next »

[dark_globe]

Nuking Jerusalem and Mecca would solve a lot of problems.

Have you ever been to Mecca? It's so hot there already I don't think anybody would notice.

Seriously, though, that proposal (made in earnest by some people) would only drive more people into the camp of the anti-western forces. The Kaaba has been rebuilt a couple of times, and in the past the Hajj was impossible for extended periods because of the Crusaders. Muslims would still face toward Mecca to pray, and start visiting it again as soon as it was safe.

[musti]

There is no way, in any shape of form, that any fundamentalist Islamic "nation" can be allowed to have nuclear weapons.  None.  It would be, quite simply, a grave threat to the entire world.

I'm having hard time understanding why you have to limit it to to "fundamentalist Islamic nation"? Should liberal Christians have nuclear weapons? How about the current US government? Do Hiroshima and Nagasaki ring a bell?

[abuflletcher]

Is that really OUR Spork that suggested nuking religious sites (even in jest)  -- or just some narrow-minded bigot post in his name?

Even Richard Dawkins doubts that the world's atheists wouldn't advocate the destruction of religious sites such as Mecca, the Vatican, or the Bamiyan Buddhas.

But back to topic, how would people characterize radical Islam in Iran vs. radical Islam in Saudi Arabia?

[abuflletcher]

Oops.  Sloppy editing of my prior post resulted in an unfortunate double negative.

But REALLY!  Nuke Mecca and Jerusulem???

[helpful]

And now the US is trying to use proxy countries to fight in Somalia.

Reminds me of that great old song, Where have all the flowers gone? "When will they ever learn, when will they ever learn"?

[dark_globe]

Is that really OUR Spork that suggested nuking religious sites (even in jest)  -- or just some narrow-minded bigot post in his name?

Even Richard Dawkins doubts that the world's atheists wouldn't advocate the destruction of religious sites such as Mecca, the Vatican, or the Bamiyan Buddhas.

But back to topic, how would people characterize radical Islam in Iran vs. radical Islam in Saudi Arabia?

The Saudis follow so-called "Wahhabism" (a term they reject), a puritanical interpretation of Islam that rejects all "bida," or innovation, since the time of Muhammad. Some Wahhabists have in turn adopted the ideology of Said Al-Qutb, as explicated in his treatise of the early 1960s "Milestones," which advocates the creation of a fundamentalist Islamic state throughout the Middle East. These are the people who are at odds with the United States, which is seen as supporting (in their eyes) corrupt regimes that should be replaced by an Islamic state.

The Iranians are Shi'ites. The Shi'ites are not expansionist in a religious sense. Iran is politically expansionist, however, and seeks to increase its stature and influence in the Middle East. This is the most likely reason support for Hezbollah comes from Iranian sources. The vociferous anti-western stance of the Shi'ite imams is a relatively recent phenomenon and not an inevitable result of a clash between the two societies.

Without a doubt, the agenda of the Wahhabis who adhere to Al-Qutb's agenda is irrevocably opposed to western interests in the Middle East. The Shi'ites of Iran could theoretically find means of sustained cooperation with the west.

[abuflletcher]

I think the key ideological engine of Wahhabi extremism is its fanatical insistence on the "oneness" of God.  Anything or anyone who in anyway venerates any other place, person, saint, religious leader, etc. is in the Wahhabist view a "polytheist" and according to their strict interpretation of the Quran are the legitimate target of jihad.

The Shi'ite because of their veneration of Ali are considered polytheists and this has been given as the rational for several mass slaughters of Shi'ite populations in the past.

Wahhabists in Mecca are even pushing for the destruction of the Prophet Mohammed's home as pilgrims have made it a regular site for prayer.

[dark_globe]

Tawhid (oneness) is certainly central to Wahhabi ideology, but the rejection of all bida (innovation) is also problematic. Any alteration since the death of Muhammad, even such innocuous things as prayer rugs, are considered bida and therefore are forbidden. This condemns virtually every Islamic community, all of which have fused local customs into their Islamic practices, and particularly the entire Hanafi Madhhab of Sunni Islam, to the category of heretics, despite the fact they adhere to tawhid.

[spork]

Yes, it was me who posted that.  Only half in jest.

[dark_globe]

Yes, it was me who posted that.  Only half in jest.

So you only want to nuke one or the other, huh?

