Archive | November 2, 2013

Wahhabism as a Tool of Colonialism*

Wahhabism as a Tool of Colonialism*

By Montea Cristo

 

If Al Saud’s initial success could be owed to the spirit of violence, killing Muslims and plundering their assets, its subsequent achievement would undoubtedly be thanks to the British government’s economic, political and military aid. This is so that any analysis of the issue would be futile without considering the UK’s role.
Although Al Saud used the slogan of monotheism to justify its performance until the fall of the second Saudi and Wahhabi period, in the beginning of the third era Wahhabism itself turned into means of advancing Britain’s goals in the Islamic world.

In the past, cooperation between Wahhabism (belief) and Al Saud (politics and power) provided the grounds for development of the Wahhabi doctrine. In recent years, however, collaboration between political Salafism (Al Saud Wahhabism) and the UK and US colonialism replaced the former so that Saudi-UK relations are currently regarded as unique.

Indeed, the question is how a movement, which claims of monotheism and trimming religion and also considers as lawful blood, property and honor of Muslims and believers under the guise of fighting against polytheism, becomes accomplice with a colonial power such as Britain and preserves its interests along with the holy shrines?

The Basis for Wahhabi ideas grew in the shadow of power and politics. In the internal dimension, there is no doubt that the relationship between Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab and Muhammad ibn Saud, the emir of Al-Diriyah, guaranteed the survival of Wahhabism.

But another important question is that how could Wahhabism manage to resist barriers and pervade its invitation without strong beliefs and even charismatic leadership?

At that time, Wahhabism faced at least two major obstacles. First, the public and Muslim scholars’ opinion, according to which the movement by Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab was contrary to the principles of Islam. The opposition was so widespread that included even Wahhab’s father and brother.

Second, it faced opposition from local rulers. Emirates of Riyadh and Eynieh were in disagreement with the Wahhabis. Riyadh’s administration passed on between Saudi emirs for years. Following a success in clampdown on the Saudis, the Egyptian army sent Saudi emirs to Istanbul and beheaded them to set examples for false claimants.

However, in complete surprise, a thought that was unable to develop in its origin and was destroyed, took root in another country and grew in exile.

With a little reflection, it could be understood that deviant movements became able to persist and continue growth when they gained the support of Britain.

Britain, on which the sun never set before, realized in the beginning of the twentieth century that the time has passed from the old colonial era and also direct presence in its colonies. As a result, it decided to find ways in order to be present in other countries indirectly. Therefore, the method of colonialism changed in Islamic countries and the so-called neo-colonialism emerged.

One of the UK’s most important policies concerning the issue was to create discord and division among Muslims in order to prevent their convergence for Islamic unity and ultimately thwart the establishment of Muslim Ummah. The best strategy to reach that goal was generating factions and Takfiri movements among Muslims. Consequently, Britain pressed ahead with the creation and support of deviant movements.

The colonial policy was pursued in two axes. First, it focused on finding people who could follow the objectives of colonialism by forming fake faiths. Second, the policy centered around supporting deviant and anti-religion movements in the Islamic world, such as liberal, nationalist or Salafi movements that contradict transcendental teachings of the religion.

In regard with Wahhabism, the question is that did the British colonialism form the sect from the beginning and lead the deviant movement before the call by Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab or did the UK recognize and revive divisive features, which are in line with its policies in Islamic countries, after Wahhab’s call especially in the third Saudi period?

Clearly, if Britain’s role in the creation of the sect could be denied, its part in the revival of the school after Wahhab’s death and his exit from the peninsula could not be ignored.

But of course, there is evidence, indicating the relationship between British spies and Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab in his studying time prior to unveiling his invitation.

In a book titled “Memoirs of Mr Hempher”, the British spy Hempher explains in details his relations with Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, the way to instill doubts and the approach to form Wahhab’s deconstructive character.

Meanwhile, some people disputed the book’s authenticity, saying it was written by opponents of Wahhabism and there was no such a person in the history. But the spread and admissibility of the book in scientific assemblies show that there are certain elements of truth in it. What confirms the accuracy of parts of the book’s content is data about Wahhab’s personality, beliefs and teachings.

