sepoy Mutiny and the multiple British invasions of Afghanistan.

Ultimately this ideology was responsible for the founding a a school in Deoband, Darul Uloom Deoband, and later still led to the separation of the British Raj into Pakistan and India.

Although the Deobandi movement had its founding school in India, Pakistan encompassed the majority of the territory where this ideology was practised (hence why the split happened) and over the following ~70 years the Deobandi ideology has spread from its Pakistani roots to thousands of Islamic schools across the globe. These same schools spawned the Taliban.

 

[Pardalis]

The book, not the preface.

But the preface clearly shows that the book is based on an antisemitic premise.