Paris terror attacks on Friday 13th

[11101]

Christianity hasn't got any power in the West, so testing that hypothesis isn't possible. We in the West don't oppress our own people but we sure will turn a blind eye to oppression, ethnic cleansing and worse if a friendly dictator is the one doing it in his country

Christianity hasnt got any power because most people have moved past using it for that. The test for the hypothesis is simply to look at the current state of the religion and what it used to be like.

 

[Mozza]

Christianity hasnt got any power because most people have moved past using it for that. The test for the hypothesis is simply to look at the current state of the religion and what it used to be like.

People have moved on from Christianity, its not Christianity has moved on from oppression. We still oppress, we just outsource it

 

[diarm]

Load of nonesense, his central point being ISIS is inevitable under Islam. Most Islamic nations through most of history have not resembled anything like IS

I don't think you've understood his central point was at all. The main focus of the article was that by lazily labelling ISIS as non muslim, we are failing to understand them and hindering our attempts to counter them. He wrote an entire section of a long article on an equally severe, but peaceful version of Islam which could stand as an alternative. He spoke of how the power vacuum left after the Iraq war and a fairly unique set of circumstances led to the development of ISIS. Hardly points to suggest inevitability.

Speaking of "most Islamic nations not resembling IS" is just a cop out. It is impressionable youth from all these peaceful Islamic nations who are leaving to join ISIS in their thousands. Clearly something is striking a key with them. You say that IS take their religion from only certain parts of the Quran and Hadith but those parts are spread throughout the texts. Many of the most violent words are located towards the end and by the letter of the Quran, supersede what has been said before.

There are millions and millions of peaceful, decent Muslims. I grew up in the middle east and would never deny that. But there are also many who see substance in the the purest, most literal versions of Islams most violent instructions.

You are using the violence of Christian nations in the middle ages to counter the violence of Islamic nations back then, but ignoring the fact that Christianity has been largely reformed since then (in the West at least - and by the people if not the organisation itself) while we still have barbarianism in the name of Islam.

If you don't take my word on it, or the author of that article, perhaps a former Muslim, religious scholar and son of an imam can say it better:

 

[Mozza]

I didn't lable them non muslim, they are a type of Muslim that is very rare throughout Islamic history and into today. The world would be a very different place is Muslims had acted as ISIS do today when they were powerful.

I didn't say there are no violent verses, but when interpreting the Quran, context and the circumstance under which they were reveled is everything

 

[rpitchfo]

10,500 radicalised in France according to their prime minister and intelligence services. Are we still talking about tiny minorities?

 

[Big-Red]

Glad I'm not the only one who feels that way. Because I do feel like a bit of a cnut for finding something so well-meaning as annoying as I do. I guess I find the whole platform so fluffy and trivial (not to mention nakedly commercial) it seems wrong when it's used to address stuff which is so significant.

All I know is the French lads I talk to appreciated the support, whether through a shit emoji on whatsapp, or a flag on facebook.

 

[prateik]

10,500 radicalised in France according to their prime minister and intelligence services. Are we still talking about tiny minorities?

Don't France have about 5m muslims? That would be around 0.2%.

Not insignificant.. but it's still a tiny minority.
That is ~ 0.015% of the total population

 

[Mozza]

10,500 radicalised in France according to their prime minister and intelligence services. Are we still talking about tiny minorities?

Yes, there are over 6 million muslims in France

 

[CircusMonkey]

10,500 radicalised in France according to their prime minister and intelligence services. Are we still talking about tiny minorities?

Any figures on how many radicalised Americans there are? And what does being radicalised mean? ten thousand mentally ill people? or ten thousand angry disillusioned, disenfranchised people?

What happened in France, was obscene, and no excuses are valid, but France's response serves no purpose but to appease the vengeful. Instead Europe needs to address the 'Ghetto' problems that have developed and see them as prime breeding grounds for this sense of detachment and disillusion.

And as for the French flag Facebook thing, some no doubt feel a sense of shock and sadness and and would like to show some support, although some are using it to further push their agenda and ignorance, as it has been accompanied by an anti islam narrative. And I am pretty sure some would have quite happily changed it to a swastika if they thought they would get away with it.

 

[diarm]

I didn't lable them non muslim, they are a type of Muslim that is very rare throughout Islamic history and into today. The world would be a very different place is Muslims had acted as ISIS do today when they were powerful.

I didn't say there are no violent verses, but when interpreting the Quran, context and the circumstance under which they were reveled is everything

No you said a very well researched and balanced article was "a load of nonsense", before going on to misunderstand its central point.

The way the Quran should be interpreted by educated, rational people is great. But when one faction interprets the words literally, and hundreds of thousands of Muslims from perceived peaceful areas are flocking to follow that faction, the world has a problem which doesn't get solved by people lazily saying "they don't represent real muslims.

 

[Sultan]

It's very likely religious fanaticism creates conditions that are favorable for terrorism. However, religious fanatics do not always cause terrorism because there are many who do not choose terrorism or any form of violence. Basically, there must also be other conditions in the mix that provoke some people to see terrorism as a way of being heard or creating change in their or others world.

 

[Mozza]

No you said a very well researched and balanced article was "a load of nonsense", before going on to misunderstand its central point.

The way the Quran should be interpreted by educated, rational people is great. But when one faction interprets the words literally, and hundreds of thousands of Muslims from perceived peaceful areas are flocking to follow that faction, the world has a problem which doesn't get solved by people lazily saying "they don't represent real muslims.

It's a load of nonsense, there are better rebutals than mine out there. They don't represent real muslims, I can't emphasise enough that most muslims have never behaved like ISIS, so why do the latter represent real muslims?

 

[Sultan]

Religious fanatics are generally people who live a puritanic life. It's a well known fact you will rarely find those who understand religion most like scholars, Imams or those involved with local mosques in acts of worship propagating acts of violence or being involved in any terrorist activity.

Research suggests those involved in violent terrorism are generally known to the authorities as drug takers, petty thieves, and generally drop outs or basically very young adults who hardly understand religion or even God. There is obviously exception to this rules where highly educated intellectuals have been involved.

 

[Adisa]

A security expert on CNN explained that only a small fraction of radicals resort to violence.

 

[diarm]

It's a load of nonsense, there are better rebutals than mine out there. They don't represent real muslims, I can't emphasise enough that most muslims have never behaved like ISIS, so why do the latter represent real muslims?

But they do represent real muslims. They represent the thousands who join their ranks each day and the many thousands more who sympathise with their views.

Just because their are more muslims who don't agree with their views, doesn't mean these people don't represent Islam. Especially when their play book is lifted verbatim from the texts upon which Islam is based.

To say ISIS has basis in Islam is not an attack on the millions of decent, peaceful muslims and I don't know why you are trying to twist it into that. It is simply looking at the issue objectively rather than ignoring it by lazily saying they aren't real muslims.

 

[horsechoker]

But they do represent real muslims. They represent the thousands who join their ranks each day and the many thousands more who sympathise with their views.

Just because their are more muslims who don't agree with their views, doesn't mean these people don't represent Islam. Especially when their play book is lifted verbatim from the texts upon which Islam is based.

To say ISIS has basis in Islam is not an attack on the millions of decent, peaceful muslims and I don't know why you are trying to twist it into that. It is simply looking at the issue objectively rather than ignoring it by lazily saying they aren't real muslims.

Couldn't agree more, who is a real Muslim?

I have a friend that eats pork, drinks alcohol and doesn't pray nor go to the mosque, yet he says he is a Muslim.

Is he a real Muslim somebody who follows every rule and tenant of Islam to the fullest? If so, most Muslims are not real Muslims

If you were practicing all the quintessential aspects of Islam, believe in it wholeheartedly right up until you decide to kill innocent people, does that mean you were never a Muslim despite practising and believing in Islam?

 

[Sultan]

But they do represent real muslims. They represent the thousands who join their ranks each day and the many thousands more who sympathise with their views.

Thousands a day? Thankfully it's a trickle. I would think their numbers are dwindling with many returning or dying whilst fighting.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Religious fanatics are generally people who live a puritanic life. It's a well known fact you will rarely find those who understand religion most like scholars, Imams or those involved with local mosques in acts of worship propagating acts of violence or being involved in any terrorist activity.

Research suggests those involved in violent terrorism are generally known to the authorities as drug takers, petty thieves, and generally drop outs or basically very young adults who hardly understand religion or even God. There is obviously exception to this rules where highly educated intellectuals have been involved.

Not entirely true. I read this morning that the head of Daesh has a doctorate in Islamic studies.

 

[diarm]

Thousands a day? Thankfully it's a trickle. I would think their numbers are dwindling with many returning or dying whilst fighting.

In terms of fighters yes. But the numbers of elderly, women and children reaching the "Islamic State" is larger. There are more than 200,000 militants so the numbers of civilians with them are far larger. Then you have to add the numbers they have hidden in our countries and the huge numbers of sympathisers around the world who can't or won't travel to Syria/Iraq for whatever reason.

 

[Sultan]

Couldn't agree more, who is a real Muslim?

I have a friend that eats pork, drinks alcohol and doesn't pray nor go to the mosque, yet he says he is a Muslim.

Is he a real Muslim somebody who follows every rule and tenant of Islam to the fullest? If so, most Muslims are not real Muslims

If you were practicing all the quintessential aspects of Islam, believe in it wholeheartedly right up until you decide to kill innocent people, does that mean you were never a Muslim despite practising and believing in Islam?

They are Muslims.

However, there are conditions where committing certain actions takes you out of the fold of Islam. Killing innocents is one.

 

[Sultan]

Not entirely true. I read this morning that the head of Daesh has a doctorate in Islamic studies.

Hence, I said rarely. I was talking about foot soldiers committing acts of violence. Those working on radicalising these people are very learned in both politics and religion.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Hence, I said rarely. I was talking about foot soldiers committing acts of violence. Those working on radicalising these people are very learned in both politics and religion.

Ah. Ok. Sorry. My mistake. You're right, of course.

 

[LeChuck]

To follow on from that, the kids carrying out these acts are just angry, disenfranchised youth. Their minds are impressionable and ripe for 'fighting for a higher cause' which people like al Baghdadi exploit.

Especially in France, due to the socio-economic situation of north Africans coming in, they are often living in ghettos, involved in petty crime, with no semblance of a family unit or normal day to day life.

 

[Sultan]

In terms of fighters yes. But the numbers of elderly, women and children reaching the "Islamic State" is larger. There are more than 200,000 militants so the numbers of civilians with them are far larger. Then you have to add the numbers they have hidden in our countries and the huge numbers of sympathisers around the world who can't or won't travel to Syria/Iraq for whatever reason.

You said thousands are joining every day. Multiply that by the years since ISIS came into being then your numbers will seem very dramatic.
Civilians are people who have always lived in that part of the world. They have hardly anywhere to go but to survive in those circumstances. These are the very innocents who are being killed as a consequence of the bombings.

 

[diarm]

You said thousands are joining every day. Multiply that by the years since ISIS came into being then your numbers will seem very dramatic.
Civilians are people who have always lived in that part of the world. They have hardly anywhere to go but survive. These are the very innocents who are being killed as a consequence of the bombings.

But it's not only the people that live in that part of the world. The article we are discussing shows that large numbers of people have been drawn from elsewhere to become a part of the formation of an Islamic State because they feel that is what's right as called for by Islam. Yes others who lived there have tried to escape because they are seen as infidels by these fundamentalists but others are travelling to join, and not only fighters.

Here's another strong article which shows how ISIS don't see us or any infidels as innocents. It also shows that the moderate verses in Islams holy texts, upon which the more peaceful and reformed strings of modern Islam are based, all occur in the earlier stage of Muhammad's career. They were all superseded by the more violent instructions he gave later on. Quite different from the instructions of Christianity which started out violent with the Old Testament and became peaceful later.

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4702/islam-killing-innocents

 

[Sultan]

But it's not only the people that live in that part of the world. The article we are discussing shows that large numbers of people have been drawn from elsewhere to become a part of the formation of an Islamic State because they feel that is what's right as called for by Islam. Yes others who lived there have tried to escape because they are seen as infidels by these fundamentalists but others are travelling to join, and not only fighters.

Here's another strong article which shows how ISIS don't see us or any infidels as innocents. It also shows that the moderate verses in Islams holy texts, upon which the more peaceful and reformed strings of modern Islam are based, all occur in the earlier stage of Muhammad's career. They were all superseded by the more violent instructions he gave later on. Quite different from the instructions of Christianity which started out violent with the Old Testament and became peaceful later.

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4702/islam-killing-innocents

I've not opened any links to articles posted on here.

In fact, it's the first day I'm getting involved in this thread. I did not seem it appropriate to discuss anything as a mark of respect to the dead.

 

[VidaRed]

You Can't Understand ISIS If You Don't Know the History of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia
Alastair Crooke
Fmr. MI-6 agent; Author, 'Resistance: The Essence of Islamic Revolution'

BEIRUT -- The dramatic arrival of Da'ish (ISIS) on the stage of Iraq has shocked many in the West. Many have been perplexed -- and horrified -- by its violence and its evident magnetism for Sunni youth. But more than this, they find Saudi Arabia's ambivalence in the face of this manifestation both troubling and inexplicable, wondering, "Don't the Saudis understand that ISIS threatens them, too?"

