NationStates Jolt Archive

I think this is good news, very good news. What do you think?

"RIYADH, Saudi Arabia, July 21 (UPI) -- Saudi Arabian Wahhabi Sheik Abdullah bin Jabreen has declared it illegal for Muslims to join, support, or pray for militant group Hezbollah.

Jabreen declared a fatwa against the group for its actions against Israel, revealing a divide among Sunni Muslims over the issue of the Israel-Hezbollah conflict, the New York Sun reported Friday.

The Wahhabi sects have largely come out against Hezbollah's actions in the region but some Sunni fundamentalist groups, including the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, have pledged support for the Shiite militant group. The brotherhood was planning a rally Friday to support the militants at Cairo's Al-Azhar mosque.

Sheik Hamid al-Ali, in Kuwait, issued a statement July 13, the day after two Israeli soldiers were abducted by Hezbollah, condemning the organization's actions and describing the conflict as a result of Iran's imperialistic ambitions in Israel.

The governments of Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia have also condemned the actions of Hezbollah."

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060721-072851-1816r

It is neither good nor bad. It does, however, highlight the split between Sunni and Shia.

I haven't looked into this, but it looks positive.

I have no idea, really. The situation is... complicated, and this isn't making it any less complex.

But it's interesting, nonetheless.

It is bad news short term as far as more division of sects and more hard feelings in the middle East goes. It might be a long term step in the right direction however.

I think this is good news, very good news. What do you think?

Fatāwa aren't good or bad. People's reactions are. And I anticipate BAD reactions to this.

Of course the Saudis should be pissed. This brings more instability to an unstable region. Hezbollah is the aggressor or provoker. (There may be no aggessor.)

I would not call holy decrees an indicator of progress.

Fatāwa aren't good or bad. People's reactions are. And I anticipate BAD reactions to this.

What I meant by being good news is more Muslims are starting to speak out very loudly and condem terrorism. That is good news.

Yes, I am sure that all the Lebanese Shi'ites who support Hezbollah will stop doing so now that a Saudi Wahhabi has complained.

What I meant by being good news is more Muslims are starting to speak out very loudly and condem terrorism. That is good news.
Not so much. Let's see, countries getting large amounts of US aid opposing Hezbollah and a Sunni group issuing fatwah on a Shi'ite group. No news there.

a moderate Sunni group

I don't quite see how the Sunni religious extremists in Saudi Arabia are particularly "moderate."

I don't quite see how the Sunni religious extremists in Saudi Arabia are particularly "moderate."
Well I didn't know what group it was, I will just remove that.

I don't quite see how the Sunni religious extremists in Saudi Arabia are particularly "moderate."

Extremist Wahhab Sunnis issue fatwa against extremist Shia Hezbollah fighters...

Tel Aviv in flames, missiles headed towards Tehran, highlights at 11...

Well I didn't know what group it was, I will just remove that.

The elections are supposed to be nonpartisan; candidates stand and campaign as individuals. Yet, during the February municipal elections for Riyadh and its eponymous province, Islamist candidates formed a bloc and swept the polls in the capital. One senior Wahhabi cleric, Sheikh Abdullah bin Jabreen, reportedly granted the bloc a religious blessing, calling on voters to choose candidates “who fear Allah” and dismissing other candidates because they were running “for worldly and personal reasons.” In recent years, this same sheikh has called for Shiites to be put to death and spoken out in support of the Taliban following the attacks of September 11, 2001.

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=2274

So you are quoting an entirely different article you expected me to go and look up? I don't give that much of a fuck about different Islamist groups in the Middle East.

So you are quoting an entirely different article you expected me to go and look up?

No, I just Googled his name. :)

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply criticism of you.

I think I'll count it a good thing. Disunified religions are less dangerous than unified ones.

No, I just Googled his name. :)

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply criticism of you.
Well that's more fair then.

I think I'll count it a good thing. Disunified religions are less dangerous than unified ones.
I will let you in on a little secret, Sunni and Shia split a few centuries ago. I keep thinking 1500s...

What I meant by being good news is more Muslims are starting to speak out very loudly and condem terrorism. That is good news.
True, the more people condemning terrorism AND acting on their constructively on their condemnation, the better. But it's really just going to end up pitting one Muslim sect against another in yet another area.

I will let you in on a little secret, Sunni and Shia split a few centuries ago. I keep thinking 1500s...

