Saudi Arabia...

Larry Gude

Strung Out
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.

Pretty simple.
 

mamatutu

mama to two
I guess it is time for Saudi Arabia to get their butts up from their golden plated chairs, and do something besides make money. Many countries are responsible for this barbaric outrage that is ISIS, or whatever they want to call themselves. I still can't believe Obama negotiated the Bergdahl exchange, and trusts Qatar that they have those 5 guys under control. What a mess of epic proportions. Maybe, if Obama goes over there and bows to them again, it will fix everything. IMO, they are just waiting for Obama to leave the WH and go fight for jihad. You don't have to live in Minnesota to do that.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
I guess it is time for Saudi Arabia to get their butts up from their golden plated chairs, and do something besides make money. Many countries are responsible for this barbaric outrage that is ISIS, or whatever they want to call themselves. I still can't believe Obama negotiated the Bergdahl exchange, and trusts Qatar that they have those 5 guys under control. What a mess of epic proportions. Maybe, if Obama goes over there and bows to them again, it will fix everything. IMO, they are just waiting for Obama to leave the WH and go fight for jihad. You don't have to live in Minnesota to do that.

Did you read the article?

A large part of the issue is that a LARGE part of Saudi Arabia, especially people in power, are publicly and privately supportive of the fundamental, purist view of Islam. We have got to stop thinking of this as 'terrorists' or 'extremists' or 'radical'. It is NOT.

Consider. In the United States, a land founded on life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, rights of the INDIVIDUAL, rights that further include the right of free speech including freedom of religion, of keeping AND bearing arms, it is extreme or radical to go the other way and support more and more central control OVER the individual. Look at what the press calls 'conservatism' when it tries to insist the individual is supposed to be served by the state and not the other way around, that the right to self defense, to home school, to defend borders, to constrain government; TEA party? Extremists. Rush Limbaugh? Radical! Right to carry a pistol or own an AR; extreme radical!

This is not to say conservatism of a kind with a fundamental view of Islam in terms of methods and means but, it is to point out what societies do to people who hold fundamental views. Conservatives want you to have the choice, the freedom, to do as you see fit as long as it doesn't violate the rights of others. Wahabi Islam wants you to choose either to conform or die. This is the weird juxtaposition of what we think of in our society about liberalism and conservatism and then it's relationship to other worlds, in this case, Islam. We call 'fundamentalism' in our world, conservatives, people who want fundamental rights, the basics, to be protected and defended 'extreme' and 'radical' and we call people who want to limit fundamental rights and 'liberal', and they are the people who want to use central power to limit rights. Then, juxtapose that to Islam and the fundamentalists are, like conservatives, in support of the basics BUT they want to use central power to do it while those in their world who tend to control the levers of power are trying to be more liberal and take a less fundamental view of the faith WHILE maintaining enough control to stay in power.

In a lot of ways, Wahabis and social conservatives share views; people ought to behave in reserved ways, be humble in dress, men and women are different, alcohol and tobacco and drugs are bad, be faithful, support being good, strongly discourage wrong doing. Part of the reason why ISIS is successful is because they have this right/wrong thing going for them and people who have 'strayed' know it and when confronted, the sinners are weaker because of what they've been taught their whole life; honor god, know they have not and then they tend to fold. Sort of a 'busted! You've been bad!" and they surrender. "OK, you're right. I was bad. I failed the lord and I deserve to be punished". Very, very powerful psychology going on here.


The difference is that we don't support cutting your head off if you choose to not see things our way. We might do something stupid and try to use the Constitution to say gays can't marry but, we don't strike at the neck.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
I was reading and article recently - Sunni SA started spreading money around after the Rise of Khomeini to counter Shi'as



now look at things 35ish yrs later
 

Lurk

Happy Creepy Ass Cracka
Last edited:

Larry Gude

Strung Out
For indepth assessment of Islam and Saudi Arabia read any of Lewis' books on the topic. Start with What Went Wrong?

I wouldn't call it 'in depth' but, I would agree it is a good, quick over view. I disagree with the title because it takes the position that a fundamental view of a faith is 'wrong'. I do agree that the main issue with Islam is their internal battle between Westernization and modernization. But, that obscures the fact that Islam can no do either without passing into histories pages. It simply can't.

Consider Christianity. It has altered dramatically over the years through the endless compromises of principle necessary as the world advances but, it still holds relevance because the underlying core of the faith is not about dominance and force as is Islam.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Yup. Seeding. Or, properly understood, missionary work.


that is a good read .... essentially the house of saud modify the program with the rise of petro dollars, and not ISIS is more like a 'back to fundamentals' movement wing of the Wahhabi movement


:buddies:
 

mamatutu

mama to two
Did you read the article?

A large part of the issue is that a LARGE part of Saudi Arabia, especially people in power, are publicly and privately supportive of the fundamental, purist view of Islam. We have got to stop thinking of this as 'terrorists' or 'extremists' or 'radical'. It is NOT.

Consider. In the United States, a land founded on life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, rights of the INDIVIDUAL, rights that further include the right of free speech including freedom of religion, of keeping AND bearing arms, it is extreme or radical to go the other way and support more and more central control OVER the individual. Look at what the press calls 'conservatism' when it tries to insist the individual is supposed to be served by the state and not the other way around, that the right to self defense, to home school, to defend borders, to constrain government; TEA party? Extremists. Rush Limbaugh? Radical! Right to carry a pistol or own an AR; extreme radical!

This is not to say conservatism of a kind with a fundamental view of Islam in terms of methods and means but, it is to point out what societies do to people who hold fundamental views. Conservatives want you to have the choice, the freedom, to do as you see fit as long as it doesn't violate the rights of others. Wahabi Islam wants you to choose either to conform or die. This is the weird juxtaposition of what we think of in our society about liberalism and conservatism and then it's relationship to other worlds, in this case, Islam. We call 'fundamentalism' in our world, conservatives, people who want fundamental rights, the basics, to be protected and defended 'extreme' and 'radical' and we call people who want to limit fundamental rights and 'liberal', and they are the people who want to use central power to limit rights. Then, juxtapose that to Islam and the fundamentalists are, like conservatives, in support of the basics BUT they want to use central power to do it while those in their world who tend to control the levers of power are trying to be more liberal and take a less fundamental view of the faith WHILE maintaining enough control to stay in power.

In a lot of ways, Wahabis and social conservatives share views; people ought to behave in reserved ways, be humble in dress, men and women are different, alcohol and tobacco and drugs are bad, be faithful, support being good, strongly discourage wrong doing. Part of the reason why ISIS is successful is because they have this right/wrong thing going for them and people who have 'strayed' know it and when confronted, the sinners are weaker because of what they've been taught their whole life; honor god, know they have not and then they tend to fold. Sort of a 'busted! You've been bad!" and they surrender. "OK, you're right. I was bad. I failed the lord and I deserve to be punished". Very, very powerful psychology going on here.


The difference is that we don't support cutting your head off if you choose to not see things our way. We might do something stupid and try to use the Constitution to say gays can't marry but, we don't strike at the neck.

I have to admit the subject is mind clogging, and I have never studied it in depth. I take things at face value, as in what I think, or how I react to something. Sometimes, I have good intuition to depend on, but this is so complicated, that won't work. Thanks for your insight and explanation. Much appreciated.
 
Top