Ibn Sina was not known as a firm Mu’tazilite, but his thoughts were in par with Mutazilite doctrine. He was not merely a philosopher of some kind but a multifaceted genius who excelled in almost all fields.
1. Actually, if you really want to get technical, he was a shi'i, specifically the baatini shi'i since the baatiniyyah were a firqa from the madhab of the rawaafidh.
2. we admire his efforts in the worldly sciences, those were not issues that were took to task by Sunni
3. the difference between the mutazilah and the philosophers was that the philosophers denied pretty much the entire religion. Their view of Allah was nothing more than Aristotle’s view of the first cause. That was it, no actual creation, not a deity whom we have to worship. In their view, He was not a being who had attributes or who can do actions, because their entire world was constricted, and thus incoherent, to nothing more than accidents and substances and that actions are muhdath and thus Allah did not do anything He said He did in the Qur'an because of such and such....
the mutazilah did not go that extreme, which is why their bida was not one that was mukafara i.e. that which negated emaan unlike the philosophers.
In fact there is no wonder if your statement amazed me. I would like to know of those scientific advances that predated the era of Al-Farabi and Ibn Sina.
well, At this moment I can't reference none that predate these two
As far as I understand, the golden era of Islam when your predecessors excelled in arts and science began in the middle of 900 under Abbasids. If you ignore the contributions of Razi Al-Razi, Al-Farabi, Ibn Sina and Ibn Rushd, there would be nothing for you to get proud of. If you think otherwise, let me know of it.
Abul-Wafa Muhammad al-Buzjani (sunni)[after Ghazaali, mathematician genius]\
Ibnul-Nafis ash-Shafi'ee (Sunni, after Ghazaali, main contribution in medicine, specifically, blood circulation
Ibnul-Baytar (Sunni, after Ghazaali, Medicine, Botany)
Abul-Qaasim az-Zahravi (Sunni, After Ghazaali, Surgeon, He is best known for his early and original breakthroughs in surgery as well as for his famous Medical Encyclopedia called Al-Tasrif, which is composed of thirty volumes covering different aspects of medical science. The more important part of this series comprises three books on surgery, which describe in detail various aspects of surgical treatment as based on the operations performed by him, including cauterization, removal of stone from the bladder, dissection of animals, midwifery, styptics, and surgery of eye, ear and throat. He perfected several delicate operations, including removal of the dead fetus and amputation. )
I don't have the time to post more but you get the point.
This is more interesting. What wrong do you find with Ash’arite theology? Indeed Hamid Al-Ghazzalee was an Ash’arite, but when you trash Ash’aris too, I wonder what are you aiming to?
what wrong do I find with ash'arite theology?
What every Imaam of ahlu-sunnah wal-jama'ah found wrong with them from Haafidh Ibn Qudamah to Ibn Taymiyyah and from Shaykh Abdul-Qadar al-Jilaanee to Ibn Hajr al-Asqalaani and from Shaykhul-Isllam as-Saboonee ash-Shafi'ee to Abul-Qaasim at-Taymee ash-Shafi'ee and from Imaam al-Wanshareeshi al-Maaliki to Ibn Abil-Izz al-hanafee.
Ahl Al-Sunna wal Jama’at which is considered the most orthodox or better say traditional Islam is strictly based on six tenets.
thats not how it is deifned but I will explain in the following replies
Four Fiqhi Mad’habs and two of those Mad’hab’s of Aqeeda. Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi and Hanbali in Fiqhi matters and in matters of faith, it revolves around Ash’ari and Maturidiee Mad’habs. When you discard Ash’ari from these, I have to consider you do not belong to this orthodox Islamic credo.
1. the four madhaabs of fiqh contribute to the bulk of orthodox sunnism, but these four were not the only schools, there were hundreds of schools in the early generations, it is just that these four remained with politicl involvement. Ibn Taymiyyah said "Generally, the truth does not fall outside the four" which is why the bulk of sunnism in fiqh is these four, but there were other thoughts of Mujtahidoon lime Imam Junayd al-Baghdadee who is said to be a school in and of himself, like wise Shaykhul-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, and likewise Imaam ash-Shawkaani.
Here you go. I think you follow something I am never heard of because this dissection seems different to me. You add falsafiyya as a sect which is never heard before. As far as I learnt from my Islamic past, there are primarily eight sects emerged within Islam soon after your prophet died.