In fact, having a look at the nature of Wahhabism’s call, we could obviously notice teachings of colonial schools, including excommunication of all Muslims, fight against their public beliefs, using doubts to create uncertainty and dispute in the Islamic community, permitting the blood of Shia and Sunni Muslims, destruction of Islamic monuments and sacred places that results in the loss of Muslims’ religious identity, and finally battle with concepts such as recourse, pilgrimage and building shrines over graves that cause separateness between future generations and previous outstanding teachings.

In political dimension, Wahhabism took steps completely in line with the UK’s objectives despite claims of fighting against polytheism and reviving monotheism.

Now, even if we admit that Britain played no role in the creation of Wahhabism and in the education of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, we could have no doubts at all about the UK’s part in the revival of the sect. Both arguments lead to one specific conclusion. Although the school of Wahhabism may not be inherently made by colonialism, it fully performed its job, which concentrated on implementing the goals of colonialism in the Islamic countries.

Source*

Related Topics:

Saudi Admits to Collaborating with Syrian Armed Terrorists*

Saudi Prince Joins the Opposition

Putin Threatens Strike on Saudi if US Attacks Syria*

US, Saudis-Israeli, Qatar “Arab Spring Coup” in Sudan*

The Grand Scam: El-Baradei and his Liberal Elites*

Drilling for Water Greens the Saudi Deserts

Bulldozing Islamic Heritage

Advertisements

Normalizing the Rampant Barbaric Crime of Pedophilia*

Normalizing the Rampant Barbaric Crime of Pedophilia*

By Lisa Guliani

Controversy, once again, swirls faster than the Autumn leaves, as news of the American Psychological Association’s (APA) revised definition of ‘pedophilia’ hit the streets in the Fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DSM V, the book that spells out the standards of practice used by the mental health industry.

The uproar concerns what appeared to be a redefinition of pedophilia as an ‘orientation’ in the DSM V, in May 2013. When it was released, apparently there was a text error that nobody got around to addressing until Halloween. The book incorrectly referred to pedophilia (a paraphilic disorder) as an ‘orientation’.

Yesterday, October 31, 2013, the APA released a clarification on this matter because the error had opened up such a fat can of worms, I guess they couldn’t ignore it much longer.

It reads in part, as follows:

 

“Sexual orientation” is not a term used in the diagnostic criteria for pedophilic disorder and its use in the DSM 5 text discussion is an error and should read “sexual interest.” In fact, APA considers pedophilic disorder a “paraphilia,” not a “sexual orientation.” This error will be corrected in the electronic version of DSM 5 and the next printing of the manual.

APA stands firmly behind efforts to criminally prosecute those who sexually abuse and exploit children and adolescents. We also support continued efforts to develop treatments for those with pedophilic disorder with the goal of preventing future acts of abuse.”

Still another ‘controversial’ issue revolves around paraphilics and pedophiles themselves. There are pedophilia advocacy groups like B4U-ACT ( a non-profit group based in Maryland) whose members include registered sex offenders, that have been putting increased pressure on the mental health community to “de-stigmatize negative societal attitudes toward minor-attracted persons.”

It seems pedophiles are starting to become more assertive and aggressive. . .  A growing number of them have expressed that they’re being made to fear, being stereotyped, and are not shown enough sensitivity because of their sexual preferences. Let’s all be reminded of the object of their sexual preferences: children, very frequently children under the age of 13.

We’re told that these paraphilics and pedophiles are being ‘denied’, as expressed in this statement from Paul Christiano, registered sex offender and spokesperson for B4U-ACT: “According to Christiano, people must be allowed to celebrate sex and sexuality, “one of the few freely-given pleasures in life.” The community of minor-attracted persons is, as a whole, “denied their complexities.”

We’re denying pedophiles their ‘complexities’. How does that one grab ya?

Christiano and pedophilia advocacy groups seek to change the way society views pedophiles. The rest of society, if we follow along with Christiano’s theme song, should strive to be more sensitive and understanding of the sexual preferences, compulsions and fantasies of people who want very much to rape our kids. Many of them don’t settle for fantasizing and their ‘fantasies’ are fulfilled, at the expense of every sexually abused child in this country, and throughout the world.

Pedophiles need to be shown some love by society, is that right? So now we need to worry about making the pedophiles happy and more comfortable as they walk around preying upon our kids, whether in their heads or overtly?

