Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5357|London, England

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Jay wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:


Oh Christ, not this wahhabism bullshit. I remember when Turquoise used to go on about wahhabism causing terrorism and Sufism was the good Muslims. Can we discuss middle eastern politics without having to resort to name dropping religious movements?
Remain ignorant. Wahhabis are the born again Christians of Islam. The hardcore of the hardcore. The Sauds are Wahhabis, so are ISIS. They're the ones into racial and religious purity and killing your poor Iraqi christians  (of whom you've met none, while I've personally known several who are most likely dead). Get a clue dude.
ISIS aren't Wahhabis. They are Salafist. Important difference that I am sure you understand completely.
They're the same thing you mong.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+635|3718
No they aren't. Wahhabism is a Saudi subset of Salafism.
Wahhabism is a more strict, Saudi form of Salafism,[84][85] according to Mark Durie, who states Saudi leaders "are active and diligent" using their considerable financial resources "in funding and promoting Salafism all around the world."[86] Ahmad Moussalli tends to agree with the view that Wahhabism is a subset of Salafism, saying "As a rule, all Wahhabis are salafists, but not all salafists are Wahhabis".[
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salafi_mo … _Movements

Last edited by SuperJail Warden (2015-08-24 04:50:40)

https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5357|London, England

SuperJail Warden wrote:

No they aren't. Wahhabism is a Saudi subset of Salafism.

Wikipedia wrote:

Naming controversy: Wahhabis, Muwahhidun, and Salafis
According to Robert Lacey "the Wahhabis have always disliked the name customarily given to them" and preferred to be called Muwahhidun (Unitarians). Another preferred term was simply "Muslims" since their creed is "pure Islam".[53] However, critics complain these terms imply non-Wahhabis are not monotheists or Muslims,[53][54] and the English translation of that term causes confusion with the Christian denomination (Unitarian Universalism).

Other terms Wahhabis have been said to use and/or prefer include ahl al-hadith ("people of hadith"), Salafi Da'wa or al-da'wa ila al-tawhid[55] ("Salafi preaching" or "preaching of monotheism", for the school rather than the adherents) or Ahl ul-Sunna wal Jama'a ("people of the tradition of Muhammad and the consensus of the Ummah"),[5] Ahl al-Sunnah ("People of the Sunna"),[56] or "the reform or Salafi movement of the Sheikh" (the sheikh being ibn Abdul-Wahhab).[57] Early Salafis referred to themselves simply as "Muslims", believing the neighboring Ottoman Caliphate was al-dawlah al-kufriyya (a heretical nation) and its self-professed Muslim inhabitants actually non-Muslim.[31][58][59][60] The prominent 20th-century Muslim scholar Nasiruddin Albani, who considered himself "of the Salaf," referred to Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab's activities as "Najdi da'wah."[61]

Many, such as writer Quinton Wiktorowicz, urge use of the term Salafi, maintaining that "one would be hard pressed to find individuals who refer to themselves as Wahhabis or organizations that use 'Wahhabi' in their title, or refer to their ideology in this manner (unless they are speaking to a Western audience that is unfamiliar with Islamic terminology, and even then usage is limited and often appears as 'Salafi/Wahhabi')."[14] A New York Times journalist writes that Saudis "abhor" the term Wahhabism, "feeling it sets them apart and contradicts the notion that Islam is a monolithic faith."[62] Saudi King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud for example has attacked the term as "a doctrine that doesn't exist here (Saudi Arabia)" and challenged users of the term to locate any "deviance of the form of Islam practiced in Saudi Arabia from the teachings of the Quran and Prophetic Hadiths".[63][64] Ingrid Mattson argues that, "'Wahhbism' is not a sect. It is a social movement that began 200 years ago to rid Islam of rigid cultural practices that had (been) acquired over the centuries."[65][66][Note 1] Another source criticized the use of the word for its confusion, as it has different meanings to different groups. In South Asia, Deobandis call the Ahle Hadith "Wahhabis", while Barelvis call Deobandis "Wahhabis."[68]

On the other hand, according to authors at Global Security and Library of Congress the term is now commonplace and used even by Wahhabi scholars[who?] in the Najd,[5][69] a region often called the "heartland" of Wahhabism.[70] Journalist Karen House calls Salafi, "a more politically correct term" for Wahhabi.[71]

In any case, according to Lacey, none of the other terms have caught on, and so like the Christian Quakers, Wahhabis have "remained known by the name first assigned to them by their detractors."[72]
Aren't you holding a history degree or some such nonsense?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+635|3718

Jay wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

No they aren't. Wahhabism is a Saudi subset of Salafism.