It appears -- even now -- that Saudi Arabia's ruling elite is divided. Some applaud that ISIS is fighting Iranian Shiite "fire" with Sunni "fire"; that a new Sunni state is taking shape at the very heart of what they regard as a historical Sunni patrimony; and they are drawn by Da'ish's strict Salafist ideology.

Other Saudis are more fearful, and recall the history of the revolt against Abd-al Aziz by the Wahhabist Ikhwan (Disclaimer: this Ikhwan has nothing to do with the Muslim Brotherhood Ikhwan -- please note, all further references hereafter are to the Wahhabist Ikhwan, and not to the Muslim Brotherhood Ikhwan), but which nearly imploded Wahhabism and the al-Saud in the late 1920s.

Many Saudis are deeply disturbed by the radical doctrines of Da'ish (ISIS) -- and are beginning to question some aspects of Saudi Arabia's direction and discourse.

THE SAUDI DUALITY

Saudi Arabia's internal discord and tensions over ISIS can only be understood by grasping the inherent (and persisting) duality that lies at the core of the Kingdom's doctrinal makeup and its historical origins.

One dominant strand to the Saudi identity pertains directly to Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab (the founder of Wahhabism), and the use to which his radical, exclusionist puritanism was put by Ibn Saud. (The latter was then no more than a minor leader -- amongst many -- of continually sparring and raiding Bedouin tribes in the baking and desperately poor deserts of the Nejd.)

The second strand to this perplexing duality, relates precisely to King Abd-al Aziz's subsequent shift towards statehood in the 1920s: his curbing of Ikhwani violence (in order to have diplomatic standing as a nation-state with Britain and America); his institutionalization of the original Wahhabist impulse -- and the subsequent seizing of the opportunely surging petrodollar spigot in the 1970s, to channel the volatile Ikhwani current away from home towards export -- by diffusing a cultural revolution, rather than violent revolution throughout the Muslim world.

But this "cultural revolution" was no docile reformism. It was a revolution based on Abd al-Wahhab's Jacobin-like hatred for the putrescence and deviationism that he perceived all about him -- hence his call to purge Islam of all its heresies and idolatries.

MUSLIM IMPOSTORS

The American author and journalist, Steven Coll, has written how this austere and censorious disciple of the 14th century scholar Ibn Taymiyyah, Abd al-Wahhab, despised "the decorous, arty, tobacco smoking, hashish imbibing, drum pounding Egyptian and Ottoman nobility who travelled across Arabia to pray at Mecca."

In Abd al-Wahhab's view, these were not Muslims; they were imposters masquerading as Muslims. Nor, indeed, did he find the behavior of local Bedouin Arabs much better. They aggravated Abd al-Wahhab by their honoring of saints, by their erecting of tombstones, and their "superstition" (e.g. revering graves or places that were deemed particularly imbued with the divine).

All this behavior, Abd al-Wahhab denounced as bida -- forbidden by God.

Like Taymiyyah before him, Abd al-Wahhab believed that the period of the Prophet Muhammad's stay in Medina was the ideal of Muslim society (the "best of times"), to which all Muslims should aspire to emulate (this, essentially, is Salafism).

Taymiyyah had declared war on Shi'ism, Sufism and Greek philosophy. He spoke out, too against visiting the grave of the prophet and the celebration of his birthday, declaring that all such behavior represented mere imitation of the Christian worship of Jesus as God (i.e. idolatry). Abd al-Wahhab assimilated all this earlier teaching, stating that "any doubt or hesitation" on the part of a believer in respect to his or her acknowledging this particular interpretation of Islam should "deprive a man of immunity of his property and his life."

One of the main tenets of Abd al-Wahhab's doctrine has become the key idea of takfir. Under the takfiri doctrine, Abd al-Wahhab and his followers could deem fellow Muslims infidels should they engage in activities that in any way could be said to encroach on the sovereignty of the absolute Authority (that is, the King). Abd al-Wahhab denounced all Muslims who honored the dead, saints, or angels. He held that such sentiments detracted from the complete subservience one must feel towards God, and only God. Wahhabi Islam thus bans any prayer to saints and dead loved ones, pilgrimages to tombs and special mosques, religious festivals celebrating saints, the honoring of the Muslim Prophet Muhammad's birthday, and even prohibits the use of gravestones when burying the dead.


"Those who would not conform to this view should be killed, their wives and daughters violated, and their possessions confiscated, he wrote. "

Abd al-Wahhab demanded conformity -- a conformity that was to be demonstrated in physical and tangible ways. He argued that all Muslims must individually pledge their allegiance to a single Muslim leader (a Caliph, if there were one). Those who would not conform to this view should be killed, their wives and daughters violated, and their possessions confiscated, he wrote. The list of apostates meriting death included the Shiite, Sufis and other Muslim denominations, whom Abd al-Wahhab did not consider to be Muslim at all.