If you had paid attention to my words, you would have noticed that when I outlined those sects, I was naming them based on what their doctrines were based on i.e. Ilm-Kalaam. I was naming the sects of kalaam, and not what the majority of sects are based on
this naming was wrong to begin with. The Senior Scholars of today and some from the past have pinned for major heresiological groups from which most other sects derived from. they are
1. rawaafidh (inherent in this group comes out the baatiniyyah, sufiyya, basically a majority of the esoteric groups
2. murji'a (the initial theology composes of negating actions from faith. Carrying this theology to its most logical conclusion ends up in the religion of appeasement, thus the essence of liberal methodologies is based on this
3. khawaarij (Im sure you know this, they represent the extremity of understanding and exaggeration.
4. the mutazilah (the representation of itizaal. Thus all the aqlaani groups fall under this guise along with the kalaam based groups, which I have named above
Among this Mutazila was the first named after its founder Wasil bin Ata.
It was Hasan Al-Basari who called Wasil as a Mutazilite. And the most astonishing part in your sectioning is you have counted Qadariyyas and Mutazilites separately when in fact it was another name of Mu’tazilites.
that was because not every mutazili was a qadari just as not every rawaafidh is a baatini. the qadariyyah were more specific
I think you haven’t gone through this part well. Perhaps just revising your history will help you a bit here.
Oh, Im well versed in this subject, in fact, this is where I specialize
Besides, I haven’t come across Ash’arites and Maturidiyyas as counted as two sects in Islam.
That’s because your teachers had brainwashed you into this thinking which is pretty much what all ash'aris and sufis do to their muqalids.
If that is the case, you will have to divide four schools of thoughts as four sects too that is deviated from the main-stream Islam. But even most stubborn Wahabis would not dare for such a classification. I am sure.
This is an incorrect basis on which you evaluated me upon. IN Islam, divisions take place because of differences in usool, not in furoo'. So when we speak of the madhaahib of fiqh, the vastness of Islam is opened and allows for differences in interpretation because the shariah takes this into account. What allows for iftiraaq to occur is when people invent new concepts in theology thus separating from the main group i.e. ahlu-sunnah, and thus are labeled according to the founder of their thought.
Abu Hasan al-Ash'ari's ash'ari aqeedah was developed after 300 hijrah. If you had studies the works of heresiology, you would have known this, like al-Milaal wa Nihaal of Ibn Hazam and of Shahrastaani, Fiq Baynal-Farq of Abu Mansoor at-Tamimi and more importantly, Ibn Katheer's Bidaya wan-Nihaaya and adh-Dhahabee's Siyaar alam an-Nubulaa and his MIzaan al-'Itidaal.
Ibn Katheer records 3 stages in Abu Hasan al=Ash'aris life
1. the first stage was his being a mutazili. most of the biographers record him being a mutazili trained under the scholarship of Qadhi Abdul-Jabbar. al-Ash'ari was born in 260. That means he was deemed a heretic by all sunnis until 300 hijrah
2. the second stage of his life was after the first period in which Ibn Katherr reports that he found a way in between. In other words he still used ilmu-kalaam, but tried to defend sunnis, thus the ash'ari theology was developed. However, the pitfalls of that was that the ash'ari system was a theology of inconsistencies for the mutazilah and the philosopher made more logical sense than the ash'aris.
3. the third stage of his life is when he left that and became a full fledged sunni and authored his Ibaanah fi usool ad-Diyana and his Maqalaat al-Islamiyeen. This was the stage in which al-Ash'ari tried to reconcile with the pure sunnis among the Hanbalis, the leading one of which was al-Barbahaari
the purpose of my stating all of this is because Islamic orthodoxy is not defined the way you have been taught, rather orthodoxy is defined as to what the companions of the Messenger of Allah were upon and what their students were upon, both in faith (doctrine) and practices.