Wikipedia wrote:

Naming controversy: Wahhabis, Muwahhidun, and Salafis
According to Robert Lacey "the Wahhabis have always disliked the name customarily given to them" and preferred to be called Muwahhidun (Unitarians). Another preferred term was simply "Muslims" since their creed is "pure Islam".[53] However, critics complain these terms imply non-Wahhabis are not monotheists or Muslims,[53][54] and the English translation of that term causes confusion with the Christian denomination (Unitarian Universalism).

Other terms Wahhabis have been said to use and/or prefer include ahl al-hadith ("people of hadith"), Salafi Da'wa or al-da'wa ila al-tawhid[55] ("Salafi preaching" or "preaching of monotheism", for the school rather than the adherents) or Ahl ul-Sunna wal Jama'a ("people of the tradition of Muhammad and the consensus of the Ummah"),[5] Ahl al-Sunnah ("People of the Sunna"),[56] or "the reform or Salafi movement of the Sheikh" (the sheikh being ibn Abdul-Wahhab).[57] Early Salafis referred to themselves simply as "Muslims", believing the neighboring Ottoman Caliphate was al-dawlah al-kufriyya (a heretical nation) and its self-professed Muslim inhabitants actually non-Muslim.[31][58][59][60] The prominent 20th-century Muslim scholar Nasiruddin Albani, who considered himself "of the Salaf," referred to Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab's activities as "Najdi da'wah."[61]

Many, such as writer Quinton Wiktorowicz, urge use of the term Salafi, maintaining that "one would be hard pressed to find individuals who refer to themselves as Wahhabis or organizations that use 'Wahhabi' in their title, or refer to their ideology in this manner (unless they are speaking to a Western audience that is unfamiliar with Islamic terminology, and even then usage is limited and often appears as 'Salafi/Wahhabi')."[14] A New York Times journalist writes that Saudis "abhor" the term Wahhabism, "feeling it sets them apart and contradicts the notion that Islam is a monolithic faith."[62] Saudi King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud for example has attacked the term as "a doctrine that doesn't exist here (Saudi Arabia)" and challenged users of the term to locate any "deviance of the form of Islam practiced in Saudi Arabia from the teachings of the Quran and Prophetic Hadiths".[63][64] Ingrid Mattson argues that, "'Wahhbism' is not a sect. It is a social movement that began 200 years ago to rid Islam of rigid cultural practices that had (been) acquired over the centuries."[65][66][Note 1] Another source criticized the use of the word for its confusion, as it has different meanings to different groups. In South Asia, Deobandis call the Ahle Hadith "Wahhabis", while Barelvis call Deobandis "Wahhabis."[68]

On the other hand, according to authors at Global Security and Library of Congress the term is now commonplace and used even by Wahhabi scholars[who?] in the Najd,[5][69] a region often called the "heartland" of Wahhabism.[70] Journalist Karen House calls Salafi, "a more politically correct term" for Wahhabi.[71]

In any case, according to Lacey, none of the other terms have caught on, and so like the Christian Quakers, Wahhabis have "remained known by the name first assigned to them by their detractors."[72]
Aren't you holding a history degree or some such nonsense?
...
Wahhabism is a more strict, Saudi form of Salafism,[84][85] according to Mark Durie, who states Saudi leaders "are active and diligent" using their considerable financial resources "in funding and promoting Salafism all around the world."[86] Ahmad Moussalli tends to agree with the view that Wahhabism is a subset of Salafism, saying "As a rule, all Wahhabis are salafists, but not all salafists are Wahhabis".[
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salafi_mo … _Movements


Many scholars and critics distinguish between Wahhabi and Salafi. According to American scholar Christopher M. Blanchard,[73] Wahhabism refers to "a conservative Islamic creed centered in and emanating from Saudi Arabia," while Salafiyya is "a more general puritanical Islamic movement that has developed independently at various times and in various places in the Islamic world."[32]

However, many call Wahhabism a more strict, Saudi form of Salafi.[74][75] Wahhabism is the Saudi version of Salafism, according to Mark Durie, who states Saudi leaders "are active and diligent" using their considerable financial resources "in funding and promoting Salafism all around the world."[76] Ahmad Moussalli tends to agree Wahhabism is a subset of Salafism, saying "As a rule, all Wahhabis are salafists, but not all salafists are Wahhabis".[49]
Also
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism#Etymology

It explains the etymology of the term and how it is Saudi specific.

Last edited by SuperJail Warden (2015-08-24 05:56:43)

https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+794|6683|United States of America
If "progressive" keeps being used as a slur these days, is the proper course of action to refer to those using it as "regressives"?
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6104|eXtreme to the maX
Still waiting to hear how the US being an ally of Israel is a benefit to anyone except Israel.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+635|3718
Well, I'm still waiting for Jay's scholarly retort about Wahhabism.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
Pocshy2.0
Member
+23|3369

Dilbert_X wrote:

Still waiting to hear how the US being an ally of Israel is a benefit to anyone except Israel.
12 million American Jews. That's something of a voter base. It also allows the US a secure foothold in the Middle East.

Yes, I'm grasping at straws.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5357|London, England

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Well, I'm still waiting for Jay's scholarly retort about Wahhabism.
What? Salafism is Wahhabism. I already showed you you were wrong.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+635|3718

Jay wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Well, I'm still waiting for Jay's scholarly retort about Wahhabism.
What? Salafism is Wahhabism. I already showed you you were wrong.
The wiki article you posted from, that I linked, directly said Wahhab and Salafism is different. It has several paragraphs about it.

Do you have sources outside the Wikipedia article that said you were wrong?

What you posted is in red. What I posted that said you were wrong is in blue.
https://i.imgur.com/06wvbCz.png

Last edited by SuperJail Warden (2015-08-27 17:49:13)

https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+635|3718
I am also pretty annoyed by the amateur political scientist who go on and on about how Saudi Arabia funded 9/11, ISIS, AQ, and every other bad thing a Muslim does in the middle east. People are starting to blame Turkey now whenever ISIS kills a few people. That isn't an annoyingly ignorant view but absolutely nauseating when you consider Turkey's role in Western security as well how little what happens in Syria and Iraq matters in the larger scheme of things.

It's funny how both the American right and left rely on the same myths, rumors, falsehoods to sell themselves as strong on defense. When it comes to social issues and economics, there is considerable political differences. But both sides love their military blowing our enemies up. Frankly, I sometimes think the U.S. is just a militarist society and we bring most of our foreign policy issues onto ourselves.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
uziq
Member
+492|3451
the US has been a militarist society for a long time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_employers
DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+794|6683|United States of America

SuperJail Warden wrote:

I am also pretty annoyed by the amateur political scientist who go on and on about how Saudi Arabia funded 9/11, ISIS, AQ, and every other bad thing a Muslim does in the middle east. People are starting to blame Turkey now whenever ISIS kills a few people. That isn't an annoyingly ignorant view but absolutely nauseating when you consider Turkey's role in Western security as well how little what happens in Syria and Iraq matters in the larger scheme of things.

It's funny how both the American right and left rely on the same myths, rumors, falsehoods to sell themselves as strong on defense. When it comes to social issues and economics, there is considerable political differences. But both sides love their military blowing our enemies up. Frankly, I sometimes think the U.S. is just a militarist society and we bring most of our foreign policy issues onto ourselves.
Current politics does seem more volatile than I can ever remember it being. Obama can't even give an Alaskan mountain the name Alaskans want without Republicans causing a ruckus. I am very interested to see how history looks back on his presidency, because the crazies call him the worst president in history (right above), but the fucking morons who don't know history probably don't know shit about Franklin Pierce.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6104|eXtreme to the maX
So now the UK is summarily executing British citizens.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-34181475

If they're in Syria and fighting with ISIS then I don't care, but there are constitutional and legal issues which should be dealt with by legislation before the govt goes running off and murdering people without a trial, and without the death sentence being in British law.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6715

Dilbert_X wrote:

So now the UK is summarily executing British citizens.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-34181475

If they're in Syria and fighting with ISIS then I don't care, but there are constitutional and legal issues which should be dealt with by legislation before the govt goes running off and murdering people without a trial, and without the death sentence being in British law.
come on dilbs, you can do better than that. ever heard of treason and enemy combatants?
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+635|3718
The enemy combatant thing is kinda bullshit since the RAF had to fly hundreds of miles to kill him while he was eating lunch someplace. Wasn't an active threat at the moment.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6715

SuperJail Warden wrote:

The enemy combatant thing is kinda bullshit since the RAF had to fly hundreds of miles to kill him while he was eating lunch someplace. Wasn't an active threat at the moment.
I... swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will, as in duty bound, honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, in Person, Crown and Dignity against all enemies, and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, and of the generals and officers set over me.
That's the oath for commonwealth forces. ISIS is a declared enemy of the UK and they did threaten to conquer the UK so there you go. Not to mention the fuckers do plan terrorist attacks overseas.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+635|3718
That's the oath for commonwealth forces. Unless these ISIS guys joined the army before going to Syria, that isn't relevant. The death penalty has been illegal in the U.K. since 1998. So summary execution by drone should be upsetting.