There is nothing here that separates Wahhabism from ISIS. The rift would emerge only later: from the subsequent institutionalization of Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab's doctrine of "One Ruler, One Authority, One Mosque" -- these three pillars being taken respectively to refer to the Saudi king, the absolute authority of official Wahhabism, and its control of "the word" (i.e. the mosque).

It is this rift -- the ISIS denial of these three pillars on which the whole of Sunni authority presently rests -- makes ISIS, which in all other respects conforms to Wahhabism, a deep threat to Saudi Arabia.

 

[Ayush_reddevil]

Interesting that CNN are reporting that one of the Bataclav attackers had gone to Syria and his father had followed him there to try to change his mind. After that the parents actually contacted the local police to tell them that their son had gone to Syria and had been radicalised. If this is true then surely serious questions need to be asked about the efforts put in by the French police.

 

[VidaRed]

BRIEF HISTORY 1741- 1818

Abd al-Wahhab's advocacy of these ultra radical views inevitably led to his expulsion from his own town -- and in 1741, after some wanderings, he found refuge under the protection of Ibn Saud and his tribe. What Ibn Saud perceived in Abd al-Wahhab's novel teaching was the means to overturn Arab tradition and convention. It was a path to seizing power.

"Their strategy -- like that of ISIS today -- was to bring the peoples whom they conquered into submission. They aimed to instill fear. "


Ibn Saud's clan, seizing on Abd al-Wahhab's doctrine, now could do what they always did, which was raiding neighboring villages and robbing them of their possessions. Only now they were doing it not within the ambit of Arab tradition, but rather under the banner of jihad. Ibn Saud and Abd al-Wahhab also reintroduced the idea of martyrdom in the name of jihad, as it granted those martyred immediate entry into paradise.

In the beginning, they conquered a few local communities and imposed their rule over them. (The conquered inhabitants were given a limited choice: conversion to Wahhabism or death.) By 1790, the Alliance controlled most of the Arabian Peninsula and repeatedly raided Medina, Syria and Iraq.

Their strategy -- like that of ISIS today -- was to bring the peoples whom they conquered into submission. They aimed to instill fear. In 1801, the Allies attacked the Holy City of Karbala in Iraq. They massacred thousands of Shiites, including women and children. Many Shiite shrines were destroyed, including the shrine of Imam Hussein, the murdered grandson of Prophet Muhammad.

A British official, Lieutenant Francis Warden, observing the situation at the time, wrote: "They pillaged the whole of it [Karbala], and plundered the Tomb of Hussein... slaying in the course of the day, with circumstances of peculiar cruelty, above five thousand of the inhabitants ..."

Osman Ibn Bishr Najdi, the historian of the first Saudi state, wrote that Ibn Saud committed a massacre in Karbala in 1801. He proudly documented that massacre saying, "we took Karbala and slaughtered and took its people (as slaves), then praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds, and we do not apologize for that and say: 'And to the unbelievers: the same treatment.'"

In 1803, Abdul Aziz then entered the Holy City of Mecca, which surrendered under the impact of terror and panic (the same fate was to befall Medina, too). Abd al-Wahhab's followers demolished historical monuments and all the tombs and shrines in their midst. By the end, they had destroyed centuries of Islamic architecture near the Grand Mosque.

But in November of 1803, a Shiite assassin killed King Abdul Aziz (taking revenge for the massacre at Karbala). His son, Saud bin Abd al Aziz, succeeded him and continued the conquest of Arabia. Ottoman rulers, however, could no longer just sit back and watch as their empire was devoured piece by piece. In 1812, the Ottoman army, composed of Egyptians, pushed the Alliance out from Medina, Jeddah and Mecca. In 1814, Saud bin Abd al Aziz died of fever. His unfortunate son Abdullah bin Saud, however, was taken by the Ottomans to Istanbul, where he was gruesomely executed (a visitor to Istanbul reported seeing him having been humiliated in the streets of Istanbul for three days, then hanged and beheaded, his severed head fired from a canon, and his heart cut out and impaled on his body).

In 1815, Wahhabi forces were crushed by the Egyptians (acting on the Ottoman's behalf) in a decisive battle. In 1818, the Ottomans captured and destroyed the Wahhabi capital of Dariyah. The first Saudi state was no more. The few remaining Wahhabis withdrew into the desert to regroup, and there they remained, quiescent for most of the 19th century.

