Skip to content

December 23, 2004

Response to “Muslim” (fellow who posted on the chatterbox)

So this “Muslim” chap wrote:

 <Muslim>: kr156 your biography about ibn Abdul Wahhab was the biggest load of crap ever. Ibn Wahhab was not executed by the ottomans in 1792. The Ottomans attacked Makkah in 1811, how could they capture and execute him in 1792.
<Muslim>: I suggest you study the real history of Ibn abdul Wahhab before resorting to your blatant lies.

Hmmm, wow dude, the anti-Wahhabi post was 6 months ago, but whatever, let’s reply to this charge anyway.

1. If you read the entire Salafi/Wahhabi posts, you would have known that I did my research and didnt simply make up facts. Certainly, there were certain subjective statements I made in there, but as far as actual historical events/dates/ayahs/hadith, I didn’t contrive them.

2. So if the Ottomans attack Makkah in 1811, why couldnt Ibn Wahhab have passed away by then? Your claim that because the Ottomans attack in 1811 and therefore Ibn Wahhab couldn’t have been killed is an illogical statement. First off, let us agree that Ibn Wahhab returned to Allah in 1792, as I had stated earlier. The proof of this can be found at: http://www.iridis.com/glivar/Muhammad_ibn_Abd_al_Wahhab, http://www.salaam.co.uk/knowledge/biography/viewentry.php?id=1702, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabi. Is that sufficient proof that his death was in 1792?

3. Now as far as the Ottomans executing him, the Ottoman caliph executed him as he was preaching against the Caliphate. As I stated in that post, I took that info from the site: http://members.xoom.virgilio.it/amislam/warning.htm. Other sources also confirm this.

4. Since you’re alleging that my claim(s) is/are wrong, shouldn’t you, as the hadith says “The burden of proof is upon the accuser”, provide your proofs as to why I’m wrong, rather than simply ranting about my “blatant lies” and how the article was “the biggest load of crap ever”. If you’re so convinced that what I posted was wrong (even though I just showed you some of the texts to confirm), why not just do the mature thing and write your own article, complete with proofs and evidences, instead of just coming on my site and accusing me of lying without any proofs of your own.

5. Finally, the point of the anti-Wahhabi post was not to split hairs over dates and events. I wrote that post at the request of certain individuals who asked about the Wahhabi movement. therefore, I wrote that–certainly as my opinion–post to delineate my personal stance towards that sect. I have no personal ills with Wahhabis (I have a Wahhabi friend who’s in law school in Michigan)… it’s just that I completely disagree with their ideology, based on many of the things I wrote in those two posts.

6. As a final advice, if you want to correct someone, rather than sensationalizing it (a la Fox News), you ought to approach them directly. My email and AIM are on this page, and if you really believed I was wrong (and had the proofs/evidences to verify your claim), you could have contacted me personally, and if I were shown to be wrong, I would have gladly updated/edited that post. I’m sad to see that instead you chose to dramatize the matter by posting–anonymously, no less–on the chatterbox and accusing me of improprieties. My reply to your comments in a public manner is only a response to your initial public claim. Since you made the claim in public, I have to respond publicly as well. If you want to reply to this and do not want to continue publicly, feel free to email me: kr156@comcast.net and I’ll be happy to continue this discussion, if you so choose.

Advertisements

From → Uncategorized

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: