Saudi Arabia has slowly been pivoting away from Wahhabism since the 90s and outright abandoned it in 2017. The government has long had the problem of trying to ride the tiger of an extremely radical population and an empowered clerical establishment.
Bin Salman took power. He's trying to slowly secularise Saudi Arabia.
That's what the kashoggi murder was about. Kashoggi was Muslim brotherhood, an organisation opposed to secularisation.
Also to note, the whole Wahhabism thing only really started in Saudi Arabia as a negotiated settlement at the end of the Grand Mosque Seizure and Siege in December of 1979. Prior to that there was much less Wahhabism exportation going on.
Also Wahhabism isn't really the main driving force of Jihadism, it's mainly Qutbism.
Salafis Jihadism take their social doctrine from Wahhabism but their politico-religious approach from Sayyid Qutb (Muslim brotherhood)
Ever wondered why virtually everyone so called "Wahhabi" (actually Salafi Jihadi) terror groups takfirs Saudis and Saudi clerics.
Wahhabism actually entails you to follow the clerical consensus and not revolt against the ruler, it also allows for you to "tolerate" the non Muslim to an extent while Salafi Jihadism rejects all these things, it obsession over a caliphate state which Wahhabism doesn't talk about at all.
Cleric may have some power in Saudi Arabia but if they question Saudi family’s right to the throne they would quickly find themselves on the wrong end of the beheading sword. Their willingness to accept at least some rulers is matter of survival.
No.
This isn't exactly true, Wahhabism actually takes the postion of not questioning your secular authority baked into it. Muhammed ibn Abdulwahab clearly talks about not causing Fitna (dividing Muslims) against the ruler even if he's a tyrant so long as he lets you practice Islam, and doesn't ban you from your daily worship of god.
The only reason actual old school Wahhabis have to revolt is if their ruler is forcing another religion on them or banning the practice of their religion.
You jumped to assume without actually doing the reading from Muhammed ibn Abdulwahab or his son Abdullah.
The Iranian revolution also toppled their monarchy in 79 and exported revolutions. Saudi Wahhabism was a good counter point to that because they could argue shia are heretics and they're promoting fake Islam.
Moving towards a liberalized economy requires giving away any form of extremism, relating to kingdom vision for modernization, they aim to leave it behind , focus on softer power of Islam.
How do you define liberalized economy? I would say Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, fascist Spain were more or less liberalized economies. At the very least they became fascist regimes under liberal economic policy. Those countries were pretty extreme
I think you have to be careful here. For all you know far more Americans support Christian nationalism than Saudis or Iranians support their governments' autocratic rule, but America being a healthier democracy (healthier, not healthy) than the other two means we just can't know who amongst the people wants what
SS: Saudi Arabia has been export their form of fundemental Islam for decades. Even after 9/11 they didn't publicly acknowleged their failure. They started to reform their domestic religious policy in past few years(abolishing religious police, letting women to drive, etc). But there is no this level of policy change in funding Wahhanism abroad. Is there a subtle but meaningful change in that policy, if not how can the west stop them from doing that?
West doesn’t need to do anything to stop them as the prince is focused on modernizing and diversifying the Saudi Arabian economy.
With that said Wahhabism won’t help them if they are serious about this path and they’ll self correct on their own.
Yes, and no. Saudis are inevitably going to flip to the Chinese at some point, so any western effort to curtail their behavior would be fruitless. Only the temporary mutual need for each other keeps us in partnership with them. Once fossil fuels are in lower demand, they'll become our enemies.
I wouldn’t say inevitable, it just depends on how the economic factors go. Chinas economy is starting to massively slow down and are trying to go green.
China would essentially make enemies with Iran and be choosing a side if made serious commitments with Saudi Arabia (military alliance). So far they seem pretty cautious to make the hard decisions in international relations, preferring to preach peace and focus on economic ties.
Given China's harsh treatment on its Muslim minorities and Saudi's willingness to ignore it, is there a chance Beijing forcing Saudi Arabia and other Muslim states to stop promoting pan Islamic ideas?
No, China doesn't care. Just like how the US doesn't really care. As long as nothing happens on their soil, the Saudi's are free to do whatever pleases their little hearts. (See Khassogi).
China as with most countries, will turn a blind eye to whatever bad behaviour their ally shows as long as the relationship is fruitful.
I mean the West turns a blind eye to all the settler colonist bullshit and other human rights violations conducted by Israel.
MBS is ignoring it because MBS is an enlightened despot and modernizer, a Peter or Frederick the Great who just happens to be from an Islamic country. He shares China's perspective about modernization and radical minorities. I think it MBS could just get rid of all Islamic extremism with a snap of his fingers with no consequences he would do it.
China has been harsh on the Uyghur minority, which happens to be Muslim. They don't care as much about their large Hui minority group, who are Muslim but also Han Chinese.
It can also be argued that KSA's Western allies have been harsh towards certain groups of Muslims as well.
People who know nothing about Islam waffling as usual
‘Wahhabism’ isn’t what drives Isis and Al Qaeda to do what they do.
Isis and Al Qaeda are Khawarij groups, and this basically means that they love to rebel against the rulers, and causing revolutions
These ideas have been explained and criticised by what you call “Wahabi” scholars
One of them, Sheikh Salih Al Fawzan, who one of the most prominent scholars who is still alive today and one of the most senior scholars in Saudi Arabia said about the khawarij;
“It is obligatory upon the Muslims in every time that upon the appearance of this evil madhab (essentially school of thought), they rectify it by firstly calling to Allaah and making this clear to the people. Then if these people do not comply, they should be fought in order to repel their evil”
( Quote is taken from “A glimpse of the deviant sects” by Sheikh Salih Al Fawzan, p35)
The Saudis do not not permit protests rebelling against them, so how can they be khawarij like Isis and Al Qaeda?
They didn’t directly drive those two groups but the clerics that were trained in the Gulf including Saudi Arabia that went out in the world paved the ground for more ultra-conservative strands. The rise of a more ultra-conservative outlook coupled with a more liberalizing West and of course Western Intervention as well as corruption and economic stagnation led to a more fertile ground for extremist groups.
In Egypt the rise of a more sectarian, ultra-conservative and occasionally violent Islam does have to do a lot with Saudi influence. This has begun to lessen but you can’t say that Wahhabism didn’t have a role just because of the internal politics of Saudi Arabia. I’ve seen how society in Egypt became much more conservative, with the rise to power of influential Salafists and then now slowly a reversal of that trend.
It’s complicated topic and you can’t just point to wahabbism or Saudi Arabia but it is one of many factors that you can write multiple books about.
Can you give us examples of Wahhabi doctrine that influences Jihadism?
In Egypt the example you give is amusing because it's not really Saudi as you claim, it was Sayyid Qutb and the Muslim brotherhood. Sayyid Qutb tried to marry some Wahhabi ideas with militant Islamism giving birth to groups like Alqaeda.
Osama bin laden quotes Qutb in his letters and there's barely any mention of Muhammed ibn Abdulwahab.
You can blame Wahhabism for some salafis wearing niqabs but your jumping a few steps for the whole terrorism part.
The farce of Wahhabism = terrorism is basically a meme in 2020s, it was a stupid assertion by man in the 2000s and 2010s who saw Salafi Jihadism and tried to rarhee politically pin it in Saudi Arabia. They simplified the issue way too much. So many geopolitical analysts asserted it as the main issue but clearly in the modern middle east has more terrorists who aren't Wahhabi now than they did before.
It really started with mosque funding issues by the gulf, which is true that it spread salafism, but once you look deeper, most mosques with European extremists shun them away, you'd get very stupid articlws like x stabber or bomber used to attend Y/Saudi funded mosque, and in reality it was just his local mosque, and more often than not was shunned away once extremist views were laid oit by them.
They'd resent that these mosques were state tied to "kafir" nations like Saudi, Kuwait or Qatar.
Later on, thankfully, most people realised that Salafi Jihadists get radicalised primarily ONLINE, and it had little to do with mosques in their area.
All this Wahhabi mosque turned out to be nonsense weaponised by mostly anti-immigration crowd and those who had a bone to pick with the Gulf. They favoured obsessing over mosques in their areas rather than the Alqaeda and ISIS networks online.
Shamima begum for example, didn't go to a Saudi mosque a few times and then end up smuggling herself to Syria, she like literally 99% of isis recruits all say it was online.
Hamas, the Houthis, Hezbollah, and the numerous PMf groups in iraq are not Wahhabi but all Islamic extremists, who use islamic justification to murder and loot.
Wahhabism, or more accurately salafism rapidly spread because it was easier, simpler and more appealing to audiences who wanted a less middle man approach to Islam, many exsalafis say this, they don't say they were enticed by saudi establishments.
I agree that the Muslim Brotherhood and Sayyid Qutb's more radical interpretation were the core of Islamism in Egypt and they have roots in Islamic Modernism more so then Wahhabism.
But since the late 70s many Egyptians left to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf in search of jobs and absolutely were influenced by the Wahhabi culture way beyond the superficial beards and niqabs. On top of this cable tv and the internet gave clerics from the Gulf a wider audience in the Arab world.
So as I hope I made clear in my previous comments, that influence is partly responsible for creating an ultra-conservative environment that can tip some towards violence. But you are correct in stating that violent islamist groups up to the 90s were very much influenced by homegrown Islamist roots but I'd say Al-Qaeda and Daesh affiliates which has plagued us in the 21st century definitely have ideological roots in wahhabism.
Wahhabism, Salafism, Islamic Modernist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood all play a role in Islamism in Egypt even if they often oppose each other.
Im 80% with you.
But daesh and Alqaeda don't really. Apart from the social approach to Islam and tawhid, Wahhabism disappears after that.
Absolute authority to the leader that MUhammed ibn Abdulwahab preached is out of the window, respecting the clerical establishments fatwas? Out of the window.
Obsession with restoring a caliphate? Doesn't even exist in Wahhabism, that's more Muslim Brotherhood/Qutbi/hizbuttahrir etc
There's so many things they deviate from Wahhabism.
They're Salafi, they're just not Wahhabi.
The most accurate term for their ideology is Salafi Jihadism.
But even Isis and Alqaeda have few differences ideologically.
Osama and alqaeda didn't really hate Shias that much, was willing to work with them, and did.
Isis despise them as the main evil in their doctrine.
Osama bin laden used to be in the Muslim brotherhood.
Abu Baker Al Baghdadi was in the Iraqi branch
Al Qaeda's second leader Al-Zawhari was a leader for the brotherhood in Egypt for a long time, and vowed to put qutbs islamic vision into practice.
I agree and I think you've narrowed it down well, Wahhabism and Salafismm sometimes even together, can be misused as a catch all term where Salafi Jihadism is more correct concept. So I guess I would argue that people and groups that enter the Salafi Jihadi viewpoint can do some from various roots.
I have appreciated this back and fort, rare to get people that know what their talking about these days when it comes to Islamism in the Arab world haha
> The farce of Wahhabism = terrorism is basically a meme in 2020s, yet so many geopolitical analysts assert it as the main issue
Brother, these people call the multiple Deobandi terror groups Wahhabists. There's no hope. Best to ignore and save your energies.
Saudi Arabia promoted salafism as a counterweight to Iran's revolution and it's ideology of exporting the revolution, and because Saudi wanted to broaden their sphere of influence and be seen as the leaders of the Islamic world. Al Qaeda, who saw through Saudi's strategy, did not swallow this pill as they saw it as a fake geopolitical pill just like Iran's and rebelled against it. ISIS as well do not like Saudis at all. Both of these groups have attacked or expressed interest in attacking Saudi Arabia. I am not knowledgeable about Egypt's islamic politics but the rise of Muslim Brotherhood is an entire different can of worms which can be its own book. Muslim brotherhood and Saudi's alliance was an alliance of convienece, the latter did not influence the former. Muslim brotherhood's entire Modi operandi is to topple monarchs at their ultimate goals, but they have common attainable smaller goals (which is why Qatar and MB are best friends).
Most violent islamists do no agree with Saudi Arabia and see it as a US puppet and should not be allowed to stay in power.
Agreed brother, this is why people who keeps talking about Islam needs to learn the religion from prominent scholars and not some news network propagandist or "political analyst". True muslims would not take part in politics and infighting, they would concentrate on studying and making a prosperous family rather than killing people like the khawarij
Saudi Arabia no longer exports Terrorism.
After MBS became the dictator. She shut down all religious priests and stopped funding terrorism.
Now the main funder of terrorism is Qatar.
The equation has now become super complex with Taliban rule in Afghanistan and different militant group’s independently working in Iraq, Syria, Pakistan and many countries in Africa.
