5 ms·

Is it not defending interest? Most Islamic terrorism in our age can be traced to the hyper-conservative madrasahs all over the world sponsored by (Sunni) Saudi

Is it not defending interest? Most Islamic terrorism in our age can be traced to the hyper-conservative madrasahs all over the world sponsored by (Sunni) Saudi Arabia, which seeks to dominate Islamic discourse and blunt the influence of (Shia) Iran. Also worth noting that the vast majority of global Islamic terrorists (as in not secretarian violence like was seen in Iraq, but rather acts of terrorism in predominantly non-Muslim areas) are Sunni. Yes, there may be compatibility, but there is also a great degree of deliberate cultural programming that we often do not notice or even consider.

jessaustin 10y ago
As usual, religion is a smokescreen. The most salient motivation for Saudi and other quasi-state support of "radical" Islam is to focus the populace's dissatisfaction outward toward the West instead of inward toward the horrific authoritarian regimes that rule these areas.
- rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
  Bingo. Any time powerful people advocate for anything on moralistic grounds (like "make the world safe for democracy"), my immediate reaction is to ask "if these people get their way, what else do they get out of it?"
- acqq 10y ago
  > As usual, religion is a smokescreen. Why do you deny sincere religiosity and direct reading of the texts as the motivation for the acts of religious people? Through the ages the humanity has done a lot of harm to "others" based on much less than what's in the holy texts of "the religion that can't be named." But that particular religion has spread especially based on the idea of fighting the war for religion and benefit of the fighters (both in this world and as the shortcut to heaven), all in the "holy" texts. For Christianity's witch hunting, only one verse in Bible was enough (Exodus 22:18). Luckily, there was at least: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Render_unto_Caesar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Render_unto_Caesar Edit: return0, your "only very few lines have being pursued" signals to me that you don't know the content of the "holy" texts being discussed (that is, of the religion that can't be named). The visual presentation of the extent of hate directed to unbelievers is stunning -- almost every chapter remains heavily marked once we attempt doing this. And the ideas and demands are often, almost hypnotically, repeated. It's easy to prove it, there are enough translations even on-line.
  - return0 10y ago
    There are millions of things that could happen if one follows religious books to the letter. Don't you find it suspicious that only very few (convenient for some interests) lines have being pursued?
  - soundwave106 10y ago
    In Islam, there are "sword verses" and "peace verses". Christianity likewise has verses that are pretty violent (particularly in the Old Testament), and passages that promote peace and tolerance. I do feel that comparing which text is more violent by nature is kind of pointless. Is Sura 9 any "better or worse" than Deuteronomy 20? I don't know, they both seem pretty vanquish-all-your-enemies to me. So what you focus on is "interpretations". And so many times, the "interpretations" have a political bent. That Islam is tied to so much radicalism and terrorism is troubling. But a lot of the root source of this does seem to be the petro-economy, particularly Saudi Arabia. Example: Would Islamic terrorism be so big had Saudi Arabia not pushed Wahhabism so hard, tying it to politics (and thus dominating more mystical forms of Islam like say the Sufis)? Would we have a Taliban had the Wahhabist Saudis not fought against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan (thus radicalizing the Deobandis)? The problem with calling out entire religions is that you often sweep up people who have much different interpretations. A Western equivalent (not in terms of impact perhaps but in ideas) would be to say that Christianity itself is anti-gay. Some Christian churches are anti-gay, and there are a couple passages in the Bible that are anti-homosexual, but there are also Christians that dismiss these verses. Judaism mostly downplays violent passages ala Deuteronomy 20, and likewise, Islam could downplay their violent side if they wanted to (some sects do in fact). Most religious holy books are very multi-faceted. The fact that a side of Islam doesn't has a lot to do, in my opinion, with the politics and military ties of certain kleptocrat petro-economies (Saudi Arabia is a big one) or other external events (the American invasion of Iraq is another as had that not happened, there probably would be no ISIS).
    - acqq 10y ago
      > Most religious holy books are very multi-faceted. Most other books. But finding peaceful parts in the "book of the exact sayings of God" (according to that religion and the book itself (!)) is almost impossible except when the quote is not full. E.g. the US president quoted the part of 5:32 but not the 5:32 and 5:33 in full, which at once is much less peaceful, as everybody can check for himself. And the president would surely select a better one, if it existed. But it doesn't. Which presents the problem that simply just reading the original texts radicalizes the readers. That there's so much intolerant "stuff" inside is the major problem that most of people are still somehow too afraid to acknowledge (and even less check for themselves). > Islam could downplay their violent side if they wanted to (some sects do in fact) Only one sect I know of, less than 1.4 percent of the rest, founded 1889, and not accepted as believers by the remaining 98.6 percent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmadiyya https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmadiyya Do you know some other?
ajmurmann 10y ago
This is the most infuriating thing to me. Everyone is aware of this, yet it never comes up in politics and the US keeps pretending that the Saudis are our great allies. I don't understand it one bit.
- return0 10y ago
  Perhaps because it's more elaborate than it seems, as evidenced by a century of failed nation-building.
- golergka 10y ago
  House of Saud is the most western-oriented major actor in the country. If US turns back on them, SA will quickly turn into another ISIS.
  - return0 10y ago
    And the US cares for that, as if Divide and Conquer is not a thing? Surely there are ulterior motives at play.
  - ajmurmann 10y ago
    But I keep hearing how they are the ones funding all the madrassas etc.

