or Shanina ?
Changes in Arabia
- Thread starter 2cents
- Start date
- Status
or Shanina ?
When you're belittling the contributions of thousands of Pakistani soldiers dead fighting the war on terror then I may also question the validity of Osama's death. Both ridiculous assertions if I may add.
It's too simplistic and wrong to blame all the violence on Wahabbism. the leading Wahabi scholars have always denounced terrorism, suicide bombing etc.. the Saudis have themselves been victims of terrorism in the past, i'm not a fan of the Wahabi doctrine but it's inaccurate to place the blame of the issues on Wahabi Islam, that's not to say certain wealthy individuals for their own reasons mostly political are funding terrorists. As others have posted in this thread the issues stem from the way the middle east maps were drawn up, placement of puppet regimes and royal families.
I'm not belittling them, I'm sure they all signed up with benevolent intentions to serve their country and defend their families, but unfortunately I think they're pawns to their extremely corrupt superiors. Its pretty much the same with every country in the 'Muslim' world, so don't interpret it as me directly attacking Pakistan.
I think its true to say that the problems initially stem from the irresponsible carving up of arbitrary borders thanks to European imperialists, but Wahabi doctrine is probably still the biggest reason we have this radicalisation epidemic in the world and why organisations such as ISIS and Al Qaeda maintain a healthy stream of funding and support.
Simply redrawing borders isn't going to rectify the problems at hand, if anything it'll only exacerbate things most likely.
Also, what's Shanina?
Think you can say that about any army in the world not just Muslim.
But these people are not following the scholars of Wahabism so there's more to it, politics, power and money is what these people feed on.
To an extent, yes, but it seems to be particularly prevalent in nations like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt etc. Don't read too much into my 'Muslim' labelling, I was referring to the volatile South Asia-Middle Eastern region.
Right, but where is it the power and money sources from? Who's funding these extremist movements? Who are their biggest political backers? You trace the answers to those questions and it all comes back to one primary source.
It's not just redrawing borders. But that's the first step. Also, could you expand on how you think it would exacerbate the problem?
Anyway, blaming Wahhabism for the problems in the Middle East is just false. The problem lies with the leaders of these different countries and the people's conflict between nationalism and religion. (Wasn't it Khomeini that said nationalism is paganism?). I actually agree with him to an extent. We saw the same internal conflict in the World Wars when Indian Muslims (at the behest of Britain) were fighting Turkish Muslims.
The 'radicalisation', as you put it, is actually a reaction to the arbitrary borders, the nationalism, and the corrupt rulers. It didn't start off in that vein.
Yes and these people are backing them because of their own personal beliefs/agenda not because of Wahabism as a group objective, if you follow a creed/sect in Islam you follow your scholars teachings of the school you follow, and Wahabi scholars do not promote radicalisation.
I don't even know where to begin with the problems that would arise from redrawing borders.
Firstly, who would redraw them? If we trust certain powers with that responsibility we're doomed to repeating the same mistakes that got us in this regional kerfuffle in the first place. Furthemore, how would you even divide the land? By religion? By tribe? By sect? Not to mention you're setting a very precarious precedence by giving some groups autonomy while ignoring others (Let's not forget that that there dozens of different tribes, sects, religions and creeds in the Middle East, are we going to oblige them all with their own land?)
You're right in that radicalisation sources from a plethora of causes - I haven't yet mentioned western foreign policy and corruption and marginalisation of the masses as key reasons. But I still stand by the notion that Wahabism acts as the heart and lifeline for these extremist movements that have unfortunately flourished over the last couple of decades. Yes, we should definitely target the sources that underlie this radicalisation, but until we're there we'd do well to silence and curtail the hand of the influential Wahabi elite that have been so instrumental in nourishing these extremist jihadist movements. Would ISIS be around today even without Wahabist support? Perhaps. Would they be just as strong or resourceful as they are without them? I'd wager most likely not.
Right, but this relationship between ISIS and the Wahabi elite is built more on money and politics than on common spiritual beliefs. The Wahabis see Shia Iran as their gravest threat so they deem it necessary to actively support extremist Sunni movements as they wreck havoc on Iran's Shia allies. There's perhaps no spiritual alignment, but there is an overlap regarding resentment towards the Shia.