More like 900s. But like Orthodoxy, Catholocism and Protestantism, there's always some twit trying to put the jigsaw puzzle back together. Good to see they're not getting any further than the christians are.

More like 900s. But like Orthodoxy, Catholocism and Protestantism, there's always some twit trying to put the jigsaw puzzle back together. Good to see they're not getting any further than the christians are.
Yeah, I just kept thinking 1500, why? Hell if I know, I don't even know if I was thinking it in relation to Shia-Sunni split.

The Christians have no intention of reunifying, hell the Southern Baptists split off from the Baptists a while back because the Baptists wern't extreme enough.

From my (admittedly Atheist) perspective, the more splitting, the better...:D

bump

It is neither good nor bad. It does, however, highlight the split between Sunni and Shia.


Yep, its like having the pope making a statement syaing that christians can't be protestant or orthodox...

It is neither good nor bad. It does, however, highlight the split between Sunni and Shia.

The Al-Saud is scared of a nuke-backed Iranian hegemonistic ambitions. KSA has its own shia population (5% but largely concentrated in strategic oil field areas) and the shia arc extending from Iran to Lebanon to be concerned about.

Khomeini was very keen on exporting the revolution. Remember the shia's early failed attempt to storm and takeover Mecca in 1979 (riding on the euphoria of Iranian revolution)?

Jihadists split on Islam's true enemy (http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/07/21/news/jihadists.php)

The question has popped up all over Internet sites frequented by Islamic militants: Should your average God-fearing jihadist support Hezbollah in its battle against the Zionist aggressors and their American lapdogs?

The answer seems a foregone conclusion, given the hatred of Israel across much of the Muslim world.

But consider this posting about Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, that appeared on a Web site with ties to Al Qaeda: "Let us explain that the party of Hassan Nasrallah, for us, is a party which has a Shia ideology. Thus, he is considered our enemy like our enemies the Jews, the Christians."

"So what should we do now? What side shall we take? Who shall we support?" asked the seemingly puzzled author, a Sunni known as Saif al-Din al- Kanani.

I just found this, and it fit the thread quite well. Hard to tell which side to pick though for us in the West - or whether we really should pick a side at all. Seems we'd end up the bad guys either way. So I think the extremists from both sides should be given a chance to kick the snot out of each other, while we facilitate the growing of a more liberal, more Western European Islam coming from the many immigrants and their kids.

......while we facilitate the growing of a more liberal, more Western European Islam coming from the many immigrants and their kids.

That's wishful thinking and I think it is too late for it anywayz. The population in several EU countries (UK, scandinavia etc) are at the tipping point (if not already there). It doesn't help that most of EU muslims are sunnis and hence are susceptible to preaching by salafist mullahs influenced by Saudi money.

A "liberal and more western Eu Islam" would be branded as blasphemy and any such practitioner treated as a traitor and fail to take off as a popular movement. If you take any reformist movements in religion, they took off because they offered plausible alternate path to salvation within the same religion. I can't comment on reformist movements in other religions but we had plenty in Hinduism and they were usually spearheaded by men who offered alternate path to salvation.

Within the sunni theological view, IMHO, there is no such movement possible because of the strong entrenched traditional view. What is worse is, "reformists" are actually calling for going back to 7th century when everything was "pure". This is what passes for reformism in Islam today.

More and more muslims are being converted to this view by the efforts of Hizbut Tahrir and dawa groups.

A "liberal and more western Eu Islam" would be branded as blasphemy and any such practitioner treated as a traitor and fail to take off as a popular movement.
No, the problem is that you focus too much on the few communities that do have these radical preachers (that had to be imported from questionable places because Europe as such doesn't yet have the religious infrastructure to train its own Imams). Most Muslim communities have much more moderate (although often still not moderate enough) preachers, the problem is just that if you want more advanced advice from more qualified people, beyond your normal weekly service or whatever, you end up having to talk to people who studied in Pakistan, or other places where radicalism is popular.

And besides, the idea would be to create religious schooling facilities and universities that allow people from the local communities (who in many cases already live like any other European would, and often hold similar values taught to them by public schooling and their environment) to become Muslim scholars. And when these people, from the local communities, preach an Islam that is more in tune with the world these people live in anyways, I can't see how anyone but the radicals would denounce them.

And from there on we can just count on the fact that the radicals demand more sacrifices from people's lifestyles, making their branch less attractive to the younger generation.