That is how the IMaams of Islam have defined it which is why they would always say things like "the madhaab of the salaf" or the millah of the salaf or the tariqa of the salaf.
these are some examples
Abu Haneefah said
“Adhere to the athar (narration) and the tareeqah (way) of the Salaf (Pious Predecessors) and beware of newly invented matters for all of it is innovation” [Reported by As-Suyootee in Sawn al Mantaq wal-Kalaam p.32]
Imaam al-Asbahaanee (d.535H) said
“The sign of Ahlus-Sunnah is that they follow the Salafus-Saalih and abandon all that is innovated and newly introduced into the Deen.” [Al-Hujjah fee Bayaanil Mahajjah 1/364]
lbn Taymiyyah said
“There is no criticism for the one who proclaims the way (madhdhab) of the Salaf, who attaches himself to it and refers to it. Rather, it is obligatory to accept that from him by unanimous agreement (Ittifaaq) because the way (madhdhab) of the Salaf is nothing but the Truth (Haqq).” [Majmoo al-Fataawaa 4:149]
‘Patiently restrict yourselves to the Sunnah and pause where the people paused; say what they said and avoid what they avoided. Take the path of the Salajus-Saalih for indeed what is sufficient for them is sufficient for you.’
There are plenty of statements like this by which the orthodox sunni Imaams have stated whoever goes contrary to the way of the salaf is a mubtadi.
This is because the reality of Islam is based on what Imaam Maalik stated
"Whatever was not part of the religion in their time (the companions), cannot be a part of the religion at any time"
So I ask you, how is ash'arism considered an "orthodoxy" considering no one from the founders of the madhaahib were ash'aris nor were their students. Imaam Ahmad was the latest of them and he died 60 years before al-Ash'ari ever got a chance to formulate his theology in the second phase of his life. The same with Maturidiyyah. Abu Mansoor al-Maturidi came after the time of Imaam Ahlu-sunnah Ahmad bin Hanbal, and the direct Imaams of Sunnah who derived their theology from Ahmad and Maalik all condemned al-Ash'ari and the schools of Kalaam.
How can you argue the orthodoxy of a thought that came 300 years after the orthodoxy of Islam had already ben codified with the Imaams of Sunnah. In any given circumstance, the measurement of orthodoxy goes back to the original people. Sunni doctrine is based on the sunnah of the prophet. That is why the Imaams of Sunnah called their creedal works "as-Sunnah" because what they were hinting at is that our creed, the authentic Islamic creed, is based on the sunnah of the Messenger of Allah and not based on the thought of Aristotle or any of the greek logic that was brought into the Arabic world.
I won’t accuse you of being ignorant here but you are mistaken grievously. Ghazali’s refutation to Averroes and Ibn Sina’s were strictly based on the matters of faith, but Ibn Sina found it as a hindrance to the scientific development.
well, given the breakthroughs of those sunnis scholars who made breakthroughs in their field, this pretty much makes Ibn Sina's view to be false, doesn't it
For example Ibn Sina argued fire can burn on its own and no supernatural presence is involved in its burning. But Ghazali was not ready to accept this fact but argued it is god who burns the fire and there is an underlying cause involved.
this is complete insanity, but before I describe what this insanity is, allow me to go with the flow of your argument for a moment.
IN the frame of Ghazaali, Allah is a Being in which every single iota of a thing does not come to existence or that it does not happen except that it falls under the Mashea of Allah. To opine otherwise is attributing imperection to the One who claims is All Perfect. what greater kufr is there than this. If we really want to get technical, this issue is explained in a more scholastic realm by stating that the qadr and Will of Allah is divided between
1. qadr al-qawni and
2. qadr ash-shar'i
qadar al-qawni, or universal will is the regulator of established law, like for example
"what goes up, must come down" in a world of gravity of course.
"water is wet"
"fire is hot"
It is the established norm of Allah that once a fire is lit, it goes out by certain methods, and that it is hot. In order for the nature of fire to be changed requires that Allah break the rules. So when Ibraheem alaihi salam was tested from his people by making him fo into the furnace, Allah told the fire to be cool, and it was. this qadr al-qawni was replaced by a specific qadr fil-amr from Allah.
So when we say that fire burns on its own, that is because Allah has already legislated for its alowability to burn and mandated upon the properties of fire to initiate upon certain phenomenon, like connecting sparks with flammables, etc. The logic of Ibn Sina in that fire can burn without the cause for its function to be functional is analogous to saying that the hearts continually pump blood throughout the body and there is no outside influence that governs its functionality. That logic can only apply in a world were Allah is non existent, but that would mean that the people who adopt this view would have to demonstrate how on earth did this entire universe form without a cause, because one of the universal constants is "cause and affect" and the human race does not live their lives in that fashion.
