My question revolves around the Islamic religon, and to be more specific, Whabbism. It is my understanding that Whabbism is the fundementalist sect of the Islamic religon, and the demographic most often accoiciated with militant (I dare say, terroist) action that we see displayed on cable news every day. It could easily be argued that Whabbism has, for better or worse, made such and impact on the entire world over the last 5 years that it has changed the very way that some countries operate, and there respective foreign policy has been forced to change as well.
OTOH, the Islamic religon as a whole is known for its tenents of peace. There have been some very famous peace loving Islams in history that have also changed the world. It has been called the fastest growing religon in the world, and many hundreds of thousands of people, in every country, on every continent, have found deep spititual enlightenment, and fullfillment through this religon and regardless of my personal beliefs, I find that a good thing.
My question is: How did the peace promoting Islamic religon morph into Whabbism, and what specifically, are the tenets of Whabbism that cause such anger and hate towards the western culture, and more specifically, America as a whole. Perhaps this hate and anger are best shown in the former Taleban regime. There was, for some time, and over riding hate towards the US the helped produce Usama bin Laden and al-Quidea, which we all know perpertrated the most hideous, and worst act of terrorism in the history of the world. There has never been an act of terrorism that has taken more lifes, or caused so much chaos and destruction.
Rightfully so, the Taleban, and al-Quidea, were smote by the powers that be in the west. Crushed into a pitiful version of its former self, on the run and desperate, the al-Quieda have paid a very very heavy price for there evil deeds. However, Whabbism is not gone. It is not a dead sect. What is it about this group of people that produces terrorist, and could we ever reason with them? Even unrealistically, is there anything that could be done by the western society that would make these people stop hating us?
This has the potential to shape the next decade of conflict for the western way of life, which good or bad, is my way of life. I like it. My wife likes it. My friends and neighbors like it, and members of my family have died on the battlefield defending it. Shall we be forced to persecute, and potentially wipe out, an entire religon (I say it in and of itself is a religon, because I have read that many Islams do not like to be at all associated with Whabbism) or is there a different path.
You might want to do some more resaerch before forming an opinion. Wahibism is the state sponsored (sort of) religion of Saudi Arabia. It is not equivalent to “radical Islam”, but is one brand of generally anit-western, anti-Israel Islam.
And you may have it backwards about ObL. He’s a highly educated, wealthy guy who is responsible for spreading hatred towards the US and Isreal. He didn’t arise out of some impoverished slum with nothing but a Wahabi cleric as his teacher to brainwash him. I’m not even sure if ObL could be called an adherent of Wahabism. He appears to have his own barnd of Islam is no fan of the Saudid Royal family.
There are over 1 billion Moslems in the world, so wiping out the entire religion would be a daunting task indeed.
The Saudis need to do something to reign in Wahabisam. They made a pact with the devil (the royals turn a blind eye to Wahabism and the Wahibis turn a blind eye towards the royals) that is coming back to haunt them.
Perhaps someone more kowledgeble than I on Wahabism will show up on this thread, but a good google search is a nice place to start.
i did not mean that we should wipe out all of islam, only the true Wahhabist (sorry i don’t know if this is the correct term or not). and i mean that only in the sense that they will force us to do so. please do not take this to mean i am advocating genocide.
It is a fundamentalist sect, but not the only one. Deobandism would be another ( superficially very similar ) example. In addition it is probably not the group most often associated with terrorism, it’s just the most visibly associated with terrorism in the U.S. because of the very visible connections to Osama bin Laden and the Taliban. The terrorists in Algeria and Egypt for example are not Wahhabi ( Stephen Schwatrz would insist I’m wrong - I think he’s blowing smoke myself, the word Wahhabi has a precise definition which I don’t think he follows ) - Indeed many might be difficult to assign to a particular sect, beyond simply Sunni . They share, as all Islamic fundamentalists do, a certain commonality of belief and purpose, but their actual theology is not Wahhabi ( which involves a whole slew of very specific traits, such as following a specific school of religious jurisprudence ). In general Islamic fundamentalism encompasses a moderately wide range - some fundamentalists for example embrace a type of Islamic modernity that is anathema to Wahhabism. That said, there is often enough common ground as fundamentalists to work together, even if the actual theological path varies a bit.
