Society/Culture Why I blame Islam for the fact it's raining today.... part 2

[Chief]

Reminder: This isn't the Israel/Hamas thread. Go to the Israel/Hamas thread if you want to talk about that. Thanks.

Mid East - Israel declare war after Hamas attack II

Part I: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/israel-declare-war-after-hamas-attack.1371828/page-47#post-81443295 Thread Rules: Alright. I recognise that this is a fraught topic for any number of you posting here. Some of you will have family in Israel or Palestine. Some of you will have...

www.bigfooty.com

Thread rules update:

From this point if you're going to make a connection between Islam and the crime rate, you need to demonstrate causation in your post. If you do not, I'm going to infract you for the inherent racism in the position you're taking.

 

[JayJ20]

It's a really good point that the term Islamist is problematic as it muddys the waters and linguistically points the finger at all of Islam.

But I think you've jumped the shark by attributing intentional destabilization to the West.

Western actions have helped to empower Wahhabism. But the driver was short term self interest, rather than destabilization, even if destabilization has been the result.

They wanted the Russians out of Afghanistan ASAP, so they funded, armed and trained anyone willing to help with that. Concerned about the oil shocks of the 70s, and having lost Iranian access, they wanted allies to reduce economic risk related to oil, so they allied with anyone willing to help with that - the Saudis were.

The West is guilty of not giving a shit about anything other than short term self interest and yes it's helped to destabilize the region, from encouraging and militarily supporting the corruption of the Shah's regime to funding and helping the growth of the Mujahideen to supporting Saudi Arabia and thus their brand of Islam. But it's been greed and self interest driving it, not intentional destabilization.

And these ideologies may have been enabled by the West, but they weren't created by the West or adhered to by many Westerners. Both the Christian and the Islamic world have played their part in where it's at. Pointing the finger of blame at each other will just make it grow further. Need to work together, rather than in opposition, which isn't looking likely at all at the moment.

P.S. What term do you use to describe the Shia version that is holding sway in Iran?

Oh I'm not talking about the 70s. I'm talking about as far back as Hempher the British spy in the 18th Century and his role in the rise of Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab, who originated the Wahhabi ideology (hence the name). His aim quite literally was the fall of the Islamic world and found a vessel to orchestrate it. In hindsight, we know that he was very successful in his goal because that single moment changed the trajectory of the Islamic world to what it is today. Irrespective of whether or not Hempher was influential, Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab became a central figure to the problems we face. He marketed himself to be the reviver of the original teachings of Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him by using literal interpretations of texts and taking them out of context. He deemed the valid linguistic interpretations by qualified Scholars, which were followed for a thousand years, to be misguidance. He deemed the people of Makkah and Madinah to be non-believers and gathered a following to slaughter Muslims.

The Wahhabis and Saudi family teamed up at some point after that.

The British and the French dissolved the Ottoman Empire by making promises to Hussein Bin Ali if the Arabs revolted against the Ottomans. They then betrayed him because his rulership was opposed by the British, French, Zionists and Wahhabis. The Wahhabis then invaded Al-Hijaz, which includes Makkah and Madinah and the rest is history.

Oil then made the Wahhabis wealthy and they propagated their ideology. They rebranded from Wahhabism to Salafism to distance themselves from the bloodshed and market themselves as the followers of the Scholars from the Salaf period (first 300 years after Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him). Then they rebranded again from Salafism to Sunni (which the true Sunnis absolutely reject). I'm sure you've heard people say that Saudi vs Iran is Sunni vs Shia when in reality it is Wahhabism vs Shia (although Shias may believe the Iranian government do not represent Shias).

Given that people like Hillary Clinton acknowledge what Wahhabism has done to the Islamic world, terminology is incredibly important to combat extremism and educate people. I find the deliberate use of terms like 'Islamist' and 'Islamic fundamentalism' to be problematic given the history of attempts at rebranding Wahhabism.

As for what we call the Iranian government, I'm not really too knowledgeable about Iranian politics. As a Sunni, I haven't really had much to do with Shias in my lifetime so I can't really speak on it. The Iranian government certainly isn't representative of Islam though because they contravene many Islamic Laws.

