I do not want to get into a wider argument about the nature of Islam, but I think most people who have looked into things would agree that the particular strain of wahhabi Islam practiced and propped up and exported by Saudi Arabia… is absolute poison everywhere it travels.
I don’t know if the attackers in London were influenced by that strain of Islam, or if it was more directly related to one Imam reportedly coming back after fighting in Syria, but it seems to be something we’d want to tamp down on.
Can we block Saudi funding of mosques? Would that work? Money tends to be fungible and easily transformed into other things so I’m not sure. Would it be ok to audit the finances of suspected mosques?
What is really preventing western nations from taking action against this kind of activity, that is clearly caustic and destabilizing… or is it? If Saudi rule fell, would something even worse rise in its place in terms of terror support and groups?
In Treasury’s War, the author explains that the Treasury Department went after terrorist financiers by blacklisting banks that handled their money. The banks would then self-police and stop dealing with anyone that would get them in trouble. I think Saudi has too much money/oil for that to be a realistic option.
I’ve heard some interviews from ex-Muslims who recounted their personal experience with their childhood mosque being essentially bought out and transformed by Saudi money.
I think it’s a major issue but it can only solved by the Muslim communities rejecting the ideology (and money). If Saudi money wants to buy your mosque and install a fundamentalist imam with regressive theology, it takes the community itself to reject.
Here’s a clip of an interview with a Canadian woman’s personal experience with this very issue.
Suspected of what? If you don’t suspect them of something that is actually a crime, you aren’t going to be able to audit them. It wouldn’t surprise me if Trump wanted to audit mosques without due process, but fortunately the courts won’t let him.
Oh, I’m sure the Saudi people would rally around a newly democratic government, just like all the other states in that region that underwent a revolution of sorts. All that oil would be perfectly safe from opportunistic terror groups like Da-esh or al Qaeda.
As long as they’re the huge oil producer they are, we’ll be stuck with having to deal with them. So far, no Western state has been willing to take them on, head to head. From a realpolitik standpoint, that probably makes sense.
Perhaps a better way would be for the populace to be sufficiently educated to reject the message? Preachers need to be free to preach. Freedom of speech needs to be upheld. That doesn’t mean that the audience have to accept the message.
BTW thisi s a long term problem. Saudi Arabia has almost a century of oil to go before it runs out.
First, the DAESH are not Wahhibi. The idea that the Takfiri murders are coming directly from the Saudi preachers and funding is not an accurate one. They are cultish deviation even from the narrow-minded nastiness of the Wahhabites.
It is near certain these DAESH inspired scum took their inspiration from the online promotion and from the opportunistic street preacher types not even rooted in the mosque and preying on the converted and the “returned” to the religion without a good grounding and so open to the perversion and distortion of the DAESH, in the very cult type framework. It is what was seen in the Franco-Belgian networks, I am sure it will be seen in the British case too.
While I am for the freedom of the speech, the death-cult perversion of the DAESH and their declaration of takfir on all who disagree with them goes beyond the tolerable bounds, in the same way the Nazi cult did and does. It is necessary for the intelligent engagement of the Intelligence Services and the special action in hand with the western Muslims awakening to the danger that is the DAESH.
It is then next the question what is meant by the Saudi money, as the OP and commentators seem to think this is some kind of clearly labelled thing, in fact much of this is passing through not very clear sources and the poorer immigrant or immigrant descended communities taking money may not well be able to discern easily, and the lure of getting out of the basement is there.
The encouraging of the older, relatively liberal tendencies needs its own backing. It is the case in France that both the Moroccan kingdom and the entrepreneurs with some money have tried to back traditional Maleki training in religion against the Wahhbite heresy.
Finally for those who are taking their ideas of the muslim experience from the ex-Muslims, I will observe this is as intellgent and useful as if I decided to learn of the American christianity from the athiests here who have the axes to grind against their cultural framework religion. It is not a very smart or usefull method for gaining a real knowledge.
I installed solar panels, that generate over 50% of the electricity I use. And I drive a fuel efficient car, and take light rail transportation when I can. Plus added better insulation into my house.
If everybody did stuff like this, we could eventually affect the Saudi income.
Of course you disagree, you read for an objective and a conclusion.
It remains however that it is a stupid way to learn of a religion, as stupid for me to try to learn of the American protestantism via the disgruntled athiests here.
Remember that “atheist” does not equate to ex-religious or anti-religious. Many of us have never been religious to any great extent. If you based your opinions on my view of Catholicism that would silly, If you based your opinion of Catholicism purely on those who left that faith then that too would be silly. If you base your opinion purely on those who still remain a Catholic…that too would be silly.
Those that were involved and knowledgeable in their own religions before giving it up are a great source of information and their opinions matter.
Surely to get a full view of what a religion is it would be sensible to understand why people believe it and why they reject it?
I am well aware of what the word ‘athiest’ means and I said this about a certain athiest profile here on this Board.
The observation stands, the persons giving the ‘special credence’ to a set of persons hostile to a certain religion, they are seeking the Narrative Support for a certain already decided Point of View. That is not understanding and information, that is the feeding of the decided prejudices. Like the Protestant haters of the Catholics who seek out the ex-Catholics narratives against the Church.
My posts do not comment on ‘athiest’ as a word or athiests in general, so this is completely a strawman or a complete confusion.
Perhaps you should actually read the posts in this thread, like this one
the emphasis added.
No, I do not agree. I can not say that I have gained any useful insight into the Catholic church from the anti-Catholic Church ranting that have been posted here. Not any. The only useful have been the internal critical reflections more motivated by understanding but critical. the most useful is the dispassionate analysis that is neither pro nor anti.
I have not made any comment about “any” anti religious point of view and your comments seems to be taking the mistaken view that I am myself religious, in fact I am not.
The comment was precise, the special or the extra credence on the persons hostile to a religion for the understanding that religion is not a position trying to understand, it is a position seeking to justify hostility.
wow, that’s a very strange position to take. So when anyone offers a pro or anti opinion on religion you do what?..ignore it? discount it out of hand?
So who on earth fits the bill for providing such analysis? By your own standards even the Pope (being fairly pro-catholic) can offer no additional insight into catholicism. That’s a fairly strong position to take.
it wasn’t a comment it was a question. If you don’t care to answer it then suit yourself but I’ll ask it again.
Do you think that any anti-religious viewpoint is inherently flawed?
You’ll have to walk me through how you get from the “disavow” of the comment you responded to, to the “hostility” you sneakily slip in above.
This is one area that I want resources pumped into, and it’s an area conservatives ought to be sympathetic to. Having a world that does not need oil or even natural gas would cut the legs from regimes like the Saudis and Put insurance Russia. It would hurt a lot of better behaved allies as well, but in those cases we could help them modernize and diversify their economies.
The only thing that makes me worry over the effectiveness of that strategy is if the Saudis invest enough money into productive economies to coast off a post oil sovereign wealth fund. But things got bad I suppose it would be easier to freeze bank accounts and funds with the teeth removed from the threat of an oil embargo