Ted Re...Its about as likely that the Wahabi leaders will overthrow the Saudi princes as it is leaders from the Church of England will overthrow Tony Blair.
Huh. Do you know what you are talking about. The Wahhabi clerics actively exhort their followers to take action against collaborators with the west; even fellow Sunni who they feel aren't devout enough. Do you know of any church of England leaders who have done that. Why do you think Al Qaeda attacked targets in SA, to play tiddly winks.
foreignaffairs.org
The two camps divide over a single question: whether the state should reduce the power of the religious establishment. On the right side of the political spectrum, the clerics and Nayef take their stand on the principle of Tawhid, or "monotheism," as defined by Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, the eponymous founder of Wahhabism. In their view, many people who claim to be monotheists are actually polytheists and idolaters. For the most radical Saudi clerics, these enemies include Christians, Jews, Shi`ites, and even insufficiently devout Sunni Muslims.
What's most disturbing to me is that you and DR are so sure that what we are doing in Iraq is the best thing for Iraq and the ME when you clearly don't understand something as key and fundamental as Wahabism and its relationship with the Saudi monarchy.
And you think your ridiculous comparison of the Church of England to Wahhabism proves how smart you are. LOL That would be like me comparing Bill to a serial rapist because of what he did to Monica. Did you bother to read all of the article I posted to you, especially these parts.
If Tawhid is the right pole of the Saudi political spectrum, then the doctrine of Taqarub -- rapprochement between Muslims and non-Muslims -- marks the left. Taqarub promotes the notion of peaceful coexistence with nonbelievers. It also seeks to expand the political community by legitimizing the political involvement of groups that the Wahhabis consider non-Muslim -- Shi`ites, secularists, feminists, and so on.
Abdullah clearly associates himself with Taqarub. He has advocated relaxing restrictions on public debate, promoted democratic reform, and supported a reduction in the power of the clerics.
By floating the "Saudi Plan" for Arab-Israeli peace -- traveling to Crawford, Texas, to debate the measure with President George W. Bush in April 2003 -- and accepting the notorious Shi`ite petition, the crown prince has sided resolutely with the backers of Taqarub against the hard-line clerics. To a Western eye there is no inherent connection between Abdullah's domestic political reform agenda and his rapprochement policies toward non-Muslim states and Shi`ite "heretics." In a political culture policed by Wahhabis, however, they are seen to be cut from the same cloth.
My advice is to read the whole article. It is 6 pages long; too long for here; but it is a good read, and very informative. If you understand those 3 parts I posted, you would understand the Crown Prince Abdullah is leading the fight to downsize Wahhabbism and institute political changes. An invasion by the US would remove one of our most ardent supporters in the family, and possibly replace him with someone far worse.
We are like a bunch of American kids who have come upon a bee hive, think its a normal bee hive and for fun, decide to pop it open. Only after they have hit the hive with a stick and broken it, do they realize the bees are Africanized and that they are in serious danger.
I would suggest that there are far more knowledgeable people out there than you and your fearmongers. The war in Afganistan has eliminated most of AQ Qaeda's training camps, forced Bin Laden to give up most of his modern communications, took away a lot of his funding, and has forced him to live in hiding for a yr. With the loya Jirga just passed, Afghanistan could easily have one of the most progressive gov. in the middle east.
As for Iraq, Saddam and the Baathist were Sunni's. By taking out Saddam, and the Sunni Baathist party, and letting the Shias eventually rule through elections, the Wahhabi will have a powerful natural enemy next door. From the article.
This is particularly true of the Shi`ite question in Saudi politics. Radical Sunni Islamists hate Shi`ites more than any other group, including Jews and Christians. Al-Qaeda's basic credo minces no words on the subject: "We believe that the Shi`ite heretics are a sect of idolatry and apostasy, and that they are the most evil creatures under the heavens." For its part, the Saudi Wahhabi religious establishment expresses similar views. The fatwas, sermons, and statements of established Saudi clerics uniformly denounce Shi`ite belief and practice.
A powerful, natural enemy in Iraq, will force the SA people to rethink their attitude toward the Wahhabi fundamentalist's. In the 80's, we gave help to Saddam to keep the fundamentalisn of Khomeni in check. In the first decade of this century, we will use a powerful Iraq ruled by the Shias to control SA. Just how does that make us unsafe? At any rate, the US couldn't invade SA, until we had an alternate source for oil supplies. An attack on SA would throw the world oil markets into massive shortages, sky high prices, and complete chaos. 6 mln bbl/day out of Iraq, up from 2 mln pre war days, would make it possible then, if necessary, to do something with SA.
A couple of days ago, I asked for links. You wimped out with this message.
You've got me tearing up but sorry, no can do. I am tired of posting and posting the same info on this thread. Besides, people learn best when they do the work themselves
What kind of weasel excuse is that. You is the one who claimed there were hundred of articles out there. If so, then provide links, or eat your words. |