HISTORY RETURNS WITH ISIS

It is not hard to understand how the founding of the Islamic State by ISIS in contemporary Iraq might resonate amongst those who recall this history. Indeed, the ethos of 18th century Wahhabism did not just wither in Nejd, but it roared back into life when the Ottoman Empire collapsed amongst the chaos of World War I.

The Al Saud -- in this 20th century renaissance -- were led by the laconic and politically astute Abd-al Aziz, who, on uniting the fractious Bedouin tribes, launched the Saudi "Ikhwan" in the spirit of Abd-al Wahhab's and Ibn Saud's earlier fighting proselytisers.

The Ikhwan was a reincarnation of the early, fierce, semi-independent vanguard movement of committed armed Wahhabist "moralists" who almost had succeeded in seizing Arabia by the early 1800s. In the same manner as earlier, the Ikhwan again succeeded in capturing Mecca, Medina and Jeddah between 1914 and 1926. Abd-al Aziz, however, began to feel his wider interests to be threatened by the revolutionary "Jacobinism" exhibited by the Ikhwan. The Ikhwan revolted -- leading to a civil war that lasted until the 1930s, when the King had them put down: he machine-gunned them.

For this king, (Abd-al Aziz), the simple verities of previous decades were eroding. Oil was being discovered in the peninsular. Britain and America were courting Abd-al Aziz, but still were inclined to support Sharif Husain as the only legitimate ruler of Arabia. The Saudis needed to develop a more sophisticated diplomatic posture.

So Wahhabism was forcefully changed from a movement of revolutionary jihad and theological takfiri purification, to a movement of conservative social, political, theological, and religious da'wa (Islamic call) and to justifying the institution that upholds loyalty to the royal Saudi family and the King's absolute power.

OIL WEALTH SPREAD WAHHABISM

With the advent of the oil bonanza -- as the French scholar, Giles Kepel writes, Saudi goals were to "reach out and spread Wahhabism across the Muslim world ... to "Wahhabise" Islam, thereby reducing the "multitude of voices within the religion" to a "single creed" -- a movement which would transcend national divisions. Billions of dollars were -- and continue to be -- invested in this manifestation of soft power.

It was this heady mix of billion dollar soft power projection -- and the Saudi willingness to manage Sunni Islam both to further America's interests, as it concomitantly embedded Wahhabism educationally, socially and culturally throughout the lands of Islam -- that brought into being a western policy dependency on Saudi Arabia, a dependency that has endured since Abd-al Aziz's meeting with Roosevelt on a U.S. warship (returning the president from the Yalta Conference) until today.

Westerners looked at the Kingdom and their gaze was taken by the wealth; by the apparent modernization; by the professed leadership of the Islamic world. They chose to presume that the Kingdom was bending to the imperatives of modern life -- and that the management of Sunni Islam would bend the Kingdom, too, to modern life.

"On the one hand, ISIS is deeply Wahhabist. On the other hand, it is ultra radical in a different way. It could be seen essentially as a corrective movement to contemporary Wahhabism."


But the Saudi Ikhwan approach to Islam did not die in the 1930s. It retreated, but it maintained its hold over parts of the system -- hence the duality that we observe today in the Saudi attitude towards ISIS.

On the one hand, ISIS is deeply Wahhabist. On the other hand, it is ultra radical in a different way. It could be seen essentially as a corrective movement to contemporary Wahhabism.

ISIS is a "post-Medina" movement: it looks to the actions of the first two Caliphs, rather than the Prophet Muhammad himself, as a source of emulation, and it forcefully denies the Saudis' claim of authority to rule.

As the Saudi monarchy blossomed in the oil age into an ever more inflated institution, the appeal of the Ikhwan message gained ground (despite King Faisal's modernization campaign). The "Ikhwan approach" enjoyed -- and still enjoys -- the support of many prominent men and women and sheikhs. In a sense, Osama bin Laden was precisely the representative of a late flowering of this Ikhwani approach.

Today, ISIS' undermining of the legitimacy of the King's legitimacy is not seen to be problematic, but rather a return to the true origins of the Saudi-Wahhab project.

In the collaborative management of the region by the Saudis and the West in pursuit of the many western projects (countering socialism, Ba'athism, Nasserism, Soviet and Iranian influence), western politicians have highlighted their chosen reading of Saudi Arabia (wealth, modernization and influence), but they chose to ignore the Wahhabist impulse.