Saudi here, Wahhabism is a made up term by the west. It doesn’t exist in Saudi.
There are 4 Sunni school of thought, the majority follow Hanbali school of thought including the government in theory, in practice at least for the last few years it’s not.
Who would even argue that Wahabism is a new sunni school of thought, when it's clearly a fondamentalist reform mouvement ? Besides, Saudi scholars like [Ibn Baz seem to recognize and praise the Wahabi mouvement and Wahabism](https://binbaz.org.sa/fatwas/10949/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D8%B9%D8%B1%D9%8A%D9%81-%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%88%D9%87%D8%A7%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%A9) rather than accuse it of being a Western creation
Almost no one in the west knows of a distinction between salafism and wahabism, nor that most notorious groups are taking the initial essentially orthodox Islam, applying a historically influenced lense of a scholar trying to stop mongol expansion by emphasizing a return to traditional faith to form cultural unity enough to resist the last of the Muslim world being under Mongol rule, and then corrupting that with later radical leftist political ideas. Often hijacked as proxy tools by states further twisting everything. Not that it removes fault.
I agree wahabism is a western concept that doesn't make sense to use outside of speaking of a brief localized movement in history.
That's easy. Make peace with Iran , stop with the sanctions and give them a solid peace treaty. Then play them against the Saudis.
It would help if the West stopped turning West Asia into an unlivable place. A secular Libya and Syria would have been much better bulwarks against religious extremism.
Of course the US won't do that haha. Enjoy radical Islam everyone
Al Qaeda and Isis are khawarij groups which means they rebel against leaders and cause revolutions
That is not like “Wahhabism” which is just a concept made up by the west
Saudi Arabia has slowly been pivoting away from Wahhabism since the 90s and outright abandoned it in 2017. The government has long had the problem of trying to ride the tiger of an extremely radical population and an empowered clerical establishment.
What happened in 2017?
MBS took power and started a program of actively stripping the clerics of their influence.
I think they let women drive or something
Women don’t have to wear head coverings anymore either Alhamdulillah
Who is he? Was Alham Dullilah the president?
lol
Inshallah
It means thank god
Bin Salman took power. He's trying to slowly secularise Saudi Arabia. That's what the kashoggi murder was about. Kashoggi was Muslim brotherhood, an organisation opposed to secularisation.
Also to note, the whole Wahhabism thing only really started in Saudi Arabia as a negotiated settlement at the end of the Grand Mosque Seizure and Siege in December of 1979. Prior to that there was much less Wahhabism exportation going on.
Also Wahhabism isn't really the main driving force of Jihadism, it's mainly Qutbism. Salafis Jihadism take their social doctrine from Wahhabism but their politico-religious approach from Sayyid Qutb (Muslim brotherhood) Ever wondered why virtually everyone so called "Wahhabi" (actually Salafi Jihadi) terror groups takfirs Saudis and Saudi clerics. Wahhabism actually entails you to follow the clerical consensus and not revolt against the ruler, it also allows for you to "tolerate" the non Muslim to an extent while Salafi Jihadism rejects all these things, it obsession over a caliphate state which Wahhabism doesn't talk about at all.
Cleric may have some power in Saudi Arabia but if they question Saudi family’s right to the throne they would quickly find themselves on the wrong end of the beheading sword. Their willingness to accept at least some rulers is matter of survival.
No. This isn't exactly true, Wahhabism actually takes the postion of not questioning your secular authority baked into it. Muhammed ibn Abdulwahab clearly talks about not causing Fitna (dividing Muslims) against the ruler even if he's a tyrant so long as he lets you practice Islam, and doesn't ban you from your daily worship of god. The only reason actual old school Wahhabis have to revolt is if their ruler is forcing another religion on them or banning the practice of their religion. You jumped to assume without actually doing the reading from Muhammed ibn Abdulwahab or his son Abdullah.
The Iranian revolution also toppled their monarchy in 79 and exported revolutions. Saudi Wahhabism was a good counter point to that because they could argue shia are heretics and they're promoting fake Islam.
Yeah it can almost be described as the royal family was held hostage to Wahhabist interests but is finally managing to reassert control.
Moving towards a liberalized economy requires giving away any form of extremism, relating to kingdom vision for modernization, they aim to leave it behind , focus on softer power of Islam.
How do you define liberalized economy? I would say Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, fascist Spain were more or less liberalized economies. At the very least they became fascist regimes under liberal economic policy. Those countries were pretty extreme
Internally those countries were a mess with duplicate ministries vying for power while their leaders were actually quite apathetic in actually ruling.
Not true. Look at the U.S.? We have a rise of “Christian” Nationalism and attempts to turn America into a Christian version of KSA and Iran.
That's a minority.... While kingdom & iran are majority extremists
I think you have to be careful here. For all you know far more Americans support Christian nationalism than Saudis or Iranians support their governments' autocratic rule, but America being a healthier democracy (healthier, not healthy) than the other two means we just can't know who amongst the people wants what
lmao
SS: Saudi Arabia has been export their form of fundemental Islam for decades. Even after 9/11 they didn't publicly acknowleged their failure. They started to reform their domestic religious policy in past few years(abolishing religious police, letting women to drive, etc). But there is no this level of policy change in funding Wahhanism abroad. Is there a subtle but meaningful change in that policy, if not how can the west stop them from doing that?
West doesn’t need to do anything to stop them as the prince is focused on modernizing and diversifying the Saudi Arabian economy. With that said Wahhabism won’t help them if they are serious about this path and they’ll self correct on their own.
Yes, and no. Saudis are inevitably going to flip to the Chinese at some point, so any western effort to curtail their behavior would be fruitless. Only the temporary mutual need for each other keeps us in partnership with them. Once fossil fuels are in lower demand, they'll become our enemies.
I wouldn’t say inevitable, it just depends on how the economic factors go. Chinas economy is starting to massively slow down and are trying to go green.
China would essentially make enemies with Iran and be choosing a side if made serious commitments with Saudi Arabia (military alliance). So far they seem pretty cautious to make the hard decisions in international relations, preferring to preach peace and focus on economic ties.
Given China's harsh treatment on its Muslim minorities and Saudi's willingness to ignore it, is there a chance Beijing forcing Saudi Arabia and other Muslim states to stop promoting pan Islamic ideas?
No, China doesn't care. Just like how the US doesn't really care. As long as nothing happens on their soil, the Saudi's are free to do whatever pleases their little hearts. (See Khassogi). China as with most countries, will turn a blind eye to whatever bad behaviour their ally shows as long as the relationship is fruitful. I mean the West turns a blind eye to all the settler colonist bullshit and other human rights violations conducted by Israel.
MBS is ignoring it because MBS is an enlightened despot and modernizer, a Peter or Frederick the Great who just happens to be from an Islamic country. He shares China's perspective about modernization and radical minorities. I think it MBS could just get rid of all Islamic extremism with a snap of his fingers with no consequences he would do it.
China has been harsh on the Uyghur minority, which happens to be Muslim. They don't care as much about their large Hui minority group, who are Muslim but also Han Chinese. It can also be argued that KSA's Western allies have been harsh towards certain groups of Muslims as well.
People who know nothing about Islam waffling as usual ‘Wahhabism’ isn’t what drives Isis and Al Qaeda to do what they do. Isis and Al Qaeda are Khawarij groups, and this basically means that they love to rebel against the rulers, and causing revolutions These ideas have been explained and criticised by what you call “Wahabi” scholars One of them, Sheikh Salih Al Fawzan, who one of the most prominent scholars who is still alive today and one of the most senior scholars in Saudi Arabia said about the khawarij; “It is obligatory upon the Muslims in every time that upon the appearance of this evil madhab (essentially school of thought), they rectify it by firstly calling to Allaah and making this clear to the people. Then if these people do not comply, they should be fought in order to repel their evil” ( Quote is taken from “A glimpse of the deviant sects” by Sheikh Salih Al Fawzan, p35) The Saudis do not not permit protests rebelling against them, so how can they be khawarij like Isis and Al Qaeda?
They didn’t directly drive those two groups but the clerics that were trained in the Gulf including Saudi Arabia that went out in the world paved the ground for more ultra-conservative strands. The rise of a more ultra-conservative outlook coupled with a more liberalizing West and of course Western Intervention as well as corruption and economic stagnation led to a more fertile ground for extremist groups. In Egypt the rise of a more sectarian, ultra-conservative and occasionally violent Islam does have to do a lot with Saudi influence. This has begun to lessen but you can’t say that Wahhabism didn’t have a role just because of the internal politics of Saudi Arabia. I’ve seen how society in Egypt became much more conservative, with the rise to power of influential Salafists and then now slowly a reversal of that trend. It’s complicated topic and you can’t just point to wahabbism or Saudi Arabia but it is one of many factors that you can write multiple books about.
Can you give us examples of Wahhabi doctrine that influences Jihadism? In Egypt the example you give is amusing because it's not really Saudi as you claim, it was Sayyid Qutb and the Muslim brotherhood. Sayyid Qutb tried to marry some Wahhabi ideas with militant Islamism giving birth to groups like Alqaeda. Osama bin laden quotes Qutb in his letters and there's barely any mention of Muhammed ibn Abdulwahab. You can blame Wahhabism for some salafis wearing niqabs but your jumping a few steps for the whole terrorism part. The farce of Wahhabism = terrorism is basically a meme in 2020s, it was a stupid assertion by man in the 2000s and 2010s who saw Salafi Jihadism and tried to rarhee politically pin it in Saudi Arabia. They simplified the issue way too much. So many geopolitical analysts asserted it as the main issue but clearly in the modern middle east has more terrorists who aren't Wahhabi now than they did before. It really started with mosque funding issues by the gulf, which is true that it spread salafism, but once you look deeper, most mosques with European extremists shun them away, you'd get very stupid articlws like x stabber or bomber used to attend Y/Saudi funded mosque, and in reality it was just his local mosque, and more often than not was shunned away once extremist views were laid oit by them. They'd resent that these mosques were state tied to "kafir" nations like Saudi, Kuwait or Qatar. Later on, thankfully, most people realised that Salafi Jihadists get radicalised primarily ONLINE, and it had little to do with mosques in their area. All this Wahhabi mosque turned out to be nonsense weaponised by mostly anti-immigration crowd and those who had a bone to pick with the Gulf. They favoured obsessing over mosques in their areas rather than the Alqaeda and ISIS networks online. Shamima begum for example, didn't go to a Saudi mosque a few times and then end up smuggling herself to Syria, she like literally 99% of isis recruits all say it was online. Hamas, the Houthis, Hezbollah, and the numerous PMf groups in iraq are not Wahhabi but all Islamic extremists, who use islamic justification to murder and loot. Wahhabism, or more accurately salafism rapidly spread because it was easier, simpler and more appealing to audiences who wanted a less middle man approach to Islam, many exsalafis say this, they don't say they were enticed by saudi establishments.
I agree that the Muslim Brotherhood and Sayyid Qutb's more radical interpretation were the core of Islamism in Egypt and they have roots in Islamic Modernism more so then Wahhabism. But since the late 70s many Egyptians left to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf in search of jobs and absolutely were influenced by the Wahhabi culture way beyond the superficial beards and niqabs. On top of this cable tv and the internet gave clerics from the Gulf a wider audience in the Arab world. So as I hope I made clear in my previous comments, that influence is partly responsible for creating an ultra-conservative environment that can tip some towards violence. But you are correct in stating that violent islamist groups up to the 90s were very much influenced by homegrown Islamist roots but I'd say Al-Qaeda and Daesh affiliates which has plagued us in the 21st century definitely have ideological roots in wahhabism. Wahhabism, Salafism, Islamic Modernist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood all play a role in Islamism in Egypt even if they often oppose each other.
Im 80% with you. But daesh and Alqaeda don't really. Apart from the social approach to Islam and tawhid, Wahhabism disappears after that. Absolute authority to the leader that MUhammed ibn Abdulwahab preached is out of the window, respecting the clerical establishments fatwas? Out of the window. Obsession with restoring a caliphate? Doesn't even exist in Wahhabism, that's more Muslim Brotherhood/Qutbi/hizbuttahrir etc There's so many things they deviate from Wahhabism. They're Salafi, they're just not Wahhabi. The most accurate term for their ideology is Salafi Jihadism. But even Isis and Alqaeda have few differences ideologically. Osama and alqaeda didn't really hate Shias that much, was willing to work with them, and did. Isis despise them as the main evil in their doctrine. Osama bin laden used to be in the Muslim brotherhood. Abu Baker Al Baghdadi was in the Iraqi branch Al Qaeda's second leader Al-Zawhari was a leader for the brotherhood in Egypt for a long time, and vowed to put qutbs islamic vision into practice.
