re: The Problem is the Saudis

quote:

---

Do you not see the tenuous string drawn here? The Taliban is similar to a different school of thought, that has an offshoot that is a different thing.

---

So that is my original response about Hamas, which came from an off-shoot of Muslim Brotherhood, which came from Sayyid Qutb and Hasan al-Banna, who are revered in Wahhabi/Salafi literature, and are arguably the most important thinkers in the jihadist movement. The connection from Hamas to Wahhabi/Salafi Islam is fairly strong.

In terms of the Taliban, the issues are multifaceted. They are a Deobandi movement, which is very South Asian in orientation, but have found little support from the traditional node of Hanafi power, Turkey, and instead found lots of drive from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Not only this, the Deobandi's are explicit that the madhhabs of Sunni jurisprudence should be the only ones Muslims follow, which pits them against Islamic minorities, which again they find overlap with the Wahhabi/Salafis. Pakistan used and uses the Taliban as a way of controlling Pashtun nationalism, which threatens the very existence of Pakistan, and is a existential threat to its existence. The Deobandi movement was mostly isolated to the subcontinent until the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, when more overlaps began to form between Arab fighters and Pashtun native fighters.

It's a distinct movement with its own history, but other schools of Islamic revival don't have nearly the overlaps that the Deobandis do with the Wahhabi/Salafis.

This also begs the question as to what separates the Islamic schools from one another. They aren't quite as well-defined as sects, as there is some degree of overlap, but the main difference is the books of laws each madhhab studies and uses to offer jurisprudence. The Wahhabis generally stick to people like Ibn Taymiyyah, while the Deobandis follow Hanafi guidelines, but much more strictly than the Turks for example.

quote:

---

No, the Saudis are trying to drag their people into modernity. That's the opposite of a Muslim theocracy like Iran. That's why radical Muslim groups want the monarchy gone. It will not be replaced with democracy. It will be replaced by a council of Mullahs like Iran and SA will become a sponsor of terrorism 10x more than you perceive them to be now.
That's why the US wants good relations with SA. The royal family is sane. Mullahs are not.

---

Hole frick you are a KSA apologist

The Saudis are not trying to drag their people into modern times. Its people have wanted this and the only reason this is being done now is bc MBS knows if the Kingdom does not protray being with the times, that the western world will not work with them when the oil dries up.

Iran was always a leader compared to the Arabs in terms of being with modern times. Even today as an Islamic republic it was well ahead of the Arab nations.

Once again Iran state terrorism is to grab regional power

Saudi's is a war on the west and non Muslims.

I think that for the most part we are in agreement. Saudi Arabia is a bad place with a lot of bad people. Sunni Islam (Wahhabi or not) is fraught with ideology that generally is no friend to the West. I also don't think the Saudi government is "good' but the alternative scares the hell out of me.

As far as Iran I see them as the inverse of the Saudis. Iran is a nation of fairly reasonable people (by regional standards) ruled by the crazies. Saudi Arabia is a nation of crazies ruled by fairly reasonable (though self-serving and vicious) people.

I simply object to the idea that the Saudis are the cause of all the problems.

quote:

---

You are literally arguing my case. You can't blame the Saudis for everything. Individual groups/nations/etc have their own histories and motivations that cause conflict. Then why did you side against me with the guy who says "The Problem is the Saudis" when I say the Saudis are part of a pile of problems.

---

The Iranians could be any religion, and they would likely have problems with the US. That was my point.

The Saudis are the major problem for one reason, which I can contextualize with some examples. During the colonial exercises, France, Russia and others tried various de-Islamification efforts, which mostly involved breaking up the older Sufi orders, which was a tremendous event for those communities. This occurred both in places like Algeria and Central Asia, where the Hanbali school had no sway. After those efforts succeeded in breaking up traditional Islamic institutions, Saudi money came in, filling the void, exporting the once isolated Hanbali school to regions which had no connection to Wahhabi ideology. That Wahhabi ideology developed in an anti-colonial milieu also gave it great appeal, and its focus on ignoring nationality and ethnicity gave it a globalizing drive. Do you realize how revolutionary it is for an Islamic ideology to be able to work across cultures, when the Islamic world has been effectively split for a millennia?