Empirical observation which is imperative to scientific advancement is halted there.
Adhering to a specific creed does not negate being empirical about an issue and the above sunni scholars whom I have named is proof for that. this fact pretty much makes this next statement of your baseless
Without getting off the shackled of theological stubbornness, there would be no chance for empiricism and without empiricism, no technology is going to flourish.
Likewise, being empirical, the primary mode of deduction is the use of the aql, and the aql, like other faculties like hearing, seeing, etc, is limited. it can be wrong and it can be right. the problem with defining when the aql is wrong and when is right is more problematic than when the other senses err. If we turn off the light in the room, we know we cannot see. If there is a dog who is barking then we know that is the case because of the other senses, like hearing. So we know a dog is there despite the fact that our sight cannot see the dog. However, for the aql, what is the criterion to be utilized when the aql is wrong and what will be the criterion to aid the aql when it is right. That is where the wahi of Alah comes into play.
getting back on point, one can be empirical while adhering to a single theological methodology. Secondly, one does not have the audacity to leave that correct way in order to validate yourself into thinking that doing so would bring about a better outcome.
That is why there came none (almost virtually none) to fill the void of Ibn Sina left. In fact, it was Westerners who exploited much from Ibn Sina’s works and it is not surprising his “laws of medicine” is still taught as a textbook in reputed Western Universities.
I’m glad that your lot takes pride in a figure that was average for us. We know how deep the level of ineptitude in the western world was in, so someone like Ibn Sina is a primer for them, where as we had many primers.
I would like to know, how science and the orthodox (traditional) Islam goes hand in hand. Can you show me how a peaceful cohabitation is possible for both?
it is quite simple, Orthodox traditional Islam is defined as the beliefs and practices of the first three generations of Islam because the ummah is unanimous to their superiority in faith and practice. The golden age was under their feet, when the ummah abandoned their way and adopted aristolian logic which generated kalaam based madhaabs like ash'arism and maturidism and sufism and its likes, we initiated an epoch of decline, which came more and more evident as the years went along but which was already prophesized.
secondly, there is nothing in the Islamic text which impugne the advancement of the sciences.
Evidence to this..? What makes you think there flourished free thought after Ghazzali? Who are these greatest free thinkers of Islam you mean?
refer to the above scholars, all of whom came after Ghazali.
likewise I believe Ibnu-Qayyim also was a master in medicine, although his main contribution was in raqaa'iq, thus earning him the title "Tabeebul-Quloob" of course much of his scholarship and expertise is due to the Hadeeth master, the Imaam of the sciences Ibn Taymiyyah
al-boriqee wrote: the purpose of free thought is allowed and disallowed. if free thought is centered on inventing new understandings of God contrary to what was already revealed, then it was obvious what its hukm was. If free thought was centered on other than faith based doctrine and on issues that really matter, like the sciences, then that was of course allowed. But then where is the model nation for the absolute allowance of free thought. We have none, because the free thought your aiming for is a facade for not all thought is acceptable even among your precious "free" world.
I see nothing in above but some mutually contradicting statements. If you can turn them into coherent statements?
Free thought in aqidah =illogical (all the prophets came with one creed)
Free thought in outside of aqidah (acceptable)
the free thought your espousing for= the right for people to challenge the acts of God, His existence, to form views about him, to do whatever one wills i.e. hedonism.
As one person put it "the freedom that they speak for is the freedom of heresy and vices"
I need to know what constitutes Islamic orthodoxy for you.
there is no "for me" when it comes to Islam. I follow the opinions of the orthodox jurists.
Imaam Ahlu-Sunnah Ahmad bin Hanbal said in his usoolu-sunnah
"The Fundamental principles of the Sunnah with us are: (1) Holding fast to what the Companions of Allah’s Messenger (sallallaahu ‘alayhi was-sallam) were upon (2) Seeking them [and their way] as a model of guidance (3) Abandoning innovation, for every innovation is misguidance (4) Abandoning controversies and abandoning sitting with the people of Desires (5) And abandoning quarrelling, argumentation and controversies in the religion."