There is an unfortunate tendency ( especially, it seems, in the former Soviet Union ) to refer to all violent Islamists as “Wahhabis”, but that is a misnomer and oversimplification.
However it is correct to say that Wahhabism has had a catalyzing effect on modern fundamentalism, however. Not the sole or only one, but it had an early influence on modern fundamentalist thought and more recently Saudi ( welcomed by the U.S. State Dept. up until the late 80’s/early 90’s as a counter to socialism/communism ) efforts to spread Islamism through teachings and disbursement of aid played a role in the radicalization of a segment of the Muslim population around the world.
Change Wahhabism to “Islamic fundamentalist terrorists” and I’d agree.
Wahhabism arose out of a one of those periodic “purist” revivalist movements that have swept through Islam ( almost all of them originating in “fringe” areas, in this case eastern Arabia ). This one originated with the preachings of one Muhammed ibn Abd al-Wahhab in the 18th century as an anti-modernist reaction ( modernism in this case having a very broad definition, primarily religious ). Basically it rejected what it saw as pagan accretions and other deviations from the Islam of Muhammed’s time ( Sufism, the use of saints and other intercessionary beings in prayer, etc. ) - Iconoclasts of a sort, mixed in with a puritannical moral code. It succeeded both on the strength of its message, which appealed to certain Bedouin elements in Arabia, but primarily on its adoption by the Ibn Saud family, local princes in the Nejd ( Eastern Arabia ) who molded its followers into a potent tool of military conquest ( a not at all unique occurence in Muslim history - the Almoravids, Almohades, Safavids, and Fatimids to name a few began the same way ) and in its casting of itself as the religious opposition to the occupying Ottoman Turks. After a number of historical vissitudes, the Saudi state triumphed in the early 20th century, successfully incorporating all of Arabia not under British protection ( in the Gulf ), or too religiously antithetical and difficult to absorb ( Yemen and Oman ).
The differences with the West, broadly construed, are not solely religious, taking a lot of its anger from nascent anti-colonialist grudges, a feeling of helpless humiliation in their lack of international power and pan-Arab affront at the Israeli situation. However where religious ideology intrudes, it is mostly in the intolerant view of what as percieved as the impious ( which includes other non-Wahhabi Muslims, as well as non-Muslims ) combined with a view of the U.S. as a spreader of corrupting modernism. In addition purists reject any foreign presence in Arabia, regarded as Holy Ground ( a rather ridiculous inflation of the status of Mecca and Medina ).
However for all its negative features ( a persoinal value judgement on my part ), it would be a mistake to completely conflate Wahhabism and terrorism. Most Wahhabis are not terrorists, even if they are fundamentalists.
Influenced by Wahhabism, but actually mostly Deobandi in theology.
Reason with terrorists? Nope. Reason with Wahhabis? Sure, up to a point ( as much as you can reason with fundamentalists of any stripe ). They’re not all bloodthirsty maniacs - most just want to live their ( restrictive, IMHO ) lives. But the political problems are severe and in Saudi Arabia mostly internal and increasingly economic. The difficult balancing act is deciding how much to actually lend a hand to support ( often necessary, but promotes backlash ) and how much to leave isolate ( eases tension, but allows chaos freer reign ). Really it’s a Catch-22. As mentioned in the thread on the topic the situation is a bit bleak - An implosion is likely at some point.
This implies the westen way of life is threatened - It mostly is not.
When all else fails, isolate - Religious suppression would never work. The oil issue is what complicates matters. How to deal with that is an open question. However at a WAG simple economics would compel any state to play ball eventually. Iran did. But attempting to extinguish a religious sect of 20 million ( or so ) is doomed to failure ( in addition to being morally unacceptrable )
I think it would be important to cut off the supply of willing adherents. With the wide variety of Islam available to a Muslim why should he choose Wahhabism over say Sufism or Sunni style islam?