And unless there was proof these guys were planning on committing terrorist acts in the U.K., I don't think just being part of an organization means you lose your rights endowed by your creator.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,973|6631|949

For treason, you actually need to be tried and convicted.  Drone strikes by a nation on it's citizens in a war area is a super legal grey area.  I didn't agree with it when it was brought up in the US and I still don't.
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6715

SuperJail Warden wrote:

That's the oath for commonwealth forces. Unless these ISIS guys joined the army before going to Syria, that isn't relevant. The death penalty has been illegal in the U.K. since 1998. So summary execution by drone should be upsetting.

And unless there was proof these guys were planning on committing terrorist acts in the U.K., I don't think just being part of an organization means you lose your rights endowed by your creator.
RAF followed their legal duties to eliminate enemies of the crown. ISIS is an enemy of the crown. Whether or not ISIS has the ability to commence an attack on the UK is irrelevant, the organization already declared to kill British citizens and put a flag over Buckingham palace.

So do you think just because he is a briton whose fighting for a terrorist organization is no different than joining the armed forces of a hostile state. You wear a military uniform in a declared combat zone = target.

If the UK government says it's legal than that's the end all and be all. UK does not have a written constitution barring anything, parliament has plenary powers to do whatever it wants.

I wouldn't be surprised if the dead guy already lost his British citizenship.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/15/world … nship.html
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+635|3718
I'm still not sure why you are still bringing up the RAF since they have nothing to do with the legality or morality of the government summarily executing its citizens.

Just because the current government said what it did was legal doesn't mean it is codified forever as right. The next government can declare it illegal just as easily.

A guy fighting for ISIS in Syria is completely different than someone fighting for Nazi Germany on Normandy beach. He wasn't a threat at that literal moment and just being part of a group your government doesn't like doesn't forfeit your rights as a citizen.

Legality aside, it isn't right for a government to declare its citizen's rights void and kill them from the sky by drone hundreds of miles away from their homeland. It isn't a precedent I am comfortable with setting. I don't like when our government does it either. I couldn't give two shits about the legal argument regarding it.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6715
Or would you prefer it the UK government just strips their citizenships and then drone strike them?

No legal issues of 'executing citizens' exist any more. You were arguing the legal question not a moral one.

Morally, if a person elects to take up arms and fight against their own government, it makes them an open military target. It is no different than someone who joins the armed forces of a hostile state.

Or how about a guy Britan who went to Germany, joined the Wehrmacht in their propaganda wing. He is not any less than a legitimate target compared to active combatants. Just because you're not an active combatant doesn't make it any less that you're actively supporting the enemy of the state.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
Dauntless
Admin
+2,249|6741|London

I thought the UN didn't allow governments to strip citizenship and render people stateless?

Either way I've never understood why people all of a sudden get worked up when it's a British citizen but if they're from Syria/Pakistan/Yemen then it's fine? Too bad for those guys, they should've had the common sense and decency to be born over here.

It's never made sense to me, surely you're against all the drone strikes or none of them but I don't see why where the person was born should make any difference.
https://imgur.com/kXTNQ8D.png
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6715

Dauntless wrote:

I thought the UN didn't allow governments to strip citizenship and render people stateless?
and the UN does diddly squat.

some foreign fighters have dual citizenship, so stripping their british one won't render them stateless.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
uziq
Member
+492|3451

Dauntless wrote:

I thought the UN didn't allow governments to strip citizenship and render people stateless?

Either way I've never understood why people all of a sudden get worked up when it's a British citizen but if they're from Syria/Pakistan/Yemen then it's fine? Too bad for those guys, they should've had the common sense and decency to be born over here.

It's never made sense to me, surely you're against all the drone strikes or none of them but I don't see why where the person was born should make any difference.
this is how I feel about it, pretty much. we've been carrying out extra-judicial murder in foreign jurisdictions using drone technology for as long as we've had the capability – and often on the flimsiest of pretexts. and I'm not talking about the bungled 'afghan wedding has hellfire missile as unexpected drunken uncle' scenarios, either. the official guidelines for what constitutes most 'enemy combatants' are laughable; ditto how they argue for a threat to homeland security/defense. the reason this story made such a splash in the UK media is because both of these jihadi faces were well known: one of them appeared on a channel 4 documentary several years ago talking unsympathetically about jihadis and explaining that it was because of a 'lack of opportunity' and 'urban frustration' (when asked what he wanted to be when he was older, he replied "the prime minister"). seems he eventually was radicalised by his local mosque and now he's charcoal. but Obama signs off on a hit list in this fashion pretty much every morning of the week with his fine cup of Joe. drone strikes are extremely dubious.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard