Taliban are not Wahabbi. They are Deobandis. Wahab's objective was to return to a simpler version of Islam without the innovations introduced by the Ottomans and drive the Turks off the Arabian peninsula. The fear was of a return to idolatry..
Taliban are taliban. They did not exist until the Arab fanatics arose and as I said, Afghan children were given a fanatical education sponsored by the Saudi's with a blind eye from the Americans. You should check out http://www.rawa.org/index.php. They say it as it was....so the young kids who grew up to become Taliban, were taught religious fanaticism which was sponsored by Saudi and had nothing to do with their Islamic or Afghan heritage. Sorry does not work. That is possibly true but there is a big difference between what one wants and the way one goes about getting it particularly when one decides to be literalistic and be brutal to those who think/act differently to what you want.
The Taliban were war orphans... Why didn't the Afghanis teach them? Remember the Soviet installed government collapsed and the country was a lawless, illiterate mess after two decades of war. I am a Christian who grew up surrounded by Wahabbis.. without any problem.
What are you saying here? That because Afghan refugees needed support, it was fine to give them a fanatical education. I got most of my information on this from RAWA. They were there. They did say that the education was far more extreme than in SA, but nonetheless, these children were brainwashed to become relgious fanatics and this was sponsored by the Saudi's and supported by the US. I do not believe it is right to use innocent children in this way simply because they have become orphans or are refugees. I know you have strong feeling for Saudi Arabia and you may have had a good time there. That changes nothing in what I have said.
RAWA? When the Taliban rose to power they tried to stop the rapes, highjackings and production of opium poppies.. and no question they were heavy handed.. but blaming a 'Saudi education'... is basically ridiculous..
I left the link. I really don't have time at the moment to shuffle through all their docs to find the right one. You are not reading what I said. I said the education was far more extreme. According to Rawa all they were taught was religious fanatism at the expense of even a basic education and the history of Afghanistan. I know the Saudi's funded it and that both they and the US knew the kids were receiving a fanatical religious education........ which is where we get back to where we came in. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0411.hirsh.html
One point that might be considered as to why only about 1% of the population watched the CA sessions. Maybe the people are disillusioned with the process because of past occurrences, both recent and historic? About the drafting of the Egyptian Constitution. Was the hand of the U.S. involved at all? I ask because if the U.S. and its European counterparts have any hand in it, Egypt will never bee at peace, by peace I do not mean quiet, I mean at peace: freedom, justice, equality.
Argh I cannot believe this. My reply disappeared with that log in thing. No, it is because he is right. How people from Ataturk and particularly as written by Bernard Lewis see Islam, is not true. The reason Salifism has spread about the world are twofold. One because of the West's in particular the US's friendship with SA and secondly due to political reasons. The US believed it was going on a crusade and had to defeat Islam. All it could see was radical Islam which we could say has it's roots in SA. It was certainly Salifism which got British Muslims off fighting in wars abroad and being terrorists when how they were acting was totally against their Islamic heritage...but that is not the Islam of most Mulsim's heritage. Islam is not traditionally literalistic. It has changed through the centuries and we have found we can work with it. He says we need to stop seeing Islam in this false way, beginning with SA and brought to it's worst with Al Qaeda, Taliban types but allow people in Muslim countries to refind their own Islam for themselves. This has got muddled up with colonisation/oppression/dictatorship/world politics. He says we should not expect Muslim countries to come up with an identikit of western democracy but rather to find their own and that Tradition Islam itself may be one of the biggest helps in creating a just and humanitarian democratic future in Muslim lands. we also should not forget that the church had a good deal to do with the early formation of Western Democracy. Try to stand back and be a bit more objective. Try reading Hirsh's article before dissing it. (now I have other things to do)
The British had very little contact or influence on the Arabian Peninsula. How did Salafism have anything to do with the British?
The long standing problem that is not just with Islamic affairs but with everyone else is that before entering into alliances with powers outside of their own, never once was it examined as to whether or not such an alliance is good for the whole. Now that is the democratization of the affairs between all nations, clans, tribes and peoples. Often it has been the alliance between the alliance makers who are not representative of the whole. You better believe that those "Western" negotiators are coming from the position that is beneficial to themselves without any consideration of anyone else. Once they get there proverbial feet over the threshold, it is curtains for the host. The simple solution to this is top not deal with them at all. If you continually choose to allow their influence, there will always be turmoil and that turmoil will be the end of any established order that you may seek to bring peace to yourselves, your nations and your peoples. Take Qaddafi for instance. Had he never entered into agreements with European nations in a stance of weakness, the turmoil taking place in Libya would not be. Egypt is the same. Mubarak was the West's "man" until his usefulness was no longer needed. Believe it or not, Europe and America are in the M.E. and their purpose for being their is to never leave. Knowing this, all alliances with them are futile unless unity among the nations over there is solidified under true equality, justice and freedom. This means to rid yourselves of all things that prohibit this such as "race", nationalism, gender, religion, tribalism, ideology, etc. These are the causes of the breaking about of the true Muslim Brotherhood when Prophet Muhammad ibn Abdullah (PBUH) was around and it will remain so until what he warned Arabs about is taken heed to. He told you that there is no superiority in Islam, ALL ARE EQUAL IN ALLAH. Anything short of this will end in failure but don't take my word for it, after all I am just a child of the people who were duped and sold into slavery to the Westerners.