Psychology Today explains paraphilia and paraphilic disorders as such:

“A paraphilia is a condition in which a person’s sexual arousal and gratification depend on fantasizing about and engaging in sexual behavior that is atypical and extreme. A paraphilia can revolve around a particular object (children, animals, underwear) or around a particular act     (inflicting pain, exposing oneself). Most paraphilias are far more common in men than in women. The focus of a paraphilia is usually very specific  and unchanging.

A paraphilia is distinguished by a preoccupation with the object or behavior to the point of being dependent on that object or behavior for     sexual gratification.

Paraphilias include sexual behaviors that society may view as distasteful, unusual or abnormal. In descending order, the most common are pedophilia (sexual activity with a child usually 13 years old or younger), exhibitionism (exposure of genitals to strangers), voyeurism (observing     private activities of unaware victims) and frotteurism (touching, rubbing against a nonconsenting person), while fetishism (use of inanimate objects), sexual masochism (being humiliated or forced to suffer), sexual sadism (inflicting humiliation or suffering) and transvestic fetishism (cross-dressing) are far less common. Some of these behaviors are illegal and those who are under treatment for paraphilias have often encountered legal situations surrounding their behaviors. There is also a category called Paraphilia Not Otherwise Specified to cover paraphilias not falling     into the already named diagnoses such as those involving dead people, urine, feces, enemas and obscene phone calls.

If you’re unfamiliar with the distinctions between the words ‘paraphilia’ and paraphilic disorder, the DSM V explains

 Change to Diagnostic Names

In DSM-5, paraphilias are not ipso facto mental disorders. There is a distinction between paraphilias and paraphilic disorders. A paraphilic disorder is a paraphilia that is currently causing distress or impairment to the individual or a paraphilia whose satisfaction has entailed personal harm, or risk of harm, to others. A paraphilia is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for having a paraphilic disorder, and a paraphilia by itself does not automatically  justify or require clinical intervention.

 So if someone is considered paraphilic, they may want to rape your child, but they don’t necessarily do it. In my mind, those people still pose a risk to society because nobody can guarantee that they won’t end up raping your child.

What is also rather disturbing are pedophilia advocacy groups that seem to want a change in policy, and a change in how we as a society view pedophiles and minor-attracted individuals. We should be more ‘sensitive’ to their preferences, needs and fantasies, and be okay with it all. Pedophiles don’t want to live in fear of being stigmatized and stereotyped, just because they want to rape your kid. In other words, pedophiles have feelings too. Are you totally nauseous yet?

Some of what I’m taking from all this is, we’re now supposed to empathize with people who think in this very pathological way, many of whom attempt to, and succeed in, putting their fantasies into active practice. They’re predators, people! I’m not as concerned with the APA’s bland definitions as I am with the fact that there are individuals out there trying to get the rest of us to view their predation as something ‘normal’ and ‘innocuous’ and they’re targeting kids, as they have for generations.

Some, like Christiano, advocate for the sexual autonomy of children, so they can be free to explore their sexuality openly, which, of course, also seems to smell a bit strongly of advocacy for a reduction or elimination of the age of sexual consent. Is this what we really want to see in this society? Are we not crumbling as a culture, as a species enough as it is? Does it strike anyone else as absurd or appalling or obscene, or as an assault on human dignity? Does it cause the acid to rise in the back of your throat, now that we’ve got registered sex offenders and wanna-be rapists who want us to give them the ‘thumbs-up’ on their twisted thinking? We’re supposed to be more ‘sensitive’ to what they’re going through?

Are they kidding, or what? What about the children? Is anybody out there concerned with protecting the children? We have to worry about protecting and placating the pedophiles now? Seriously? Says who? The guy who wants to rape your 3 year old? This is our world today, a world in which every wrong can be rationalized and justified by some lame psychological contortion, bent into a pretzel, and lobbied and peddled to an already largely wounded, over-medicated, dumbed-down public as ‘acceptable’.

We see that our government mass murders innocents left and right all over the world and hardly anyone here in the U.S. bats an eye, but what do Americans have to say about the needs of pedophiles here in the old land of the free and home of the brave? Are you that ‘brave’ or so without conscience that you’d willingly let your kid hang out with a paraphilic or registered sex offender because their wants, needs and feelings matter, too?