jessaustin 10y ago

As usual, religion is a smokescreen. The most salient motivation for Saudi and other quasi-state support of "radical" Islam is to focus the populace's dissatisfaction outward toward the West instead of inward toward the horrific authoritarian regimes that rule these areas.

rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
Bingo. Any time powerful people advocate for anything on moralistic grounds (like "make the world safe for democracy"), my immediate reaction is to ask "if these people get their way, what else do they get out of it?"
acqq 10y ago
> As usual, religion is a smokescreen. Why do you deny sincere religiosity and direct reading of the texts as the motivation for the acts of religious people? Through the ages the humanity has done a lot of harm to "others" based on much less than what's in the holy texts of "the religion that can't be named." But that particular religion has spread especially based on the idea of fighting the war for religion and benefit of the fighters (both in this world and as the shortcut to heaven), all in the "holy" texts. For Christianity's witch hunting, only one verse in Bible was enough (Exodus 22:18). Luckily, there was at least: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Render_unto_Caesar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Render_unto_Caesar Edit: return0, your "only very few lines have being pursued" signals to me that you don't know the content of the "holy" texts being discussed (that is, of the religion that can't be named). The visual presentation of the extent of hate directed to unbelievers is stunning -- almost every chapter remains heavily marked once we attempt doing this. And the ideas and demands are often, almost hypnotically, repeated. It's easy to prove it, there are enough translations even on-line.
- return0 10y ago
  There are millions of things that could happen if one follows religious books to the letter. Don't you find it suspicious that only very few (convenient for some interests) lines have being pursued?
- soundwave106 10y ago
  In Islam, there are "sword verses" and "peace verses". Christianity likewise has verses that are pretty violent (particularly in the Old Testament), and passages that promote peace and tolerance. I do feel that comparing which text is more violent by nature is kind of pointless. Is Sura 9 any "better or worse" than Deuteronomy 20? I don't know, they both seem pretty vanquish-all-your-enemies to me. So what you focus on is "interpretations". And so many times, the "interpretations" have a political bent. That Islam is tied to so much radicalism and terrorism is troubling. But a lot of the root source of this does seem to be the petro-economy, particularly Saudi Arabia. Example: Would Islamic terrorism be so big had Saudi Arabia not pushed Wahhabism so hard, tying it to politics (and thus dominating more mystical forms of Islam like say the Sufis)? Would we have a Taliban had the Wahhabist Saudis not fought against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan (thus radicalizing the Deobandis)? The problem with calling out entire religions is that you often sweep up people who have much different interpretations. A Western equivalent (not in terms of impact perhaps but in ideas) would be to say that Christianity itself is anti-gay. Some Christian churches are anti-gay, and there are a couple passages in the Bible that are anti-homosexual, but there are also Christians that dismiss these verses. Judaism mostly downplays violent passages ala Deuteronomy 20, and likewise, Islam could downplay their violent side if they wanted to (some sects do in fact). Most religious holy books are very multi-faceted. The fact that a side of Islam doesn't has a lot to do, in my opinion, with the politics and military ties of certain kleptocrat petro-economies (Saudi Arabia is a big one) or other external events (the American invasion of Iraq is another as had that not happened, there probably would be no ISIS).
  - acqq 10y ago
    > Most religious holy books are very multi-faceted. Most other books. But finding peaceful parts in the "book of the exact sayings of God" (according to that religion and the book itself (!)) is almost impossible except when the quote is not full. E.g. the US president quoted the part of 5:32 but not the 5:32 and 5:33 in full, which at once is much less peaceful, as everybody can check for himself. And the president would surely select a better one, if it existed. But it doesn't. Which presents the problem that simply just reading the original texts radicalizes the readers. That there's so much intolerant "stuff" inside is the major problem that most of people are still somehow too afraid to acknowledge (and even less check for themselves). > Islam could downplay their violent side if they wanted to (some sects do in fact) Only one sect I know of, less than 1.4 percent of the rest, founded 1889, and not accepted as believers by the remaining 98.6 percent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmadiyya https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmadiyya Do you know some other?

ajmurmann 10y ago

This is the most infuriating thing to me. Everyone is aware of this, yet it never comes up in politics and the US keeps pretending that the Saudis are our great allies. I don't understand it one bit.

return0 10y ago
Perhaps because it's more elaborate than it seems, as evidenced by a century of failed nation-building.
golergka 10y ago
House of Saud is the most western-oriented major actor in the country. If US turns back on them, SA will quickly turn into another ISIS.
- return0 10y ago
  And the US cares for that, as if Divide and Conquer is not a thing? Surely there are ulterior motives at play.
- ajmurmann 10y ago
  But I keep hearing how they are the ones funding all the madrassas etc.