When I suggest that the Saudis are the problem, it's because they are the main problem, the main driver of the problem, as they are the group that saw, quite astutely, that there was a major hole in Islamic institutions in places like Algeria and Kazakhstan, areas with no historical overlap, and filled that need with an ideology that is extremely damaging to both the Islamic world and the world as a whole. Yes there are many problems in the Islamic world, but the main one is the efforts by the Saudis, especially in the 90's, but also to this day, of funding mosques and madrassas that are effective vehicles for the Wahhabi theology.

What makes Wahhabi theology so revolutionary is that it rejects a whole slew of jurisprudence that was developed from the 13th century onward, and instead retreats to specific texts, which invite antagonism against Islamic minorities and non-Muslims to a degree not seen since the early Islamic invasions.

quote:

---

No, the Saudis are trying to drag their people into modernity. That's the opposite of a Muslim theocracy like Iran. That's why radical Muslim groups want the monarchy gone. It will not be replaced with democracy. It will be replaced by a council of Mullahs like Iran and SA will become a sponsor of terrorism 10x more than you perceive them to be now.
That's why the US wants good relations with SA. The royal family is sane. Mullahs are not.

---

This is basically a propaganda pamphlet tucked into the National Review.

quote:

---

Hole frick you are a KSA apologist

---

Nope. I'm educated. You're ignorant.

quote:

---

The Saudis are not trying to drag their people into modern times. Its people have wanted this and the only reason this is being done now is bc MBS knows if the Kingdom does not protray being with the times, that the western world will not work with them when the oil dries up.

---

Totally wrong. It's the exact opposite. The royals have been sending their kids to US and European colleges for decades. And when we're talking family we're talking 1,000s of people.
Their govt has built modern highways, buildings and military bases.
The Saudi people OTOH are not interested. They still frick camels.

quote:

---

Iran was always a leader compared to the Arabs in terms of being with modern times.

---

They were... a long time ago. The nation has regressed under the theocracy.

quote:

---

Once again Iran state terrorism is to grab regional power

---

No. Iran is run by rapid Mullahs who want the caliphate to rise to power and destroy the infidel. That's why they sponsor global terrorism.

quote:

---

Saudi's is a war on the west and non Muslims.

---

Totally wrong. SA hosted the US in Gulf War I as a base and the SA fighter pilots did a lot of combat duty. The US soldiers said SA facilities were first rate. SA also vetoed OPEC demands to cut oil exports to the west countless times.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

quote:

---

The royals have been sending their kids to US and European colleges for decades.

---

And that has done nothing to change Saudi Arabia.

But why would it? It’s four years living in the west. The don’t arrive on our shores and suddenly abandon their culture and values.

The strong contrasts often strengthen their traditional values.

quote:

---

OK, your level of ignorance is beyond hope. Have a nice day.

---

Iran is far more moderate.

quote:

---

They were... a long time ago. The nation has regressed under the theocracy.

---

Iran is significantly less religious now than it was under the Shah.

quote:

---

No. Iran is run by rapid Mullahs who want the caliphate to rise to power and destroy the infidel. That's why they sponsor global terrorism.

---

No, they don't want a caliphate. They certainly want to return to the heydey of the Persian empires. Again, the majority of terrorist groups in the world are Sunni Islamists, who are diametrically opposed, through doctrine, to Shias, who they refer with the slur, rafida. Why would Iran, the largest Shia country in the world, sponsor groups who has slaughtered Shia people in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Pakistan and Afghanistan? Among their main justifications for entering Iraq and Syria was to protect Shia shrines as well as to provide security during various Shia pilgrimages to those shrines.

quote:

---

And that has done nothing to change Saudi Arabia.

---

So, you don't believe in human nature? Interesting.

quote:

---

But why would it? It’s four years living in the west. The don’t arrive on our shores and suddenly abandon their culture and values.

---

SA students haven't been coming here to take Gender Studies. They are in STEM fields. Particularly engineering and economics. It's been going on since the 70s so they have sent their children and grandchildren to US colleges.
They assume important positions in SA cabinet positions, banks, factories, etc. They are not interested in engaging in the finals battle to end the world like the Mullahs in Iran.