Hardly anyone seems to care about what happens to the children of people in foreign lands at the hands of psychopaths, but what about your own kids? Do you think the age of sexual consent should be reduced or eliminated? If so, to what age? Should pedophiles be encouraged to express their compulsions and fantasies in supportive environments of other like-minded predators? What if they want to widen their stage, let’s say, to television?

Should society consider someone who wants to rape your child as ‘innocuous’ as long as they don’t ‘consummate’ with your child? Do you really think anyone can guarantee that those who think about our children in this context can be trusted to not put their fantasies into practice, ever? Should they be allowed to work with children, or be around children at all? In a world with a moral compass, the answers would be swift, obvious, and to the point, in my view. But we live today in an increasingly conscienceless world. Lines between right and wrong are being erased.

Does the peace of mind of the person who wants to rape your child now take precedence and priority over the peace of mind of your child? Of anyone’s child?

Do we really want to see pro-pedophile advocacy groups apply enough pressure to change existing legislation that protects children from being victimized? How will a new ‘sensitivity’ toward paraphilics and pedophiles manifest on the streets and in the cities of this country with regard to laws pertaining to sexual harassment? Sex offender registration lists? In schools and houses of worship? Remember, we already have a huge problem with sexual predation of children in this country, and throughout the world, much of which goes unreported.

Can you simultaneously entertain and accept the idea that if there is no ‘consummation’, there is no ‘problem’? There’s no problem as long as the paraphilic/pedophile keeps their ‘junk’ in their pants? Should they even be talking to kids? What do pedophiles expect of our current culture? Should the rest of society placate predators and psychopaths and ‘understand’ that they’re really ‘just like us’, except for one teeny tiny exception: they want to rape our kids.

Since when do we need to consider the wants and needs of sexual predators? What about the wants and needs of their victims or potential victims?

WHO is going to speak out for and protect the children? Should it now be okay to sexually harass children in school (or anywhere) as long as there is no ‘consummation’?

Anybody think to ask the long list of victims of sexual abuse what they think and feel about the lobbying efforts of pedophile-advocacy groups, or the pressure that’s being applied and maintained by them politically and within the mental health community to ‘normalize’ their compulsive predation? Anybody out there ever think about asking the children in this country what they think about being on the menu at a predator’s feast? Does anyone ever bother to ask the children anything at all? Whose child should be sacrificed in order to placate the people who want to rape our kids?

WHO is looking out for the children?

Source*

Related Topics:

Ontario’s Former Deputy Minister of Education Charged on 7 Counts of Child Exploitation

British Paedophilia Victim Speaks Out!*

Child Sacrifice and Trafficking in Holland, and Abroad: An Eyewitness Comes Forward and Names her Torturers – An Exclusive Breaking News Report from ITCCS Central Office and its Dutch Affiliates

The Desecration of Childhood

Never Underestimate the Consciousness of an about to be Born!*

Personal Freedom, or My Freedom vs. Yours?*

Moroccans Say No Royal Pardon for Spanish Elite Paedophile Network*

Boy Scout of America Encyclopaedia of Sexual Abuse 1947 -2005

‘Third Gender’ Official in Germany from November

The Paedophilia Past of Eurozone’s Chancellor Merkel’s Coalition Party*

Newborns Being Stolen from top Uganda Hospital*

Common Core Education Standards Teaches Fourth Graders about Pimps!

Parent Arrested for Questioning the Common Core Curriculum*

Barbarism Rules: Mind Control and Satanism in America*

Mass Arrests, Resignations & Retirements of the Elite*

Priest under House Arrest for Sexual Assaults*

Disappearing Children Behind a Wall of Secrecy

Egypt Court Rules against Banning Porn Websites*

Priest Arrested for Sexual Abuse Spanning 37 years*

Another Paedophile Elite Charged!*

Classified Sane Today, Insane Tomorrow!

Who Owns Your Body?‏

War on Faith and Family Continues

Eugenics: A Child with Four Biological Parents

Paedophile Scandal Leads to Improved Regulations at Last*

Justice at Last: Death Sentences for Indian Rapist – Murderers*