Imaam al-Laalikaa'ee said in his famous corpus of the beleifs of the predecessors called "Sharh Usool al-Itiqaad Ahlu-Sunnahti wal-Jama'ah
"That which is most obligatory upon a Muslim: Knowledge of the aspects of the ’aqeedah (creed) of the religion and what Allaah has obligated upon His servants including the understanding of His Tawheed and of His Attributes, and believing in his Messengers with evidences and with certainty. And arriving at (all of) that and seeking evidences for them with clear proofs.
And among the mightiest of statements and clearest of proofs and understandings is: (1) The Book of Allah, the Manifest Truth (2) Then the Saying of the Messenger (sallallaahu ’alayhi was sallam) (3) And of his Companions, the chosen, pious ones (4) Then that which the Salafus-Saalih were unanimously agreed upon (5) The holding fast to all of that and remaining firm upon it till the Day of Judgment (6) Then turning away from the innovations and from listening to them – from amongst those things which the astray people have invented."
Moreover, we don’t see any of the so-called advancements under the strict Islamic regimes of either its founder Muhammad or the fourth great Caliphates. Will you please explain it briefly what is real Islam?
the best definition is what the prophet alaihi salatu salaam gave when he said explaining to his companions who were the saved sect
"Indeed, my Ummah will split up into seventy-three [sects]. All of them are in the fire except one." It was said: What is the one? He said: "Al-Jamaa’ah (the Group)." And in another narration, he (sallallaahu ‘alayhi was sallam) said: "That which I and my companions are upon today."
Therefore, al-Jamaa’ah is clearly the Companions and what they were upon, and whoever follows them in goodness until the Day of Judgement.
So… you are representing the Wahabi Islam.
Im representing Islam. some people call it hashawiyyah, some call it wahhabiyyah, some call it mujassimiyyah, some call it khawaarij, or what have you.
Iv'e noticed that throughout my dealings with people, wahhabism carries different meanings for different people. I remember leaning that the first to employ this name were the British when they first encountered a bunch of Hanbalis from Najd who happened to be the students of the Imaam of Ahlu-sunnah the Hanbali mujtahid Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab, they couldn't employ the name muhammadians, so they chose wahhab. later on the idol worshippers in the peninsula adopted it to apply to everyone who viewed their paganism as paganism, thus anyone who told them, "this isn't Islam" was called a "wahhabi". When the british went to Indo-Pak area, they called anyone who stood against them in resistance as "wahhabi". Logically, those who rose against them among the populace, most of them sufis, some ahlul-hadeeth, were branded as "wahhabis".
The most profound reality that I put people on trial for, and to this date no one could give me a response is ,"who can define for us what are the tenets or principles of the wahhabis". No on in the entire world can define for us what in the world is a wahhabi.
So Im currently working on a project about what makes a wahhabi, because pretty much every Islamic stance that the Imaams have adopted, results in the peoples view as being a "wahhabi"
secondly, on this topic, I had posted something about the actual wahhabis, who existed nearly 1000 years before the advent of Ibn Abdul-Wahhab. It can be accessed here
http://islamthought.wordpress.com/2008/ ... ahhabiyyah
Well, it took a while for me to get you. Oops… I would say you labored a lot but delivered nothing after all
only to someone whose logic is constricted to liberalism
No wonder you couldn’t digest even Ghazzali who is unrivalled for his philosophical magnificence. For you Ibn Taimiyya and Muhammad Abdel Wahhab the guys who could do nothing but cause another rift in your Ummah is acceptable. Hmm… interesting to hear Wahabi verbalism here in this forum. Perhaps the first time I encounter one.
Actually, to be honest, it was the heretics who took Ibn Taymiyyah at court and trial and caused a havoc in the ummah. The same with Ibn Abdul-Wahhab. But these two are not the only Imaams whom I follow. Also, please define for me what is a wahhabi, what do they believe and can you quote to me from which book this mythical wahhabi sect actually outlined their view in.
Dear friend, if what you say is true Islam as one found with Ibn Abdul Wahhab, the renaissance of Islam should have began from Saudi Arabia again, but in fact, what makes Saudi Arabia a hellhole is its adherence to the fused form of Wahabism.
1. for one, it did, that is why the are the most advanced apart from the rest of the Arab world, well, second to dubai of course however, pretty much most of the gulf are sunnis (what you call wahhabis)
2. according to everyone who goes there, including the kaafirs I have talked to, Saudi to them is a dream land. It is serene and safe. I never heard of anyone speak of it in a negative way except for the issue of some of its laws, like the no women driving law, which in reality has no textual basis but a customary norm rather than a religiously based ruling. If you describe this country with that description, I can only imagine how you think of Amsterdam, or better yet, Brooklyn
I am not interested in your doctrine at all.
