6 ms·

I can't, for the life of me, understand why people associate being a Salafi with the various terrorist groups. I have never heard a Salafi scholar promote any

by salafi 11y ago

I can't, for the life of me, understand why people associate being a Salafi with the various terrorist groups. I have never heard a Salafi scholar promote any acts terrorism. In fact, every single high-ranking scholar in Saudi Arabia (those who call themselves Salafi), are all opposed to groups like ISIS, Al Qaida, and Al Nusra. There are dozens of audio clips on Youtube from such scholars who clearly warn the Muslims from these types of groups. Here is one such video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xAZLE6JiqE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xAZLE6JiqE And another: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNL9cwB-plY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNL9cwB-plY And another (from arguably the most respected Saudi scholar): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9J5s2PPwZcY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9J5s2PPwZcY Here are two from a Muslim student of knowledge from the UK: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05yw1IXM1k4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05yw1IXM1k4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ocvexFXCo8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ocvexFXCo8 There is also a great book that references many of the Islamic verdicts given by the contemporary Salafi Muslim scholars that dispels much of the "Wahhabi" myth: http://www.amazon.com/The-Wahhabi-Myth-Dispelling-Fictitious/dp/1553953975 http://www.amazon.com/The-Wahhabi-Myth-Dispelling-Fictitious... I'm not here to preach; it just bothers me when people hijack words to push an agenda.

temp 11y ago
>I can't, for the life of me, understand why people associate being a Salafi with the various terrorist groups. In Europe, foreign-funded Salafi Imams are generally the ones that recruit local Muslims to go fight for ISIS. To give an actual example, in Bosnia the leader of the Salafi movement has been arrested for recruiting for ISIS. The Vienna Salafi movement has been found to collect money that was then forwarded to ISIS.
- cygx 11y ago
  To give an actual example, in Bosnia the leader of the Salafi movement has been arrested for recruiting for ISIS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilal_Bosni%C4%87 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilal_Bosni%C4%87
  - salafi 11y ago
    He's far from being a Salafi. He's a Bin Laden sympathizer, for one. Ask any mainstream Muslim who the Salafi scholars are in recent times and undoubtedly one of the first names mentioned would be the late Ibn Baz. Ibn Baz was a harsh critic of Bin Laden and his ideology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abd_al-Aziz_ibn_Baz#Osama_bin_Laden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abd_al-Aziz_ibn_Baz#Osama_bin_... Here is confirmation from Al Fawzan (the most-respected Saudi scholar now) regarding Ibn Baz's (and his own) position with respect to Bin Laden: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-a65Og2uow https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-a65Og2uow Here is a translated video that includes the speech of a late Yemeni scholar, Muqbil Al Wadi'ee, regarding Bin Laden. It's worth listening to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BO7BcXTc4zw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BO7BcXTc4zw My point is that anyone can call themselves or ascribe themselves to anything. However, that doesn't necessarily make it a reality (yeah, yeah, no true Scotsman).
    - cygx 11y ago
      yeah, yeah, no true Scotsman This. From the outside, it looks like a conflict within Salafism. It's hardly the only movement such things have happened to (eg revolutionary socialism vs reformist socialism).
    - aback 11y ago
      No true scotsman, indeed. Counterargument: "No true Christian" could ever kill an enemy - Jesus was clear in this: turn the other cheek, die on the cross if need be, forgive 70 times 7 times, etc. In my sect, Christianity is totally pacifist. All true Christians are pacifists. So there's no reason for any Muslim to harbor any enmity against any Christians, because no Christians have ever once harmed a Muslim (by my definition of Christians). ... And so we're back to square one, arguing over who's really a Scotsman....
    - raverbashing 11y ago
      > He's far from being a Salafi. It's very funny how this usually ends with apologetic excuses Actions speak louder than words, and there's an awful amount of Salafists preaching for ISIS Details of religious cults are not interesting to me and I don't care what some guy in the desert (any of them) wrote in a book thousands of years ago.
s_q_b 11y ago
Salafism is a very complicated word to unpack. So yes, there are less radical elements who identify as Salafis, including the Muslim brotherhood. But although the meaning of Salafism as a historical word would take quite a bit to unpack, it's clearly referring to a particularly fast-growing form of fundamentalist Islam today. Now, as for the sermons... It is my experience that the Saudi's pray with one hand and dole out cash to terrorist groups with the other.
- salafi 11y ago
  > It is my experience that the Saudi's pray with one hand and dole out cash to terrorist groups with the other. That makes zero sense. Why would they fund the people calling for their destruction? What exactly is your "experience?" It's just more unfounded conjecture.
  - cygx 11y ago
    What exactly is your "experience?" Things like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_High_Commission_for_Relief_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_High_Commission_for_Reli...
  - s_q_b 11y ago
    Good questions. First, Saudi Arabia's government is in favor of the United States, but their wealthy citizens often fund non-state actors to attack Western targets. Second, my experience comes from studying International Relations at Princeton. For sources, there are too many sources to count for the assertion that Saudi citizens continue to give money to Salafist (for lack of a better word) non-state actors that target civilians. I can look up the canonical sources for you later tonight. However, it's so common that a quick Google search will turn up the overall gist.
    - tome 11y ago
      > Saudi Arabia's government is in favor of the United States, but their wealthy citizens often fund non-state actors to attack Western targets. Can someone please (perhaps you if you're willing, s_q_b) help me clear this up once and for all? Is there sponsorship of terrorism and other anti-Western activities coming from the rulers of Saudi Arabia? I don't mean distant members of the royal family who are given control of minor ministries to shut them up, I mean those with whom the power genuinely rests. I can fully believe that private Saudi citizens fund any random thing that they want to, but it stretches my credulity to believe those that hold the reins of power directly fund terrorism. They know full well they rely completely on the US for their continued existence. What evidence is there on this either way?
cygx 11y ago
ISIS is a true product of Salafism, and we must deal with it with full transparency. - Sheikh Adel al-Kalbani, former imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca
- salafi 11y ago
  > former imam A refutation of Kalbani: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2wD5KSN-zI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2wD5KSN-zI
  - cygx 11y ago
    That's hardly a refutation as the video fails to actually make an argument.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
tptacek 11y ago
I really have no idea what it means to be a Salafist, but there's something unsettling about an HN debate about whether a particular religion is or isn't fundamentally terroristic. That's especially true if you are yourself somehow affiliated with the religion, in which case: I'm sorry you find yourself litigating this here. Whether or not you are, and whether or not these are good faith comments, I think this is a pretty weird place for HN to go.
- dionidium 11y ago
  Why is that weird? You don't think different religions can be more or less supportive of violence in their foundational texts? What would be weird is if that weren't possible for some reason.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    I think it is a very bad idea to have those kinds of discussions on HN.
  - hackuser 11y ago
    > You don't think different religions can be more or less supportive of violence in their foundational texts? I don't think that's relevant: 1) We can't read the texts except for translations; 2) Within every religion, among experts with great familiarity with the texts, there are a very wide variety of interpretations - so wide they sometimes fight wars over it (e.g., Protestants vs Catholics, Sunnis vs Shia, Jews vs. Christians vs. Muslims (all share the Old Testament; Muslims and Christians share the New Testament)), etc. 3) Adherents to religions are usually ignorant of and completely disregard the texts (lay Catholics didn't even read or hear them until the 20th century IIUC), except when convenient. For example, the Ten Commandments, the highest law, requires people to observe the Sabbath. I wonder if that includes posting on Hacker News?
- scarmig 11y ago
  Is Aum Shinrikyo fundamentally terroristic? A lot of this gets into questions of what defines a religion, if a religion even has a definition, or if it's just a contentless cultural virus that people use to interpret their own preconceived notions and practices in a predefined rubric. Salafism is an easy target because many of its famous adherents are the unsavory sort, and it's "obscure" enough that people can bash it without seeming Islamophobic and even manage to present themselves as a bit cosmopolitan and knowledgeable. But there are definitely many peaceful adherents of it, and many who oppose terrorism within its ranks. You can deduce calls to terrorism from its muddled mess of scriptures and thinkers, but you can also deduce calls to peacemaking. Same as any other religion. In the end, though, in a world with limited resources, focusing counter-propaganda efforts on Salafist communities seems like a pretty good idea. On the flip side, that almost certainly involves not stigmatizing all Salafists as terrorists.
hackuser 11y ago
salafi: Thanks for stopping by and contributing. Your comments are perfectly appropriate and shouldn't be downvoted, but unfortunately that happens on HN sometimes to comments that, regardless of their validity, make the angry minority unhappy. I hope you stick around!
- salafi 11y ago
  I'm a long-time lurker and I basically live on HN; I'll be around. Thanks for the kind words.