I've written about this type of solution (redrawing of maps etc) elsewhere (not on these forums), I'll see if I can find them and repost.
I disagree-the root cause isn't Wahabism. Considering a lot of IS' recruit are European/Western based, without any real exposure to Wahabism, this would negate it being the cause of radicalisation.
The radicalisation stems from people having their formative years spent under the premise of the West's 'Wars on Terror' (both East and West). The people of Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan, Palestine and more recently, Syria, Egypt, Libya etc have grown up every day wondering if they'll see another. I can't imagine living under these circumstances. Who's being held to account here? I've said it many times before, but I really feel for the people of the Middle East.
This is what is happening on a day to day basis, and it'll be a never ending cycle.
I'm sorry, but there's a lot wrong with this post. For my take on why Wahhabism isn't the issue, see my response to Kaos above.
I don't understand why you would advocate West and UK intervention. If you believe that the Saud dynasty is the problem...well, the West and the UK were the ones who put him there in the first place. The 'Kingdom' of Saudi Arabia is a purely Western construction. See also: the current states in Syria, Iraq, Jordan (in terms of monarchy). Having typed that out, it would see a typical Western thing to do to put a leader in place and then come back a period of time later, to remove him, heroically.
I think you misread his post, he's not advocating intervention (quite the contrary in fact). He's only making the reasonable suggestion that the west shouldn't give favourable treatment to despotic regimes such as the Saudi kingdom, especially as it doesn't even give other regimes such the Iran's the same leeway.
aka-why is the West duplicitous?
If I recall its the Iraqi version of Lassi, similar to Iranian Doogh, or Turkish Ayran.
I'd be interested to see this as well - I presume your proposals don't resemble this in any way:
From this, I get the impression that you read my views against "Wahabbism" - saw that I'm not a fan - then read the bit about "the West" - assumed I'm pro-Western/anti-Saudi (or is that anti-Muslim?) - and then hastily wrote your reply along your own misconstrued narrative. From this alone, I believe everything you have written on the topic (that I can see in this thread) is undermined, because you've missed the point in the most monumental of ways.
Actually, I want the total opposite and a complete severance with the Arab monarchies, especially Saudi Arabia - underlined by the ending of arms sales.
Of course, this is an utter pipe dream because Britain (and France) are the most entrenched countries in the Gulf. U.A.E was a colony until 1971. The Saudi's were quick to fill the void left by Imperial Iran and cosy up to Britain, buying all sorts of arms and investing billions back.
But we reap what we sow from this relationship. ISIS, Taliban, Al-Qaeda, Al-Nusra, Al-Shabab, Boko Haram, etc... all base their laws on Wahabbism. It's export is the root cause, which like a virus has spread to the point where it has now evolved into something more tangible and threatening, where before it was just confined within Saudia Arabia's closed borders.
However, this is not a sectarian war. The proxies fighting in Syria and Iraq are all a very brutal distraction, in my opinion, to the larger issue at hand. Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Israel are heavily addicted to, mainly American, military aid. Watching Iran - with a population of 80 million of massive potential - come back in from the cold is something of their worst nightmares. They likely fear for their own dynastic survival. Or, in Netanyahu and Likud's case, re-election.
All the while, genocides are committed by all sides and 3000 years of culture is destroyed in the process.
A much shorter and equally accurate understanding of the point I was making.
What laws? What do you actually know about Wahhabism apart for what you have read in the media? Have you even read Kitab ul Tauheed? Do some research and you'll find you couldn't be far more from the truth. You'll be hard pressed to find a reputable Wahabi scholar to fit your narrative. If anything these terrorist groups are more akin to Khawarij than anything else.
Last edited:
More akin to Khawarij and Hashahins, I'd like to add.
I'm beginning to think this thread has gone off-track....
(Totally team India here btw)
(Totally team India here btw
)WTF ?