Has any of these people who are protesting and rioting actually read the draft constitution? Its a darn good document from my perspective and addresses the needs of a modern state. One can be suspicious of Morsy for his grasping total power particularly because MB has been demonized by nearly everyone not a MB member. It would be tragic if this extraordinary power was not reliquinshed the moment the consititution was approved. But, a constitution that has the following will be a strong and true foundation for Egypt to become a modern productive state: freedom of expression, religion, travel, assembly equality of genders balance of powers between parliament, shura, Executive and judiciary term limits free healthcare free education (for women too) support for working mothers presumption of innocence habeus corpus It also states that Egypt is an Islamic state and sharia is the basis of law. Now people might freak at the mention of "sharia" law, but it should be said that like any ancient body of laws, there's all kinds of stuff in sharia that is just not applicable in a modern society. Its like the Christian bible - nobody is put to death for cursing or striking their parents. Given the scope and depth of the draft consititution, whole swaths of sharia will not be applicable. Egypt is not yet a democratic country. It has had one free and fair election. It is still trying to sort out how political power should be used. The "liberals" walking out and boycotting is an infintile political strategy that has NEVER worked. Morsy made a mistake with the power move. Democracy is frustrating and the president of a democratic state has some limitations to his power, that fledgling democracies need to be very very careful with. As yet, I haven't heard any official feedback from egyptian sources on the draft constitution. When and/or where can we expect some?
Of course everyone is out to serve their own needs. That is the way of the world. Its called realpolitik. As for all being equal under allah - that is a noble sentiment that goes against human nature and the natural order of things. In an ideal world, everyone would be pious but that is not the case. Just like the westerners that have exploited the ME for their own interests, there are Middle Easteners who behave exactly like that with their own compatriots. There are even muslims who use their religion to control and manipulate their co-religionists and in doing so corrupt religious interpretations. There has never been a successful society in history where all were equal and I doubt there ever will.
Here Margot you can read about how it came to the UK http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=12846
whahhabism: A contaminate that poses itself as Islam that comes from the fraudulent Sauds of Arabia in there fight to maintain power and accumulate wealth on the deaths of their so-called Arab brothers. Any one who preaches or teaches violence as Islam is not a Muslim and if Muhammad (PBUH) were alive today, he would out a sufficient end to them. The Sauds, friends of wealth, glamour, decadence, immorality and other types of perverse existence. To boot, they are allies with the biggest murderers of world population that has ever existed. Why people still deal with them is beyond me and all logical reasoning.
What if Islam isn't an obstacle to democracy in the Middle East but the secret to achieving it? http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0411.hirsh.html Pretty interesting.. I don't think we understand Arabs very well.
"The popularity of Salafism in the UK is attributable to the convergence of the globalization of Salafi discourse, the search for religious identity among second generation British Muslims seeking “pure” religion, and the competition for recruits between rival Islamic currents. British Salafism has become diversified to such an extent that it is no longer recognizable as a single movement, with the development taking unexpected turns that belie popular monolithic representations." http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=12846
At last you have read the article. That is what I have been saying from the beginning - though not Wahhabism.
I suggest you read the whole article. You inquired how I knew that UK Muslims going off to fight wars abroad or being involved in terrorism came from the Salifis. You will find the answer in that article.
I did.. The Saudis were tricked into hosting the US forces on the peninsula.. and I don't know anyone in Saudi Arabia who admired OBL.... You may recall that the US promised King Fahd that they would leave when the war was over... yet they stayed 13 years. Relations between Westerners and the Saudis are generally very good and have been since the 1930s... but the American oilmen were very clear that they didn't arrive to change their culture, traditions or faith.. NO missonaries. So, there was a pervasive attitude of mutual respect. and ARAMCO did their best to prevent the US gov from meddling. I believe that is why KSA developed so differently and with less conflict and turmoil than did Iraq, Iran and Syria. I don't see the Salafi as all powerful throughout the world..
I don't believe for one minute you have....but if you have you will know that what I told you was so. Our terrorists and those who went out to fight abroad got it from Salafism. Thankfully the UK had people who were able to get involved with these people and sort a lot of them out as you would have found out if you had really read the article. Margot, it is a waste of my time to reply to you because all you are interested in is deflection. You do not address issues which are raised just throw in this and that bit of nonsense. I have given this enough of my time.
You think the Salafi are the source of terrorism? Who do you think are fighting the terrorists in Arabia and delivering intel to the US and the West to prevent terror attacks? Who do you think is guarding the Saudi border withYemen to keep terrorists and arms out of the country? The Wahhabi have been fighting terrorists for over a decade. The Brits were warned not to allow the misfits and crazies to immigrate.. but what they are NOT is salafi or wahhabi.