I’m not interested in telling you my doctrine. I was only interested in correcting some of the fables you had been nurtured on.
I believe Wahabism is the most hateful of all Islamisms.
Of course, because if you allow me to be quite frank, you have absoltuely no idea what the heck your talking about, and the fact that you can't even quote a single book or even a single quotation on what the heck a wahhabi believes in is enough proof that you o not know what the heck your talking about, Sir.
You might argue it is the true Islam.
I argue that every single position that the Hanbali jurist Ibn Abdul-Wahhab believed in theologically and jurisprudentially was what the entirety of this ummah was upon for centuries before the sufis and ash'aris plagued the ummah in darkness and stuck them with intellectual terrorism and stripping them of logically thinking by enforcing taqleed.
All right, but let me see an ideal society under true Islam, not in current times, but you can revert as much as to your Muhammad. Start from there. Muhammad didn’t last for a blink, so you may start from your first Caliph Abu Bakr and point to an ideal Islamic society that you will project with pride. I will deal it then.
I do not get what your talking about. reword it in a coherent manner
Sorry to tell you friend, you started fairly well but are in a very pathetic state nw. I don’t see anything worthwhile in the paragraph above to address.
that’s because you believe philosophical thought is the ultimate mode upon which humanity can operate.
If you disregard Greek contribution and influence in your Islamic philosophy, do you think there will be anything left for you to be proud of?
yes. of course. our scientific era was based on the divine guidance of Islam being that the prophet alaihi saltu salam said
"it is upon every Muslim to seek knowledge" mainly in religion, but also applicable in the realm of science. from that point on, it was the era of ilm. give credit to Greek logic for providing some of our advancements or platforms upon which further advancement was made, but the entirety of our era was not exclusively the result of greek thought.
the other thing we owe to greek thought was the downfall of our ummah. Imam adh-Dhahabee ash-Shafi'ee stated
"once the ummah abandoned the terminology of the Muslims and adopted the terminology (thought) of Aristotle, plague upon plague appeared" and this is why Ibn Qudamah al-Hanbali, the haafidh and shaykhul-Islam o the ummah of his time wrote fiercely against the Ash'aris and the kalaam sects for injuring our Islamic unity.
Your Mutazilites are considered as the free thinkers of Islam when in reality they were the most narrow minded, they could not hear any other opinion but their own. They had to persecute the Imaam of Ahlu-Sunnah Ahmad bin Hanbal for his beliefs, something that the sunnis (or wahhabis, whatever you wish to call them) never did to them
Quran’s philosophical value is Zilch my dear friend.
of course. why would the Qur'an wish to degrade itself and become a book of inconsistencies.
I should show you the uselessness of philosophy, but IM afraid that your mind my not be able to bear the burden of falsehood being knocked upside down.
It was Sufis who saved your Islam from an inevitable collapse.
actually, the Sunni Imams stated that this is what destroyed our Islam. That is why we are in the rut we are in. Sufism was stagnation, immobile, useless, which is why the ascetic Hanbali Ibnul-Jawzi, in his Talbis Iblees, destroyed the sufis to the pits of inacceptance for the sunni world. Sufism didn't save Islam, it virtually killed it which is why the scholars have stated
"Sufism is a way that begins with dhikr and ends with kufr"
Likewise Imaam ash-Shafi'ee said "whoever practiced tassawuf in the beginning of the day and comes back for dhuhr (while remaining upon tassawuf) does not come back except an idiot"
You are projecting an Islam that is essentially similar to materialism.
I’m projecting an Islam that is simply reality. it is real and spiritual. It is not the extremism that you have been cultivated upon for however many years.
The only difference is you try to cheat yourself by believing there is a god up in heavens with a hammer in his hand, but...
The whole of the Abrahamic faiths believes that their Lord is above the heavens, only we Muslims do not beleieve He is like His creation Laysa Kamithilihi Shay
That doesn’t amount to spirituality. In essence there is not much difference between Wahhabism and pure materialism. Sorry;
please define for me what is wahhabism.
please, give me references, who said it, were they a wahhabi, and what book.