 

[cromball90]

They claim that they want to, and would, kill Israelis/Jews.

Do you think wanting Jews dead is a fringe view in communities which practice Islam?

Isnt this why we have our hate speech bill in place?

Albo strengthened this not long ago.

What’s the penalty ?

 

[ElectricG]

Isnt this why we have our hate speech bill in place?

Albo strengthened this not long ago.

What’s the penalty ?

Probably fk all when it’s hatred against Jews coming from an Islamic perspective

 

[ZEV]

Probably fk all when it’s hatred against Jews coming from an Islamic perspective

Wahhabist or Salafist, not Islamic

 

[ElectricG]

Wahhabist or Salafist, not Islamic

 

[cromball90]

Probably fk all when it’s hatred against Jews coming from an Islamic perspective

Let’s see what precedent is set.

 

[ElectricG]

Let’s see what precedent is set.

Lawyers will spin some yarn about trauma/colonisation/privilege/context/whinge whinge ****en whinge and the penalty will be out of this world lenient.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Maybe because the term Islamist itself is coined and used to deliberately muddy the waters. It also attempts to absolve the West of any responsibility in spreading extremist ideologies within an Islamic context (I'll explain at the end of the post).

This is not aimed at you specifically.

No Muslim I know ever uses the term Islamist because to a layman, what does that even supposed to mean? It's another 'Pavlov's dog' situation. Many layman will interpret 'Islamist' in the same way as Islamic.

Even the term 'Islamic fundamentalist' does nothing to help people understand the problematic ideology behind extremism within the Islamic world.

If people actually listened to Muslim people and the terms we use instead of popularising and coining words used to deliberately incite misunderstanding (whether done intentionally or unintentionally), then perhaps we would be in a better place.

When people say Islamic fundamentalist or Islamist, what they really mean is Wahhabism, also known as so-called Salafism. This is the term we Muslims use to ensure people understand the difference between Islam and this extremist ideology. So why use the term Islamist instead of Wahhabism? Because Wahhabism is known to have been spread by Western powers to destabilise Muslim countries. It is also well known to be removed and separate from the true Islam. Also, the originators, implementers and propagators of Wahhabism, Saudi Arabia, are direct Western allies, whose rise to power and occupation of Al-Hijaz (Madinah, Makkah, Jeddah and Ta'if) were partly as a result of Western assistance. Hillary Clinton among other politician addressed the issue of Wahhabism multiple times.

I'm interested in which specific cases there are of Wahhabism being spread by Western powers to destabilize Muslim countries. I know they supported the Taliban originally, but i would have thought that was more as a military force than any philosophical reason. Was Khomeini associated with Wahhabism, he seems to have introduced a very strict form of Islam and supported extreme acts?
I've always considered the Saudi's made "a deal" to support it, rather than "want" to support it.
The alternative may have lost them the power to rule.

 

[sr36]

Oh I'm not talking about the 70s. I'm talking about as far back as Hempher the British spy in the 18th Century and his role in the rise of Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab, who originated the Wahhabi ideology (hence the name). His aim quite literally was the fall of the Islamic world and found a vessel to orchestrate it. In hindsight, we know that he was very successful in his goal because that single moment changed the trajectory of the Islamic world to what it is today. Irrespective of whether or not Hempher was influential, Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab became a central figure to the problems we face. He marketed himself to be the reviver of the original teachings of Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him by using literal interpretations of texts and taking them out of context. He deemed the valid linguistic interpretations by qualified Scholars, which were followed for a thousand years, to be misguidance. He deemed the people of Makkah and Madinah to be non-believers and gathered a following to slaughter Muslims.

The Wahhabis and Saudi family teamed up at some point after that.

The British and the French dissolved the Ottoman Empire by making promises to Hussein Bin Ali if the Arabs revolted against the Ottomans. They then betrayed him because his rulership was opposed by the British, French, Zionists and Wahhabis. The Wahhabis then invaded Al-Hijaz, which includes Makkah and Madinah and the rest is history.

