Fundamentalism, Wahhabism, and the sources of terrorism

I observed in another thread (concerned the 10 Commandments in Alabama) that those who are hiking barefoot, fasting and chanting "hallelujah" strike me as an example of our own homegrown religious extremism. My way or the highway (to hell).

Should they be considered Wahhabis?

I also don't believe that terrorism can be solely laid at the feet of religious extremism. Without associated social casues, terrorism does not occur. Certainly terrorism is easier to engender among those who feel they have somehow been "dealt out" of the winning side of society. Oddly enbough, religious fundamentalism often also spreads in this group. It is, however, possible to be a terrorrist without religious motivation (the Shining Path of Peru, the PFLP, etc...) just as it is possible to be a religious fundamentalist and not be a terrorist( Pat Robertson, Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Baker (sigh... I miss the eighties!). ).

No, I don't either, Hobit. Looks like religious fundamentalists take advantage of fringe groups and vice versa.

And I do think dealing with contemporary dilemmas with archaic means (your thought) might describe a homegrown group we seem to be stuck with!

I would love to take credit for that description, but actually I stole it from Karen Armstrong.
As for the homegrown group, I am very afraid that they will be re-elected this next year.

John Ashcroft is a member of a fundamentalist organization who's strict doctrine is for limiting the liberties of all people because it turns them into (for shame) "sinners" - and he is given WHAT JOB

Wait, wait, I know the answer...pick me...pick me...

Globalist Paper > Global Society
Wahhabism Goes Global  

By Muqtedar Khan | Monday, February 24, 2003  
America’s war on terror has alerted the world to the dangers of intolerance and religious bigotry. Both are central to the ideological foundations of Wahhabism. But we must pause before we judge Wahhabism solely as a byproduct of Saudi Arabia. In our new Globalist Paper, Muqtedar Khan finds disturbing evidence in the United States and India as well.


Wahhabism is a global condition — and not some Islamic initiative unleashed upon the rest of the world. From the world’s oldest democracy to the world’s largest democracy, one can see the festering of Wahhabi-like movements. The elements of WahhabismThey have this in common: They exist to sow seeds of hatred and intolerance against “others” — and seek to capture the state to make it an instrument of hate.
Wahhabism is a global condition — and not some Islamic initiative unleashed upon the rest of the world.

The Wahhabi sect or stream of Islam has been getting a lot of press lately. Wahhabis are, first, extremely intolerant of “others” who do not share their specific religious beliefs. Second they are opposed to difference and pluralism. Third, they are anti-civil rights. And fourth, Wahhabis are also extremely anti-secular — and they believe that the sole purpose of politics and the state is to serve their exclusivist and bigoted values.

The entire article is too long to post however I think you may find it a worthwhile readI


http://www.theglobalist.com/DBWeb/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=2955

on Roy's Rock aka the big ten:
"To people who have strong religious convictions, these things become very tangible symbols of what's wrong with the country," says John Green, a political analyst at the University of Akron and director of the Bliss Institute. "This could indeed spark a renewal of activism. But more importantly, it could bring a fresh supply of activists."

Elaborate, please.

Autocracy is truth.
Consensus is relativism.
?

Sources of terrorism. Today we talk mainly about Al Queda, and Islamic fundamentalists, and others.

But terrorism has taken many forms. There was Thuggee, practised in India by a cult of Muslims and Hindus who worshipped Kali. Kali was the destructive mother goddess in Hinduism. They robbed and murdered travelers as a sacrifice to Kali. The Thuggees were terorists, who were finally brought to heel by the British.

We talk so loosely about terrorists, and Bush makes speeches in which he says that a successful war on terrorism will be decisively fought in Iraq. Maybe. In today's speech to the VFW he also mentions Iran, Pakistan, and more.

What would happen, I wonder, if there weren't restraints here for so many like Falwell, Ashcroft? Lynching, after all is terrorism. So is the Ku Klux Klan.

And here's a thought. I read recently that a lot of the present prison population is beginning to turn militant Muslim, whatever that means. I can't verify this, but know that I believe that most people have violence somewhere in them. The story of Cain and Abel says that. And we go from the individual to the protection of a group, and go from there.

So how do you define terrorism? Because it is not defined by Al Queda alone. And, having defined it, what do you do? Isn't using the combined mass and weight of hundreds of thousands to fight it simply another manifestation of it?

It is the systematic use of terror as a means of coercion, according to the dictionary. I think we would all agree that it usually kills or maims civilians, has no legitimate military objective, and usually has a political significance.