It also may be helpful if SA didn’t contribute so much money to Wahhabi evangelizing. That being said, i suppose if you’re in charge of Mecca you would be tempted to err on the side of being too “religious”.
You’ll get better googling if you spell it with two aitches: wahhabi / wahhabism
Although I have no way of identifying with them, I can at least understand what is going on. I never realized that Islam had so many different sects. Could this be compared to Christianity and all of the sub-sects of it? Would it be fair to say that the Wahhabi is to Islam as the Branch Davidians are to Chritianity?
Ehhh…Maybe not quite. Perhaps a group like the Mennonites ( not withstanding the numerous differences ) might be a better analogy.
Though the difference between the two is very blurry at times, I’d be inclined to regard the Branch Davidians as more of a cult than a sect. Wahhabism is not a cult - It does not depend on a charismatic leader and its ideology is at least loosely within the bounds of ‘normative Islam’ ( unlike, say, Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam, which is on the borderline of being an entirely different religion ).
Wahhabism as a sub-sect of the Sunni sect of Islam might be likened, roughly, to the Mennonite Church being a sub-sect of the Anabaptist sect of Christianity.
From what I understand of the Branch Davidians, no. It’s hard to make comparisons across religions like that, and inevitably going to be inaccurate, but if you had to compare them to any group, it would be either the Christian fundimentalist movement (maybe) or early Lutheranism (again maybe). It’s not really a good fit, though.
As with all religion, Christianity included, Islam will be manipulated, in order to manipulate the weak minded. see crusades…
Unadulturated religion in general is a good thing, when mixed and twisted to suit the needs of the evil… it is evil.
Isamic fanaticism is a problem, as it seems not to have evolved away from the primitive mentality. See people who hit themselves in the heads with swords in Iraq, then again christians nail themselves to crosses. All Koresh did was try to get some cash and “poontang”.
Sorry there is no answer from me here, I don’t think there is one.
(a) Sufism is an approach to Islam. You can easily be Sunni or Shiite as well as Sufi. Think of ‘evangelical’ or ‘charismatics’ in Xianity, found in both Protestant and Catholic sects. Very rough analogy.
(b) Wahhabist thought is Sunni, only a very stripped down and hyper-rigid version of it.
Question:
How much can/should the US government do to stop the spread of Wahhabi ideology?
Would it even be legal to crack down on Wahhabi preachers in the US? The US can’t easily ask other government to crack down on private activities which are legal in the US (which I am guessing most Wahhabi preaching is).
I suppose the US could encourage foreign governments especially the Saudis to stop directly supporting Wahhabi institutions but I suspect that the distinction between private/state funding in Saudi Arabia is far from clear-cut.
I think that this would be counter-productive. Repressing people to supress an ideology tends to make martyrs and glorify “the cause.”
The separation of church and state may prevent the gov from doing much officially.
However, one thing that might be helpful would be to support humanitarian programs, (particularly educational efforts), in the Islamic world that are run by non-Wahhabi Muslims. As I’m led to believe, many times, humanitarian efforts provided by various groups are the starting points of recruitment and ideological dispersal.
"Repressing people to supress an ideology tends to make martyrs and glorify “the cause.” "
You can try to stop an ideology from spreading without “repressing people”. For instance you can put pressure on government to stop supporting radical mosques,encourage them to reform the madrassahs etc.
True, true.
So we’re talking about more or less the same thing.
I think that merely encouraging moderate Islamic groups in their efforts to provide the services that are being provided by Wahhabi groups could be sufficient.
I suspect that when given a choice people are more drawn to moderate theologies than extreme ones.
well if surpressing them is not an option, is finding a path to peace WITH them a possibility? What I mean is, is there something we as a people could do that would ensure their acts of terror would stop?
If we pull out of SA and IRAQ and IRAN and all of the mideast, would that pacify the Wahhabbi?
Not suppressing them doesn’t necessarily mean not doing anything. I think that they are in the position they are in for various reasons, (what those reasons are I’m too ignorant yet to say). It seems that it’d be better to provide another more moderate group with the same realpolitik attributes that make Wahhabism attractive to its adherents.