After all, the more radical Islamist movements were perceived by Western intelligence services as being more effective in toppling the USSR in Afghanistan -- and in combatting out-of-favor Middle Eastern leaders and states.

Why should we be surprised then, that from Prince Bandar's Saudi-Western mandate to manage the insurgency in Syria against President Assad should have emerged a neo-Ikhwan type of violent, fear-inducing vanguard movement: ISIS? And why should we be surprised -- knowing a little about Wahhabism -- that "moderate" insurgents in Syria would become rarer than a mythical unicorn? Why should we have imagined that radical Wahhabism would create moderates? Or why could we imagine that a doctrine of "One leader, One authority, One mosque: submit to it, or be killed" could ever ultimately lead to moderation or tolerance?

Or, perhaps, we never imagined.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alast...ia_b_5717157.html?ir=India&adsSiteOverride=in

 

[Sultan]

But it's not only the people that live in that part of the world. The article we are discussing shows that large numbers of people have been drawn from elsewhere to become a part of the formation of an Islamic State because they feel that is what's right as called for by Islam. Yes others who lived there have tried to escape because they are seen as infidels by these fundamentalists but others are travelling to join, and not only fighters.

Here's another strong article which shows how ISIS don't see us or any infidels as innocents. It also shows that the moderate verses in Islams holy texts, upon which the more peaceful and reformed strings of modern Islam are based, all occur in the earlier stage of Muhammad's career. They were all superseded by the more violent instructions he gave later on. Quite different from the instructions of Christianity which started out violent with the Old Testament and became peaceful later.

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4702/islam-killing-innocents

I can provide a million links to counter the link you provide. Obviously people will post links which suit their particular agendas.

 

[LeChuck]

But it's not only the people that live in that part of the world. The article we are discussing shows that large numbers of people have been drawn from elsewhere to become a part of the formation of an Islamic State because they feel that is what's right as called for by Islam. Yes others who lived there have tried to escape because they are seen as infidels by these fundamentalists but others are travelling to join, and not only fighters.

Here's another strong article which shows how ISIS don't see us or any infidels as innocents. It also shows that the moderate verses in Islams holy texts, upon which the more peaceful and reformed strings of modern Islam are based, all occur in the earlier stage of Muhammad's career. They were all superseded by the more violent instructions he gave later on. Quite different from the instructions of Christianity which started out violent with the Old Testament and became peaceful later.

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4702/islam-killing-innocents

Anyone can take verses out of context, add a bit of nonsense and fit an agenda around it.

 

[diarm]

Anyone can take verses out of context, add a bit of nonsense and fit an agenda around it.

Which verses have been taken out of context?

In which context are phrases like these not violent:

"I will cast fear into the hearts of the unbelievers. Therefore behead them and cut off all their fingertips."

"Slay the unbelievers wherever you come upon them, take them captives and besiege them, and waylay them by setting ambushes."

If anything, you could argue it is the verses about "not killing innocents" which have been taken out of context when you consider that these people do not consider us innocents.

 

[diarm]

I've not opened any links to articles posted on here.

In fact, it's the first day I'm getting involved in this thread. I did not seem it appropriate to discuss anything as a mark of respect to the dead.

Unless people start discussing these issues openly and honestly, and without taking offence where none is given, solutions won't be found. Discussing them does not show any disrespect to the dead.

I can provide a million links to counter the link you provide. Obviously people will post links which suit their particular agendas.

So please post them. We are all just trying to understand the issues better.

By the way, a read through this thread alone will show my position has shifted somewhat based on some of the articles and reasoning posted. No agenda, just an attempt to learn about the reasons these people have to hate us.

 

[2cents]

It's a load of nonsense, there are better rebutals than mine out there. They don't represent real muslims, I can't emphasise enough that most muslims have never behaved like ISIS, so why do the latter represent real muslims?

It's not up to us to pass judgement on who is a 'real Muslim'. The point of the article is that the Islamic State's theology draws on traditions with a firm basis in Islamic texts which can be seen recurring throughout history. To take one obvious example, the concept of jihad. You don't have to look very hard throughout Islamic history to find examples of well established empires/dynasties justifying imperial expansion in terms of the obligation of jihad - in Umayyad, Abbasid and Ottoman times it was commonly regarded as a duty of the caliph to wage war against infidel armies once a year, and the basis of this practice was stated to be certain Qur'anic verses and traditions of Muhammad.

