Right, Brigitte, about what seems like overreaction compared to reality. If anything, this temporary turmoil may force new thinking on all sides toward a solution. To squelch discussion seems odd.
I sincerely believe that Islam can reform itself and it may yet happen. And I will be so bold as to suggest that yes, it needs reform, just as the Catholic Church did. People suffered greatly for “heresy” that become common belief later. You may still find Catholics that resent Martin Luther, but no one can deny the excesses of the Inquisition.
I sincerely believe that the Reformation unleashed a chain of events that led to Western culture having the capacity to feel contrition for its past acts, even as its adherents continued to do bad things to other people. I do not get that from Islam at this time; the fatwas continue and it wasn’t until Beslan that there seemed to be a moment of self-reflection followed by public comment by Islamic clergy. I have never heard anyone from within Islam question the way in which that religion was spread about the world, and continues to be spread in Africa, whereas I know of no serious person that thinks the Crusades were a good idea or that the Catholic conquest of the New World was not a genocidal disaster.
I think that religious people of all kinds WANT a doctrine or even dogma that they can feel faithful by obeying, but the basic tenets of Judeo-Christianity seem to have reformed while it hasn’t (to my limited knowledge) happened within Islam. This makes a difference. It’s worrisome to me that, in order to be a “good” Muslim, one would obey some of the more draconian tenets of the Koran. The whole non-Muslim world is relying on one of two things: 1) that Muslims are a bit lax in practicing their faith or 2) that they are rendered powerless so that they cannot practice their agenda elsewhere.
As for the Wahabi, I am not saying that the entire sect wants to kill me, but its chilling to think that the fundamentalists ones in fact want me to convert or die by beheading. Yes, we have fundamentalists here and they preach things that make people feel very bad about their lifestyle, choices, tendencies etc. But none of 'em are commanding folk to go slaughter anyone. The fact that so many young Muslims are willing to blow themselves up is chilling evidence to me that their faith does have a violent core and that there is a difference between that fundamentalism and say, Christian fundamentalism.
I’m sending elendil a PM so he can straighten you out about the Inquisition. His Netinyahoo (oops on sp.) man proved it was all overblown, remember?
It stretches my credulity to equivocate passages in the Koran (to the Bible) commanding the faithful to “kill the infidels in their towers,” …I know that the Judeo-Christian Bible has some pretty hairy solutions in the Old Testament for social lapses, but once again, this is a process of Reformation and change over the years
There are some eery similarities but I’ll not point them out for the sake of “Peace to all.”
I’ve been searching on Wahhabism for an hour or so,
and what I’m finding is confusing. The info largely
conflicts. The term ‘Wahhabism’ apparently isn’t used
by the people it denotes; it’s a term of belittlement,
I think. They prefer ‘Salafis.’ They are conservative,
opposing changes that appeared in Islam, yet
much of this seems theologically reasonable–
for instance, they oppose prayers to saints,
graves, etc. as polytheistic. In this they remind
me of protestants.
OBL is a Wahhabist, according to some sources;
is not one according to others. Some sources, that
appear not to be unreasonable, say that the
movement rejects terrorism, also that many
in it reject OBL–too innovative. Also he has
attacked the Saudi regime, which they support
and which supports them.
Some say that
these people wish to impose what they believe on Moslems
by force; others deny this–though it seems plain
that they are proselytizing actively among Moslems and are
well funded. There is no indication so far that they are interested in
converting non-Moslems. The Taleban are not
Wahhabists, apparently.
Very hard to understand what’s going on; some of it
looks like hate mongering by Westerners with
a religious or political axe to grind. However
some of the responses on the other side might
be ‘Wahhabi’ disinformation.
Right, although I’d prefer to use a term like ‘jihadist’ for the more extreme forms of Islam. (Even that term is potentially misleading because a jihad doesn’t have to involve physical violence.)
