Isis militants: Twitter provides a forum in which Saudis can discuss what they really feel

[CJCRANE]

Isis militants: Twitter provides one of the few forums in which Saudis can discuss what they really feel - and it says they blame the clergy for Isis

World View: The social network's free discussion contrasts with Riyadh's official line on the rise of radicals

What is the connection between Saudi Arabia and the rise of the Islamic State (Isis) militants? Did the Saudi state and the Gulf monarchies foster the growth of Isis and other jihadi movements in Syria only to find they had created a Frankenstein monster that today threatens the political status quo? Is the House of Saud itself in danger? Such questions are increasingly asked around the world, not least in Saudi Arabia, as the government appears to reverse course by joining the US-run bombing campaign against Isis in Syria.

How do people in Saudi Arabia, outside the ruling elite, view Isis and its demand for their allegiance? Ordinary Saudis are best placed to judge the extent to which Wahhabi ideology, the Wahhabi clergy and the Saudi education system have contributed to the creation and growth of Isis. Hitherto, the rigorous control of media and information in Saudi Arabia has meant that popular views, dissident or approving, are seldom heard.

Control over opinion is tight, but it is not total. Twitter provides one of the few forums in which Saudis can discuss what they really feel, which may explain why use of Twitter is more common in the Kingdom than in the US or China, taking into account the different levels of population. A fascinating analysis of attitudes to Isis in Saudi Arabia, as revealed by tweets, has just been carried out by Dr Fouad J Kadhem, a researcher at the Centre of Academic Shia Studies in London, in a draft paper to be published soon.

LINK The Independent UK

[Jefferson23]

1. Thanks for posting this. The control freaks receive violence in return, what a shock.

This article here, delves into the politics of control for the benefit of the elite, I have snipped an excerpt, as it
relates to their unscrupulous rulers..it is a long read but well worth the time:


*What of the elephant in the room - political Islam? Political Islam is something of a red herring because it is a label for a vastly varied and diverse phenomenon. Political Islam ranges from single-issue movements that struggled for greater rights in China or equal rights in Myanmar or Vietnam; to movements seeking some kind of autonomous rule as in the Philippines or Kashmir; to more militant struggles for self-determination such as in Chechnya; and outright psychotic violence as in al-Qa'eda. But even more confusingly, countries like Saudi Arabia or Egypt, that regularly utilize religion as an integral part of protecting the legitimacy of the ruling elite, or sectarian countries such as Lebanon that distribute power shares in running the country according to a number of sectarian religious groups, are all manifesting politicized forms of religion. The role that al-Azhar played in supporting the coup in Egypt is as much a manifestation of political Islam as the Muslim Brotherhood forming a political party to compete in the political process.

But as vague and endlessly malleable the expression, political Islam, at least as first used by academics, referred to a very broad and ill-defined notion that activist groups could organize around a civilizational sense of belonging based in Islamic history, and work with existing political processes to incorporate Islamic normative principles as motivational directives in the political making process. Unlike in the 1970s and 1980s, when social scientists used the expression "Islamic fundamentalists" or simply "Islamic groups," "political Islam" was not necessarily restricted to the dogmatic cause of establishing an Islamic state ruled by a divine code of law. Political Islam movements were not necessarily committed to militancy or terror tactics in pursuit of their causes. Rather, they ranged widely from puritanical movements that saw themselves as God's exclusive agents in enforcing a presumed Divine Will, to more moderated and sophisticated nuances that dealt with Islam as a civilizational identity or as a normative ethical frame of reference.

But why is Saudi Arabia so hostile to political Islam movements such as Hamas, Hizbullah, or the Muslim Brotherhood? The reason is that, although Saudi Arabia was built upon an alliance between Al Saud and the fanatic Wahhabi sect, in the past twenty years the ruling elite in Saudi Arabia has tended to be increasingly Westernized and secular. Wahhabism is often treated as if this theology is good enough for the laity and the common people, but it in no way cramps the style of the elites of Riyadh.

In my visits to Saudi Arabia, I saw this first hand in the way that the ruling elite lives their private lives. When prompted, they would often reply that Wahhabism, or the religious establishment in Saudi Arabia, is important to protect common people from the dangers of speculative ideas and corrupt influences, but business and politics should be left in the hands of the cultured aristocracy.

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2014/08/08/4064106.htm

[CJCRANE]

2. Thanks for sharing that. Interesting read. I also think

the Islamists have a fatal flaw, just like the Christian Dominionists.

They proffer a one-size-fits-all vision of God-given religious law. They claim that this is better than democracy and 'manmade' law.

This works for a while...until another group comes along with a different interpretation of religious law. And then another and another...

[Ampersand Unicode]

3. I thought Twitter was a forum for people to talk about breakfast.

If ISIS is a member of this club, that gives me yet another reason not to join.