Plenty of movements have sprung up throughout Islamic history which may be compared with ISIS - the Wahhabi movement is an obvious example, but comparisons may also be drawn with the Sokoto Caliphate of the same time, the Mahdist state of 19th century Sudan, the jihad of Syed Ahmad Barelvi in early 19th century India, and going back further you might look at the Berber dynasties that conquered Spain in medieval times. Generally Islamic movements which managed to establish stable power on this basis soon settled into a more moderate reality of co-existence with those non-Muslim minorities who came under their control and those non-Muslim powers they came into contact with on their frontiers. The classic example of this would be the Ottomans, who evolved from a relatively minor Turkish tribe waging jihad on the frontier against the Byzantines into a sophisticated, cosmopolitan empire which drew as much on Byzantine traditions as on classical Islamic ones. Nobody would seriously compare ISIS to the Ottoman Empire, but both drew on an established tradition of offensive jihad.

Nobody, however, is saying that jihad has to be understood this way, and that those Muslims who understand it as a purely defensive action, or as a more contemplative, internal struggle for self-improvement, are any less authentic for doing so. These understandings are equally firmly based in the scripture and historical examples also abound. Furthermore, no account of the Islamic State is complete without understanding the unique circumstances which have given their interpretation of jihad appeal across a broad (though shallow) spectrum of Muslim society at this particular time - the impact of Western economic, cultural and military dominance, the failure of secular regimes, the rise of Saudi oil money, the crisis of overpopulation and unemployment, the fight for resources, the role of the autocratic family hierarchy, etc. Consideration of these factors shows the limitations of referring solely to Islamic texts and historical examples for our understanding.

 

[Revan]

@2cents , are you Muslim, or just studied Islam?

 

[2cents]

@2cents , are you Muslim, or just studied Islam?

No, I'm from a non-religious Catholic background. Have studied Islamic history for a few years now.

 

[Revan]

No, I'm from a non-religious Catholic background. Have studied Islamic history for a few years now.

Cool!

Thanks for all your posts in CE. Have learned a lot reading them.

 

[Sultan]

It's not up to us to pass judgement on who is a 'real Muslim'. The point of the article is that the Islamic State's theology draws on traditions with a firm basis in Islamic texts which can be seen recurring throughout history. To take one obvious example, the concept of jihad. You don't have to look very hard throughout Islamic history to find examples of well established empires/dynasties justifying imperial expansion in terms of the obligation of jihad - in Umayyad, Abbasid and Ottoman times it was commonly regarded as a duty of the caliph to wage war against infidel armies once a year, and the basis of this practice was stated to be certain Qur'anic verses and traditions of Muhammad.

Plenty of movements have sprung up throughout Islamic history which may be compared with ISIS - the Wahhabi movement is an obvious example, but comparisons may also be drawn with the Sokoto Caliphate of the same time, the Mahdist state of 19th century Sudan, the jihad of Syed Ahmad Barelvi in early 19th century India, and going back further you might look at the Berber dynasties that conquered Spain in medieval times. Generally Islamic movements which managed to establish stable power on this basis soon settled into a more moderate reality of co-existence with those non-Muslim minorities who came under their control and those non-Muslim powers they came into contact with on their frontiers. The classic example of this would be the Ottomans, who evolved from a relatively minor Turkish tribe waging jihad on the frontier against the Byzantines into a sophisticated, cosmopolitan empire which drew as much on Byzantine traditions as on classical Islamic ones. Nobody would seriously compare ISIS to the Ottoman Empire, but both drew on an established tradition of offensive jihad.

Nobody, however, is saying that jihad has to be understood this way, and that those Muslims who understand it as a purely defensive action, or as a more contemplative, internal struggle for self-improvement, are any less authentic for doing so. These understandings are equally firmly based in the scripture and historical examples also abound. Furthermore, no account of the Islamic State is complete without understanding the unique circumstances which have given their interpretation of jihad appeal across a broad (though shallow) spectrum of Muslim society at this particular time - the impact of Western economic, cultural and military dominance, the failure of secular regimes, the rise of Saudi oil money, the crisis of overpopulation and unemployment, the fight for resources, the role of the autocratic family hierarchy, etc. Consideration of these factors shows the limitations of referring solely to Islamic texts and historical examples for our understanding.

Again, a brilliant and fair assessment.

 

[2cents]

Cool!

Thanks for all your posts in CE. Have learned a lot reading them.

The standard of discussion of these things on Redcafe is a cut above most other places on the internet IMO. I learn stuff every day on here.

 

[Sultan]

So please post them. We are all just trying to understand the issues better.

By the way, a read through this thread alone will show my position has shifted somewhat based on some of the articles and reasoning posted. No agenda, just an attempt to learn about the reasons these people have to hate us.

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/06/30/schuster.column/