[abuflletcher]

Any alteration since the death of Muhammad, even such innocuous things as prayer rugs, are considered bida and therefore are forbidden. This condemns virtually every Islamic community, all of which have fused local customs into their Islamic practices, and particularly the entire Hanafi Madhhab of Sunni Islam, to the category of heretics, despite the fact they adhere to tawhid.

I hadn't been aware of how this tenet has been used to exclude the Hanafi -- but then exclusion of all but fellow Wahhabi is really what Wahhabism is about.  I see this rejection of "bida" more as a holdover from traditional bedu conservatism than an Islamic precept.  During the 12 years I spend in the Gulf (Saudi, Kuwait, and Oman) I often saw and heard people rejecting the trappings of modern life that had overtaken the lifestyles of their grandparents.  Many claimed, when asked about what they'd do with the oil runs out, that they'd be perfectly happy to give up the Mercedes (and Toyotas for the less affluent) and go back to the camel herding ways of their ancestors.

BTW, I'll admit that for the most part I'm just "channeling" information I gleaned from Dore's book "Hatred's Kingdom" which while certainly reflecting a specific point of view, contains an outstanding history of Wahhabism and the development of the modern Saudi state.   

[dark_globe]

I've done a bit of research on the subject, and you're certainly on target as far as everything I've read and heard.

[abuflletcher]

Back to the topic of Iran, when I was just finishing up my BA in Linguistics (in 1979) suddenly half of the Persian students suddenly became "Iranians" instead and would no longer talk with or sit with "the Persians."  I was only dimly aware of the reasons why.

Up to that point I had planned on heading to Iran to teach EFL upon graduation.  Well that plan obviously fell through.  I had taking a few Arabic classes since my university didn't offer Farsi so I started thinking about going to Arabia instead after finishing an MA in TESOL (1984).  As things turned out I ended up spending one year teaching military students (if you could call them that) in the highlands (8,000ft) of the Asir region of Saudi Arabia.  The next year I took a job at Kuwait University, spent three years there before moving on to Sultan Qaboos University in Oman.

But I never really forgot about my plans to go to Iran.  From Oman I'd often take weekend trips to Dubai and always find myself sipping tea aboard the Iranian crewed Dhows lining the Creek.  They were also so welcoming and said they'd be more than happy to take me with them to Bandar Abbas.  They always insisted it would be "no problem." 

By that time I had gotten into magazine photojournalism and so went into the Iranian Embassy in Muscat to request a journalist's visa (I would be working for a Mexican magazine).  They were all very polite about my application (as an American) despite the fact that the waiting room played a non-stop loop of the crazed crowds at the Khomeini funeral.  I ended up leaving Oman before the visa ever came through.

Who knows perhaps someday I'll be able to teach in Iran.

[dark_globe]

Shortly after the 1979 revolution I became friends with a refugee from Iran. His mother spent everything she had to get him out of the country before the revolution. As it turned out, all of his college classmates "disappeared." I was impressed by his command of English and knowledge of American history.

Shortly after he and I became acquainted, he was putting gas into his car when a guy in a pickup trucked yelled "go back to Iran" at him and ran him over. He was permanently crippled. This event affected me greatly; this guy was a true ally of the US; I mean, when Khomeini died he took us all to a restaurant and we toasted his death all night long. Yet because he looked Middle Eastern some yahoo decided he was the enemy and nearly killed him. I came to the conclusion that in order to understand the situation in the Middle East I would have to forget everything I had been told in this country and study it for myself. I studied Islam in depth, learned Arabic, read the Qur'an and the classical Islamic texts in the original, and for a time practiced Islam. I found its simplicity very appealing. For the past 10 years or so I have focused my research on the Turkic peoples and so am not really up to par on Iran as a scholar, but I certainly can still see the absurdity in the way most Americans view the situation in the Middle East.

[abuflletcher]

Well, as you know from the closet atheist thread, I'm strictly a non-religious, non-believer -- the classic kafir.  But through a weird twist of events I found myself teaching Hajj rites and traditions to Kuwaiti students.  The idea was to teach English by discussing a topic already known to them.  Turned out that most of my student knew diddly-squat about the Hajj.  So there I was, the kafir teaching my supposedly Moslem students about the Zam-zam Well and such.

I won't claim that everything about the culture and religion of Arabia is wonderment and light.  But it did open my eyes to how limited the Amercian perspective on the Middle East was -- and still is.