Why is Wahhabism or wahabis hated

There is no such thing as Wahhabism. It is an attack on people who follows the Quran and Sunnah as the previous generations did


Kick in the door wavin the .44
IMO Islam is the religion of the learned. It is the religion of the scientists and artists. So it irks me when I see wahabis reduce the magnificence of Islam to a list of haram things. It irks me when I see them claim ‘enlightenment’ ( in art or science) started in the west or that women being treated like a human is a western invention. They give too much credit to the west.

The reason this happens I believe is that most wahabis ( at least in my neighbourhood) are poorly educated people, and often reformed road men/women. Their lack of education narrows their world view. Also, because they are usually outsiders to society, it makes it easier for them to criticise and call everything haram.


Forza Somalia!
Can anyone explain. I know sheikh Mohamed bin Abdul wahhab tried to stop the spread of paganism and grave worshipping of sheikhs. Other than that Wikipedia says it’s a sect of Islam that calls non wahhabis gaalo
Always they come with 1 or 2 good things that they did, stop some ppl in Arabian peninsula from turning Islam to paganism or grave worshiping. Ok what about many horrible other things that they did. Like blindly killing anybody who disagree with them, or doesn't come under their submission? Like the houses whom were rivals to house of saud. Political killing to anyone who wasn't with Saudis. Like the massacres their religious militias have done in Kuwait, massacres just for establishing border lines between Kuwait and the new Saudi kingdom. And more.


People using the name of Salafism/Wahabism have ruined the reputation of Islam and now people associate it with Khawarij behavior.

Salafism is just following the path of the first 3 generations and refraining from the innovation that come after them, which I believe is correct.
It is cancerous, it encourages terrorism and violates basic human rights such as freedom of expression and women rights.

TL;DR: Free speech doesn't exist. Don't let murtads and munafiqs trick you.

Liberals are firmly committed to free speech, as a core value.

Free speech doesn’t mean absolutely free speech. Absolutely free speech is an obvious straw man, positing no middle ground between manifestly insane absolute rights and nice tame rights within due limits. Everyone who is committed to free speech agrees that there should be some limits on speech. We just don’t want to live under an inquisitional speech restricting tyranny.

Free speech means that permissible speech should be permitted, while impermissible speech should be suppressed and punished. It means we should take a live and let live approach to regulating speech.

So free speech, at least as understood by reasonable liberals, is restricted speech: speech circumscribed within limits. The terms “free” and “restricted” are interchangeable. For reasonable non-ideological liberals, free means the same thing as restricted.

Limits on speech which should be in place are called “limits on free speech”. (Everyone agrees that there needs to be limits on free speech).

Limits on speech which should not be in place are called “political correctness” (with an ironic inflection).

Now even though the terms “free” and “restricted” are interchangeable, the term “free” must be used when describing free speech. It is unfair and ridiculous to propose that we stop calling free speech “free speech”. It is not advisable to use the term restricted speech to refer to free speech, even though they are really the same thing. Using the term “free” focuses attention the the fact that some speech is permissible and allowed, while minimizing the fact that some speech is impermissible and punished.

If someone points out that by free speech we mean restricted speech, the best course is to scoff and point out again that of course every sane person believes that there are limits on free speech (which we shall continue to call “free speech”). The term “free” attaches the configuration of speech empowerments and restrictions that we prefer to the liberal slogan “freedom”. Everyone supports freedom! People who don’t support reasonable freedoms – as well adjusted people understand them – are bad people, nazis or worse.

Freedom, of course, means crushing dissent from the configuration of empowerments and restrictions our society considers good – or that our team is convinced society ought to consider good – under the boot of emancipation. What @Hassan mahat would like is a world where he gets his way to do zina with his Jewess girlfriend to his heart’s content and any who think otherwise can’t say anything, that’s all.
The problem is that those who oppose Salafism cannot refute by using Allah swt words or the Prophet saw. the only arguments they are coming with are the arguments kuffar comes up with
Hassan mahat said:
I only do that to those who exhibit extremism tendencies.
Is it extremist to think committing zina is haram?


No but if you are willingly to cut someone's head over it then it's extreme.

I explicitly said "is it extremist to think committing zina is haram?" Not once did I mention the hadd punishment for fornication (which would not be beheading but lashing in this instance).

I am no acolyte of Ibn Abdul Wahhab either. I do not approve of the actions of the First Saudi State, the Second or the Third.