One of the most damaging partial successes of Al Quaeda is to make more and more Moslems and Westerners unaware that Islam has a choice. It can be more conservative or it can be more relaxed. By making it seem that all of Islam was pitted against its implacable enemy, the hope was to engineer the defeat of moderate Islam. They haven’t had anywhere near as much success as they’d like, but America has certainly given them the help they were seeking after September 11.
Just to clarify on Wahabism. The Saudi royal family does not represent this strand of Islam so militant Wahabists would like to see them ousted. But they rule in Saudi Arabia largely because they have reached an accomodation with the Wahabists. Part of that accomodation involves not reining them in when they finance, organise and sponsor radical Islamist (jihadist) movements outside Saudi Arabia.
Don’t people find it puzzling that we hear of actual or possible war against Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Syria but never against Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, even though those countries seem to be the major sponsors of anti-US terror? I would think that the administration must have figured it out by now but clearly they would not want to bring democratic freedoms to Saudi Arabia.
Don’t people find it puzzling that we hear of actual or possible war against Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Syria but never against Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, even though those countries seem to be the major sponsors of anti-US terror? I would think that the administration must have figured it out by now but clearly they would not want to bring democratic freedoms to Saudi Arabia.
That’s an easy one: “terrorism” has little or nothing to do with your current war, beyond supplying the excuse.
Based on what I’ve been able to read, I had been of the impression that a large number of heavily anti-Western madrasas/religious schools throughout the Islamic world are/were Wahabist in origin and heavily funded from Saudi Arabia.
I have also read that the alliance between the Saudi rulers and Wahabist clerics was forged when the Saudi kingdom was established because the rulers could not rule without the support of clerics, and Wahabist clerics were willing to align themselves with the new kings. If true, this is an ironic fact, because the Saudi ruling family was installed by the British to ensure that British interests in the area would be upheld. So the rise of virulently anti-Western Wahabism around the world may have been facilitated by the West’s own manipulation of the Arabian power structure.
Here’s something about it from PBS. I would be inclined to think it is relatively objective:
For more than two centuries, Wahhabism has been Saudi Arabia’s dominant faith. It is an austere form of Islam that insists on a literal interpretation of the Koran. Strict Wahhabis believe that all those who don’t practice their form of Islam are heathens and enemies. Critics say that Wahhabism’s rigidity has led it to misinterpret and distort Islam, pointing to extremists such as Osama bin Laden and the Taliban. Wahhabism’s explosive growth began in the 1970s when Saudi charities started funding Wahhabi schools (madrassas) and mosques from Islamabad to Culver City, California. Here are excerpts from FRONTLINE’s interviews with Mai Yamani, an anthropologist who studies Saudi society; Vali Nasr, an authority on Islamic fundamentalism; Maher Hathout, spokesperson for the Islamic Center of Southern California; and Ahmed Ali, a Shi’a Muslim from Saudi Arabia.
Here’s a quote from Maher Hathout, “a senior adviser to the Muslim Public Affairs Council and the spokesperson for the Islamic Center of Southern California,” which appears to corroborate what I mentioned above:
After all, Muhammed bin Abd al-Wahhab is the one who paved the road for Abdul Aziz ibn Saud, the patriarch of the family, to conquer the rest of the [Arabian] Peninsula and to rule. So there is very great cohesiveness between the two.
Right on both counts, Jerry. (That’s partly why Jim was getting mixed messages when he looked up Wahabism; politics in the Arab world is immensely subtle and complex.)
Democracy in Saudi Arabia would be a disaster for America. The administration must try to put pressure on the Saudis, knowing full well that they can’t really respond in anything but limp symbolic ways. Also expect Saudi Arabia to distract attention from themselves by making proposals for peace in the middle east that look good to the innocent but could never be accepted by either major player.
Wahabist madrassas can be found as far afield as Indonesia and the Phillipines. But it would probably be alarmist to assume that any but a very few Indonesian Islamic schools are anywhere this extreme.