Oil then made the Wahhabis wealthy and they propagated their ideology. They rebranded from Wahhabism to Salafism to distance themselves from the bloodshed and market themselves as the followers of the Scholars from the Salaf period (first 300 years after Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him). Then they rebranded again from Salafism to Sunni (which the true Sunnis absolutely reject). I'm sure you've heard people say that Saudi vs Iran is Sunni vs Shia when in reality it is Wahhabism vs Shia (although Shias may believe the Iranian government do not represent Shias).

Given that people like Hillary Clinton acknowledge what Wahhabism has done to the Islamic world, terminology is incredibly important to combat extremism and educate people. I find the deliberate use of terms like 'Islamist' and 'Islamic fundamentalism' to be problematic given the history of attempts at rebranding Wahhabism.

As for what we call the Iranian government, I'm not really too knowledgeable about Iranian politics. As a Sunni, I haven't really had much to do with Shias in my lifetime so I can't really speak on it. The Iranian government certainly isn't representative of Islam though because they contravene many Islamic Laws.

Sorry. I think of "The West" as the American era rather than the Colonial era.

Thanks for the background. I didn't know anything about it. For all the righteousness of many in the West, the Colonial era was really barbaric.

I agree with your issue to "Islamist", but no so much with "Islamic fundamentalist", I don't think it muddys the water in the same way. "Christian fundamentalist" is commonly used with a similar meaning - I wouldn't even call these interpretations "literal". To me, they're creating a different meaning to scripture without any regard to what was meant by the authors, let alone how it applies to the modern world.

 

[JayJ20]

I'm interested in which specific cases there are of Wahhabism being spread by Western powers to destabilize Muslim countries. I know they supported the Taliban originally, but i would have thought that was more as a military force than any philosophical reason. Was Khomeini associated with Wahhabism, he seems to have introduced a very strict form of Islam and supported extreme acts?
I've always considered the Saudi's made "a deal" to support it, rather than "want" to support it.
The alternative may have lost them the power to rule.

They helped import Wahhabism to Central Asia to fight against the Soviet Union.
Instead of me explaining it, here is what Hillary Clinton said about it:



Khomeini is not associated with Wahhabism because he is Shia. Their belief system is different.

The Saud family and Wahhabis joined forces way before the establishment of Saudi as a nation. In 1744, Muhammad ibn Saud, the leader of the Saud family at the time, struck an alliance with Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab. The former gave the latter a political platform from which to spread his belief-system, and the latter gave the former and his family a distinct, and ultimately influential, religious message.

The violence of the Wahhabis helped pave them the way from Najd (Eastern side of present day Saudi Arabia) to Al-Hijaz, which one may say is the keys to the Islamic world. An-Najd is where both Wahhabism and the Saud family originate from.

 

[ElectricG]

Are the NSW nurses Wahhabists?

 

[sr36]

Are the NSW nurses Wahhabists?

Not everything is about religion. There's a war. There's a battle over land. When the IRA was blowing people up and many Irish Catholics around the world said grace that included lines like "Set some money aside for the IRA." and "God Bless the IRA." It wasn't Catholicism driving it. When many Australians were making murderous death wishes about Japanese in WW2 - it wasn't about Christianity.

 

[ElectricG]

Not everything is about religion. There's a war. There's a battle over land. When the IRA was blowing people up and many Irish Catholics around the world said grace that included lines like "Set some money aside for the IRA." and "God Bless the IRA." It wasn't Catholicism driving it. When many Australians were making murderous death wishes about Japanese in WW2 - it wasn't about Christianity.

Makes you wonder what all the Wahhabism talk was about then… more deflection I guess.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Makes you wonder what all the Wahhabism talk was about then… more deflection I guess.

 

[sr36]

Makes you wonder what all the Wahhabism talk was about then… more deflection I guess.

Not at all.

A) There are different branches of Islam with very different ideology - just like Christianity.

B) Just like Christians, Muslims aren't solely defined and driven by their religion.

You seem desperate to diminish all of Islam into a terrorist organisation and to diminish all Muslims into being their religion only, with no other drivers or facets to their character and behaviour.

You seem desperate for ignorant and offensive comments to go without criticism. Why?

 

[cromball90]

Lawyers will spin some yarn about trauma/colonisation/privilege/context/whinge whinge ****en whinge and the penalty will be out of this world lenient.

What they said on the video is beyond unacceptable and past the point of hateful. Don’t care what religion you are part of. I’m expecting the hammer to come down on them both.

 

[ElectricG]

Not at all.

A) There are different branches of Islam with very different ideology - just like Christianity.

B) Just like Christians, Muslims aren't solely defined and driven by their religion.

You seem desperate to diminish all of Islam into a terrorist organisation and to diminish all Muslims into being their religion only, with no other drivers or facets to their character and behaviour.

You seem desperate for ignorant and offensive comments to go without criticism. Why?

Well what was the point of all of that talk about the need to be super specific when talking about religion and bad behaviour? Only just to turn around and say oh well there’s a war on .

You just had to change tack because you know the odds are that they aren’t part of any sort of wahabbist sect.

 

[sr36]

Well what was the point of all of that talk about the need to be super specific when talking about religion and bad behaviour? Only just to turn around and say oh well there’s a war on .

You just had to change tack because you know the odds are that they aren’t part of any sort of wahabbist sect.

It's pretty simple. I'm surprised you're struggling with it.

Many of the prominent terrorist groups are part of the Wahabbi sect. Terrorism for religious reasons isn't a part of most of Islam.

But then you have some individuals connected to a war who are furious with those on the opposite side of the war. Wouldn't happen with other religions of course

Then, believe, it or not, you've got some Muslims who steal stuff for financial reasons - other crimes too - wouldn't happen with other religions of course.

 

[Gethelred]

Makes you wonder what all the Wahhabism talk was about then… more deflection I guess.

... isn't at least some of the point of a forum to educate?

 

[liz]

... isn't at least some of the point of a forum to educate?

Maybe to learn, rather than educate.

 

[JayJ20]

They claim that they want to, and would, kill Israelis/Jews.

Do you think wanting Jews dead is a fringe view in communities which practice Islam?

A very harmful and ignorant perspective intended to incite hatred and fear of Muslim people. It's fear-mongering, pearl clutching BS like this that leads to the divisive, social unrest we see in the current political climate. It's also what leads to the killing of 10s of thousands of innocent Palestinians.

Islamic Laws quite literally have rules protecting Jews and Christians living under Islamic rulership. We can eat meat slaughtered by Jews and marry a Jewish woman too under Islamic Law.
When the Jews were being persecuted by Christians, they fled to Muslim countries because they knew it was safe for Jews.
Even the Jews that fled to Palestine after WWII were accepted by the Palestinians. Albanian Muslims also helped many of them flee from persecution.

Besides, it's the Europeans that consistently killed Jews throughout their history not Muslims.

As for the present, Muslims don't accept Zionism because that ideology is deliberately killing our brothers and sisters in Palestine and forcibly displacing them. Muslims and Jews were living peacefully until the rise of Zionism.

Though we don't accept an extremist ideology like Zionism, we still don't go around killing them. There are two billion Muslims. If we wanted them dead, they wouldn't be anywhere near the current population.

Non-Zionist Jews or Israelis aren't treated with animosity by Muslims just like non-Zionist Christians, atheists, buddhists etc.

We view Zionism however the way we view white supremacy. We're not going to kill white supremacists but they deserve to be called out.

 

[10571z]

5 terrorist attacks in Germany in the last 12 months. But everything is fine!

 

[JayJ20]

Makes you wonder what all the Wahhabism talk was about then… more deflection I guess.

You're the one misrepresenting something you want to speak about. I happen to know more about what you're misrepresenting, so I'm speaking about it. That's what education looks like not deflection.

 

[ElectricG]

But then you have some individuals connected to a war who are furious with those on the opposite side of the war. Wouldn't happen with other religions of course

So you were saying it’s all about the denomination or sect, and now you’ve completely walked away from that argument after being asked whether you think these individuals fit that description. How can you not see this? All you can do is respond with more babble.

And now you low key justify it with oh they’re upset about this war that probably has Jack shit to do with them.

The pure, unassailable fact is that these people would not be fantasising about the murder of Jews if they did not follow Islam.

 

[Chief]

The pure, unassailable fact is that these people would not be fantasising about the murder of Jews if they did not follow Islam.

Hitler - famous Muslim.