General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsQatar and Saudi Arabia 'have ignited time bomb by funding global spread of radical Islam'
General Jonathan Shaw, Britain's former Assistant Chief of the Defence Staff, says Qatar and Saudi Arabia responsible for spread of radical Islam
Qatar and Saudi Arabia have ignited a "time bomb" by funding the global spread of radical Islam, according to a former commander of British forces in Iraq.
snip
The two Gulf states have spent billions of dollars on promoting a militant and proselytising interpretation of their faith derived from Abdul Wahhab, an eighteenth century scholar, and based on the Salaf, or the original followers of the Prophet
snip
"This is a time bomb that, under the guise of education, Wahhabi Salafism is igniting under the world really. And it is funded by Saudi and Qatari money and that must stop," said Gen Shaw. "And the question then is 'does bombing people over there really tackle that?' I don't think so. I'd far rather see a much stronger handle on the ideological battle rather than the physical battle."
snip
The British and American air campaign would not "stop the support of people in Qatar and Saudi Arabia for this kind of activity," added Gen Shaw. "It's missing the point. It might, if it works, solve the immediate tactical problem. It's not addressing the fundamental problem of Wahhabi Salafism as a culture and a creed, which has got out of control and is still the ideological basis of Isil and which will continue to exist even if we stop their advance in Iraq."
link:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/11140860/Qatar-and-Saudi-Arabia-have-ignited-time-bomb-by-funding-global-spread-of-radical-Islam.html
hardcover
(255 posts)And that's why Saudi Arabia funds it.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)the lack of action on the side of arab states boggles because they are the ones the radicals are coming for.
flamingdem
(39,300 posts)implement controls.
Up until now they looked the other way.
Snarkoleptic
(5,995 posts)jaysunb
(11,856 posts)grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)MattSh
(3,714 posts)The Qatar-Turkey pipeline is a proposed natural gas pipeline running from the Iranian-Qatari South Pars / North Dome Gas-Condensate field field towards Turkey, where it could connect with the Nabucco pipeline to supply European customers as well as Turkey. One route to Turkey is via Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Syria,[1][2] and another is through Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq.[3][4] Syria's rationale for rejecting the Qatar proposal was said to be "to protect the interests of [its] Russian ally, which is Europe's top supplier of natural gas."[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar-Turkey_pipeline
Rank Country Continent Annual natural gas production (m³) Date of information
World 4,359,000,000,000 2010 est.
1 United States North America 681,400,000,000 2012 est.
2 Russia Eurasia 669,700,000,000 2013 est.
European Union 164,600,000,000 2012 est.
3 Iran Asia 162,600,000,000 2012 est.
4 Canada North America 143,100,000,000 2012 est.
5 Qatar Asia 133,200,000,000 2011 est.
6 Norway Europe 114,700,000,000 2012 est.
7 China Asia 107,200,000,000 2012 est.
8 Saudi Arabia Asia 103,200,000,000 2012 est.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_natural_gas_production
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)was spread through military conquest. The Muslims of many countries today including many Indonesians, etc. are not so fanatical, but I do think the Muslim religion is innately more prone to conversion through military conquest than even the Christian religion. Jesus is not reported to have led armies to convert people. I may be wrong, but i think that Mohammed did conquer people by force to convert them.
Of course, Christians led the crusades, but that was long after Jesus and was really a sort of European perversion of the Christian religion. The teachings of Jesus are not based on conversion to a new religion by force. Based on the history, I have the impression that military conquest for the purpose of conversion is a part of the Muslim religion. Am I wrong? Did Mohammed lead marauders or armies to convert people? Did his followers convert with violence?
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)part of the original religion.
Tribal ties were and are very important in that part of the world, so there were wars between tribes.
There were also members of Mohammed's own family who were not muslim who were part of his "Ummah".
This was the original muslim community and included muslims, christians, jews and pagans.
From what I gather many scholars of traditional Islam believe that fundamentalism and literalism is a modern innovation.
(I've read up on this as I'm interested in Sufism).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Medina
The Constitution of Medina, also known as the Charter of Medina, was drafted by the Islamic prophet Muhammad. It constituted a formal agreement between Muhammad and all of the significant tribes and families of Yathrib (later known as Medina), including Muslims, Jews, Christians and pagans. This constitution formed the basis of the first Islamic state. The document was created to bring to an end the bitter inter-tribal fighting between the clans of the Aws (Aus) and Khazraj within Medina. To this effect it instituted a number of rights and responsibilities for the Muslim, Jewish, Christian and pagan communities of Medina bringing them within the fold of one communitythe Ummah.
farmbo
(3,120 posts)Release the 28 redacted pages in the Official 9/11 Report and let the people in the Western democracies see just how toxic Saudi- promoted Waahabism has been.
We should not give them another nickle for their dirty crude.