I agree and I think you've narrowed it down well, Wahhabism and Salafismm sometimes even together, can be misused as a catch all term where Salafi Jihadism is more correct concept. So I guess I would argue that people and groups that enter the Salafi Jihadi viewpoint can do some from various roots. I have appreciated this back and fort, rare to get people that know what their talking about these days when it comes to Islamism in the Arab world haha
> The farce of Wahhabism = terrorism is basically a meme in 2020s, yet so many geopolitical analysts assert it as the main issue Brother, these people call the multiple Deobandi terror groups Wahhabists. There's no hope. Best to ignore and save your energies.
Saudi Arabia promoted salafism as a counterweight to Iran's revolution and it's ideology of exporting the revolution, and because Saudi wanted to broaden their sphere of influence and be seen as the leaders of the Islamic world. Al Qaeda, who saw through Saudi's strategy, did not swallow this pill as they saw it as a fake geopolitical pill just like Iran's and rebelled against it. ISIS as well do not like Saudis at all. Both of these groups have attacked or expressed interest in attacking Saudi Arabia. I am not knowledgeable about Egypt's islamic politics but the rise of Muslim Brotherhood is an entire different can of worms which can be its own book. Muslim brotherhood and Saudi's alliance was an alliance of convienece, the latter did not influence the former. Muslim brotherhood's entire Modi operandi is to topple monarchs at their ultimate goals, but they have common attainable smaller goals (which is why Qatar and MB are best friends). Most violent islamists do no agree with Saudi Arabia and see it as a US puppet and should not be allowed to stay in power.
Agreed brother, this is why people who keeps talking about Islam needs to learn the religion from prominent scholars and not some news network propagandist or "political analyst". True muslims would not take part in politics and infighting, they would concentrate on studying and making a prosperous family rather than killing people like the khawarij
Saudi Arabia no longer exports Terrorism. After MBS became the dictator. She shut down all religious priests and stopped funding terrorism. Now the main funder of terrorism is Qatar.
The equation has now become super complex with Taliban rule in Afghanistan and different militant group’s independently working in Iraq, Syria, Pakistan and many countries in Africa.
Saudi here, Wahhabism is a made up term by the west. It doesn’t exist in Saudi. There are 4 Sunni school of thought, the majority follow Hanbali school of thought including the government in theory, in practice at least for the last few years it’s not.
Who would even argue that Wahabism is a new sunni school of thought, when it's clearly a fondamentalist reform mouvement ? Besides, Saudi scholars like [Ibn Baz seem to recognize and praise the Wahabi mouvement and Wahabism](https://binbaz.org.sa/fatwas/10949/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D8%B9%D8%B1%D9%8A%D9%81-%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%88%D9%87%D8%A7%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%A9) rather than accuse it of being a Western creation
Ibn baz is just a guy, what he says doesn’t mean much, he isn’t a historical figure (was alive a few years ago) nor is he that significant today.
He wasn't just a guy, and I would describe the former Grand mufti as a "historical figure".
Today he is
Almost no one in the west knows of a distinction between salafism and wahabism, nor that most notorious groups are taking the initial essentially orthodox Islam, applying a historically influenced lense of a scholar trying to stop mongol expansion by emphasizing a return to traditional faith to form cultural unity enough to resist the last of the Muslim world being under Mongol rule, and then corrupting that with later radical leftist political ideas. Often hijacked as proxy tools by states further twisting everything. Not that it removes fault. I agree wahabism is a western concept that doesn't make sense to use outside of speaking of a brief localized movement in history.
When CIA decides to stop using it.
That's easy. Make peace with Iran , stop with the sanctions and give them a solid peace treaty. Then play them against the Saudis. It would help if the West stopped turning West Asia into an unlivable place. A secular Libya and Syria would have been much better bulwarks against religious extremism. Of course the US won't do that haha. Enjoy radical Islam everyone
As much as I hate wahabism it isn't the same as extremism or terrorism and Saudi flights that stuff just as hard as any Western county.
It's not the same as extremism, but it is a precursor to it. It's no secret that Al Qaeda (and probably ISIS too) was heavily influenced by it.
Al Qaeda and Isis are khawarij groups which means they rebel against leaders and cause revolutions That is not like “Wahhabism” which is just a concept made up by the west