Karen Armstrong pointed out that fundamentalists seek a return to an earlier time and attempt to turn away from a world that has grown and changed and become more secular. They believe that the mainstream of believers in their faith have lost sight of the original revelations and the truths derived from them, and they demand a return to the fundamentals. This would not be a problem unless they insist that the rest of the world join them or die.

lKara

Yours is a very astute analysis of terrorism but then take it a bit further and talk about the suicidal murderer terrorist. That's what we have now-----many people have identified it ------question is , what is the best strategy for dealing with it? How would you deal with it?

Al Queda has used the madrasa schools and the Wahhabism form of hatred to recruit suicide bombers.
Hamas has used the plight of the Palestinians to provide an almost endless supply of recruits. The Saudis support Wahhabism ----Iran and Syria support Hamas

Al Queda is world wide------Hamas is localized in Lebanon and Israel. Hamas controls the Becca valley. It has been reported several times that Saddam paid Assad in Syria $35 million to hide the WMD in the Becca valley

Main Entry: ter·ror
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French terreur, from Latin terror, from terrEre to frighten; akin to Greek trein to be afraid, flee, tremein to tremble -- more at TREMBLE
Date: 14th century
1 : a state of intense fear
2 a : one that inspires fear : SCOURGE b : a frightening aspect <the terrors of invasion> c : a cause of anxiety : WORRY d : an appalling person or thing; especially : BRAT
3 : REIGN OF TERROR
4 : violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands <insurrection and revolutionary terror>
synonym see FEAR


The fact of the matter is that the largest, most devastating terrorist group in the world today is the US government - call it WAHBUSHISM if you will where one of their most favorite phrases is -

"Shock and Awe"

It doesn't have to be stateless, it doesn't even have to be third world or the weakest adovacate;

"It's either, your with us or your against us..........."

It has been reported several times that Saddam paid Bush $35 million for a condo on the seventh tee at Palm Springs Ca.

But yet I'm the one to disrupt any form of CIVIL discourse on this forum-----same old tired cliches about Bush-----You're both twisted with hatred just like UBL and Arafat.

perception, if I knew the answer to that lotsa people would be knocking at my door. One response that is not an answer is to start a war and destroy a country, even if you were only pretending that your motive was to fight terrorism.

One small thing: we could back away from supporting Saudi Arabia in any way until they crack down on madrasas that teach terror and hatred. Our money would be better spent helping people so poor that they are fodder for extremists, having nothing left to lose. Oversimplification? Yes, but one has to start somewhere.

Kara

Your first paragraph MAY be true but it's history----don't you think it's time to shift gears and move on?

Your second paragraph can't be denied but it has taken several hundred years for the 1.2 Billion Muslims to arrive at the status they have ----- most of them living on a $dollar a day. Whose fault is that? Their religion or the US.

As I said earlier from "Hatred's Kingdom" Wahhabism was spawned 250 years ago----they spread their brand of Islam by the sword and preaching for and demanding a return to the supposed ways of the prophet. Wahhab added his own little rules along the way to justify murdering women and children.

In current day teaching of hatred they use the excuse that the American forces are desecrating their holy lands in Saudi Arabia by just being there. Sure we have ignored and abused some of thier customs and traditions but that's a double edged sword ----they come over here and abuse our customs, traditions, hospitalityand then try to kill us. They have their own religion here----other religions are outlawed in Saudia Arabia. Please stop looking through your idealistic myopic lens and take long hard pragmatic look at a realistic solution. To prevent another attack on America wouldn't you be doing exactly what your Hated Ashcroft is doing with his resources. Yeah, I know a lot of money has been promised that hasn't showed up but there is a lot to be said for "making people do with less" when money is in short supply. Every business does the same thing. It may or may not be "correct" in the eyes of many but realism rules when money is in short supply.

I like your idea of not coddling the Saude Regime---but that's also a fine wire to straddle because of the global dependence on oil. But Saudi princes have become so numerous and so demanding that they can't pump oil fast enough to sayisfy the greedy bastards so there is little danger of them cutting off the oil supply to the world ----not just us.
What happens though ---IF---the Wahhabis stage a coup and shut off the oil ------ about a hundred million people here and around the world would be forced to park their gas guzzlers and start riding biycles.

That might not be so bad if it didn't create such disastrous consequences for the Global economy. First of all every airline would go bust because the price of jet fuel would go into orbit. When the price of jet fuel raises ONE PENNY per gallon the CFOs knees start to shake. The world economy would disintegrate and we would be forced to use bartering again. Little tribes would spring up again all over the world. Governments will vanish---we will be thrust back into the 7th century. Wahhabism will have won.