by salafi 11y ago

temp 11y ago

>I can't, for the life of me, understand why people associate being a Salafi with the various terrorist groups. In Europe, foreign-funded Salafi Imams are generally the ones that recruit local Muslims to go fight for ISIS. To give an actual example, in Bosnia the leader of the Salafi movement has been arrested for recruiting for ISIS. The Vienna Salafi movement has been found to collect money that was then forwarded to ISIS.

cygx 11y ago
To give an actual example, in Bosnia the leader of the Salafi movement has been arrested for recruiting for ISIS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilal_Bosni%C4%87 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilal_Bosni%C4%87
- salafi 11y ago
  He's far from being a Salafi. He's a Bin Laden sympathizer, for one. Ask any mainstream Muslim who the Salafi scholars are in recent times and undoubtedly one of the first names mentioned would be the late Ibn Baz. Ibn Baz was a harsh critic of Bin Laden and his ideology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abd_al-Aziz_ibn_Baz#Osama_bin_Laden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abd_al-Aziz_ibn_Baz#Osama_bin_... Here is confirmation from Al Fawzan (the most-respected Saudi scholar now) regarding Ibn Baz's (and his own) position with respect to Bin Laden: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-a65Og2uow https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-a65Og2uow Here is a translated video that includes the speech of a late Yemeni scholar, Muqbil Al Wadi'ee, regarding Bin Laden. It's worth listening to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BO7BcXTc4zw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BO7BcXTc4zw My point is that anyone can call themselves or ascribe themselves to anything. However, that doesn't necessarily make it a reality (yeah, yeah, no true Scotsman).
  - cygx 11y ago
    yeah, yeah, no true Scotsman This. From the outside, it looks like a conflict within Salafism. It's hardly the only movement such things have happened to (eg revolutionary socialism vs reformist socialism).
  - aback 11y ago
    No true scotsman, indeed. Counterargument: "No true Christian" could ever kill an enemy - Jesus was clear in this: turn the other cheek, die on the cross if need be, forgive 70 times 7 times, etc. In my sect, Christianity is totally pacifist. All true Christians are pacifists. So there's no reason for any Muslim to harbor any enmity against any Christians, because no Christians have ever once harmed a Muslim (by my definition of Christians). ... And so we're back to square one, arguing over who's really a Scotsman....
  - raverbashing 11y ago
    > He's far from being a Salafi. It's very funny how this usually ends with apologetic excuses Actions speak louder than words, and there's an awful amount of Salafists preaching for ISIS Details of religious cults are not interesting to me and I don't care what some guy in the desert (any of them) wrote in a book thousands of years ago.

s_q_b 11y ago

Salafism is a very complicated word to unpack. So yes, there are less radical elements who identify as Salafis, including the Muslim brotherhood. But although the meaning of Salafism as a historical word would take quite a bit to unpack, it's clearly referring to a particularly fast-growing form of fundamentalist Islam today. Now, as for the sermons... It is my experience that the Saudi's pray with one hand and dole out cash to terrorist groups with the other.