Yemenis convinced Iran, Hezbollah fighters ‘conducting operations’
RIYADH: ARAB NEWS
Shiite rebels, known as Houthis, wearing an army uniform, ride on an armed truck to patrol the Sanaa International Airport in Sanaa, Yemen, in this March 28, 2015 photo. (AP)
Published — Tuesday 31 March 2015
Last update 31 March 2015 2:46 pm
There are Iranian military officers and Hezbollah fighters on the ground aiding the Houthis in Yemen, according to a senior official in the Yemeni president’s office.
The Houthis are also deliberately striking certain areas in the city and blaming it on the coalition forces to gain support and sympathy, said Mukhtar Al-Rihbi, press secretary for the Yemeni president.
Al-Rihbi said that ousted Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh is not in the Beihan region in southern Yemen. “All our sources in Shabwa does not confirm that news. We have information that points to Saleh being in the northern Sanhan region, the place where he was born in.”
Mohammad Al-Awadi, head of the preparatory committee of the South Congress, has praised the initiative of Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Salman to restore order in Yemen. Space has now been created for Yemeni groups to reconsider their positions before joining the expected peace talks in Riyadh.
Al-Awadi said battles are continuing on the ground, especially in the southern governorates of Aden, Shabwa and Al-Daaleh, with young men bravely fighting against the Houthi militias. He said Iran’s presence is spreading in the northern areas.
“I expect there is coordination with the coalition forces because they know the Houthis are present there.”
He said air strikes have been carried out by the coalition forces on military installations.
He said the Houthis are launching repeated attacks on Aden, Al-Daleh and Shabwa but are meeting stiff resistance. There are also attempts by their militia to control the Bab Al-Mandeb Strait and Al-Thawra areas in Hadramout and Shabwa, he said.
Al-Awadi said there is no religious strife in south Yemen, with people united against the Houthis.
Classic Iran trying to recreate a Safavid empire.
50 years ago (1962-1967 to be precise), the Saudis were supporting the Zaydis and their Imamate in the civil war in what was then North Yemen, against an Arab Nationalist Republican regime backed militarily by Nasser's Egypt. It perhaps indicates that Saudi interest in Yemen is driven by something more than just 'Sunni-Shia' animosity or whatever.
Egypt lost about 20,000 troops in that war, which became known as 'Nasser's Vietnam' and became famous for the first (at least since the British used them in Iraq in 1920) noted use of chemical weapons in the region.
Here's Nasser discussing the Saudi role in that war in 1962:
"Each one of their [the Egyptian troops] shoes are more honorable than the crowns of King Saud and King Hussein."
Also, here's a contemporaneous report from Patrick Seale which well describes the difficulties Egyptian troops faced in the mountainous terrain of North Yemen:
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/world/the-war-yemen
Egypt lost about 20,000 troops in that war, which became known as 'Nasser's Vietnam' and became famous for the first (at least since the British used them in Iraq in 1920) noted use of chemical weapons in the region.
Here's Nasser discussing the Saudi role in that war in 1962:
"Each one of their [the Egyptian troops] shoes are more honorable than the crowns of King Saud and King Hussein."
Also, here's a contemporaneous report from Patrick Seale which well describes the difficulties Egyptian troops faced in the mountainous terrain of North Yemen:
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/world/the-war-yemen
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/20/us-yemen-security-usa-navy-idUSKBN0NB28Q20150420
Perhaps this will slow the influx of weapons from Khamenei.
Perhaps this will slow the influx of weapons from Khamenei.
Stop drinking the sectarian kool aid, you sound like a Wahabist ffs.
Quite ironic its coming from you.
Sectarian handbags all around.I'm a staunch secularist who cares little for religion funny enough, but keep clutching.
Sure you do, judging by your posts.
Anyway, the Saudis say they are stopping the bombing campaign.
You're obviously not a very good judge then.
@Kaos - a staunch secularist unless it involves Shia Iran, it seems.
I've made my views on religion very clear - I don't care for it. I've also made my disdain towards the Iranian regime equally clear. But again I'm arguing with someone who champions the FSA so I'm hardly surprised you're obsessed with your amusing 'safavid' description.
And yet, you're a supporter of Shia Iran and all their proxies which makes me think that you do care (about religion). Not that there's anything wrong with that.
But yes, the Safavid quip was nothing more than a quip.
I bet not one of those supporting assad over the terrorists is a shia on this forum.
- Status