salafi 11y ago
> It is my experience that the Saudi's pray with one hand and dole out cash to terrorist groups with the other. That makes zero sense. Why would they fund the people calling for their destruction? What exactly is your "experience?" It's just more unfounded conjecture.
- cygx 11y ago
  What exactly is your "experience?" Things like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_High_Commission_for_Relief_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_High_Commission_for_Reli...
- s_q_b 11y ago
  Good questions. First, Saudi Arabia's government is in favor of the United States, but their wealthy citizens often fund non-state actors to attack Western targets. Second, my experience comes from studying International Relations at Princeton. For sources, there are too many sources to count for the assertion that Saudi citizens continue to give money to Salafist (for lack of a better word) non-state actors that target civilians. I can look up the canonical sources for you later tonight. However, it's so common that a quick Google search will turn up the overall gist.
  - tome 11y ago
    > Saudi Arabia's government is in favor of the United States, but their wealthy citizens often fund non-state actors to attack Western targets. Can someone please (perhaps you if you're willing, s_q_b) help me clear this up once and for all? Is there sponsorship of terrorism and other anti-Western activities coming from the rulers of Saudi Arabia? I don't mean distant members of the royal family who are given control of minor ministries to shut them up, I mean those with whom the power genuinely rests. I can fully believe that private Saudi citizens fund any random thing that they want to, but it stretches my credulity to believe those that hold the reins of power directly fund terrorism. They know full well they rely completely on the US for their continued existence. What evidence is there on this either way?

cygx 11y ago

ISIS is a true product of Salafism, and we must deal with it with full transparency. - Sheikh Adel al-Kalbani, former imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca

salafi 11y ago
> former imam A refutation of Kalbani: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2wD5KSN-zI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2wD5KSN-zI
- cygx 11y ago
  That's hardly a refutation as the video fails to actually make an argument.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

tptacek 11y ago

I really have no idea what it means to be a Salafist, but there's something unsettling about an HN debate about whether a particular religion is or isn't fundamentally terroristic. That's especially true if you are yourself somehow affiliated with the religion, in which case: I'm sorry you find yourself litigating this here. Whether or not you are, and whether or not these are good faith comments, I think this is a pretty weird place for HN to go.

dionidium 11y ago
Why is that weird? You don't think different religions can be more or less supportive of violence in their foundational texts? What would be weird is if that weren't possible for some reason.
- tptacek 11y ago
  I think it is a very bad idea to have those kinds of discussions on HN.
- hackuser 11y ago
  > You don't think different religions can be more or less supportive of violence in their foundational texts? I don't think that's relevant: 1) We can't read the texts except for translations; 2) Within every religion, among experts with great familiarity with the texts, there are a very wide variety of interpretations - so wide they sometimes fight wars over it (e.g., Protestants vs Catholics, Sunnis vs Shia, Jews vs. Christians vs. Muslims (all share the Old Testament; Muslims and Christians share the New Testament)), etc. 3) Adherents to religions are usually ignorant of and completely disregard the texts (lay Catholics didn't even read or hear them until the 20th century IIUC), except when convenient. For example, the Ten Commandments, the highest law, requires people to observe the Sabbath. I wonder if that includes posting on Hacker News?
scarmig 11y ago
Is Aum Shinrikyo fundamentally terroristic? A lot of this gets into questions of what defines a religion, if a religion even has a definition, or if it's just a contentless cultural virus that people use to interpret their own preconceived notions and practices in a predefined rubric. Salafism is an easy target because many of its famous adherents are the unsavory sort, and it's "obscure" enough that people can bash it without seeming Islamophobic and even manage to present themselves as a bit cosmopolitan and knowledgeable. But there are definitely many peaceful adherents of it, and many who oppose terrorism within its ranks. You can deduce calls to terrorism from its muddled mess of scriptures and thinkers, but you can also deduce calls to peacemaking. Same as any other religion. In the end, though, in a world with limited resources, focusing counter-propaganda efforts on Salafist communities seems like a pretty good idea. On the flip side, that almost certainly involves not stigmatizing all Salafists as terrorists.

hackuser 11y ago

salafi: Thanks for stopping by and contributing. Your comments are perfectly appropriate and shouldn't be downvoted, but unfortunately that happens on HN sometimes to comments that, regardless of their validity, make the angry minority unhappy. I hope you stick around!

salafi 11y ago
I'm a long-time lurker and I basically live on HN; I'll be around. Thanks for the kind words.